Use of Latin and the vernacular at Mass

[Resurrexit]

Are you implying that God only knows how to listen in Latin?

Yep - God only knows Latin, Greek and Hebrew. If you pray (even outside the mass) in a different language - he can’t understand you.

 

[Pug]

I think Resurrexit was referring to following parts
Latin- almost everything
Greek- Kyrie
Hebrew- parts of the Sanctus

Perhaps they mean words like:

Hosannah
Sabaoth

which are transliterations. I recognize them as originating within my small knowledge of Hebrew, although they may be Aramaic, but I wouldn’t know about that.

 

[ChemicalBean]

Yep - God only knows Latin, Greek and Hebrew. If you pray (even outside the mass) in a different language - he can’t understand you.

I don’t know if I agree with you on that one. As I hear from some of my American friends, God only speaks in King James English. God might also have a Texan cowboy accent

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Are you implying that God only knows how to listen in Latin?

Pax tecum!

Nope, not at all. What I meant was that since the prayers of the Mass are directed to God, they do not need to be in the vernacular because God understands all languages, obviously. The readings, however, are not directed to God; rather, they are directed to the people, so it would only make sense for them to be proclaimed in the vernacular.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Resurrexit]

The readings, however, are not directed to God; rather, they are directed to the people, so it would only make sense for them to be proclaimed in the vernacular.

I responded to this in an earlier post.

 

[LilyM]

I responded to this in an earlier post.

By saying that the Holy Spirit performs some kind of voodoo so that we magically understand the words even if they’re not in our own language?

Non-Catholic Christians claim to gain understanding of scripture through the Holy Spirit in this way all the time. They have problems enough truly understanding it even when they DO read and hear it in the vernacular!

There is NO actual point to doing the Gospel, or any other part of the Mass, in Latin at a time in history when the barest minority of people understand it.

And don’t give it unintended importance by labelling it as small-case t tradition. It’s not, it’s discipline, that’s all. Like having the Leonine prayers or the Last Gospel at the end or not, or Gregorian chant or not.

 

[Resurrexit]

By saying that the Holy Spirit performs some kind of voodoo so that we magically understand the words even if they’re not in our own language?

There is NO actual point to doing the Gospel, or any other part of the Mass, in Latin at a time in history when the barest minority of people understand it.

What, like the Holy Spirit gives us this ‘graces’ stuff merely by being present at the Mass… If you can’t hear it or see it, it’s all completely pointless.

And don’t give it unintended importance by labelling it as small-case t tradition. It’s not, it’s discipline, that’s all. Like having the Leonine prayers or the Last Gospel at the end or not, or Gregorian chant or not.

Gregorian chant…used for centuries by the chant, has its origins before the time of Christ…all discipline we should just wave away.

 

[Resurrexit]

By saying that the Holy Spirit performs some kind of voodoo so that we magically understand the words even if they’re not in our own language?

There is NO actual point to doing the Gospel, or any other part of the Mass, in Latin at a time in history when the barest minority of people understand it.

What, like the Holy Spirit gives us this ‘graces’ stuff merely by being present at the Mass… If you can’t hear it or see it, it’s all completely pointless.

And don’t give it unintended importance by labelling it as small-case t tradition. It’s not, it’s discipline, that’s all. Like having the Leonine prayers or the Last Gospel at the end or not, or Gregorian chant or not.

Gregorian chant…used for centuries by the chant, has its origins before the time of Christ…all discipline we should just wave away.

 

[OriginalJS]

Well, since the New Testament was written in Greek and the Old Testament in Hebrew, reading in the original languages would probably be proscribed by the Latin only adherents. In fact, the testaments were translated to Latin which at the time was the vernacular in Rome.

As far as understanding goes, the readings at most Masses could be in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin because 99% of the worshippers won’t understand any of them. I would venture to bet that over 50% of the congregations couldn’t discern the difference between spoken Hebrew and Greek!

I view the language issue as one aspect of attempts by traditionalists to hold on to past practices as they see so much of the tradition slipping away. I can’t say they are right or wrong.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I responded to this in an earlier post.

Pax tecum!

