Praying in Latin

[Melchior_1]

Well, lets turn it on its head. Let’s say your local mass is said in your local language. For 25 years. After the first fews weeks you understand every word and know the responses. What’s left after that?

Seeking your own sanctification.

The priest is the one offering the mass. We merely attend. ‘Assisting’ is based on a French word, ‘assister’, which in French means, ‘to attend’. But people think they really have to be following along every word, to help out, I think.

The priest is the only one whose actions are essential. The Latin Mass, with its periods of quiet, lets one reflect on what’s going on and impresses upon one that something wonderful is going on up there.

1. What’s left after that? The Eucharist, for one.
2. Merely attending? One could say the same if the Mass is done in Latin, especially if one doesn’t understand the words.
3. There are moments of silence in the OF too.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, lets turn it on its head. Let’s say your local mass is said in your local language. For 25 years. After the first fews weeks you understand every word and know the responses. What’s left after that?

Let’s say? We don’t have to imagine this. Maybe the words are more familiar everyday words but is the Mass more understandable now that we’re completely surrounded with the vernacular?

 

[ProVobis]

One could say the same if the Mass is done in Latin, especially if one doesn’t understand the words.

Isn’t this argument a little bit overexaggerated and wearing thinner and thinner? If it’s everyday familiar words you’re after, you got them, but one can misunderstand words (or the translations in this case) in the English as well. Maybe the reason we have hundreds of English Bibles is that there are no precise English words which convey the proper understanding of scriptures? There is not one perfect translation of the Latin Mass either. Even in the most literal of translations, the nuances, the poetry, and the tone, are either lost or changed. And we did this all because we didn’t want to hear “Dominus vobiscum” or “Sabaoth” any more?

But that said, if you want to be creative in the English, there is no reason you can’t write your own prayers in your own words and with your own understanding of those words.

 

[Melchior_1]

Isn’t this argument a little bit overexaggerated and wearing thinner and thinner? If it’s everyday familiar words you’re after, you got them, but one can misunderstand words (or the translations in this case) in the English as well. Maybe the reason we have hundreds of English Bibles is that there are no precise English words which convey the proper understanding of scriptures? There is not one perfect translation of the Latin Mass either. Even in the most literal of translations, the nuances, the poetry, and the tone, are either lost or changed. And we did this all because we didn’t want to hear “Dominus vobiscum” or “Sabaoth” any more?

But that said, if you want to be creative in the English, there is no reason you can’t write your own prayers in your own words and with your own understanding of those words.

The difference? People need to understand their vernacular to communicate elsewhere and to earn a living, so it’s in our best interest to educate people on what words mean and whatnot.

Before anyone says “isn’t it in our best interest to have souls be redeemed!”, it is in our best interest to see that happen, but we can also do that without Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

The difference? People need to understand their vernacular to communicate elsewhere and to earn a living, so it’s in our best interest to educate people on what words mean and whatnot.

Yes, but what does that have to do with the priest communicating with God in offering the Holy Sacrifice on my behalf? I’ll just have to trust the Church in that the priest’s prayers, whether he mumbles (your words from another thread) them or not, are pleasing to God and that my presence there fulfulls my obligation.

People don’t understand real computer language (with combinations of 1’s and 0’s) yet accept everything that’s done using the computer. The living comes from knowing how to use the computer.

 

[Melchior_1]

Yes, but what does that have to do with the priest communicating with God in offering the Holy Sacrifice on my behalf? I’ll just have to trust the Church in that the priest’s prayers, whether he mumbles (your words from another thread) them or not, are pleasing to God and that my presence there fulfulls my obligation.

What this, and this entire thread, essentially boils down to is the merits of having someone’s native language be used at Mass and the merits of participation. Because with what you just said here, I could say “what does Latin have to do with anything?” and we’d be back to square one.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with Latin for the most part. It’s not for me, but I understand why people would like it. If the Pope said “we need Latin now everyone all day every day all times every times” I would obey. But my preference is English, and that is a legit option.

Also, I understand the zeal in wanting to show how great Latin is, but in the process some of the rhetoric is a bit offputting, as it is perceived (word of the day around here!) to degenerate the use of the vernacular.

People don’t understand real computer language (with combinations of 1’s and 0’s) yet accept everything that’s done using the computer. The living comes from knowing how to use the computer.

This reminds me that within a year or two I need to learn how to count in my head with Base 16.

Thanks a lot

 

[ConstantineTG]

Isn’t this argument a little bit overexaggerated and wearing thinner and thinner? If it’s everyday familiar words you’re after, you got them, but one can misunderstand words (or the translations in this case) in the English as well. Maybe the reason we have hundreds of English Bibles is that there are no precise English words which convey the proper understanding of scriptures? There is not one perfect translation of the Latin Mass either. Even in the most literal of translations, the nuances, the poetry, and the tone, are either lost or changed. And we did this all because we didn’t want to hear “Dominus vobiscum” or “Sabaoth” any more?

