I’ve been told that all of the readings must be intelligible to the congregation: not the OT reading in English, an epistle in Spanish, the Gospel in another language, etc. Duplicate translations are fine, not alternate translations, particularly when some of those readings are delivered in the decidedly minority language of the attendees.I don’t know if I’d call this a liturgical abuse.
Even though Papal Masses are read in “duplicate” translations, given hundreds of available vernaculars, there certainly aren’t enough duplications to cover everyone in the congregation, especially the young who don’t know it even in their own tongue. The point is that it’s still going to be unintelligible to some. There will also be losers on that score. The Mass isn’t a nuclear physics class where everyone is expected to have the same prerequisites in order to follow everything that is taught.I’ve been told that all of the readings must be intelligible to the congregation: not the OT reading in English, an epistle in Spanish, the Gospel in another language, etc. Duplicate translations are fine, not alternate translations, particularly when some of those readings are delivered in the decidedly minority language of the attendees.
So yes, I would call it litrugical abuse for PC reasons.
Completely non-responsive. My post had NOTHING to do with Papal Masses, which are international events.Even though Papal Masses are read in “duplicate” translations,
I see you missed the part about the bishops being allowed to determine the extent of the non-Latin in the liturgy. Hey, I don’t like it either, but est quod est.Completely non-responsive. My post had NOTHING to do with Papal Masses, which are international events.
Well …Translation wars would be an unintended consequence of having the Mass in vernacular. How many saw this in the 60’s?
"In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata."
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.
I would agree with Cardinal McIntyre. Catholicism was practically non-existent in the U.S. before the mid-19th century. (One could make a case in the U.K. as well.) When the Irish, Poles, Italians et al immigrated and assimilated into the U.S. culture, the Catholic faith grew, Mass attendance was high, religious orders flourished until …Well …
Your observation is “Worth” a lot, and it saddens me as well.FWIW, today there remains more Latin on the U.S. seals and currency (“E Pluribus Unum, Annuit Coeptis Novus Ordo Seclorum”) than there is in the Mass. Sad really.