While I could make a few comments on the matter of liturgical language vs vernacular in the East, I will confine myself to the reference to Hebrew.
My own feel is that had the OF have been started in Latin, very few would have realized it was the new Mass. I remember on one Sunday (1975?) it was announced that the following Sunday we would have a Latin Mass and you could sense the excitement in the air. As it turned out almost double the crowd came the following Sunday and most of them probably thought it was a return to the Old Mass, even though it was ad populum and in the new rite.
Vernacular, even of the most remote kind, is probably necessary for missionary work. No brainer there. But a universal worship requires a universal language, by definition.
I beg to differ there. If the language had stayed in Latin, heresy would have been a lot tougher to spread.
When Latin Masses began to fluorish in the 4th century, it was spreading in countries that had already been speaking Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, etc. Most of those languages were a vulgarized form of Latin so that at least some Latin was understood by most. It is hard to envision where pure Latin was a vernacular to that much part of the world at the time.
Well, my experience says it is true.
Could well be. After the fiasco of the second incarnation (1967) of the “interim Missal” it’s possible that people might have been calmly receptive to a restoration of order.
) are still the rule and I fear the effects of same will continue to be felt for many years to come.Sorry but thats not true. The liturgy was vernacularized by the Apostles in the 1st century. If they didn’t vernacularize, all our liturgy would be in Aramaic or Greek.
Again not a true statement. The Church universally had different languages across its different sui juris Churches.
Heresy has always existed from the beginning, with or without Latin. Latin is not an anti-Heresy language.
English in itself is not the same everywhere in the world today… Every area that speaks English speaks a different “flavor” of English. I guess one notable example is Singapore’s “Singlish”. But that doesn’t mean you cannot use your American English and not be understood in other English areas. Latin was easily understood by those speakers of language which evolved from Latin. Also, its far easier for a Spanish, Italian or French person to understand Latin in those days than a Chinese or Japanese person at any point in history. Just because the language is just far too different.
Just gotta say…your two pictures are so funny that I can’t take it anymore! They make me laugh up a storm.
Sorry, but I can’t agree with that. We have missals, and with them we can participate fully and follow all that happens on the altar.
The Greek Liturgy, the Byzantine Rite, has been transferred to other vernaculars since the beginning. They never have this same issue we have with the Roman Rite.
Nobody is contesting that. English is the the official language of America. But you won’t hear English everywhere you go. Walk around New York City and you’ll hear at least a dozen different languages spoken. Official language doesn’t mean only language.Remember that Latin is the language of the Church. All official documents originate in Latin. Latin may be called the “Lingua Franca” that the Church uses for communication between Rome and the hierchy of the various countries and that the hierchy of one country with that of another.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
And are they changing their texts every 40 years to comply with the correct Church theology?
Pope John XXIII has recognized that Greek and certain other Eastern languages can be official languages in some areas. (See Veterum Sapientia)
Didn’t say it was impossible, just harder. Much easier to spread heresy in those areas which accept any translation of the truth than no translation at all. People have come to accept “one in being with the Father” as the truth because there is no adequate English word/phrase to define the Latin “consubstantialem Patri.” The Vatican has basically said this was not acceptable so they are now borrowing from the Latin. And there are many other examples of such mistranslations.
Not to mention that with all its harshness and homophones, it is understood differently as well. It is no longer the beautiful language of Shakespeare and Chaucer. But that’s even more reason why the truth should remain in its original language and not be translated into the many vernaculars which change and are butchered routinely.
I don’t see how hard it could be. Martin Luther is a priest using Latin liturgy, to name one. People make stuff up more because they don’t fully understand the language. The Latin is unchanging, yes. But people’s understanding of the same word still varies because they have to translate it into their own language in their own Missal to understand. So it doesn’t matter if the words of the liturgy is unchanging, people still would not understand it and in an effort to do so, would have to translate it. So would you rather have an official translation approved by the Church or thousands or unofficial translations?
Some Eastern Churches have come up with revised Missals. One example is the Chaldean Church
All of them ?
If I may pipe-up with another :twocents:, we of the East and Orient have our own venerable and ancient liturgical languages. While the arguments and debates about liturgical language vs vernacular in the East and Orient may be somewhat different than those in the Roman Church, they exist nonetheless. Let no one try to say or imply otherwise. It is not, and never has been, a vernacular-only situation. Not by a longshot.
malphono,