Praying in Latin

[ProVobis]

Respectfully, I think only a close-minded person would see how saying that a Form or language is free from abuse. If it was the norm, it would also be the norm for abuses.

Going back to a Shakespeare analogy, Hamlet can be abused either in the English or in the Polish translation. However, there’s a better chance Hamlet gets corrupted in the translation.

 

[Melchior_1]

Going back to a Shakespeare analogy, Hamlet can be abused either in the English or in the Polish translation. However, there’s a better chance Hamlet gets corrupted in the translation.

Unless the translation is solid, then that is no longer a concern, no?

 

[ProVobis]

Unless the translation is solid, then that is no longer a concern, no?

There is no such thing as a “solid” translation. Translations have no more value than hearsays, IMO. Translators almost always disagree with one another. Often they can’t do better than a consensus. I have various Latin-English missals which I compare with each other. Guess what? The translations are different, and these are all imprimatured. But the Latin is exactly the same.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is no such thing as a “solid” translation. Translations have no more value than hearsays, IMO. Translators almost always disagree with one another. Often they can’t do better than a consensus. I have various Latin-English missals which I compare with each other. Guess what? The translations are different, and these are all imprimatured. But the Latin is exactly the same.

Latin is the same but no one would understand it unless it is translated. And you would still have to update the translation. So it is still the same problem. I mean, the Bible is always mostly in Greek (the NT) and yet how many translations do we have today? Same for Latin, you can have the same Latin Missal but it would still need to be translated into whatever language. So the same problem with using the vernacular, there is still a translation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hello, CTG. I so appreciate your contribution to the thread here. As I read your concerns about wanting to live your faith and tradition, I thought about the increasing call for the Latin mass in my area.
I wonder if this call might involve more than just a language?
Perhaps the call might reach beyond the culture of the land in which my Archdiocese resides, back to a time in which East and West reached towards each other.
I see the Latin mass as reaching back to a time before the schism. I pray that as we (Latin Rite Catholics) reclaim the heritage of our faith, we may be able to reach out from a more easily recognizably shared ground to our Eastern brothers and sisters. May God’s will be done. Amen.

Definitely my concerns are more than just the language. The Liturgy can be in Elvish or Klingon and it is all a matter of translation or learning the language. My issues are about culture and my fit with the community. A Church is a community of believers and if you do not fit with your own local community, then you are disconnected. I contemplate on the lives of people around me and I look at how successful they are in certain things that interest me. I have an Evangelical cousin who has very faithful and religious kids. Why are they faithful? All her kids have friends who go to the same church and are all active in their ministries. I figured the way to get my kids involved in the faith is to be in a community where we feel we belong. I can grin and bear being in an ethnic parish, but I can’t say the same for my family. So my dilemma definitely extends beyond just language usage.

As for “reaching back to a time before the schism”, I will be brutaly honest here. The Latin Mass does not do that. The Tridentine Mass is a counter-reformation Liturgy. The schism was well in place then and in fact there has been bad blood between East and West around that time. I don’t think Rome even was thinking about Constantinople at that time. If we really want East-West unity, we need to reach far back into the mid-First Millennium.

 

[ProVobis]

I mean, the Bible is always mostly in Greek (the NT) and yet how many translations do we have today?

The point is that each Bible translation becomes further removed from the original. Even the Greek supposedly was a paraphrasing of previous Greek which was in itself a translation of Aramaic and Hebrew. If one wants to really understand, he’s just going to have to learn the original language, just like someone who has to learn some English in order to appreciate Shakespeare. But even if one doesn’t understand English, can he say Shakespeare in English has no value to him? It must to some degree.

 

[Rich_C]

Respectfully, I think only a close-minded person would see how saying that a Form or language is free from abuse. If it was the norm, it would also be the norm for abuses.

If you stopped putting words in my mouth for one post, you’d see that you’re arguing with thin air. I never that said.

Essentially, correct me if I’m wrong here, you’re saying “ignorance is bliss”. If you can’t tell if someone is making stuff up, then you can’t get scandalized by it?

No, I think you finally understood me correctly. The laity have to pray the missal at the Latin Mass. Illicit additions to the Mass will be incomprehensible to most of us and so won’t sow seeds of heresy or confusion. I don’t see why you think this is a bad thing.

You’d think the Church wouldn’t mind you getting everything you can out of the Mass, and one way is to reflect on the words the priest is saying by listening and understanding.

