Wanting to be a Traditional Catholic(m)

[ProVobis]

Many High Schools teach Latin.
However not many of those students even attend any sort of church, so they don’t necessarily consider its “usefulness” in worship.
They do however desire it if they plan on a career in medicine or law.
A lot of kids study Latin, but for secular reasons.

You’re probably right. I’ve seen how sadly dependent people have become on English translations in the liturgy, in the Bible, in the Church documents, etc. So much so, they wouldn’t recognize a mistranslation or a biased translation if they came across one. And there were/are plenty of them, witness that they had to retranslate the entire English Mass when everyone had thought everything was honky dory. And in 40 years when the English language and meanings become further corrupted, hopefully they’ll be enough Latinists to fix the English (again).

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

You’re probably right. I’ve seen how sadly dependent people have become on English translations in the liturgy, in the Bible, in the Church documents, etc. So much so, they wouldn’t recognize a mistranslation or a biased translation if they came across one. And there were/are plenty of them, witness that they had to retranslate the entire English Mass when everyone had thought everything was honky dory. And in 40 years when the English language and meanings become further corrupted, hopefully they’ll be enough Latinists to fix the English (again).

I remember that. I think other countries also had problems with translation as some men wanted to insert their heretical ideas into the Mass so they translated it according to their whims. I recall reading some time ago that the Mass was said solely in Latin to preserve it from doctrinal errors and mistranslations. I didn’t know if that actually would happen until I learned about the huge translation problem with the Mass and realized that they were right for all those years.

 

[ProVobis]

I remember that. I think other countries also had problems with translation as some men wanted to insert their heretical ideas into the Mass so they translated it according to their whims.

Not surprising given that English is used as a basis for many translations into the local vernaculars, such as the 240 vernaculars in Nigeria alone. So the people there needed corrections as well. Otherwise they become further and further removed from the Church teachings, liturgy, scripture, etc. Translations, even something as simple as “The Lord be with you.” involve a theological change, though it’s probably subtle or no big deal to most.

I recall reading some time ago that the Mass was said solely in Latin to preserve it from doctrinal errors and mistranslations. I didn’t know if that actually would happen until I learned about the huge translation problem with the Mass and realized that they were right for all those years.

 

[OraLabora]

You’re probably right. I’ve seen how sadly dependent people have become on English translations in the liturgy, in the Bible, in the Church documents, etc. So much so, they wouldn’t recognize a mistranslation or a biased translation if they came across one. And there were/are plenty of them, witness that they had to retranslate the entire English Mass when everyone had thought everything was honky dory. And in 40 years when the English language and meanings become further corrupted, hopefully they’ll be enough Latinists to fix the English (again).

Of course for the first 1700 years or so of Church history the majority of Catholics were illiterate and in any case Church documents at that time weren’t primarily directed at the laity…

Which Latin translation of the Bible is the correct one BTW, the Vulgate or the Neo-Vulgate?

Even Latin has had its own translation issues and many criticize the Neo-Vulgate. The Bible, rather inconveniently, wasn’t written in Latin. So one of the main sources and foundation that we use to learn who Jesus is, has its own translation vissiscitudes. Since most of the Mass texts are biblically-based, how can we even be sure they are 100% exact translations? And how can we say that the Latin is immutable when even the Latin translations themselves have changed?

Being human is a messy business.

 

[pianistclare]

Regarding music, the Church is clear what constitutes sacred music, and the Church is clear in what she prefers all parishes to have. Options to not use chant are only to be replaced with other actual sacred music selections, and really should be an exception, not the norm. It does not matter whether people want chant or not - the Church wants it! Why do we not listen to the Church on this matter? Shouldn’t we consider that there’s something amiss within ourselves if we can’t bring ourselves to at least work towards thinking with the mind of the Church?

OK and I hate to say this since Gregorian Chant is more suited to the Latin language, but chant can be done in English. There are plenty of resources for using English chants within the Mass.

I don’t know. You’d have to ask the decision makers.
Many professional Catholic musicians are ready to act.
We are not wanted.
IMHO, because no one wants to pay a living wage.

but that’s beside the point.
People on CAF make it sound like the EF is widespread and available and preferred by majority of Catholics. That’s just not the case.

