The new translation is horrible

[PJM]

=MarianD;7172236]I’m sorry, but I’m just stating facts.

This applies only to Catholics in the United States, by the way.

I mean come on. “And with your spirit”? That makes no sense in the context we say it in. “Lord I am not worthy that you be under my roof”? Taken from the Gospels, but makes no sense in the context that it’s said in during Mass. And no more “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”? That’s a pretty important thing to say and believe.

The Mass wasn’t too conversational. People should be able to talk to God easily and in language they understand. Now it just sounds too stiff, formal, and makes no sense.

Three COMMENTS:

1. Your assuming in error that The Mass is somehow about you [us]. It’s Not. FIRST AND FOREMOST it’s about the re-presentation [making present time and time again] the Pascal Mystery and Sacrifice of Christ. Do these words sound filmiliar? “In HIM, With HIM, and through HIM, in the power of the Holy Spirit.”
2. The verbage used is to 1. Honor God 2. make US aware that that is why we meet 3. allow us to distance ourselves from the “I’s and me” preferences and place our mind, hearts and souls in the loving heart of our God.
3. There i no attempt to “be popular” here; only a desire to Worship our God.

 

[otjm]

If I may add to the discussion. I wouldn’t mind having the priest’s parts in Latin, like the consecration. Whereas people’s responses or prayers should be in the vernacular. It after all is offered up by the people, it should be something the common man can understand. Otherwise it doesn’t become a prayer, but rather a bunch of foreign words recited off a piece of paper.

Well, since we seem to be talking "druthers’, I would vote for just the opposite. To me, hearing the offertory, consecration and subsequent prayers in my own language is far more important to me than saying prayers I have known for umpteen years (Sanctus, Agnus Dei) in Latin. But that’s just me. Been on the other side of the coin; and so I really appreciate listening to the priest as he prays, and joining with him in those prayers.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So, an honest question from a non-Catholic. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church simply teach its children and young people Latin? (Sort of along the lines of the way Jews expend a great deal of energy teaching their children Hebrew.) The ancillary benefits would be enormous and such a program would probably pay for itself in eliminating angst and the re-publication of translations.

Because from the beginning the Church never used a single language. When the Apostles emerged from the room immediately after Pentecost, they were heard in many languages. There was no decree from Jesus to evanglize only in one language. Even Jesus pressumably spoke in at least 2 languages while preaching, depending on the area where he is in. Some would even claim that Jesus spoke Latin in addition to Aramaic ang Greek.

Also, the entire Catholic Church is more than just the Roman Catholic Church. While the RC dominates the population of the Church, there are 22 other sui juris Churches within the Catholic Church, with their own minor traditions and their own languages. The Church in the 1st century spoke mostly Greek and Aramaic.

There really is plenty of arguments both for and against a unified language. But the Church as a whole never used exclusively one language from the beginning.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, since we seem to be talking "druthers’, I would vote for just the opposite. To me, hearing the offertory, consecration and subsequent prayers in my own language is far more important to me than saying prayers I have known for umpteen years (Sanctus, Agnus Dei) in Latin. But that’s just me. Been on the other side of the coin; and so I really appreciate listening to the priest as he prays, and joining with him in those prayers.

That is why I said the common man. Many well educated and well Catechized people will have no problems understanding and appreciating the prayers in Latin. But that doesn’t benefit the majority.

 

[otjm]

So, an honest question from a non-Catholic. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church simply teach its children and young people Latin? (Sort of along the lines of the way Jews expend a great deal of energy teaching their children Hebrew.) The ancillary benefits would be enormous and such a program would probably pay for itself in eliminating angst and the re-publication of translations.

Well, let’s define what we mean by “learning Latin”.

As a child in grade school I “learned Latin”. However, I did not Know latin; I simply learned to parrot phrases ("ad jooventootemmaum - the phonetic - rolled off the tongue with a net little cadence). Did I know what it meant? Well, sort of, because my parents made sure that when we could read - somewhere around 3rd grade - we had missals and they made sure we were using them. But I sure as all get out did not know Latin.

