Pope: Mass in vernacular helps people understand God, live the faith

[ProVobis]

First, at this page that chapter heading is written this way: “On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue.”

Hmmm. The Latin is

*Missa vulgari lingua non celebretur. *

How did the translator come up with “On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue”? Kind of biased isn’t it? I think I’ve demonstrated my point about mistranslations trying to set new doctrinal standards. HIghly probable that faith gets corrupted through other such translations. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Another reason why the Latin Canon Law is more authoritative than vernacular.

 

[dmar198]

I think I’ve demonstrated my point about mistranslations trying to set new doctrinal standards.

I don’t think so, partly because I’m not even sure that the chapter heading is original to the text. Unless I’ve missed something, chapter headings are often supplied by editors, and I think there are several layers of editors in this case.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think so, partly because I’m not even sure that the chapter heading is original to the text. Unless I’ve missed something, chapter headings are often supplied by editors, and I think there are several layers of editors in this case.

The more layers, the more corruption. I showed you the Latin. Ask any second-year Latin student who knows the jussive subjunctive how he would translate it.

 

[ProVobis]

The latter leaves room for Mass to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue and helps show that this was a discipline, not a doctrine.

To be fair, the discipline was not in the doctrine but in the anathema, which AFAIK has never been officially lifted. To his credit, Pope Pius XII did change the anathema which disallowed every pastor from making any changes to the liturgy before he proceeded to have Holy Week changed.

 

[LongingSoul]

Also the other disadvantage to the vernacular is that it does break with Tradition, which is never a good idea. It is an idea of modernism which was condemned by the Church before recently, most importantly St.Pius X

You are aware that the now Ordinary Form of the Mass was a decision of the Magisterium of the Church? It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the Ordinary Form is a heresy of an heretical papacy? How do you explain your suggestion here?

 

[CatholicWhovian]

As a convert, I can say that if I didn’t understand what was being said, I would not have converted. Heck, I would have totally overlooked Catholicism. I’m a need to know type of person and well, they wouldn’t like it if I stood up and started asking what was going on in the middle of Mass.

Now, it would be neat to learn Latin, but when I was going through the process of finding the church for me, Latin would have totally intimidated me and I would have stayed away.

Most of my fellow Filipinos would have stayed away from Mass too. For us Filipinos the Latin Mass does have some connotations towards imperialism, when the Spanish seemed that they would want to subvert us and made us ignorant slaves by worshiping our faith in a language we don’t understand. That’s why I think it’s a good thing that there’s Mass in the vernacular language because we are able to worship a faith which we now consider as OURS and not someone else’s.

Although I do would want to attend a Latin Mass one day.

Language doesn’t just have religious connotations; it has political connotations as well. And I think that’s an issue the writers of the document have gladly considered when they formulated it.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

It’s a poor faith indeed that fades away because it’s adherents can understand what is being said.

(Just the opinion of someone who attended nothing but Latin Masses for the first 20 years of her life.)

Then how can you explain my case? I’m almost 20 years old. I have never been to a Latin Mass ever in my life. I understand what is being said. And yet I’m a faithful, devout, practicing, loyal, Magisterium adhering Catholic. If I wasn’t then why would I be in this forum in the first place?

And how can you explain the many Filipinos who grew up in vernacular Masses all their lives; who have understood and taken in everything that has been said in Mass, and still be faithful, devout, pew-filling Catholics? Hmm?

 

[ProVobis]

I understand what is being said.

Then perhaps you can explain what “consubstantial” and “with your spirit” means, among other things?

 

[ProVobis]

For us Filipinos the Latin Mass does have some connotations towards imperialism,

Then I suggest someone wasn’t paying attention to his Baltimore Catechism.

Q. 566. Why does the Church use the Latin language instead of the national language of its children?

A. The Church uses the Latin language instead of the national language of its children:

    To avoid the danger of changing any part of its teaching in using different languages;

    That all its rulers may be perfectly united and understood in their communications;

    To show that the Church is not an institute of any particular nation, but the guide of all nations.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Then perhaps you can explain what “consubstantial” and “with your spirit” means, among other things?

Regardless of the language both of these terms are beyond a single post explanation.

Especially “consubstantial” with its roots in philosophy.

Perhaps you will give it a try?

