Tridentine trade-off?

[ProVobis]

The original liturgical language of Rome was Greek. Now I ask you…
It changed to Latin for a reason right?

Well, according to a PBS broadcast, St. Paul did find a significant number of Christians in Rome when he arrived there, in the 4th decade AD.

Thus it was possible that they had Christianized the pagan services at that time. (There is some archaeological evidence for this.) Of course by the 3rd century Christianity subsumed the Roman Empire and then Cicero’s Latin was Christianized and used as the liturgy of the West. The vernacular would have been Vulgar Latin, from which the ROMANce languages developed.

 

[ProVobis]

the Pope has the power to make and unmake even more.

I doubt if it’s even possible to give any more permission for the all-vernacular than Paul VI did in 1969. Since then he himself tried to restore Latin with the issue of Jubilate Deo. And of course JPII and BXVI have both tried to revive the Latin as well.

 

[Hasire]

That wasn’t what I asked. A statement was made that Vatican II said that the Mass SHOULD be celebrated in the language of the people. I just asked where that was specifically stated.

If you don’t know the answer to that question thats fine. I didn’t ask anything at all about changing from Greek to Latin or anything else for that matter.

Oh, sorry, I thought you only wanted to know where it was written. It isn’t. It is an implicit principle. The Apostles didn’t evangelize in Hebrew, nor Aramaic (outside of Syria, of course), they did in Greek which the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. The Rome changed from Greek to Latin when the current Pope decided that Latin was best because everyone would understand it better. Same with Coptic. The Copts evangelized the Ethiopians in their language, they didn’t impose Coptic. The Byzantines (Sts. Cyril and Methodius) evangelized the Slavs in their tongue, they didn’t impose Greek, unlike the Latins and the Pope who wanted to impose Latin in Moravia .

Everyone is called to worship in their native language.

 

[Hasire]

I doubt if it’s even possible to give any more permission for the all-vernacular than Paul VI did in 1969. Since then he himself tried to restore Latin with the issue of Jubilate Deo. And of course JPII and BXVI have both tried to revive the Latin as well.

He has the power as the Roman Catholic Church’s Supreme Legislator IIRC. Sadly, it doesn’t mean he is going to do that.

 

[ProVobis]

Oh, sorry, I thought you only wanted to know where it was written. It isn’t. It is an implicit principle. The Apostles didn’t evangelize in Hebrew, nor Aramaic (outside of Syria, of course), they did in Greek which the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. The Rome changed from Greek to Latin when the current Pope decided that Latin was best because everyone would understand it better. Same with Coptic. The Copts evangelized the Ethiopians in their language, they didn’t impose Coptic. The Byzantines (Sts. Cyril and Methodius) evangelized the Slavs in their tongue, they didn’t impose Greek, unlike the Latins and the Pope who wanted to impose Latin in Moravia .

Everyone is called to worship in their native language.

You have not shown this. Evangelism is different than worship.

 

[Hasire]

You have not shown this. Evangelism is different than worship.

You can see that in their liturgies: The Copts in Arab, not Coptic anymore because that’s not their vernacular. Same with the Antiochians, Arab. The Russians in Russian. The Ukrainians in Ukrainian. The Ethiopians in Ge’ez. The Greeks in Greek. The Bulgarians in Bulgarian, even before the Great Schism. The Palestinian and Syriacs in Arab, not Syriac nor Aramaic.

The American Orthodox should and ought to worship in English, as Met. Philip Saliba has stated
Everyone in their tongue.

 

[ProVobis]

You can see that in their liturgies: The Copts in Arab, not Coptic anymore because that’s not their vernacular. Same with the Antiochians, Arab. The Russians in Russian. The Ukrainians in Ukrainian. The Ethiopians in Ge’ez. The Greeks in Greek. The Bulgarians in Bulgarian, even before the Great Schism. The Palestinian and Syriacs in Arab, not Syriac nor Aramaic.

The American Orthodox should and ought to worship in English, as Met. Philip Saliba has stated
Everyone in their tongue.