I got into high school, and was taught to translate Latin. That, I can absolutely guarantee, is nto the same as being able to speak Latin - I learned that the really hard way when I transferred high schools and the second one was teaching Latin as a spoken language. Note - at the time, that was not the normal method of teaching Latin. The teacher would ask a question in Latin; by the time I translated it into English, figured out the answer and translated that back into Latin, I was at least three to four questions behind the class.

I bailed. However, I then started taking Homeric Greek - we learned it as a translated language - and I did fine; in fact, I was one of the better students at it.
Then in college, we took Latin again; again as a translated language. I did somewhere between ok and fine; a couple of my classmates (from the second high school) were struggling a bit as they had been taught it as a spoken language and had not had as much exposure, it appeared.

So, why doesn’t’ the Church teach Latin? well, it might, if there were anywhere to teach it. Schools could (and there has, to a minor degree, been a small resergence in teaching Latin), and it might even teach it as a spoken language. However, the level of Latin in the Mass is somewhat above the level of Latin that a high school student would take (ask anyone who took Spanish in high school, and then took it in college - major change, significant step up). And it would have to compete with parents, and students, desire to take a different foreign language. Further, there are plenty of students who would never reach any level of competency. So you would effectively have a few elites who knew it, and a lot who didn’t.

And that doesn’t even begin to address the number of students who go to public schools…

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Because from the beginning the Church never used a single language. When the Apostles emerged from the room immediately after Pentecost, they were heard in many languages. There was no decree from Jesus to evanglize only in one language. Even Jesus pressumably spoke in at least 2 languages while preaching, depending on the area where he is in. Some would even claim that Jesus spoke Latin in addition to Aramaic ang Greek.

Also, the entire Catholic Church is more than just the Roman Catholic Church. While the RC dominates the population of the Church, there are 22 other sui juris Churches within the Catholic Church, with their own minor traditions and their own languages. The Church in the 1st century spoke mostly Greek and Aramaic.

There really is plenty of arguments both for and against a unified language. But the Church as a whole never used exclusively one language from the beginning.

OK–how about just the Roman Catholic Church then? Don’t (for example) Chaldean Rite Catholics use Syriac in their liturgy? But their everyday language would be Arabic or some derived form of Aramaic? Honestly, just curious.

 

[ConstantineTG]

OK–how about just the Roman Catholic Church then? Don’t (for example) Chaldean Rite Catholics use Syriac in their liturgy? But their everyday language would be Arabic or some derived form of Aramaic? Honestly, just curious.

I believe they use Neo Aramaic which is a modern version of Aramaic. A Chaldean priest told me so, but I am unsure if they use the same language everywhere Chaldeans are.

Also notice the difference in territories of the Roman Church and the Eastern Churches. Most Eastern Churches are present in their traditional territories plus where immigrants from the traditional territory has gone to. Roman Catholicism everywere, in countries who’s languages didn’t develop from Latin, like Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Philippines, Africa, etc.

 

[jmcrae]

So, an honest question from a non-Catholic. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church simply teach its children and young people Latin? (Sort of along the lines of the way Jews expend a great deal of energy teaching their children Hebrew.) The ancillary benefits would be enormous and such a program would probably pay for itself in eliminating angst and the re-publication of translations.

We used to do that. At one time, to be literate, meant to be fluent in Latin and to be able to read and write in Latin, as well as in one’s own native tongue. But the “illiterate” could only read and write in their own tongue.

If we were to time-travel back to the Middle Ages, the vast majority of people today who consider themselves “literate” would be put to work on the farms, because of their lack of ability to read and write in Latin. It was taken for granted that of course you would read and write in your own language - your mother taught you that, at home. School was where you learned Latin and Greek.

 

[SimonDodd]

So, an honest question from a non-Catholic. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church simply teach its children and young people Latin? (Sort of along the lines of the way Jews expend a great deal of energy teaching their children Hebrew.) The ancillary benefits would be enormous and such a program would probably pay for itself in eliminating angst and the re-publication of translations.

