S
ServusHumilis
Guest
Not yet. I know of a Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral near me that I’ll surely check out one day.
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
Ours is about 100 miles south of me, but there is both a Ruthenian rite and a Maronite rite in Portland. I have been to both several times.
S
ServusHumilis
Guest
Apparently there are four Eastern Catholic Churches (including the Cathedral) within driving distance of me and I believe them all to be in the Byzantine Rite.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I would disagree somewhat to your reference to B16. Among other things his resignation was drawn up in Latin, perhaps intentionally done to expose the lack of Latin knowledge in the Vatican since it took a female journalist outside the Vatican to report the event. (He also started the Latin twitter account, which is surprisingly growing.) But anyone who thinks Italian or some other language is good enough to communicate to the world the Church’s doctrines, moral code, scientific insights, etc. I think is deceiving himself. Newton, Galileo, Kepler, among others, and most Popes wrote their works in Latin for specific reasons. Intended immortality of the work was probably one of them. A 750AD Missal would be more recognizable to one attending the Latin Mass today than one who attends it in vernacular. The Campion Missal incidentally has various illustrations of some of the pages of the older missals, if you don’t believe me.
O
otjm
Guest
Your comments really have nothing to do with the discussion I was in with another poster, as he was asking why John23rd’s requirement for Latin in seminaries. My observation stands.
P
ProVobis
Guest
For the record, Latin as a requirement for priestly formation, or however you want to word it, is in Canon Law. If this isn’t enforced universally, I wouldn’t put it on any Pope.
C
Cassianus
Guest
I’ve heard the arguments. But if “all Rites have an official language”, why is it that the eastern churches; the Chalcedonian & non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches have always celebrated their Liturgy in the vernacular? Greek was the “original language” of the Liturgy as far as we know & it’s the Original language of the New Testament & the then International Language, spoken by the masses in the Mediterranean world. Yet, the greeks, who evangelized & converted the whole of Eastern Europe, Russia, Georgia etc, always saw it as one of the first & most important things to do to translate the scriptures & the liturgy to the language of the people.
The Copts had their own language - an amalgam of Greek & pharaonic, but when Arabic became the predominant spoken language, it also became the liturgical language & language of prayers. The same is true for most eastern churches but because they’ve always worked this way, they don’t feel it’s radically modern to celebrate the liturgy in the language predominantly spoken in the specific area in which God has chosen to place them for this life.
For instance, the eastern Goths were all evangelized from out of the Greek church by an Arian bishop called Wulfila who translated the Holy Scriptures into the gothic language & this translation is left for us today.
Sure, the Greeks always felt the Greek language held a prime position because it was the language of the New Testament, the Apostles & their disciples & 1st Christians of the Mediterranean world, but it was not as important as the salvation of souls. After all, language is just a man made tool to convey abstractions, notions & meanings.
“It’s the sun & not the finger pointing towards the sun” as the saying goes.
The argument that Latin protects against heresy I find flawed. What if I define a sentence in Latin differently from others? The Church can just define what the Church means by this & that word &/or sentence & whoever happens to disagree with that should either accept that they hold a heretical faith according to Catholicism or change their mind.
Using Latin probably made sense in Gaul, Hispania, Latin sphere of influence in North Africa, Italy etc. But it makes no sense to me to use Latin in the Germanic speaking parts of Europe, much less in the African, Semitic or Asian parts of the world.
The Copts had their own language - an amalgam of Greek & pharaonic, but when Arabic became the predominant spoken language, it also became the liturgical language & language of prayers. The same is true for most eastern churches but because they’ve always worked this way, they don’t feel it’s radically modern to celebrate the liturgy in the language predominantly spoken in the specific area in which God has chosen to place them for this life.
For instance, the eastern Goths were all evangelized from out of the Greek church by an Arian bishop called Wulfila who translated the Holy Scriptures into the gothic language & this translation is left for us today.
Sure, the Greeks always felt the Greek language held a prime position because it was the language of the New Testament, the Apostles & their disciples & 1st Christians of the Mediterranean world, but it was not as important as the salvation of souls. After all, language is just a man made tool to convey abstractions, notions & meanings.
“It’s the sun & not the finger pointing towards the sun” as the saying goes.
The argument that Latin protects against heresy I find flawed. What if I define a sentence in Latin differently from others? The Church can just define what the Church means by this & that word &/or sentence & whoever happens to disagree with that should either accept that they hold a heretical faith according to Catholicism or change their mind.
Using Latin probably made sense in Gaul, Hispania, Latin sphere of influence in North Africa, Italy etc. But it makes no sense to me to use Latin in the Germanic speaking parts of Europe, much less in the African, Semitic or Asian parts of the world.