What’s wrong with Syriac or Aramaic now?

 

[Hasire]

What’s wrong with Syriac or Aramaic now?

There is nothing wrong with them, I was just saying that Palestinian and Syriac Christian nowdays worship in Arab because that’s the people’s tongue* nowdays*. Logically, Syriac and Aramaic stopped being used in worship because people stopped learning them.

 

[Hasire]

In any case, I’m not driving 30 minutes every Sunday to hear every day common words in a church.

I won’t answer this.

 

[ProVobis]

Logically, Syriac and Aramaic stopped being used in worship because people stopped learning them.

Maybe they stopped learning them because they were told it was of no use to learn them. Once again, what’s wrong with hearing the consecration in Christ’s own language? I’ll let you have the last word. I see this discussion isn’t going anywhere.

 

[ProVobis]

Logically, Syriac and Aramaic stopped being used in worship because people stopped learning them.

Maybe they stopped learning them because they were told it was of no use to learn them. Once again, what’s wrong with hearing the consecration in Christ’s own language? I’ll let you have the last word. I see this discussion isn’t going anywhere. *De gustibus non est disputandum. *

 

[Hasire]

Maybe they stopped learning them because they were told it was of no use to learn them. Once again, what’s wrong with hearing the consecration in Christ’s own language? I’ll let you have the last word. I see this discussion isn’t going anywhere.

There’s no wrong, but it ought not to be, unless one knows Aramaic. Don’t misunderstand me, it is still effective, it has the same grace. In general, and inherently, one language is not better than any other language, all languages are equal. But one language suits better for different kinds of peoples i.e. Greek for Greeks, Spanish for Spaniards, English for the English, English for the North Americas, Arab for the Middle Easterners.

 

[Elisabeth51]

Where exactly does it say that the Mass **should be celebrated in the language of the people? **

I was unaware that it said any such thing.

It doesn’t. I am sorry I don’t have the time to run through the V2 docs and find the quotes, but it says that Mass CAN be celebrated in the language of the people and it also says that the people SHOULD KNOW at least the Ordinary of the Mass in LATIN.

 

[Mike30]

And here is the answer to that question, direct quote from Sacrosanctum Concilium:

And nowhere in that quote does it say that the Mass SHOULD be celebrated in the vernacular.

It merely says that it may be and that it is left up to local officials to decide when if and how much of the vernacular can be used…

I know the answer and knew it before, but obviously quite a few people do not.

That was the point of my asking.

 

[Mike30]

Oh, sorry, I thought you only wanted to know where it was written. It isn’t. It is an implicit principle. The Apostles didn’t evangelize in Hebrew, nor Aramaic (outside of Syria, of course), they did in Greek which the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. The Rome changed from Greek to Latin when the current Pope decided that Latin was best because everyone would understand it better. Same with Coptic. The Copts evangelized the Ethiopians in their language, they didn’t impose Coptic. The Byzantines (Sts. Cyril and Methodius) evangelized the Slavs in their tongue, they didn’t impose Greek, unlike the Latins and the Pope who wanted to impose Latin in Moravia .

Everyone is called to worship in their native language.

Really? Are you sure on that one? I mean absolutely sure?

 

[GangGreen]

For the OF, a step in the right direction would be to have the Gloria, Sanctus Sanctus, and Agnus Dei in Latin in every Mass and well as Kyrie Eleison in Greek in every Mass. Additionally, on holy days specific hymns that were written in Latin (Victimae Paschali Laudes, Lauda Sion, Veni Creator Spiritus, etc.) be sung in Latin, not using the English translation.

IMO, every Mass should have Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. If most of the Mass is in the vernacular, fine, but those three languages should always be present.

I would also love to see the consecration be in Latin too because I feel it’s more powerful that way and you get more of a sense of the Priest speaking to God since he’s not speaking in the vernacular.

 

[OraLabora]

And nowhere in that quote does it say that the Mass SHOULD be celebrated in the vernacular.

It merely says that it may be and that it is left up to local officials to decide when if and how much of the vernacular can be used…

I know the answer and knew it before, but obviously quite a few people do not.