At least not around here.

 

[ProVobis]

Which Latin translation of the Bible is the correct one BTW, the Vulgate or the Neo-Vulgate?

Even Latin has had its own translation issues and many criticize the Neo-Vulgate. The Bible, rather inconveniently, wasn’t written in Latin.

That’s hard to say. The Vetus Latina, the older Vulgate, on which Jerome’s Vulgate was based but was of poor quality, had unknown origins. Some of the Greeks were known to have written in Latin. You may want to take the matter up with Patrick457. It wasn’t a simple Greek to Latin translation is my understanding.

One thing is for sure, though. The Bible wasn’t written in English and any such translations into English were/are done by scholars, many of whom don’t agree with each other, and all very far removed from the period in which the Bible was written.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, OTOH, give a little more credibility to the various translations and were also used to retranslate the Latin to the Nova Vulgata. Not infallible but it’s the official Church Bible.

 

[felsguy]

If Latin is not understood by the people, then IMO it’s the fault of the educators who insist that it no longer has a place in our lives and thus it’s a waste of time teaching it.

Good thing these same educators don’t say the say the same about math or science. Oh wait…

But how recently was Latin “understood by the people” and how recently did it “have a place in our lives,” at least in the US.

In the 50’s, the seven of us in fourth year Latin at a Catholic high school of 1600 were pretty good at translating Caesar but that was about it. Neither of my parents, high school graduates in the 30, studied any Latin, and it was all that my immigrant German and Hungarian grandparents could do to handle English in the early 1900’s.

I realize and respect that you are very well versed in Latin. I realize also that the above is merely anecdotal. However I would suggest that it much more closely resembles the experience of the average “man and woman in the pew” for the past several hundreds of years, namely, devout and usually cradle Catholics, very familiar with Latin words from hearing them spoken (and yes, often chanted) weekly, and probably “understanding” nary a one.

 

[pianistclare]

But how recently was Latin “understood by the people” and how recently did it “have a place in our lives,” at least in the US.

In the 50’s, the seven of us in fourth year Latin at a Catholic high school of 1600 were pretty good at translating Caesar but that was about it. Neither of my parents, high school graduates in the 30, studied any Latin, and it was all that my immigrant German and Hungarian grandparents could do to handle English in the early 1900’s.

I realize and respect that you are very well versed in Latin. I realize also that the above is merely anecdotal. However I would suggest that it much more closely resembles the experience of the average “man and woman in the pew” for the past several hundreds of years, namely, devout and usually cradle Catholics, very familiar with Latin words from hearing them spoken (and yes, often chanted) weekly, and probably “understanding” nary a one.

Indeed. Many of our so-called “Catholic politicians” grew up with the TLM.
I don’t’ see where it did them a whole lot of good.
They must have “tuned it out”.

In other words…if your heart is not in it, and you don’t have a very thorough comprehension level…just being there is likely not enough to keep you free of errors in your life. Would be nice if it was…but it doesn’t work that way.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Of course for the first 1700 years or so of Church history the majority of Catholics were illiterate and in any case Church documents at that time weren’t primarily directed at the laity…

Which Latin translation of the Bible is the correct one BTW, the Vulgate or the Neo-Vulgate?

The Vulgate was declared by the Council of Trent to be free of errors and that no one should dare presume to reject it under any pretext. That’s a pretty good sign that it is a solid translation of the Bible.

 

[OraLabora]

The Vulgate was declared by the Council of Trent to be free of errors and that no one should dare presume to reject it under any pretext. That’s a pretty good sign that it is a solid translation of the Bible.

So are you suggesting that the Neo-Vulgate texts of the LOTH and the Mass are invalid or lesser than the Vulgate?

 

[Xantippe]

Indeed. Many of our so-called “Catholic politicians” grew up with the TLM.
I don’t’ see where it did them a whole lot of good.
They must have “tuned it out”.

In other words…if your heart is not in it, and you don’t have a very thorough comprehension level…just being there is likely not enough to keep you free of errors in your life. Would be nice if it was…but it doesn’t work that way.

Right.