Actually, she does teach that they should be taught it. See Veterum Sapienta (John XXIII, 1962); Studia Latinitatis (Paul VI, 1964). Many Catholic schools offer latin as at least an elective. The difficulty is that children are apt to utilitarianism, and when they are constantly beaten down with the lie that latin is a dead language, it’s small wonder that they don’t see the benefit in learning it. Latin is far from a dead language; it is our bridge to the accumulated knowledge of our civilization, much of which was originally written in that language. Without a working knowledge of latin, one is at the mercy of translators.

 

[SimonDodd]

That is why I said the common man. Many well educated and well Catechized people will have no problems understanding and appreciating the prayers in Latin. But that doesn’t benefit the majority.

In a word: Lowest-common-denominator-ism. If people don’t understand, they can learn. There is an awful lot that I didn’t know about Catholicism two years ago, but I wanted to learn it, and I would say that I now have a working knowledge of the faith. Yes, it was difficult. Yes, in hindsight, being more patient and being more willing to learn it in three years rather than two would have saved some sleepless nights and frustration. But it can be done. Catholicism is a rich, inexhaustible, and a little addictive, frankly; I think that if you challenge people, you will find that they are hungry for more. (Those who aren’t can continue to write their usual flaccid drivel in the National Catholic Dissenter.) By contrast, if you expect little of people, they will usually deliver it.

 

[jmcrae]

Catholicism is a rich, inexhaustible, and a little addictive, frankly; I think that if you challenge people, you will find that they are hungry for more. (Those who aren’t can continue to write their usual flaccid drivel in the National Catholic Dissenter.) By contrast, if you expect little of people, they will usually deliver it.

May I quote this? It’s brilliant.

 

[SimonDodd]

Jim, don’t quote Sacrosanctum Concilium at me—I know very well what it says. And if you really must, at least READ it first.

Keep reading it until comprehension is achieved. You’ll know that you’ve arrived when you stop citing it for propositions it explicitly repudiates.

you an the Bishops don’t agree, otherwise we’d be hearing the Mass in Latin only. Such is not the case because the Bishops have an understanding of what is needed for the people to participate more fully in the Mass. I leave their actions regarding the liturgy to speak for itself on who understands the document better or not.

Interesting: cite for us, if you would, an episcopal pronouncement that the Mass is to be celebrated wholly in the vernacular. I will not hold my breath. And in the meantime, note that not only does Vatican II repudiate your position, so does the Holy See: Liturgiam Authenticam notes that it is always licit to celebrate Mass in latin (LA13). So those bishops—John Paul II, the bishops of the CDW, and the council fathers—don’t share your view that the vernacular is necessary “for the people to participate more fully in the Mass.”

Isn’t it interesting how the Council is the paramount authority for the modern liberal, yet when confronted by what the council actually said, they are forced to hide behind Paul VI’s cappa magna, turning for all the world into quasi-ultramontanists?

Your response is absolutely typical of a certain kind of viewpoint on V2: you take a general statement from one of the documents, abstract from it, and them eliminate the original text in favor of the abstracted “spirit.” Instead of parsing the meaning of “full active participation” (SC41) in the hope of straining from it an “intent” vis-à-vis latin, why don’t you instead read what the document itself says? “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (SC36.)

Quite the opposite. However, parsing out the statement that Latin should be perserved is what those who advocated for Latin do.

Quite the opposite"? What is quite the opposite of what? Is there a point here?

Got that? The council taught that the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

In the general sense that is true, and Latin has been preserved in Mass where the Pope celebrates it before international groups who speak all different languages. It however, does not mandate that Latin remain at all Masses throughout the Catholic world in the Latin Rite.

“Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” Got it yet? Re-read until you don’t feel the need to find specious ways to parse what is explicitly clear on the face of the text.