Look, I’m beginning to see that you don’t understand the relationship of laity to the EF Mass, at all. If you did, you’d know how much laity can understand it by reading the missal, by reading commentaries, by read explanations of the Mass, or hearing them in sermons, and then internalize all this understand when praying the missal at Mass.

My arguments are quite real, and they stem from human nature and systematic reasoning; if someone wants to make changes, changes will be made. Form and language won’t stop them. And whatever is the norm, that’s where most of the problems would be due to simply having more people and having a higher exposure.

Let’s break it down one more time:

Melchoir’s Point A: those who wish to abuse the Roman Mass will do so in either form, just as often and effectively, all else being equal

Rich C’s Points: A) I agree with Melchior that all else being equal, priests could make up illicit prayers at the EF just as easily as at the OF, but…

**B) **Since people follow the Mass through reading or memorizing or simply remembering the gist of the prayers, the people will be practically immune to the effects of illicit prayers.

Melchior replies: but they could still make abuses and that’s all I care to argue about today! Also, I think you want lay people to be ignorant.

Rich C replies: I already conceded your point A but explained why Latin protects laypeople from those abuses, you just don’t want to consider that. And for the record, I stand with the Church in wanting people to understand the Mass as much as possible and I also stand with the Church in saying that Latin is not an obstacle to that.

/summary

 

[ProVobis]

If we really want East-West unity, we need to reach far back into the mid-First Millennium.

I say we start by resolving the Homer vs Virgil issue first.

 

[Melchior_1]

There is no such thing as a “solid” translation. Translations have no more value than hearsays, IMO. Translators almost always disagree with one another. Often they can’t do better than a consensus. I have various Latin-English missals which I compare with each other. Guess what? The translations are different, and these are all imprimatured. But the Latin is exactly the same.

I see where you are coming from with this, however in the process you can just as easily say anything (including the Bible) are prone to error. Even with the post you made after this in response to CTG, it’s still a concern I have with the logic.

We can’t even trust the Duay, at this point. Nor can we trust any Church document written in a language other than the native one it was written in.

 

[ProVobis]

I see where you are coming from with this, however in the process you can just as easily say anything (including the Bible) are prone to error. Even with the post you made after this in response to CTG, it’s still a concern I have with the logic.

We can’t even trust the Duay, at this point. Nor can we trust any Church document written in a language other than the native one it was written in.

That’s exactly what I’m saying, although I would say this. If we look at more than one translation or even look at a side-by-side Latin-English, we may be closer to the truth than if we rely on a single translation. The more I think about it, maybe it was a good exercise to have gone to a new English translation, but it isn’t the translation that’s good necessarily IMO, but the thought process that went into it.

 

[OraLabora]

I couldn’t disagree more. Improvisation comes from fluency, not unfamiliarity.

I agree that it’s hard to improvise if you’re not fluent.

On the other hand it’s easy to mangle if you’re not fluent.

I therefore think that with the former there would be an occasional problem with someone fluent, the latter would be equally if not more prevalent with a priest who is not fluent.

In both cases the result would be more or less the same: the average person in the pew would have difficulty following.

I’ve heard Latin badly mangled at, of all places, Vespers in a Benedictine monastery in Italy. You’d think Italians would have a mastery of Latin. I think instead the closeness with Italian caused the two to get mixed up, and the result was fairly unintelligible. So even if you had a missal (or in this case breviary) you’d risk getting lost except for the visuals.

 

[Melchior_1]

No, I think you finally understood me correctly. The laity have to pray the missal at the Latin Mass. Illicit additions to the Mass will be incomprehensible to most of us and so won’t sow seeds of heresy or confusion. I don’t see why you think this is a bad thing.

I thought any abuse or heresy was a bad thing?

Look, I’m beginning to see that you don’t understand the relationship of laity to the EF Mass, at all. If you did, you’d know how much laity can understand it by reading the missal, by reading commentaries, by read explanations of the Mass, or hearing them in sermons, and then internalize all this understand when praying the missal at Mass.

I understand the relationship fine. As I said before, for me it becomes listening with the ears versus listening with the eyes. In the quote above you mention “read” or “reading” three times, versus in the vernacular you can listen and internalize things through the ears. I understand that you need to “work harder” in the sense that if you don’t understand the language, you need the Missals and you need the commentaries to better understand what is happening.