I have no doubt that a highly-educated person with a strong Latin background paying 100% of their attention to the TLM may get more out of it than they would at an OF Mass. It’s the linguistic equivalent of the old saying that singing is praying twice–praying in a foreign language is like praying twice.

However, the ordinary person is not highly educated, is not a Latinist, and is not paying 100% of their attention to the liturgy.

If I am not a Latinist (and I’m not) and I’m at the EF Mass with a wiggly or scampering toddler, the odds of anything getting through to me are far less than at an OF Mass. (And note that the traditional child care exemptions for Mass attendance are very liberal–presumably because it was well understood that there was very little spiritual benefit being obtained from attending the TLM with small children.)

I’ve been to a number of Latin Masses. They are much easier to tune out than the vernacular.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

So are you suggesting that the Neo-Vulgate texts of the LOTH and the Mass are invalid or lesser than the Vulgate?

My apologies, I didn’t intend to discount the Neo-Vulgate. Actually, I have no idea what that is, all I was trying to say was that of the two listed, I know that the Vulgate is most certainly a valid and reliable translation and doesn’t need to be questioned.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Right.

I have no doubt that a highly-educated person with a strong Latin background paying 100% of their attention to the TLM may get more out of it than they would at an OF Mass. It’s the linguistic equivalent of the old saying that singing is praying twice–praying in a foreign language is like praying twice.

However, the ordinary person is not highly educated, is not a Latinist, and is not paying 100% of their attention to the liturgy.

If I am not a Latinist (and I’m not) and I’m at the EF Mass with a wiggly or scampering toddler, the odds of anything getting through to me are far less than at an OF Mass. (And note that the traditional child care exemptions for Mass attendance are very liberal–presumably because it was well understood that there was very little spiritual benefit being obtained from attending the TLM with small children.)

I’ve been to a number of Latin Masses. They are much easier to tune out than the vernacular.

If the Mass was said solely in Latin, a language that was not understood by the majority of the faithful for the whole life of the Church (as far as I know), for as many centuries as it was, they must have not found a good reason to put the Mass in the vernaculars. After all, you don’t need to understand the prayers of the Mass as these are mere externals of what is truly going on: the reoffering of the Sacrifice of Calvary. As long as one knows this and unites himself with the priest in this Sacrifice, he need not know what is being said. That is true participation at Mass which knowledge of the prayers may facilitate, but it is not required. In fact, the benefits of Mass in Latin outweigh the benefits of vernacular, that’s the way the Church saw it for centuries.

The first people to say their “masses” in the vernacular after the Latin in the Mass was already very established were the followers of the archheretics like Martin Luther. Catholics then wondered if their Mass should not be said in Latin, but the Council of Trent shot them down and said no.

 

[ProVobis]

Right.

I have no doubt that a highly-educated person with a strong Latin background paying 100% of their attention to the TLM may get more out of it than they would at an OF Mass. It’s the linguistic equivalent of the old saying that singing is praying twice–praying in a foreign language is like praying twice.

I never thought of it that way, but a very astute observation.

Even a Latinist has to make a little effort in following the Latin (since no one’s native language is Latin). That effort has to count for something. The argument that one language is like another just doesn’t appear to be true. Different vibes, as one Latin Mass devotee stated recently.

 

[ProVobis]

However I would suggest that it much more closely resembles the experience of the average “man and woman in the pew” for the past several hundreds of years, namely, devout and usually cradle Catholics, very familiar with Latin words from hearing them spoken (and yes, often chanted) weekly, and probably “understanding” nary a one.

Actually much of the Latin Mass is said silently or in low tone. So translating it to English won’t do you as a churchgoer much good, except, as mentioned before, perhaps to corrupt or distort the meaning. The Latin Mass is more visual and involves more contemplative prayer so it’s a different type and level of participation than most OF goers are used to.

But if you want to hear the Older Mass in some Elizabethan English, you can always attend an Anglican Ordinariate.

 

[OraLabora]

I never thought of it that way, but a very astute observation.

Even a Latinist has to make a little effort in following the Latin (since no one’s native language is Latin). That effort has to count for something. The argument that one language is like another just doesn’t appear to be true. Different vibes, as one Latin Mass devotee stated recently.