J
jerome_ky
Guest
“Defining a sentence” may have some interpretation involved, but the original language stays the same, whereas you can have different translations of the Latin. Who determines the most “authentic” translation in every language of the globe? The value in a central authority with a core language is to ensure continuity, authority and all the things we value as Catholics. It’s true there must be translations if we’re to preach the Gospel to all nations, but as the Church takes root, it brings the locals into conformity with the centralized authority. That’s what we want, that’s how we are all changed into Christ. We want to change into Christ, not change Christ to be us.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Heresy is but an extreme example of corruption in the meaning. Most translations are at least subtle changes in the theology, whether intentional or not. Ironically enough, these changes, as I’ve noted elsewhere, are probably more noticeable when the change is made in the Latin. For example, if I were to add the word “sit” to “Dominus vobiscum” this would be completely transparent in the English “The Lord be with you,” but it would affect some other languages where the Lord IS with you. BTW, neither BE or IS is totally accurate, but we’re stuck with BE forever, just as we are with “Lift up your hearts” where neither “lift” nor “your” is/are in the Latin.
O
otjm
Guest
In reading a few of the last posts, I am not sure exactly what people are discussing; the OP questioned whether or not the EF could be said in the vernacular, or something else.
It is a simple fact that there are precious few people who are fluent in Latin - either as being able to translate written Latin rapidly, or being able to speak it conversationally.
That leaves those who may wish to attend the EF, unless they are thoroughly trained in Latin, to rely on a translation in a missal - which is the vernacular of the Latin.
And given that a larger portion of the Mass in the EF is said quietly, to the point that most could not hear it unless the priest had a microphone on, having the EF in the vernacular as opposed to being said in Latin may be simply an esoteric question.
Could it be said in the vernacular? There are those who may insist that it would not longer be the EF, but the prayers and the rubrics would be the same, and that gets down to opinion unless and until someone with authority (hint: Rome) defines it. Not that everyone would agree with the definition, if history is any lesson.
There is no reason to presume that Latin will not be the language of the Roman rite. IMHO, the EF will continue to be said in Latin, and those wishing to attend will likely find missals with translations, whether into English, German, Arabic, Chinese or other main language. And given the very real practical aspect of providing missals in languages which have a very small population, it is likely the OF will be said in their language simply because of 2 issues: 1) there often is a cultural issue about westernization, and 2) simple costs coupled with likelihood that the populace largely may not have the resources to purchase missals.
It is a simple fact that there are precious few people who are fluent in Latin - either as being able to translate written Latin rapidly, or being able to speak it conversationally.
That leaves those who may wish to attend the EF, unless they are thoroughly trained in Latin, to rely on a translation in a missal - which is the vernacular of the Latin.
And given that a larger portion of the Mass in the EF is said quietly, to the point that most could not hear it unless the priest had a microphone on, having the EF in the vernacular as opposed to being said in Latin may be simply an esoteric question.
Could it be said in the vernacular? There are those who may insist that it would not longer be the EF, but the prayers and the rubrics would be the same, and that gets down to opinion unless and until someone with authority (hint: Rome) defines it. Not that everyone would agree with the definition, if history is any lesson.
There is no reason to presume that Latin will not be the language of the Roman rite. IMHO, the EF will continue to be said in Latin, and those wishing to attend will likely find missals with translations, whether into English, German, Arabic, Chinese or other main language. And given the very real practical aspect of providing missals in languages which have a very small population, it is likely the OF will be said in their language simply because of 2 issues: 1) there often is a cultural issue about westernization, and 2) simple costs coupled with likelihood that the populace largely may not have the resources to purchase missals.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Thoroughly trained? Would you call learning 600 some unique Latin words in the ordinary of the EF (including the Leonine Prayers) being thoroughly trained in Latin? I wouldn’t.
But you’re right in saying a translation because they hasn’t been any official translation of the EF. And after all the translation wars we’ve had in the last 40 years or so plus the fact that most of it is said silently (as you correctly point out), I don’t see any investment on the part of the Vatican to create an official translation of the EF.
I have no arguments against the other points you brought up.
O
otjm
Guest
No, I wouldn’t either.
I guess it depends on what you consider an official translation.
The missal I had ad a child, I suspect (since I don’t have it now), went through the normal approval channels. NBo idea who translated it, but there did not seem to be any suspicion that it was reasonably “accurate”. I use the words in quotes, because we both know that translation is part art, since there are not too many languages which can be translated into another language word-for-word, as each language has a tendency, partially culturally driven, for phrases and word use that simply does not carry over.
We could probably spend at least an entire thread discussing the meaning of the term “accuracy”, but I have no interest going there. Others may wish to, and I would be happy to
.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
The Eastern liturgies began in the vernacular, but many of those languages eventually morphed or dropped out of common use so that they became sacred/liturgical languages much like Latin. Wikipedia lists the following:
These include:
Ecclesiastical Latin in the Latin liturgical rites of the Catholic Church (N.B. While Latin is the official language of all formal works of the church, it has largely been replaced by the vernacular in liturgical use since 1964.)