On the flip side with this, comes the concept of “not thinking about life”. A book I’ve been reading discusses with some Dominicans the concept of their Rule, and how it allows them to not “think about life”. I’m cribbing some of this from our discussion thread about St. Dominic:

…the Rule allows us to not think about life. I remember when i would teach the novices. I would have to say on the first day, “How do we begin office?” and I would say, “What we do…we do… what do we do?” Because I just did it, you know what I mean? You come in and you think “Now when we say ‘O God, come to my assistance’ do I make the sign of the cross when he is singing, or when I am singing? I don’t know! I cannot remember, I just do it!”

Well, that is the Rule, that is the freedom of the Rule. There is always the sister sacristan who remembers all these things, but most of us forget, we just do it. That is very important because once you have forgotten what you do you are being freed from self-consciousness, and once you are freed from self-consciousness and labor these gestures and words and actions that make up life according to the Rule have the power to be formative. It is the impact of the ordinary which works like the grass growing: it is happening all the time and you do not know it, just by living your life.

…Now this freedom from self consciousness is key. It is key to our time. As you know, there is a a great renewal of religious life happening, a great renewal of traditional religious life. That is wonderful, but ultimately, that renewal has to be free from self-consciousness. Life according to the Rule is the vehicle for that. We cannot live in a vocation poster: “Here we are! We are wearing the habit! WE are using Latin” I am singing the Latin chant and here I am thinking about myself: “I am now a renewed sister singing Latin!” Singing Latin is not why nuns exist is it? Singing Latin is formative, wearing the habit is formative and powerful, but only when you forget that you singing Latin and wearing the habit. That is when it is powerful.

That is why we live according to a Rule, because what does the Rule do? The Rule becomes boring! The Rule creates a life which ceases to be interesting, and my point is that in overcoming novelty, the Rule is leading us beyond self-consciousness, leading us beyond the quest for stimulation, leading us beyond statement-making and leading us to quite frankly, finding all of those things to be unsatisfying precisely so that we can do what the monastic life is calling us to do, which is to pursue God. Period. This is why we are here, to pursue God.

What the above is saying is that there are some things which if we no longer need to actively think about, it frees us up to communicate with God. If something becomes as natural as breathing, we no longer need be concerned. It also points us towards not over thinking things.

I quote this because I can see this operating one of two ways. At some point, you can reach this state at a Latin Mass. However I would find it difficult to do while reading commentaries and Missals and listening in a language that isn’t your native tongue. Being immersed in it constantly (as some religious and/or secular priests would) could work.

Compare with the native tongue, it might be easier to reach the state described above by attending a Mass where you understand the language.

Although in favor of Latin; if you have to work to understand things, you might appreciate it more. So there is that.

Regarding your “summary”, I’m not arguing with anyone, really. I’m trying to figure out why/how people come to the conclusion that Latin is a safe haven, and why it is superior. ProVobis has brought up some interesting points regarding translations, although I’m uncomfortable with the reasoning and it has ramifications on the Bible.

Finally, protecting people through ignorance isn’t exactly my idea of a good thing, considering we have a Work of Mercy called “instructing the ignorant”.

EDIT; I now see what ProVobis is saying after his last post, and feel more at ease with his comparison.

 

[Melchior_1]

That’s exactly what I’m saying, although I would say this. If we look at more than one translation or even look at a side-by-side Latin-English, we may be closer to the truth than if we rely on a single translation. The more I think about it, maybe it was a good exercise to have gone to a new English translation, but it isn’t the translation that’s good necessarily IMO, but the thought process that went into it.

Thank you very much for clearing this up. Specifically, I like the bolded, makes a lot more sense.

I very much agree with you that the intent and thought process regarding any translation is probably what makes things work. The desire for an authentic translation to build the Body of Christ will yield great fruit [ie; new English translation. (See also; St. Jerome)].

 

[Rich_C]

I agree that it’s hard to improvise if you’re not fluent.

On the other hand it’s easy to mangle if you’re not fluent.

I therefore think that with the former there would be an occasional problem with someone fluent, the latter would be equally if not more prevalent with a priest who is not fluent.

In both cases the result would be more or less the same: the average person in the pew would have difficulty following.

I’ve heard new priests mangle Latin badly, too but I didn’t have difficulty following because of poor pronunciation. I’ll bet slipping into Italian by mistake would mess me up, though.