But what you said was that the Holy Spirit helps us understand it. Well, that’s not true. I speak Spanish and I can understand some Latin but I can’t understand an entire Gospel reading in Latin. The Holy Spirit doesn’t just perform some magic for everyone to understand Latin when they don’t speak it. The fact is that people do NOT understand enough Latin to comprehend an entire Gospel reading and the Holy Spirit doesn’t just give them the ability to do so for the duration of that reading. It may have happened with the Apostles in Acts or with a couple saints, but it doesn’t happen every Sunday. I don’t think even the SSPV makes that claim.

Bottom line for the readings is that they are directed to the people, not to God. They are the proclaimation of God’s word TO the people. It only makes sense for them to be in the language of the people. I don’t have a big problem with them being read again at the homily (as they do it at the indult Low Mass here in Portland), but it makes more sense to just read them one time in a language that the people will understand. I have been at one TLM High Mass where the readings were not repeated at the homily and a translation was not even provided for people to read along with (and no, no one recieved a special ability from the Holy Spirit to understand them). As beautiful as that Mass was, I didn’t even know which Bible passages were being read.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Resurrexit]

A person does not need as such, to understand it - the Holy Spirit can work without understanding. But understanding is preferable, as (in my opinion) is keeping the Latin for the readings.

Latin then vernacular - tradition then comprehension. Everyone’s happy.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t just perform some magic for everyone to understand Latin when they don’t speak it.

I never said the Holy Spirit gives us understanding. What I meant was that we receive the graces from the Holy Spirit by hearing the Gospel of the Lord. Understanding is a different issue.

I didn’t even know which Bible passages were being read.

What an abomination!

 

[LilyM]

What, like the Holy Spirit gives us this ‘graces’ stuff merely by being present at the Mass… If you can’t hear it or see it, it’s all completely pointless.

The Mass itself is a different creature entirely from the readings. The graces of the Mass are received because Christ himself is present. And we can understand that well enough and believe in it well enough to receive the graces regardless of the language that the MASS is in.

And those who don’t understand this much and don’t believe so don’t receive any graces.

Let me draw an analogy. I can say the Ave Maria and understand that it’s the Hail Mary - I know that much Latin. If I do so I am still saying the prayer. On the other hand if I simply say or hear the Latin words of the Ave Maria and have absolutely no idea what it is that I’m saying, how in any sense can I have been said to say a Hail Mary? Does the Holy Spirit supply a meaning when all understanding is completely absent? Of course not.

Gregorian chant…used for centuries by the chant, has its origins before the time of Christ…all discipline we should just wave away.

Married priests - used for centuries by the Jews before the time of Christ, used for a millennium by our Catholic Church itself … all discipline that WAS waved away.

 

[Resurrexit]

I view the language issue as one aspect of attempts by traditionalists to hold on to past practices as they see so much of the tradition slipping away. I can’t say they are right or wrong.

Tradition slipping away…interesting you should say that.

 

[Resurrexit]

The Mass itself is a different creature entirely from the readings.

So the readings are not part of the Mass?

The graces of the Mass are received because Christ himself is present.

Christ is present in the readings of the Scripture. Whether they be in Latin, English or Urdu.

Does the Holy Spirit supply a meaning when all understanding is completely absent?

Understanding - no. Grace - yes.

Married priests - used for centuries by the Jews before the time of Christ, used for a millennium by our Catholic Church itself … all discipline that WAS waved away.

After much prayer and contemplation, the Western Church decided on priestly celibacy. Look me in the eye and say Archbishop Bugnini and his team of 6 Protestant ‘expert’ liturgists were immersed in prayer, contemplation and devotion.

 

[Tom_Taylor]

How many people under 40 yrs old even understand any Latin?
To me it is stupid to think that Latin is any more or less pleasing to God than any other language…so why have the Mass said in a language no one can interpret without the vernacular interpretation on the same page…why not do it all in Latin(kyrie aside)including the homily??? Then all these traditionalists would really be happy…Me? I’m 70 years old, was an altar boy from the 4th grade through high school…and remember more Latin than 99% of my parish…but I enjoy participating in the Mass via the vernacular.