I chant the Divine Office in Latin every day, at least Lauds and Vespers. Does that mean I’m praying each Office FOUR times?

 

[ProVobis]

I chant the Divine Office in Latin every day, at least Lauds and Vespers. Does that mean I’m praying each Office FOUR times?

At least.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Right.

I have no doubt that a highly-educated person with a strong Latin background paying 100% of their attention to the TLM may** get more out of it** than they would at an OF Mass. It’s the linguistic equivalent of the old saying that singing is praying twice–praying in a foreign language is like praying twice.

However, the ordinary person is not highly educated, is not a Latinist, and is not paying 100% of their attention to the liturgy.

If I am not a Latinist (and I’m not) and I’m at the EF Mass with a wiggly or scampering toddler, the odds of anything getting through to me are far less than at an OF Mass. (And note that the traditional child care exemptions for Mass attendance are very liberal–presumably because it was well understood that there was very little spiritual benefit being obtained from attending the TLM with small children.)

I’ve been to a number of Latin Masses. They are much easier to tune out than the vernacular.

What does it mean to speak of “what one gets out of the Liturgy”? This is a point of contention for many. The primary function of Holy Mass is not one’s own edification. It is to unite oneself with the Sacrifice being offered by the priest towards the ends of adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and atonement. It matters very little how much of the Mass we understand, or even how much of it we hear, for that matter. For the most part, the priest isn’t even talking to us. He faces away from us and towards God, far off in the sanctuary, he addresses the Eternal Father in a hushed tone on his and our behalf. This captures an essential truth about Mass: it is about God. It is the one Action that humanity can offer to heaven that is truly pleasing because it is the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It can be said that one who kneels in contemplative silence after making a direction of intention before Mass, does indeed participate in that Mass to the highest degree that a layman can. His active participation becomes the total immersion in the Mystery unfolding before him. This does not mean that he needs to frantically try to keep up in his missal, or desperately strain to hear the Roman Canon. He doesn’t need to say anything. Rather, he kneels in the presence of God and prayerfully contemplates the Liturgy - from the chant, to the incense, to the gestures of the priest. His level of education matters not. Whether he is a Latinist or illiterate matters not. He simply needs to understand - or, rather, take on faith -the essential truths about Mass and direct his intention likewise.

 

[felsguy]

Indeed. Many of our so-called “Catholic politicians” grew up with the TLM.
I don’t’ see where it did them a whole lot of good.
They must have “tuned it out”.

Perhaps but I was in no way implying that the Masses that they (we) attended in those years did not “do us a whole lot of good;” quite the contrary. They enabled us to celebrate the Eucharist in the best manner available to us at that time, receiving untold blessings. My point is that for me, and I believe for many but obviously not all others, the opportunity to hear and pray the prayers of our celebration in a language in which we are fluent as opposed to one that we do not comprehend is most beneficial.

---

A family obligation prevents me from continuing this evening to read and respond further to the differing viewpoints sincerely held and civilly expressed here. Peace

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

What does it mean to speak of “what one gets out of the Liturgy”? This is a point of contention for many. The primary function of Holy Mass is not one’s own edification. It is to unite oneself with the Sacrifice being offered by the priest towards the ends of adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and atonement. It matters very little how much of the Mass we understand, or even how much of it we hear, for that matter. For the most part, the priest isn’t even talking to us. He faces away from us and towards God, far off in the sanctuary, he addresses the Eternal Father in a hushed tone on his and our behalf. This captures an essential truth about Mass: it is about God. Therefore, it can be said that one who kneels in contemplative silence after making a direction of intention before Mass, does indeed participate in that Mass to the highest degree that a layman can. His active participation becomes the total immersion in the Mystery unfolding before him. This does not mean that he needs to frantically try to keep up in his missal, or desperately strain to hear the Roman Canon. He doesn’t need to say anything. Rather, he kneels in the presence of God and prayerfully contemplates the Liturgy - from the chant, to the incense, to the gestures of the priest - unfold. His level of education matters not. Whether he is a Latinist or illiterate matters not.

Exactly.