The problems seem to come from different interpretations. And, of course, translations can and do lead into different interpretations, because they are more art than science. Everyone assumes vernacular means perfect translation and there is no such thing. Thus a corruption of faith rather than an increase of it, unless, of course, if one is evangelizing.
You wrote, “Latin was the vernacular of the Empire and even where it was not the native tongue, it was still spoken.”
Interesting, “this new vernacular Mass [Latin] is doing much dishonor to the traditions that have been passed down to us by the Lord and the apostles themselves…this new order of the Lord’s Supper is an abomination at best”. I can see thugh how political feelings would come into play.
How else would one communicate if not in a language that is understood by both? It has been mentioned that the missals in Latin would often have the translation side by side. I would think the rather lengthy process of approving translations would be more reliable than individuals translating for their respective products, for translation is inevitable if the language is to be understood by another.
Actually the St. Joseph Missal had cut Latin altogether in the Mass propers in the 50’s. One had no idea if the translation was authentic, whereas a little exposure to Latin might have helped him a little on that. The average guy just probably took the English as gospel and immortal truth.
Aren’t you being a little overdramatic here? I would say this, knowing and having studied it, I refuse to say the Nicene Creed in English. I gave some reasons above. But if one wants to use the corrupted version, who am I to stop that?
From the article, a quote of Pope Francis.
The statement of the Holy Father was about the advantages of a language understood by the people who are hearing. I do not think there was any inference that we should abandon Latin. As you have stated, the Latin is valuable to the universality of the Church and will likely remain forever the language of ecclesial law and doctrine.
Not only national level, but at the parish level also. My former parish was comprised of Anglos, Hispanics, and Vietnamese. Sundays meant 4 masses, 2 english, 1 spanish and one Vietnamese. Holydays and Feasts were a blend of all 3 in one mass. Reminded me of the tower of babel. And the ethnic communities seperated by language. Same parish, three seperate groups. Universal?
As far as, “Also, the Sanctus where even the Latin Mass didn’t feel bold enough to translate “Sabaoth,””.Actually the St. Joseph Missal had cut Latin altogether in the Mass propers in the 50’s. One had no idea if the translation was authentic, whereas a little exposure to Latin might have helped him a little on that. The average guy just probably took the English as gospel and immortal truth.
Aren’t you being a little overdramatic here? I would say this, knowing and having studied it, I refuse to say the Nicene Creed in English. I gave some reasons above. But if one wants to use the corrupted version, who am I to stop that?
Also, the Sanctus where even the Latin Mass didn’t feel bold enough to translate “Sabaoth,” for example. Why make it “God of Hosts” when you have to explain it anyway?
You wrote, “As I said in an earlier post, much of this debate is driven by an anthropocentric perspective.”
I wouldn’t say they didn’t know what it meant. After a while even the most foreign phrases become familiar and we know the gist of what they represent. I guess one could use the same argument for “Kyrie eleison.” Someone can say it should have been translated to “Domine, miserere” but perhaps there was a subtle change of meaning they weren’t going to mess with. Or perhaps they just wanted to retain some Greek in the liturgy, I don’t know.
As I quoted in post #142
“Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of the netherworld shall NOT prevail against It”.
It wouldn’t be unprecedented. The Poles formed their own Polish National Catholic Church because, according to reports, they weren’t allowed to teach Polish in the schools.
That’s what happens when you remove all the non-verbal communication at Mass.
Maybe with some it was “understood it at a profound, contemplative level. This kind of engagement with the liturgy was, in fact, particularly intense, because it is not just intellectual.”, and with others it just might have been neither “at a profound, contemplative level” nor at an “intellectual” level, it was just rote.
Do I think it is possible that separate churches form based around language? Absolutely. In my own experience for example my grandmother has a church very close to her (walking distance) however she and everyone in her ethnic group (of which there is a substantial amount of people) never go to that church. Its an “American church” and is as foreign to her as a protestant church or a mosque. Instead she drives somewhere else where they offer mass in her language. I also do the same thing out of habit. There was a similar problem in England where ethnic Parishes are creating almost a separate church from the native one. Its a weakening of universality and tradition in my view. Even Judaism retains some hebrew in ceremonies and education but latin…