Readings in two languages

[OraLabora]

i forgot the names of the churches i went to

the first one was just off Causeway Bay, my friend lived in that area and i was at North Point. then we discovered the one in Central which even had a Filipino (Tagalog) mass. then later on i discovered one just three blocks from where i live in North Point, but i rarely go there because i go to mass with my friend in Causeway Bay

i’m satisfied with how the masses handled in English are in Hong Kong. i never came across a Bilingual mass that would alternate languages within a mass. first time i really came across it is here in Canada.

Our problem in Quebec is that the Church is largely French, and there’s a shortage of French-speaking priests, let alone English ones who are as rare as hen’s teeth in my neck of the woods. So with the priest shortage, bilingual Masses (almost always by French-speaking priests who can manage English as well) do happen.

Of course, the use of Latin would solve this issue… even in the OF. Off topic but I was at an OF funeral Mass yesterday that was chanted in Latin except for the readings and homily. I’d be happy to have a sendoff like that when it’s my turn!

 

[choy]

Our problem in Quebec is that the Church is largely French, and there’s a shortage of French-speaking priests, let alone English ones who are as rare as hen’s teeth in my neck of the woods. So with the priest shortage, bilingual Masses (almost always by French-speaking priests who can manage English as well) do happen.

Of course, the use of Latin would solve this issue… even in the OF. Off topic but I was at an OF funeral Mass yesterday that was chanted in Latin except for the readings and homily. I’d be happy to have a sendoff like that when it’s my turn!

Latin would solve the language issue on one side (the priest) but not the other (the people)

the whole idea of a bilingual mass is having a mass that native speakers of one language can hear the mass in their own tongue, which helps them appreciate it more. saying it in Latin would defeat that purpose

 

[MarkThompson]

Latin would solve the language issue on one side (the priest) but not the other (the people)

the whole idea of a bilingual mass is having a mass that native speakers of one language can hear the mass in their own tongue, which helps them appreciate it more. saying it in Latin would defeat that purpose

In some situations, though, the Latin can work as a sort of Solomonic solution: Use Language A, and the B speakers would feel left out; use Language B, and the A speakers would feel left out; use A and B, and the Mass would be too long and unwieldy; heaven forbid you need to accommodate three or four languages . . . suddenly Latin can start to seem like a fair-for-all choice.

 

[choy]

In some situations, though, the Latin can work as a sort of Solomonic solution: Use Language A, and the B speakers would feel left out; use Language B, and the A speakers would feel left out; use A and B, and the Mass would be too long and unwieldy; heaven forbid you need to accommodate three or four languages . . . suddenly Latin can start to seem like a fair-for-all choice.

if it works for Latin, why can’t it work for English? most people understand English nowadays, as opposed to Latin. so just have all masses in English, and a greater number of people in the world would understand. English is after all the international language of commerce today.

so seems to me English is the fair-for-all choice, not Latin. simply because no one understands Latin. English is spoken and understood in most countries around the world, though the level of understanding from person-to-person varies, the resources to learn and appreciate english is easy, accessible, and cheap

 

[MarkThompson]

if it works for Latin, why can’t it work for English? most people understand English nowadays, as opposed to Latin. so just have all masses in English, and a greater number of people in the world would understand. English is after all the international language of commerce today.

so seems to me English is the fair-for-all choice, not Latin. simply because no one understands Latin. English is spoken and understood in most countries around the world, though the level of understanding from person-to-person varies, the resources to learn and appreciate english is easy, accessible, and cheap

That kind of misses the point of a “Solomonic solution.” English might not be seen as the “fair-for-all choice” in a parish in border country in Texas or Arizona, for instance. And even though at a multicultural Mass it might be true that English is the best understood language, picking it for that reason might still be redolent of Anglo-favoritism.

And by the way, this thread is about “Readings in two languages,” or what to do at multicultural Masses, not about what should be the exclusive, universal language of the Mass.

