SPLIT: Retention of Latin in the Liturgy

[Digitonomy]

But aren’t we weighing the English translations of these documents?..Just saying maybe we’re reading too much into the translation?

That’s certainly possible. My Latin knowledge is limited, and I don’t have the Latin texts bookmarked, so you’ll have to post the Latin texts if we are going to talk about that version rather than the English.

I have also been thinking about the change I noticed from the earlier to the later document. It’s true that if a point is reiterated some years later, we can usually be assured the Church feels it’s important. The flip side is that if a point is omitted, especially in a discussion of the same issue, that is usually significant. Again, I may be making a lot from a little, but we only have the documents to go by. Based on the more recent one you quoted, no one has any particular responsibility to assure that people know the Latin, but it would be quite fitting if somehow people manage to be familiar with it.

ProVobis:

You may be right that it’s not Church teaching. But then is the language of the Church a discipline or a conveyance of the teaching?

The choice of language is a discipline, the language itself is a conveyance of the teaching. Sometimes the Church’s teaching is first composed in Italian, or German, or French, or English, but I don’t attach a lot of weight to that point

ProVobis:

I submit that language has a purpose and is not a simple discipline…In the same way Ecclesiastical Latin is the language designed for Catholic worship, almost by definition.

I disagree that ecclesiastical Latin was “designed” for Catholic worship. It was adapted for Catholic worship, a few new words and phrases were coined, and it retained some features even when the vulgar Latin changed. But to call it “the” language for Catholic worship is a slap in the face to those Catholic churches which have been worshiping in Greek or Syriac or whatever else for centuries upon centuries. It is simply “a” language that the Church has chosen to use to celebrate its Roman rite liturgies.

 

[ProVobis]

But to call it “the” language for Catholic worship is a slap in the face to those Catholic churches which have been worshiping in Greek or Syriac or whatever else for centuries upon centuries.

Then I suggest you take the matter up with Pope Victor I and all the Popes since then for ensuring that the Mass remained in one language in the West. I have nothing against the Church using ancient languages for its liturgies.

 

[Digitonomy]

Then I suggest you take the matter up with Pope Victor I and all the Popes since then for ensuring that the Mass remained in one language in the West.

I don’t think I’m at odds with Pope Victor. If a pope decides to change the mass to Latin or Quechua, he’s free to do so, and I’ll follow along. However, I’m not certain that he ensured that the mass “remained in one language in the West.”

 

[pnewton]

One would think steps would have been taken immediately to implement this wish of the council in some form or other while Latin was still fresh on everyone’s mind. This wasn’t even a matter for local bishops.

I think implementing instructions on the liturgey is always a matter for local bishops. The Church has always let bishops handle liturgical matters locally.