I would think that it would be a bit difficult to “go kick the enemy’s behind” when the Christians themselves in the Roman empire were mercilessly persecuted. Remember that? The first 300 years?
This is half true. Orthodox liturgies in those countries use Slavonic, Koine Greek, etc. However, there are liturgies across the world that are said in the language of that particular area (English, Spanish, German, Polish, Romanian, Japanese, etc.). I once read that there was a movement before the Soviet takeover to translate the Russian Slavonic books into modern Russian, but the political climate put a stop to it.Second, you are correct about the locality of Latin, in the Roman Empire and abroad. However, there is a slight misunderstanding about “vernacular” in Churches, East and West. The East doesn’t actually use “vernacular”. Old Church Slavonic, Koine Greek, and Syriac (despite the name!) are not “vernacular” tongues!
No one’s saying we can never have a Mass in Latin ever again. All they want is the option to have it said in the local language.
Those of us who attend/assist at the Roman Rite (or Dominican Rite) are the ones who have a particular interest in the subject. And some of us believe that the Old Mass should be kept in Latin, and it probably will be. I don’t see any indication that the Old Mass is going to be said in the vernacular on any regular basis, so it’s not really an issue. That being said, if I had a choice between only attending an Old Mass (EF) in English, or the New Mass (OF) in Latin, I would chose the former, even though it’s not something I would like or care for. I don’t think it will ever come to that, though. The Old Mass has been preserved in Latin, and will more than likely remain that way. Thank goodness.
But that’s just it. We’re trying to show that in a different language, we’re dealing with a different commodity. The 1962 Missal in Latin is a known commodity. In the 60’s its translations into English did inspire some interest until the novelty wore off. While the OF was promulgated in Latin, it never really became a known commodity as such, so there really is no real option to have it in Latin. I’m sure OraLabora and others will disagree but if one wants the Latin and the mystery surrounding it, he’ll just have to seek the EF. All my opinion, of course.
I don’t think Fr. Z is arguing that point. It turns out that both “actuosa” and “activa” translate into the same English word but there has to be a reason one was used and not the other. It only becomes (more) ambiguous in the translation.
When they realize Latin helps them improve their SAT (and Jeopardy
) scores, among other things, they may make better efforts to learn some of it.The enemy is Satan, not the persecuting Romans except as an allegory
I am reminded about the Monty Python “Latin Lesson” (Romanes Eunt Domus)I can understand this.
I haven’t heard this argument before, but it makes sense. Thanks.I can understand this.
In Spanish,for example, I will be choosing two obsolete words: actouso and agucioso.
Both are " active " and diligent but agucioso would imply a sort of anxiety and " too" quick to do something.
That is probably why actouso was chosen. It is more precise.
How does that sound,Pro Vobis?
You might remember that there are some 22 or 23 Eastern rites that are in union with Rome, and have the Divine Mysteries/Divine Liturgies in native languages. For 2000 years.
This was true during the Council of Trent; and, according to Session 22 documents, “nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the [vulgare] vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained;”
This thread is about the TLM, right? Are those 22 or 23 Eastern rites referred to as the TLM? Somehow I think not.
Your comment:
You do realize some of the Eastern Catholic rites are identical to those of the Eastern Orthodox? Those that decided to stay in union with the Bishop of Rome merely retained their liturgy as it had been handed down, something I wish the Western Church could say.
Yes - I realize that.
Never read this before. Pope John XXIII, the Pope who called Vatican II, wanted Latin to be upheld. He even made it a decree and command:
So how did we come to a point where the vernacular is the default, and Pope Benedict XVI had to issue Summorum Pontificum to make the Latin more accessible?
Well, for starts, we are now on our 5th Pope since the document was written, and none of them, including Benedict 16, has seen fit to, if you will, “enforce” it. Whether it is still a viable document or not I will leave to others.
Two things that I can think of: (1) The Apostolic Constitution was only translated into English and Spanish and done at a later time, leaving most Catholics and educators in the dark regarding it; (2) the heavy influence and lobbying efforts of the ICEL into pushing their own translations into the Mass.