As I pointed out to you in the doctument, it allowed for experiments to be made in the adaptations to the Mass. As it turned out, the Bishops saw that the vernacular was bringing a greater participation of the people in the Mass than Latin, and so it came to be, that Latin is all but excluded in most dioceses of the USA and Canada. I’m sure it s the same in most of Europe and Asia as well.

Participation in the church has collapsed since the vernacular Mass. Now, I’m not going to say (as some do) that the correlation is causation. We can’t say that the vernacular caused the decline. But we can say that the decline precludes your claimthat “the vernacular … [brought] a greater participation of the people in the Mass” in the same time period. In a word: Poppycock.

 

[Chatter163]

The original statement was made,

Quote:
Although I think that most if not all of the regular parts the New Mass (i.e., not necessarily the propers) really ought to be said in Latin,
Quote:

Jim

If you cannot tell the difference between the above statement and claiming that God only hears prayers in Latin, then you have no business posting here.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

That is scarcely a solution to providing a vernacular translation of the Mass. Some people have a learning curve to understanding, so we make it more difficult to understand? That doesn’t seem logical.

People became less intelligent past the 1960s?

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Really, what does a person with a learning disability, much less one who doesn’t have access to Fr Z’s blog do?
Jim

You really don’t like the Latin Mass do you? Don’t you feel a bit guilty about criticizing a rite that has existed for hundreds of years, and that has been developed and built upon over time? I mean come on, we’re talking about a rite of the Mass, we are not talking the color of the paint on the church walls. Show some respect.

 

[japhy]

A few general comments.

About comprehension of the Mass: Pope Pius XII wrote the following in his encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei: “Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men’s talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.”

This might seem “backward” to you, but take a moment to re-read it. Don’t you see what a liberal approach to liturgical participation it is? It is not necessary for the liturgy to be in some sort of lowest common denominator.

Latin in the liturgy: Whoever mentioned that Vatican II mentioned “full, conscious, and active participation” and that the faithful should be able to make the responses in Latin, thank you. I agree with you 100%. The Council Fathers did not consider a Latin ordinary (the unchanging parts) to be opposed to the participation of the faithful.

About Latin vs. the vernacular: It is a fallacy to assume that the faithful understand the prayers of the Mass simply because the words are in the vernacular. The “one in being with the Father” line of the Creed is a good example of that. The vernacular texts can be just as rotely memorized and unpassionately murmured as any Latin. Is a Latin text read from a page any better than a vernacular text read from a page, or recited from memory, if the person doesn’t pray the words, but merely says them?

 

[Damase]

A few general comments…

Thank you. I found your analysis to be spot-on. I’ve actually saved it for future reference.

 

[otjm]

Participation in the church has collapsed since the vernacular Mass…Now, I’m not going to say (as some do) that the correlation is causation. We can’t say that the vernacular caused the decline. But we can say that the decline precludes your claimthat “the vernacular … [brought] a greater participation of the people in the Mass” in the same time period. In a word: Poppycock.

there is a difference between the two following remarks:

1. The vernacular brought a greater participation of the people in the Mass
2. The vernacular brought a participation of a greater (number) of people in the Mass.

I don’t think he said that more people are participating in Mass since the vernacular was introduce; I think he was saying that the people who go to Mass participate more.

Having grown up at a time where having a missal was an optional matter, which very few of my classmates parents provided them (and the parents likewise did not have one), and having seen far, far too many people saying their Rosaries during the Mass or reading from a devotional book, I would agree with him.

 

[otjm]

People became less intelligent past the 1960s?

Well, it might be said that they had less common sense after the 60’s. But people in the 1950’s didn’t know all that much Latin.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

…Latin is far from a dead language; it is our bridge to the accumulated knowledge of our civilization, much of which was originally written in that language. Without a working knowledge of [L]atin, one is at the mercy of translators.

I couldn’t agree more. And the amount of great material that’s never even been translated from Latin into any language (much less English) is phenomenal.

I had a professor who once told the our class to “throw your English Bible in the trash.” Although he was exercising a bit of hyperbole, I got the message–learn the languages yourself and you’ll start answering some of your own questions.