 

[CatholicNick]

How many people under 40 yrs old even understand any Latin?
To me it is stupid to think that Latin is any more or less pleasing to God than any other language…so why have the Mass said in a language no one can interpret without the vernacular interpretation on the same page…why not do it all in Latin(kyrie aside)including the homily??? Then all these traditionalists would really be happy…Me? I’m 70 years old, was an altar boy from the 4th grade through high school…and remember more Latin than 99% of my parish…but I enjoy participating in the Mass via the vernacular.

I understand none/extremely little Latin at all - yet i follow the Old Mass perfectly well…

Latin is no barrier to understanding and participating in the Mass of Ages.

 

[Resurrexit]

How many people under 40 yrs old even understand any Latin?

1 here. And a load of friends of mine.

To me it is stupid to think that Latin is any more or less pleasing to God than any other language…so why have the Mass said in a language no one can interpret without the vernacular interpretation on the same page…

It is an ancient tradition, and ancient traditions should be preserved. And Sacrosanctum Concilium said that the use of Latin should be preserved in the Western Rites.

why not do it all in Latin(kyrie aside)including the homily???Then all these traditionalists would really be happy…

That would be pointless. The homily is for the people, the rest is for God. The former should be in the vernacular, the latter in Latin.

I’m 70 years old, was an altar boy from the 4th grade through high school…and remember more Latin than 99% of my parish…but I enjoy participating in the Mass via the vernacular.

Do you really think Latin is an obstacle to participation for people who don’t understand it?

 

[LilyM]

So the readings are not part of the Mass?

Not the central part. Scripture can be read and proclaimed anywhere at any time. The Eucharist cannot be confected anywhere any time.

Christ is present in the readings of the Scripture. Whether they be in Latin, English or Urdu.

CHRIST is present fully and really in the Eucharist, which is confected whether in Latin, English or Urdu. And which the Apostles had when not a word of the New Testament had been written. He is present in a glass darkly in the Scriptures.

Hearing the word AND the explanation and teaching of it, AND comprehending BOTH, is what gives the grace. That’s why the Ethiopian needed Phillip’s teaching as well as his own reading of the word.

Understanding - no. Grace - yes.

Is this official church teaching? That even if you hear the scriptures in a language of which you understand not a word you still gain graces from it? I’d like to see a reference for this belief.

After much prayer and contemplation, the Western Church decided on priestly celibacy. Look me in the eye and say Archbishop Bugnini and his team of 6 Protestant ‘expert’ liturgists were immersed in prayer, contemplation and devotion.

And Pope Leo had a bad dream/vision and immediately composed a prayer to St Michael and inserted it at the end of the Mass. Lot of thoughtful and prayerful contemplation there to be sure.

The good Archbishop, you can be certain, prayed every day, probably more than you or I, and I am sure thought more than Leo about what he was doing. Same goes for Paul VI. The quickness with which it happened very likely means that he (they) had been thinking about it long beforehand.

Funnily enough people WERE thinking about reform of the liturgy well before Vatican 2 … like, say, every day since the Reformation.

Can’t answer for the protestants who may have helped him. I don’t know enough about them. I’m thinking they weren’t literally chosen off the street, and presumably actually did have some sort of special expertise to offer.

 

[Rykell]

After much prayer and contemplation, the Western Church decided on priestly celibacy. Look me in the eye and say Archbishop Bugnini and his team of 6 Protestant ‘expert’ liturgists were immersed in prayer, contemplation and devotion.

It is an ancient tradition, and ancient traditions should be preserved. And Sacrosanctum Concilium said that the use of Latin should be preserved in the Western Rites.

These straw man arguments have been around over 30 years already and have been refuted many times over. You simply choose to do “selective” reading.

:yawn:

 

[Resurrexit]

Same goes for Paul VI. The quickness with which it happened very likely means that he (they) had been thinking about it long beforehand.

Hope I didn’t wake anyone up with my laughter…

Funnily enough people WERE thinking about reform of the liturgy well before Vatican 2 … like, say, every day since the Reformation.

Like the reforms in 1570 you mean? Or should we take the example from our Protestant brethren? Perhaps Luther had a point…

Can’t answer for the protestants who may have helped him. I don’t know enough about them. I’m thinking they weren’t literally chosen off the street, and presumably actually did have some sort of special expertise to offer.

:banghead: Hmm… it would be interesting to find where before in the history of the Church, the Church has sought the ‘expertise’ of heretics.