Can’t be all that good if on the day they receive their first Communion, for most of them that is the last day they’ll ever step inside of a Church. This is according to my pastor anyway, who’s had a lot of experience within the Spanish and English communities.
So Latin is less used today than it was 400 years ago at the Vatican. Is this shocking?
Well, I believe to the point of many here, it is less used today that it was 40 years ago.
I was reading where Popes Pius XII and Paul VI weren’t very good Latinists, not that it made any difference doctrinally but certainly influenced the conversations that they would be having with others. So I’m sure that some of the decline of Latin as a spoken language at the Vatican since then had something to do with that. If only Pope John XXIII had lived a little longer, it might have been a different story today.
It seems to me that Italian has been used “in St Peter’s Square” (i.e, for public addresses, etc) for quite some time. At least back to Pius IX, and probably before that. OTOH, irrespective of the “working language” used for the drafts, most (though not all) official documents have been, and still are, promulgated in Latin. And there was a time (pre-conciliar) when most instruction in the various Pontifical Universities and Institutes, etc, was given in Latin. That has since given way to Italian. Even at the North American.
I think it helps place Latin in its current context in the Church, which I do believe contributes to the discussion. At the very least it should help keep expectations realistic (read: modest) given the circumstances. If the lingua franca in the Vatican is a vernacular tongue, isn’t it a bit unrealistic to expect most of the laity to make Latin the lingua franca of their prayer life?
Does the “de gustibus non est disputandum” principle really apply where the Latin Rite Church has carefully selected the wording and theology in its prayers and liturgy? Seems as if some have elevated their own translations above the Church’s own language.
Specific example? Are you referring to the disputes over the new English missal? In that particular case doesnt Roma locuta est, causa finita est apply? This is one instance Rome felt it necessary to rule.
No, I was referring to translations in general. The fact that there are disputes and changing translations proves my point, sort of. Personally I don’t care whether Roma locuta est determines whether it’s “many” or “all” anymore than whether it’s “many” or “multitudes” in French or whatever it is in Vietnamese, because I’ll stick with the Roma Latin. It doesn’t make me superior; I just think the controversies are senseless but they can’t be avoided in translations.
Yes but translations will always be needed in the Church. If not for the liturgy then for documents that folks are expected to be able to understand.
Maybe explanations would be better as Trent suggested; we can’t take even Vatican translations at full value. The example of “worshipping” Mary is a prime one. In many cases, one needs to do some further investigations for himself, hopefully in this case by looking up the possibilities for the word “colere” in some Latin dictionary.
And it will change again as the liturgy changes. Who knows, the next Pope may change Credo III. But the meanings of the words won’t change; they’ll just be pulled out or added as the Church sees fit for everyone*, not some select nation or culture.
OK, I had a look. Admittedly I skipped through parts, but I finally got to the Roman Canon.I saw and heard the Armenian Catholicos-Patriarch do part his in Arabic (why not in Armenian I’ll never know, but never mind that) while both Mar Bechara Boutrous (Maronite) and Mar Ignatious Yousef (SCC) said their parts in Latin. Where was the Syriac? (I mean beyond some highly westernized hymns and chants by the choir.) Did I miss it?
Magnificat:
Funny you mention it - that was my favorite part too! The Melkite deacon was amazing!But at least the Melkites got the Gospel … chanted quite well actually. Shame it wasn’t in Greek, but even so, it was, IMO, the best part.
I see your point. But at least we know we have some Latinists still left to do that.
But I am not a Benedictine or a Cisterician. Nor are the laity. Nor are diocesan churches. If you want to bring Heaven to Earth and have the congregation understand that this is what’s occuring, a beautiful Mass is an excellent start.
The Church does not require all churches to celebrate Mass in the exact same way; much of the form is, of course, set, but there is substantial room for differences in the Mass. Furthermore, the Church openly espouses cultural tailoring. This has been taken to unacceptable extremes, but the underlying principle is valid.
Many places. All the OF parishes I attend in the US, Germany, Italy, Greece, etc.
Is this the experience of other posters? I only know the UK and Ireland and a full-on Roman Catholic mass, with Latin and Chant, is quite rare. However, since Summorum Pontificum, appending the phrase ‘as hen’s teeth’ is no longer apt
