The Extraordinary Form and Latin

[malphono]

Your “understanding” of the language starts with being exposed to it and being able to recognize it. You’re certainly not going to “understand” it by choosing the easy path of sticking only to your own vernacular.

Very well said. I have to add that it’s really a shame how few people actually get that point.

I am planning to attend a Maronite Mass and it better not be in the vernacular.

Remember what I told you a while back in another post in another thread.

 

[ProVobis]

Remember what I told you a while back in another post in another thread.

I still have the list of Syriac Masses. Thanks.

The one I’m thinking of is across town but a good time so I can do both the EF and the Maronite same day.

 

[choy]

As noted elsewhere, V-II did not allow for a fully vernacular liturgy.

As far as the application of norms from the OF, Ecclesia Dei seems to be consistent in ruling against such impositions. As such I don’t know if there is anything that *allows *it to be translated.

Furthermore, I think Summorum Pontificum might prove a barrier, as it specifically allows for only the readings to be translated.

Of course, one could write to the Ecclesia Dei Commission (c/o CDF) to ask for an authoritative answer.

yeah i know. there’s nothing that says it SHOULD or CAN, but on the other hand, i also can’t find anything that says it SHOULDN’T or CANNOT be translated

i’m just curious if the possibility is there

 

[Lycorth]

I believe Quo Primum is often cited for this reason:

From Quo Primum, emphasis mine:

*"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other Churches, **and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. ***This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world."

Note that it doesn’t say anything specific about the Latin language itself, but it’s reasonable to infer that on account of the facts that Latin was the official liturgical language of the Church at that time and that, to the best of my knowledge, Masses were not said in vernacular languages back then, that the above language means that the Mass must be in Latin only, since that was how the Missal was published.

Of course, Pius V altered the liturgy after the Battle of Lepanto, and it seems clear that the bull forbids any authority aside from future popes to alter the liturgy, so of course changes could be made, and were.

 

[CDNowak]

yeah i know. there’s nothing that says it SHOULD or CAN, but on the other hand, i also can’t find anything that says it SHOULDN’T or CANNOT be translated

i’m just curious if the possibility is there

That is a question only the EDC can answer. The exceptional permissions given prior to the Council cannot be automatically extended, nor did the Council itself give unqualified permission. So *unless *the EDC says post-conciliar permissions apply to the EF, it MUST remain in Latin until a new revision of the EF with permission for the vernacular is put forth.

 

[ProVobis]

Furthermore, I think Summorum Pontificum might prove a barrier, as it specifically allows for only the readings to be translated.

It may be more than the S.P. Here is what Cardinal Arinze says on the matter: (from the Vatican website)

"…The Latin liturgy expresses not only facts but also our feelings, our sentiments, for example, in front of God’s transcendence, majesty, mercy and boundless love (cf. Liturgiam Authenticam, n. 25). Expressions like “Te igitur, clementissime Pater”, “Supplices te rogamus”, “Propitius esto”, “veneremur cernui”, “Omnipotens et misericors Dominus”, “nos servi tui”, **should not be deflated and democratized by some translating iconoclast. **

“Some of these Latin expressions are difficult to translate…”

 

[JReducation]

If I’m understanding the question correctly, it’s asking if there is a law that forbids a translation. There are many statements by different prelates and there is SP. But none of them are laws. The laws that govern the liturgy come from either the Congregation on Divine Worship or Canon Law.

Maybe someone has seen something from either of those sources. I have not seen anything one way or another. I have seen what everyone here has posted, who said this and who said that.

There is legal procedure for these things. There may be such a law out there. As I said, I have never seen it. I’d be curious to know if there is or not.

That being said, I don’t imagine that anyone would want to translate it, since the Latin is part of its appeal.

As far as comprehending the language, I can understand what the Patriarch is saying. Understanding the words is not the same as comprehending the language. Even those of us who are fluent in Latin and use it on a daily basis do not always comprehend the language.