Koine Greek in the Greek Orthodox Church and Greek Catholic Church
Church Slavonic in several of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches and sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches
Old Georgian in the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Georgian Catholic Church
Classical Armenian in the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Armenian Catholic Church
Ge’ez in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Catholic Church and Eritrean Orthodox Church
Coptic in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and Coptic Catholic Church
Syriac in Syriac Christianity represented by the Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church, Syrian Catholic Church, Syrian Orthodox Church, Maronite Church and Saint Thomas Christian Churches
Many churches have either lessened or dropped their use of these sacred languages, sometimes on roughly the same very-modern timetable as the Roman Rite. But even in those where this shift began a few hundred years ago there are still centuries during the medieval/early modern periods when the Eastern Churches worshiped in non-vernacular languages. This continues to the present, IIRC, in most of the Russian Orthodox church, where the patriarchs have been rather insistent upon retaining Slavonic even though most young Russians don’t understand it.
This is neither an argument for nor against vernacular liturgy; just an observation that things are more complex than the notion of 2000 years of vernacular worship.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I have not read the many comments on the thread, but I would think Latin became the official language of the Roman Church for the same reason it remains the official language today. A major consideration is that a translation too often results in mistranslation or misinterpretation. With the many languages in the vernacular in use in the Church today, it would seem only reasonable that one, and only one, language remain the official language of the Church.
Beyond that, I know that a literal translation from Latin to English is often awkward. Rendering a sentence of Latin into standard English can easily result in it reading quite differently than its intended meaning in Latin. For instance, consider Canon Law. The only official version of Canon Law is the authorized Latin text. A mistranslation or misinterpretation of it could have major consequences. Consider further that the unauthorized English translation of Canon Law is used during official legal hearings by Canon lawyers in the U.S. that likely have only an elementary understanding of Latin. I learned that this is the case from a Canon Lawyer. It is pretty obvious that a problem could result when Canon Lawyers are unable to adequately read the official Latin text of the law they are applying in a legal proceeding. It is the equivalent of a lawyer in the U.S. practicing law while not understanding English very well.
Beyond that, I know that a literal translation from Latin to English is often awkward. Rendering a sentence of Latin into standard English can easily result in it reading quite differently than its intended meaning in Latin. For instance, consider Canon Law. The only official version of Canon Law is the authorized Latin text. A mistranslation or misinterpretation of it could have major consequences. Consider further that the unauthorized English translation of Canon Law is used during official legal hearings by Canon lawyers in the U.S. that likely have only an elementary understanding of Latin. I learned that this is the case from a Canon Lawyer. It is pretty obvious that a problem could result when Canon Lawyers are unable to adequately read the official Latin text of the law they are applying in a legal proceeding. It is the equivalent of a lawyer in the U.S. practicing law while not understanding English very well.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I consider myself skeptical of “official” translations (as well).
The example of “to worship” as in Mary should illustrate the point. (Yes, it is actually written that way on the Vatican website. It looks like they couldn’t find another word for “colere.”)
Just saying, didn’t mean to off-topic.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Some Old Catholics say it in English.
S
ServusHumilis
Guest
You mean those guys in ‘communion’ with the COE?
C
Cassianus
Guest
Sorry to resurrect an old topic, but just wanted to say that the English word worship has acquired a different meaning over time. In the old days, they used to call nobility ‘your worship’, yet they didn’t mean they were worthy of worship in the same way God is, but that they were worthy of honor.
Still, the Catholic Church approves Divine Liturgies & Novus Ordo Masses in many different languages - why not the Ancient Latin Rite as well?
In the old days, the western church taught that Latin, Hebrew & Greek were sacred languages because they were on top of the cross. That was one of the reasons the Bulgarians chose Constantinople over Rome. Because the reality was you either became a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire & celebrate Mass in Latin or you become a vassal of Romania (Byzantiums actual name) & celebrate Divine Liturgy in the vernacular.
While commenting on the validity of the Latin teaching of Filioque, St Maximus the Confessor said;
‘We do not bring forth mere sounds without signification, but along with the sounds we signify conceptions. Because of this, I have often found the godbearing fathers to run counter to one another in sound, but never in meaning; for the mystery of our salvation does not consist in syllables, but in notions and realities. Those whose minds are set upon the notions make peace, while, by the realities, they establish souls in the truth.’
J
Jon_Mallory
Guest
If the Western Rite is an attempt to lure disaffected Anglicans/Catholics into the OC, then it’s done a pretty poor job. The Western Rite is small. As far as I know, only the Antiochian jurisdiction and the ROCOR have Western Rite parishes. Each has about two dozen parishes across the U.S. I think having a Western rite is more about countering some Orthodox who claim that you have to be Eastern in order to be Orthodox. The West is not all bad. Why should the ancient rites that were practiced in the west when were one Church be abandoned?
Also, the Western Rite OC Celebrates the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great, which predates the Tridentine Mass. Some also celebrate the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, which is based on the English book of common prayer.
- Status