 

[OraLabora]

That kind of misses the point of a “Solomonic solution.” English might not be seen as the “fair-for-all choice” in a parish in border country in Texas or Arizona, for instance. And even though at a multicultural Mass it might be true that English is the best understood language, picking it for that reason might still be redolent of Anglo-favoritism.

And by the way, this thread is about “Readings in two languages,” or what to do at multicultural Masses, not about what should be the exclusive, universal language of the Mass.

And an English-only Mass in Quebec… it would NEVER fly. There would be a mutiny, especially since most priests are French-speaking and a fair proportion can’t even speak any English.

Latin of course, being the official language of the OF Mass and the Latin Church, would work. People could always follow the readings in their missals, and the homily could be cut down in length but read in both languages.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Years ago I was at a science conference in Freiburg, Germany. At the banquet the chief American guest gave a speech. I think he had had too much time to sample the great wines they had. He proceeded to vary between German and English and some French. The simultaneous translator gave it a good try, but after 5 minutes or so admitted," I have no idea what the gentleman is saying. Good luck if you can figure it out."

 

[benedictgal]

That kind of misses the point of a “Solomonic solution.” English might not be seen as the “fair-for-all choice” in a parish in border country in Texas or Arizona, for instance. And even though at a multicultural Mass it might be true that English is the best understood language, picking it for that reason might still be redolent of Anglo-favoritism.

And by the way, this thread is about “Readings in two languages,” or what to do at multicultural Masses, not about what should be the exclusive, universal language of the Mass.

I do not want to further derail the topic, but, I think we need to bear in mind what the Holy Father wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis:

The Latin language

1. None of the above observations should cast doubt upon the importance of such large-scale liturgies. I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (182) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers (183) of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. (184)

So, if the Holy Father is stating this, then, it should be taken to heart.

 

[choy]

That kind of misses the point of a “Solomonic solution.” English might not be seen as the “fair-for-all choice” in a parish in border country in Texas or Arizona, for instance. And even though at a multicultural Mass it might be true that English is the best understood language, picking it for that reason might still be redolent of Anglo-favoritism.

And by the way, this thread is about “Readings in two languages,” or what to do at multicultural Masses, not about what should be the exclusive, universal language of the Mass.

you brought up Latin, then its my fault that the discussion turned that way?

you were coming up with a solution to solve the problem that necessitates a bilingual mass, with readings repeated in different languages. and as i mentioned, using an unpopular language such as Latin will not solve that issue. because what they’re trying to do is bring the mass in a familiar language to people. introducing an unfamiliar language of Latin will not solve that

that is why i suggested english. its universal, its spoken everywhere and there is someone in every locale who is good with it, if teaching out english is needed. and that is if the proposed solution to a bilingual mass is using a common language for mass.

otherwise, there should just be separate masses held in each language. if you miss the language of your preference, then you’ll have to make do with the other mass. in my parish the 9am mass is english and the 11am mass is french. i don’t speak french so i wake up early sundays even though its not my preference to be out of bed that early on sundays

 

[MarkThompson]

you brought up Latin, then its my fault that the discussion turned that way?

No, I didn’t; see post #21 and 22 (you) before I first commented.

you were coming up with a solution to solve the problem that necessitates a bilingual mass, with readings repeated in different languages. and as i mentioned, using an unpopular language such as Latin will not solve that issue. because what they’re trying to do is bring the mass in a familiar language to people. introducing an unfamiliar language of Latin will not solve that

that is why i suggested english. its universal, its spoken everywhere and there is someone in every locale who is good with it, if teaching out english is needed. and that is if the proposed solution to a bilingual mass is using a common language for mass.