But that said, if you want to be creative in the English, there is no reason you can’t write your own prayers in your own words and with your own understanding of those words.

I don’t think it is wearing thin. It is a legit argument, one that Eastern Bishops are finding out today as their overseas flock are the one that is growing thinner and thinner. Isn’t the Mass as a whole supposed to enrich us in our Christian lives? Isn’t it integral that we have it in our language so that we may be enriched by Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi?

By the way, “Sabaoth”, not Latin. Its Hebrew. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#YHWH_Tzevaot

 

[clem456]

It’s important for communication to be practical. 500 years ago, we didn’t have thousands of competing channels of communication telling people what to believe. Now we do have communication of all kinds, the majority of it is counter to Christianity. Catholics need to understand the faith amidst all that babel. Part of that is iunderstanding the happenings at Mass. This doesn’t detract one bit from the use of Latin for those who want it. It simply suggests practicality.

For instance, RCIA candidates are told all sorts of things and read all sorts of things that contradict the faith. Our kids (I have two) also have instantaneous communication pulling them towards the secular culture. Latin is beautiful, and I love singing it, and if you like praying it wonderful…but the Church needs to communicate directly and forcefully with people, without the confusion of an obsolete language. I believe it is no accident or conspiracy that the ordinary Mass form has come to be said predominantly in the vernacular. This is the guidance of the Holy Spirit attempting to work in people’s lives, in the times we live in, and with the tools we have at our disposal.

 

[ProVobis]

This reminds me that within a year or two I need to learn how to count in my head with Base 16.

Base 16 is actually based on Base 2; it’s just expressed differently. My first program used nine transistors placed strategically on a bread board so I know what I’m talking about. I know very few computer programmers who really understand the very language in which they write, but I understand their preference for using it and the canned code that comes with it. It (and vernacular) takes much less work, though it’s highly error-proned. You’ve heard of programming bugs, no?

 

[ConstantineTG]

It’s important for communication to be practical. 500 years ago, we didn’t have thousands of competing channels of communication telling people what to believe. Now we do have communication of all kinds, the majority of it is counter to Christianity. Catholics need to understand the faith amidst all that babel. Part of that is iunderstanding the happenings at Mass. This doesn’t detract one bit from the use of Latin for those who want it. It simply suggests practicality.

For instance, RCIA candidates are told all sorts of things and read all sorts of things that contradict the faith. Our kids (I have two) also have instantaneous communication pulling them towards the secular culture. Latin is beautiful, and I love singing it, and if you like praying it wonderful…but the Church needs to communicate directly and forcefully with people, without the confusion of an obsolete language. I believe it is no accident or conspiracy that the ordinary Mass form has come to be said predominantly in the vernacular. This is the guidance of the Holy Spirit attempting to work in people’s lives, in the times we live in, and with the tools we have at our disposal.

I think the problem we have this way of thinking in the Roman Cathoilc Church today was that missionaries of the Latin faith came with the colonizers. Colonizers weren’t interested in the culture of the land, they wanted to conquer the land and impose their culture. So the missionaries evangelized using the culture and language of the colonizers. In the East the faith spread by missionaries who were not backed by military might. For one thing, the other nations that were evangelized were as powerful as the armies of the Christian kingdoms. So missionaires came bringing the faith to the people in their culture and language.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Base 16 is actually based on Base 2; it’s just expressed differently. My first program used nine transistors placed strategically on a bread board so I know what I’m talking about. I know very few computer programmers who really understand the very language in which they write, but I understand their preference for using it and the canned code that comes with it. It (and vernacular) takes much less work, though it’s highly error-proned. You’ve heard of programming bugs, no? The computer and the compiler generally don’t cause these errors.

Latin has bugs of its own. In fact it caused a major system crash with the Filioque

 

[Baelor]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with Latin for the most part. It’s not for me, but I understand why people would like it. If the Pope said “we need Latin now everyone all day every day all times every times” I would obey. But my preference is English, and that is a legit option.

The Roman Catholic Church’s official language is Latin. That places it on a level different from every other language. It also emphasizes the importance of standard means of communication – one language which everyone is able to understand and in which thoughts can be communicated unambiguously. Latin has developed a highly technical theological and philosophical vocabulary (aided by, admittedly, borrowing from Greek). The ideal would be that every Catholic had a basic understanding of Latin. I fail to see why we should not make this our goal.

 

[ProVobis]

Latin has bugs of its own. In fact it caused a major system crash with the Filioque

Or was it perhaps the incompatibility of the “procedit” with the Greek? You may be talking RISC chips vs CICS (Intel) here, not bugs.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s important for communication to be practical. 500 years ago, we didn’t have thousands of competing channels of communication telling people what to believe.

