I’d like to ask a question. Why do people think the Mass should still be said in Latin? Do they believe saying the Mass in the native tougue of the country is wrong?
Parts of the Mass would be aided by being in the vernacular. But much of the Mass should be retained in the Latin. People who are against
completely vernacular Masses are probably against them because a) it represents a refusal of Latin, the language of the Latin Rite, b) the translation might not be an accurate one, c) that Mass then is only accessible to those who speak that language.
A Mass that retains Latin, on the other hand, a) represents an acceptance of Latin, b) uses the official text from which the translations should have been made, and c) is accessible to all the faithful at least at some level. By “c)” there, I mean that the Church has directed Her bishops and pastors to instruct the faithful in making Latin responses to the “Ordinary” of the Mass. The Church thinks we’re capable of it.
We are called to “full, conscious, and active participation” in the liturgy.
Consider this scenario: John, an American, goes to Mass in Switzerland, where the Mass is celebrated entirely in Swiss. Because John only knows enough Swedish to get by (“hello”, “where is the bathroom?”, “excuse me sir, but your windmill is on fire!”) he cannot make the verbal responses along with the Swiss Catholics. John can a) say the responses out loud in English, b) say the responses quietly (or silently) in English, c) try to pronounce the Swiss words, d) just shut up.
Now consider this scenario: John, an American, whose pastor back home has taken the time to teach his parish to make most of the standard responses of Mass in Latin, goes to Mass in Switzerland where, praise be to God,
their pastor also has taught his parish the simple phrases of Latin to be used in every Mass. Because John knows the Latin phrases (and what they mean), he can make the verbal responses along with the Swiss Catholics.
Which scenario seems a better example of the “catholicity” (that is, the universality) of the Church? Which better exemplifies the unity of liturgy and language within a
single Rite of the Church? Where does there appear, by most standards, a better “active participation” in the Mass?
Personally, I have no strong feelings regarding the language used. I would say however that as a convert, If the Mass was still said in Latin and not English, I would have had to learn Latin in order to participate in the Mass.
No, you would not. If that were the case, then only those Catholics who
knew Latin would have ever been participating in the Mass.
You only need to know the Latin which is used over and over again in the Mass. This can be learned without much effort on your part; the effort is really on the pastor’s side! And you already know what the Latin
means, since you say it in English already (although sometimes the English translation is very poor).
As for the Latin used in the Mass which changes from day-to-day, there it might be more likely for the vernacular to be used. And even where the vernacular is not used, the assistance of a “daily missal” (which has accurate translations of the Latin, sometimes side-by-side
with the Latin) is most welcome. The Church actually encouraged their use!
I would also like to add that I have two young children and the work that children have to cope with now puts them under a lot of pressure, particularly when it comes to exams, and learning Latin which would be used only at Mass would increase their burden.
I think children, who generally have better (or at least, purer) imaginations than we adults, would be more receptive to learning a few phrases in this ancient tongue. And knowledge of Latin assists those people who speak languages that are in some way derived from Latin; many words, like “campus” and “pastor”, for example, come
directly from Latin.
Kind of pulled out of the fire, so to speak?