I can’t imagine what would make you think that non-English speakers will gladly accept having their Mass in English, but I think you’re totally off base on that one.

otherwise, there should just be separate masses held in each language. if you miss the language of your preference, then you’ll have to make do with the other mass. in my parish the 9am mass is english and the 11am mass is french. i don’t speak french so i wake up early sundays even though its not my preference to be out of bed that early on sundays

Separate Masses in multiple languages are not possible for a priest’s ordination, the Easter Vigil, the Chrism Mass, a wedding, when the Pope says Mass at a stadium, etc., etc.

 

[OraLabora]

Years ago I was at a science conference in Freiburg, Germany. At the banquet the chief American guest gave a speech. I think he had had too much time to sample the great wines they had. He proceeded to vary between German and English and some French. The simultaneous translator gave it a good try, but after 5 minutes or so admitted," I have no idea what the gentleman is saying. Good luck if you can figure it out."

I was at the World Oblate’s Congress in Rome last October which was done with simultaneous translation into several languages.

At one point a French-speaking gentleman, making a comment on the speaker’s presentation, made the innocuous comment that we “venerate the Virgin Mary”, in French. There was a loud roar from the crowd which I couldn’t figure out as I was listening directly in French (since it is my mother tongue). I didn’t hear him say anything controversial.

But later it transpired that during the simultaneous translation into English, the translator said “worship” instead of “venerate”. The English speakers almost crucified the poor French gentleman, fortunately the congress organizer gave him the opportunity to take the mike at lunch and make the correction. As it turns out the gentleman was reasonably fluent in English and certainly understood the nuance between “venerate” and “worship”, so was able to quell the controversy at lunch. Chalk one up to human error.

It was all pretty funny afterwards! But this was a conference with an opportunity to make a correction after the fact; given the pitfalls of simultaneous translation though, I would think that using it at the Mass would be risking scandal or worse, sacrilege.

 

[choy]

No, I didn’t; see post #21 and 22 (you) before I first commented.

I can’t imagine what would make you think that non-English speakers will gladly accept having their Mass in English, but I think you’re totally off base on that one.

as i mentioned, English is more universal today. if they will be resistant to an accessible language such as English, how more restistant will they be to Latin?

and my suggestion is only on the situation where we are all forced to accept one language. but the reality today is, the Mass is allowed in all languages. so my take on that, as long as each mass is in a particular language

Separate Masses in multiple languages are not possible for a priest’s ordination, the Easter Vigil, the Chrism Mass, a wedding, when the Pope says Mass at a stadium, etc., etc.

i thought the topic is only about Sunday masses in a particular parish

in cases like the Easter Vigil, then it should be said in either the official language of where the diocese is in, or in the dominant language of the parish. those who cannot understand that language either will have to look for another parish in their own language, or just attend the Easter Sunday Mass schedule in their own language, assuming the parish is already implementing masses in different language, given in our earlier scenario

 

[OraLabora]

as i mentioned, English is more universal today. if they will be resistant to an accessible language such as English, how more restistant will they be to Latin?

The use of English in some parts of the world, and this definitely applies to Quebec, has very negative political implications that could cause the Mass to become a source of scandal, which of course is a sacrilege (not that it isn’t already a cause of scandal due to liturgical abuses but that’s another topic).

There is no political baggage attached to Latin. It is an, ancient, neutral and static language.

Somehow Jewish people manage with Hebrew. Muslims universally use Arabic.

We are the Latin Church (with apologies to our Eastern brethren who have their own traditions). Latin is not a complicated language, and for most parts of the Mass would become very familiar very quickly. Missals and missalletes can provide the translation.

A bit trickier would be the readings and homily. The latter could use brevity to afford the opportunity for it to be said in two languages, or the priest can say it in his language first and have a layperson read it in the other language (this is not the same as a layperson giving the homily. Readings could be in Latin, people would read the translation in the missalette. Many do now anyway as it is often hard to hear the lector especially where the readings are chanted. Otherwise they could be in the vernacular, alternating.

I used to travel all over the world, to Europe, South America, an Asia, on business. Finding an “international” church was not always possible. I found one in Seoul where I used to go often on business. If Latin were still used in the Church regularly, I could go to any old church and be able to understand the Mass, my Latin is good enough to be able to understand a Latin Mass.