On the contrary. Even in the Latin, the copies of scripture varied over the years, due to copier errors, illegibility, bad handwriting, ink erosion, quality of parchment used, etc. It took massive efforts to figure out and consolidate all these copies before it all went to press (Gutenberg Bible). But no sooner did they have it all organized and ready to go before the Reformers proceeded to translate and interpret it for themselves. Why the bother of the Clementine Bible?

You do make some valid points in the rest of your post, though. But I wouldn’t depend too much on the vernacular. I was taught by Polish priests and English nuns. It seemed like I was taught two different religions.

 

[gxensen]

I’m actually interested in studying and reading the Holy Bible in its original tongues, which are (from what I’ve come to know) Classical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.

Also, I want to learn Hebrew anyway, I find it be perky language with an extraordinarily cool-looking alphabet. I’d also adore praying to Him in Hebrew.

That’s just my piece of the pie.

 

[TimothyH]

Latin has bugs of its own. In fact it caused a major system crash with the Filioque

Update your code.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I think the problem we have this way of thinking in the Roman Cathoilc Church today was that missionaries of the Latin faith came with the colonizers. Colonizers weren’t interested in the culture of the land, they wanted to conquer the land and impose their culture. So the missionaries evangelized using the culture and language of the colonizers. In the East the faith spread by missionaries who were not backed by military might. For one thing, the other nations that were evangelized were as powerful as the armies of the Christian kingdoms. So missionaires came bringing the faith to the people in their culture and language.

I’m not sure that this is correct, or entirely correct.

First of all, I’m not sure that missionaries were “backed” by the military.

Francis Xavier did not impose western culture on the Japanese. The Spanish missionaries in the western United States didn’t either.

I’m not sure that the facts on the ground bear out what you suggest. Maybe I’m not understanding what you mean by “Backed by military might” or the suggestion that missionaries "Imposed’ their culture.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

I’m not sure that this is correct, or entirely correct.

First of all, I’m not sure that missionaries were “backed” by the military.

Francis Xavier did not impose western culture on the Japanese. The Spanish missionaries in the western United States didn’t either.

I’m not sure that the facts on the ground bear out what you suggest. Maybe I’m not understanding what you mean by “Backed by military might” or the suggestion that missionaries "Imposed’ their culture.

-Tim-

It really depended on the influence of the religious community. Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits were very defiant of the Spanish military and Spanish governors. There were often legal complaints against the colonizers by the religious. The religious always won, because these three orders had the favor of the papacy. No monarch was going to rule against them at the risk of excommunication or interdict. Other missionaries were not as influential and were controlled by the colonizers.

For example, the Dominicans were successful in protecting the Indians in South America from forced proselytism. The filed a legal suit with the Crown in Spain. The Franciscans in Mexico were very influential in extending the Mexican colonies to what are now the southwestern states of the USA. They wanted to go forward to reach the indigenous people, even though the Viceroy opposed it. The superior, threatened that no friar priest would be allowed to grant absolution or Holy Communion to any Spaniard who opposed the mission. The Viceroy called their bluff. This lasted all of two weeks before the Viceroy gave in, not too happily. I wonder if this was the beginning of Mexican anti-clericalism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not sure that this is correct, or entirely correct.

First of all, I’m not sure that missionaries were “backed” by the military.

Francis Xavier did not impose western culture on the Japanese. The Spanish missionaries in the western United States didn’t either.

I’m not sure that the facts on the ground bear out what you suggest. Maybe I’m not understanding what you mean by “Backed by military might” or the suggestion that missionaries "Imposed’ their culture.

-Tim-

But everything from Mexico down were forcibly converted by colonizers. The Philippines was colonized and converted by decree from Spain as part of the Spanish Inquisition. Japan was hardly converted and to this day remains mostly pagan.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It really depended on the influence of the religious community. Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits were very defiant of the Spanish military and Spanish governors. There were often legal complaints against the colonizers by the religious. The religious always won, because these three orders had the favor of the papacy. No monarch was going to rule against them at the risk of excommunication or interdict. Other missionaries were not as influential and were controlled by the colonizers.

For example, the Dominicans were successful in protecting the Indians in South America from forced proselytism. The filed a legal suit with the Crown in Spain. The Franciscans in Mexico were very influential in extending the Mexican colonies to what are now the southwestern states of the USA. They wanted to go forward to reach the indigenous people, even though the Viceroy opposed it. The superior, threatened that no friar priest would be allowed to grant absolution or Holy Communion to any Spaniard who opposed the mission. The Viceroy called their bluff. This lasted all of two weeks before the Viceroy gave in, not too happily. I wonder if this was the beginning of Mexican anti-clericalism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

While there were heroes among the clerics (like Gomez, Burgos and Zamora), there were also abusers. Jose Rizal’s novels writes some of the bad experiences with the friars. It is a mixed bag as it is today (and as it is from the beginning).