I suppose I didn’t use the best words to express that point, though. By fluency, I meant the ability to speak it conversationally. Most priests I know who say the old Mass are quite proficit at reading the prayers in a prayerful way, but I don’t believe they know how to tell me that “we shall pray that our bishops soften their hearts and accept same-sex unions.” That’s all I meant. Even if they did, since it isn’t in the missal, it’s unlikely that the congregation would be buzzing about it at coffee and donuts after Mass. Our own limitations mean that all we can really pray at Mass is the Mass, as written by Blessed John XXIII.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The point is that each Bible translation becomes further removed from the original. Even the Greek supposedly was a paraphrasing of previous Greek which was in itself a translation of Aramaic and Hebrew. If one wants to really understand, he’s just going to have to learn the original language, just like someone who has to learn some English in order to appreciate Shakespeare. But even if one doesn’t understand English, can he say Shakespeare in English has no value to him? It must to some degree.

Everything you said can therefore be applied to the Latin Missal.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s exactly what I’m saying, although I would say this. If we look at more than one translation or even look at a side-by-side Latin-English, we may be closer to the truth than if we rely on a single translation. The more I think about it, maybe it was a good exercise to have gone to a new English translation, but it isn’t the translation that’s good necessarily IMO, but the thought process that went into it.

But the original Liturgy wasn’t even in Latin. Latin itself is a translation. Let’s just do everything in Aramaic then.

 

[Rich_C]

I thought any abuse or heresy was a bad thing?

You must know that I meant insulating people from heresy can’t be a bad thing. Why so snarky?

I quote this because I can see this operating one of two ways. At some point, you can reach this state at a Latin Mass. However I would find it difficult to do while reading commentaries and Missals and listening in a language that isn’t your native tongue. Being immersed in it constantly (as some religious and/or secular priests would) could work.

Compare with the native tongue, it might be easier to reach the state described above by attending a Mass where you understand the language.

Although in favor of Latin; if you have to work to understand things, you might appreciate it more. So there is that.

Quite possible I’m telling you something you already know, but consider this: when you first began attending the OF, you were almost as lost as you were the first time you attend the EF. Converts seem to be equally lost at either, from what they’ve told me. You have to learn both Masses to, as you say, not think about what you’re doing. Now, ideally you would read all those explanations and commentaries outside of Mass, in either form. Well that’s what I did, and when I’m at Mass I sometimes don’t need to open my missal at all. I firmly believe I may give it up someday so I can just contemplate the Mass more deeply. I think people take for granted the learning curve of the Mass they are used to. Although I will conceded that in learning curve is longer in the EF Mass, but I personally I have found a greater return as well.

Regarding your “summary”, I’m not arguing with anyone, really. I’m trying to figure out why/how people come to the conclusion that Latin is a safe haven, and why it is superior.

Well, I gave some reasons. You kind of dismissed them without explaining why. After giving it some thought, where are you at in your thinking on this?

Finally, protecting people through ignorance isn’t exactly my idea of a good thing, considering we have a Work of Mercy called “instructing the ignorant”.

It seems to me like you take the worse possible meaning from what I say. The RCC had only Latin Masses (few exceptions) for about 1,500 years and never, even St. Pius X of blessed memory, advocated making the laity so proficient in Latin that they could order a latte in that language. All the Church asked was that pastors make the people know enough to be able to participate and understand the great mystery of the Mass.

You’re saying the Church was wrong to be content with that. I’m saying the Church was wise, because it meant the people would know the liturgy as it was meant to be and no more. People have their own language to order lattes in, after all.

 

[TrueLight]

On the flip side with this, comes the concept of “not thinking about life”. A book I’ve been reading discusses with some Dominicans the concept of their Rule, and how it allows them to not “think about life”. I’m cribbing some of this from our discussion thread about St. Dominic:

Thanks for the plug for the thread.

I quote this because I can see this operating one of two ways. At some point, you can reach this state at a Latin Mass.

I think its easier to reach this state then one thinks.

I have been attending the latin Mass for about 1.5 years. Honestly, I picked up the gist of the Mass a long time ago. Sometimes I just become immersed in everything and rarely look at the missal. If I want to see the specific collects or if I want to follow the Epistle and Gospel in my Missal, I do. I don’t need to because in a sung mass, it is re-read in the vernacular anyway.

For example, when the priest is chanting the Preface, which varies, but the versions are similar enough that you know exactly what is being said, I just close my eyes and listen.

VERE dignum et justum est, æquum
et salutáre, nos tibi semper et ubique
grátias ágere, Dómine sancte, Pater
omnípotens, ætérne Deus: Qui cum
unigénito Fílio tuo, et Spíritu
Sancto, unus es Deus, unus es Dóminus:
non in unius singularitáte
persónæ, sed in unius Trinitáte substántiæ.
Quod enim de tua glória,
revelánte te, crédimus, hoc de Fílio
tuo, hoc de Spiritu Sancto, sine differéntia
discretiónis sentímus. Ut in
confessióne veræ, sempiternæque
gnitas, bónitas, longanímitas, mansuetúdo,
fides, modéstia, continéntia,
cástitas. Advérsus hujúsmodi
non est lex. Qui autem sunt Christi,
carnem suam crucifixérunt cum vítiis
et concupiscéntis.