Again, if Rabbis can manage Hebrew, and imams can handle Arabic, surely our priests are intelligent enough to grasp the smattering of Latin they would need for the Mass?

 

[JMJ_coder]

as i mentioned, English is more universal today. if they will be resistant to an accessible language such as English, how more restistant will they be to Latin?

I would disagree with this. English is not the #1 language in the world today – Chinese is (without question!). After that, there is debate on the runners-up. English and Spanish vie for the #2 spot in most calculations.

 

[Digitonomy]

I would disagree with this. English is not the #1 language in the world today – Chinese is (without question!). After that, there is debate on the runners-up. English and Spanish vie for the #2 spot in most calculations.

choy did not say there are more native speakers of English than other languages. He said English is more universal.

 

[JMJ_coder]

choy did not say there are more native speakers of English than other languages. He said English is more universal.

And as I said I disagree. It seems little more than our American arrogance to think that English is the only language in the world. I’ve seen this almost to the point where some American Catholics think English is the official language of the Church. That is dead wrong. No doubt with the dominance of American business in the last century English gained wide acceptance outside of America for conducting business, but even that is starting to wane.

 

[Digitonomy]

And as I said I disagree. It seems little more than our American arrogance to think that English is the only language in the world.

That would be worse than arrogance, that would be ignorance. However, I don’t see how that’s grounds for disagreement, since neither choy nor anyone else expressed that view.

JMJ_coder:

No doubt with the dominance of American business in the last century English gained wide acceptance outside of America for conducting business, but even that is starting to wane.

American business dominance alone would be enough to make English an important language, possibly even to the point of surpassing French and Spanish (though I doubt it). What I think is slightly more responsible for the relative universality of English is past British imperialism, which has led to large populations of English-speakers on every continent, with the arguable exception of South America. Probably third down the list would be the combination of various American military adventures, occupations, and bases in Europe, Asia, and South America.

China can certainly rival, in the present and future, past American business dominance. And they can and probably will surpass our current business dominance. The legacy of American military prowess in other countries is likely to wane as countries like Japan, Korea, Panama, the Philippines, various Gulf countries, etc orient themselves less and less toward Washington, and more toward their neighbors. However, despite your claim that it’s already more universal now, I don’t see Chinese ever becoming as universal as English because of the latter’s use as a native language in so many countries across the world.

That’s for the foreseeable future, which I estimate to be a century or two. After that, who knows.

 

[JMJ_coder]

That would be worse than arrogance, that would be ignorance. However, I don’t see how that’s grounds for disagreement, since neither choy nor anyone else expressed that view.

Could just be me going on a tirade – especially seeing some of the cultural arrogance my fellow countrymen have been reported exhibiting lately in the news.

But, one last note, no matter what the secular world may think or realize, the Roman Church continues to hold that Latin is its universal language.

 

[Montalo]

We are one Church.
( for the following, because it does not pertain to the east, i will be speaking of the Latin Church only, I know the difference between the Latin Church and the East)

It is not “introducing” the latin language, it is reclaiming our heritage, and the Official Language of the Roman Church, to use Latin for our liturgies

Everything but the homily should be done in Latin( some notable exceptions, such as con-celebration with an Eastern Priest), with the homliy be spoken in the common tounge(s) of the people

 

[MarkThompson]

We are one Church.
( for the following, because it does not pertain to the east, i will be speaking of the Latin Church only, I know the difference between the Latin Church and the East)

It is not “introducing” the latin language, it is reclaiming our heritage, and the Official Language of the Roman Church, to use Latin for our liturgies

Everything but the homily should be done in Latin( some notable exceptions, such as con-celebration with an Eastern Priest), with the homliy be spoken in the common tounge(s) of the people

And all the readings should be proclaimed in Latin (ad orientem?) and not repeated in the vernacular, right?