We have the OF in Latin. Many Franciscans use it for the conventual mass. We know exactly what we’re saying. The lay people who come know the words and can probably translate them. There are booklets with the English on one side and Latin on the other. But comprehension of the theology behind each word is a whole other story.

For that matter, even in the vernacular, many people do not understand the theology behind the words. I’m just thinking of one simple example, the new OF translation will say “consubstantial with the Father.” But it raises the question, how many people can define consubstantiality. Most people can paraphrase it and say “of the same suubstance” or “of the same divine nature” or “of the same matter”. But the full implication of that term “consusbstantial” is much deeper than that.

My point is that I’m not sure that translating is always going to yield full comprehension. There has to be a profound and long catechesis that goes with that. In my opinion, translating will only tell you what it says in your language, but not what it means at all of its levels.

That’s another good reason for not translating it. It won’t achieve the desired effect. We translated the Ordinary Form and people still do not understand the meaning of the words in most of the prayers. Language has to go hand in hand with catechesis.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Your “understanding” of the language starts with being exposed to it and being able to recognize it. You’re certainly not going to “understand” it by choosing the easy path of sticking only to your own vernacular. I am planning to attend a Maronite Mass and it better not be in the vernacular.

The statement did not say when and where this was to happen. It was part of a more expansive discussion on the Maronite Church. I do know that he said it was for the United States. But what part of the USA and when, I have no idea. Fr. Mitch was trying to get to that, but the convesation went in another direction.

I realize that this has nothing to do with translating the EF. I just brought it up because it’s the same question. Is there a law that says that this cannot be done or is it not done because of custom?

I for one thought that the Oriental Churches has laws that bound them to use the ancient languages, apparently that’s not the case. That raises the question, is there such a law for any of the Churches?

I wish I knew the answer. The laws that govern the liturgy are not in my domain of concentration. My area of theology deals with the mystical theology in the liturgy, not the rubrics. That’s another area of study and the two groups of theologians do not talk to each other. We’re not angry at each other, that’s not what I mean. It’s just that each group works independently on the liturgy. The liturgists work on law. The A & M Theologians focus on the spiritual and ascetical dimensions of liturgy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

The statement did not say when and where this was to happen. It was part of a more expansive discussion on the Maronite Church. I do know that he said it was for the United States. But what part of the USA and when, I have no idea. Fr. Mitch was trying to get to that, but the convesation went in another direction.

That whole matter is one of several good examples of the on-going wave of the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization which threatens to smother the Maronite Church. As I said earlier, though, those principles are not universally well received, even by the Synod.

I for one thought that the Oriental Churches has laws that bound them to use the ancient languages, apparently that’s not the case. That raises the question, is there such a law for any of the Churches?

What “binds” any Church in this is less a matter of law than it is a matter of (T)(t)radition, and one can see that more clearly from OO (and some EO) practices. That said, there are several ECCs and EOCs which have all but totally abandoned their linguistic patrimony in favor of the local vernacular. Personally I find this very sad.

 

[thistle]

yeah i know. there’s nothing that says it SHOULD or CAN, but on the other hand, i also can’t find anything that says it SHOULDN’T or CANNOT be translated

i’m just curious if the possibility is there

When the document states what should be done then by default anything else cannot be done otherwise any document would be miles long.

This is the same argument about the GIRM which governs the Mass. It states what is done and by default anything else cannot be done.

Why are people always looking for loopholes by saying if something is not specifically excluded then that means it can be done.

 

[ProVobis]

how many people can define consubstantiality. Most people can paraphrase it and say “of the same suubstance” or “of the same divine nature” or “of the same matter”. But the full implication of that term “consusbstantial” is** much deeper **than that.

I’ll agree here.

consubstantialem:

con- “with” or however you wish to interpret it
sub- “under” or however you wish to understand it
stans,stantis past participle of stare, “to stand” or however you wish to understand it

• ending which is in the accusative case, object of credo in.

Still leaves a certain level of mystery about it, but it’s the truth.