It is truly meet and just, right and for our
salvation, that we should at all times, and
in all places, give thanks to Thee, holy
Lord, Father almighty, eternal God: Who,
together with Thine only-begotten Son
and the Holy Ghost, art one God, one
Lord: not in the Oneness of a single Person,
but in the Trinity of one substance.
For what by Thy revelation we believe of
Thy glory, the same do we believe of Thy
Son, the same of the Holy Ghost, without
difference or separation; so that in con-
fessing the true and eternal Godhead, in It
we should adore distinction in persons,
unity in Essence, and equality in Majesty:
in praise of which Angels and Archangels,
Cherubim also and Seraphim day and night
exclaim, without end and with one voice
saying:

There are lots of these little sections that you become familiar with.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It seems to me like you take the worse possible meaning from what I say. The RCC had only Latin Masses (few exceptions) for about 1,500 years and never, even St. Pius X of blessed memory, advocated making the laity so proficient in Latin that they could order a latte in that language. All the Church asked was that pastors make the people know enough to be able to participate and understand the great mystery of the Mass.

You’re saying the Church was wrong to be content with that. I’m saying the Church was wise, because it meant the people would know the liturgy as it was meant to be and no more. People have their own language to order lattes in, after all.

Remember though that through most of the history of the RC, most of her congregation either spoke Latin in some flavor, or a language that is not far removed from Latin. Today many Roman Catholics speak languages totall foreign to Latin, like Afrian, East Asian, South East Asian, and many other languages and dialects from other parts of the world. It is easier to learn a language that has a familiar structre, even familiar words. But when you have a totally different language, it is a huge difference.

 

[ProVobis]

The desire for an authentic translation to build the Body of Christ will yield great fruit [ie; new English translation. (See also; St. Jerome)].

Okay but let me clarify a little as to what I tried to say. The Council of Trent encouraged explanations of the Mass (yes, even in the middle of the liturgy) but certainly didn’t encourage a one-size-fits-all-translation, except in places where Vatican II said it would be of an advantage. I don’t think one English translation fits that bill. For example, take a beautiful Offertory Prayer in the EF and look at the possible translations. I don’t think one can say that one translation is better than the others; yet they collectively can serve as giving one the gist of the Latin, which is still the authoritative and long-standing version.

Interlinear:

Deus, qui humanæ substantiæ dignitatem
God, Who of human substance dignity

mirabiliter condidisti,
wonderfully has created,

et mirabilius reformasti:
and more wonderfully reformed:

da nobis per hujus aquæ et vini mysterium,
give to us through this of water and wine mystery,

ejus divinitatis esse consortes
His divinity to be partakers

qui humanitatis nostræ fieri dignatus est particeps,
Who in humanity our to become has granted partaker,

Jesus Christus Filius tuus Dominus noster:
Jesus Christ Son Your Lord our:

Qui tecum vivit et regnat
Who with You lives and reigns

in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus:
in union with Spirit Holy God:

per omnia sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
for all ages of ages. Amen.​

St. Joseph - “O God, Who hast established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and still more admirably restored it, grant that through the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His Divinity, Who has condescended to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.”

My Sunday Missal - “O God, Who hast established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and even more wonderously hast renewed it, grant that through the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His Divinity, Who has deigned to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God world without end. Amen.”

St. Andrew - “O God, Who in a wonderful manner didst create and ennoble human nature, and still more wonderfully hast renewed it; grant that, by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be partakers of His divinity who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ Thy Son, our Lord: who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.”

Fr Lasance - “O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew: by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath vouchsafed to share our manhood, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God; world without end. Amen.”

Angelus - “O God, Who in creating human nature didst marvelously ennoble it, and hast still more marvelously renewed it: grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be partakers of His Divinity Who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigned with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.”

1857 Missal - “O God, who, in creating human nature, hast wonderfully dignified it, and still more wonderfully reformed it: grant that by the mystery of this Water and Wine, we may be partakers of his divine nature, who vouchsafed to become partaker of our human nature, namely, Jesus Christ one Lord, thy Son, in the unity of …”