That was the point of my asking.

Exactly. I do think though, that the needs of say a relatively newly evangelized country in Asia (where Latin has no real cultural roots and where it would be a real obstacle), are different than say, Western Europe which can and does have deep ties to the Latin language.

Which is why, I think, the vernacular was allowed in the first place, to avoid the notion of cultural imperialism and to foster greater understanding and participation.

The sad fact is though, that as those having any notions of Latin in Western culture fade into memory since it is no longer taught in schools, we are coming more and more to resemble countries where Latin has no cultural roots at all.

I know all children who are Jewish need to learn Hebrew as part of their religious education and can recite prayers, etc., in Hebrew (when I was a kid it was a sore point with many Jewish friends that I could play on a Saturday morning while they were all at Hebrew lessons). Perhaps we can do the same as part of religious education and RCIA with Latin; at least the very basics so someone could recite the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Pater Noster and Ave Maria in Latin, and Kyrie in Greek, and understand what they mean.

It doesn’t sound like it would be too onerous.

 

[Mike30]

Exactly. I do think though, that the needs of say a relatively newly evangelized country in Asia (where Latin has no real cultural roots and where it would be a real obstacle), are different than say, Western Europe which can and does have deep ties to the Latin language.

Which is why, I think, the vernacular was allowed in the first place, to avoid the notion of cultural imperialism and to foster greater understanding and participation.

The sad fact is though, that as those having any notions of Latin in Western culture fade into memory since it is no longer taught in schools, we are coming more and more to resemble countries where Latin has no cultural roots at all.

I know all children who are Jewish need to learn Hebrew as part of their religious education and can recite prayers, etc., in Hebrew (when I was a kid it was a sore point with many Jewish friends that I could play on a Saturday morning while they were all at Hebrew lessons). Perhaps we can do the same as part of religious education and RCIA with Latin; at least the very basics so someone could recite the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Pater Noster and Ave Maria in Latin, and Kyrie in Greek, and understand what they mean.

It doesn’t sound like it would be too onerous.

I agree. It just really bugs me when people make the assumption that Vatican II said to do something when it did not say any such thing. These explanations and rationalizations for all manner of things have been used since the 1960’s and it really needs to stop.

Back then it was possible that someone might not have any access at all to the documents of Vatican II. Such is no longer the case and really cannot be used as an excuse anymore.

It also gets me when statements such as **all **people are called to worship in their own language are thrown about, when of the three monotheistic religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, the only one that does not have a standard language is Christianity.

But the one that I really cannot understand is the antipathy, no the outright prejuduce, bigotry and hatred that so many have for Latin. I read on this very Forum a while back a rather impassioned explanation from a poster that she had attended Mass for two years prior to entering RCIA, went through RCIA and was received into the Church. Yet, in spite of the years of attending Mass and the RCIA study she did she stated that had she heard Latin being used at the Easter Vigil she may very well have fled the Church. I was amazed and appalled at such a thing.

Yet these very same posters will climb on soapboxes and loudly proclaim that they can attend Mass anywhere in the world and know what is going on immediately no matter what the vernacular is. As long as it’s not Latin apparently all boundaries are transcended.

Why is there such htared for a language? I just don’t get it…

But not when Latin is used…

 

[ProVobis]

Why is there such htared for a language? I just don’t get it…

But not when Latin is used…

As our friend Dom Prosper Gueranger, founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France and first abbot of Solesmes after the French revolution, wrote in 1840:

“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . . The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning .… . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .”

catholicapologetics.info/languages/why/latin.htm

 

[Mike30]

As our friend Dom Prosper Gueranger, founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France and first abbot of Solesmes after the French revolution, wrote in 1840:

“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . . The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning .… . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .”

catholicapologetics.info/languages/why/latin.htm

I’ve thought the same thing on occasion but have hesitated to believe it completely. Of late though, I am starting to see the very real possibility that the above statement may very well be true. In fact, I really cannot see any other tangible, rational explanation for it.