 

[theoda]

First, at this page that chapter heading is written this way: “On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue.” There is a big difference between “Mass should not be celebrated in the vulgar tongue” and “Mass should not be celebrated in the vulgar tongue everywhere.” The latter leaves room for Mass to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue and helps show that this was a discipline, not a doctrine.

Second, I want to emphasize that distinction between discipline and doctrine. Just because a document is headed by the word “doctrine” does not mean it does not refer to disciplines too. In this case, the Council of Trent, if I’m reading it correctly, ruled that Mass should not be said everywhere in the vulgar tongues. So it wasn’t. But I do think it allowed Mass to be said in some places in the vulgar tongue – like Greece, where I believe Greek Catholics had always said, and continued to say Mass, in Greek.

So there is your “other doctrine” that says that Mass can be celebrated in non-Latin languages, and it’s not a doctrine, it’s a discipline. I don’t think that would be the language’s fault. How would you answer the following argument?

Premise 1. Something can only cause irreverence at Mass if it is inherently inappropriate for Mass.
Premise 2. Non-Latin languages are not inherently inappropriate for Mass because they have been used in the Mass with the Church’s approval for centuries.
Conclusion. Therefore, non-Latin languages cannot cause irreverence at Mass.

Do you think that is a valid argument?

You have made a mistake in Premise 2. My argument was that vernacular languages should not be used, not non-Latin. There has never been a time when the vernacular was used for Mass. It is perfectly acceptable for Greek Catholics to use Ancient Greek in their Mass, since it is a non-vernacular language.

It condemns anyone who says the Mass should be said entirely in the vernacular, which is what the New Mass is usually celebrated today.

 

[pnewton]

There has never been a time when the vernacular was used for Mass. .

Never? Not even when Latin was the vernacular? Not even in the upper room?

It is theologically errant to say that one doctrine applies to a certain time and then it no longer applies.

Language is not a matter of doctrine.

 

[pnewton]

“You cannot turn back. We have to always go forward, always forward and who goes back is making a mistake,” he told parishioners after commemorating the 50th anniversary of the first time a pope celebrated Mass in the vernacular following the Second Vatican Council.

“Let us give thanks to the Lord for what he has done in his church in these 50 years of liturgical reform. It was really a courageous move by the church to get closer to the people of God so that they could understand well what it does, and this is important for us: to follow Mass like this,” he said as he left Rome’s Church of All Saints on Saturday.

Pope Francis.

I like this guy!

 

[theoda]

You are aware that the now Ordinary Form of the Mass was a decision of the Magisterium of the Church? It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the Ordinary Form is a heresy of an heretical papacy? How do you explain your suggestion here?

The Church actually never said it should be said entirely in the vernacular. Sacrosanctum Concilium stated “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”. (36.1)

The Ordinary Form is not heretical nor was the papacy.

 

[theoda]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Never? Not even when Latin was the vernacular? Not even in the upper room?

I don’t think there has been any time when a vernacular language was used. They probably used Hebrew in the early years. If there was a time, can you please find it?

 

[theoda]

I like this guy!

So if someone makes a mistake rather than correcting it he should keep going along with it?

 

[ProVobis]

You are aware that the now Ordinary Form of the Mass was a decision of the Magisterium of the Church? It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the Ordinary Form is a heresy of an heretical papacy? How do you explain your suggestion here?

Okay but the OP deals with the 65 Missal in Italian. That was a few years before the New Mass was promulgated.

 

[pnewton]

So if someone makes a mistake rather than correcting it he should keep going along with it?

No, Pope Francis said going back would be a mistake. This statement is in the context of the Mass in the vernacular.

 

[theoda]

No, Pope Francis said going back would be a mistake. This statement is in the context of the Mass in the vernacular.

If he says going back to Latin would be a mistake, then it would mean that Latin is inferior to the vernacular and that’s why the vernacular should be used. However, this was condemned by the Council of Trent:

“If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema”

 

[ProVobis]

No, Pope Francis said going back would be a mistake.

How about going forward? I think the bigger criticism is that most are stuck in the 70’s, while the internet wants to educate those with a burning desire to learn the faith. People had virtually no Latin back in the 70’s and 80’s. Now tons of stuff has been put out there, including the Pope’s twitter account and the Nova Vulgata, in Latin. Even has its own Vikipedia. And much of this hasn’t even been translated yet.