By the way, why does the Mass have to follow the Latin Mass? It’s only 500 years old. They used different Masses the first 1500. Why can’t we use a different Mass now? Why can’t there be wording differences between English and Spanish? I understand standing by the dogma of the Church, but if the Spanish say one phrase and the English say a slightly different one, why does that matter?
You’re confusing “Latin mass” with the “Extraordinary Form of the mass.”
Before 1969, the mass was celebrated almost exclusively in Latin, according to a missal only slightly altered from its release in 1570 (the particular edition was actually released by HH John XXIII in 1962). In 1969, HH Paul VI released a new missal, in Latin, with the allowance that it could be translated into other languages. This is the missal we are now using, albeit with some changes, an English translation of it (the particular edition was released in 2002 by HH John Paul II, but is almost the same as the 1969 edition).
Pope Benedict calls the pre-1969 mass the Extraordinary Form of the mass, and the post-1969 mass the Ordinary Form of the mass. They are both completely licit to celebrate, and many priests do celebrate both Forms. It is a common misconception to call the pre-1969 mass the “Latin mass,” since the post-1969 mass can be, and is, celebrated in Latin. Their technical terms are the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form, respectively. It would be good for all Catholics to remember these terms, because they are here to stay.
The “Latin mass” is not only 500 years old. Mass has been celebrated in Latin almost exclusively for well over 1500 years. It is true that the earliest masses were celebrated in Greek, but even then, there were masses celebrated in Latin. Greek waned, and Latin took over as the (almost) exclusive language of the mass. The Extraordinary Form of the mass is 441 or so years old. The Ordinary Form of the mass is 42 or so years old. Both Forms are celebrated in Latin. In fact, the authoritative texts of both Forms, (even the OF, the “Vatican II mass”) is in Latin, from whence come all the translations.
Just wanted to clear that up. The terminology is important because it can be a bit confusing.
Wording differences are very bad, because using words is how we express things in the world. When we have the Spanish saying things one way, and the English saying them in another way, the meaning is inevitably different. If we were perfect beings, we could preserve meaning exactly from one language to another, even if the wording is different, but we are not perfect beings. Therefore, we must be as exact as possible in the translations so that we don’t end up believing different things. I can say one thing several different ways, but inevitably, the meaning is different each way I phrase it. That cannot be allowed to happen with something so vastly important as the mass.
I’ll say it again: when we start changing the way things are worded, meaning is lost. That is one of the conditions of being an imperfect human. Therefore, we must be as careful and exact as possible in translating to ensure every Catholic everywhere, as much as possible, believes the same thing.
I once read on this forum a post by someone that said that if you go to a mass in German, then one in English, you’d think that the congregations were of two different religions. That was before the new translation. Our new translation is not only in line with the Latin, but also the other translations. We can’t phrase things much differently in the various languages, otherwise we risk becoming disjointed and having different beliefs.
