This brings to mind something I have been thinking about since I read that Spanish speakers are the fastest growing group in the Catholic church in the US and at some point will probably be in the majority, perhaps a way to avoid the “tower of Babel” a compromise to use more Latin in the mass might help maintain an integrated church, rather than 2 communities each off worshiping in their own language.
That is exactly how I learned to pray the Mass in Latin. The parish my grandmother went to was half Hispanice and half Irish. Prior to Vatican II, both ethnicities worshipped at the samw Massess. The priest would simply give half of the homily in English and half in Spanish, with a review of the Reading and Gospel in both languages.
The language expresses faith and doctrine, whether it’s been paraphrased, edited, or translated. Language is most important. And by its nature it cannot be simply dismissed as a “practice.” It’s a vehicle of conveying faith and morals. The Church in Rome has carefully written its (typical) texts in precise language for the entire Church, and when it revises those texts it’s generally for the entire Church as well. There is no intent to segregate doctrine by language or by culture. Unfortunately our insistence to make the various subcommittees prepare texts just so that we hear only words which we think we understand has created a different level of understanding for each culture. And this state is far from being catholic or universal. A return to preserving Latin in the liturgy per Vatican II is most needed.
For a Papal statement to be infallible it must meet the following conditions:
But language is only as good as far as one can understand it. Precision in words would mean nothing if the word itself cannot be understood. Latin is useful in the top level of the Church, but not down where the laity are. A great majority of the laity has no appreciation of Latin and thus any precision of language would be no use to them.
Oh, really? They’re finally going to take “mysterium fidei” out of the Missal of Pius V / John XXIII ? Because, you know, we wouldn’t want to change Our Savior’s words or anything.
No offense, but by the time you have learned enough Latin to write that correctly, you will most likely have learned enough to realize that it is not the case. Maybe this question answers itself, but why is it that the people who know the least Latin are the most likely to ascribe magical powers to it?Latin est angelus lingua
Take the translation up with the software owners. Twas just a goat getter in jestOh, really? They’re finally going to take “mysterium fidei” out of the Missal of Pius V / John XXIII ? Because, you know, we wouldn’t want to change Our Savior’s words or anything.
No offense, but by the time you have learned enough Latin to write that correctly, you will most likely have learned enough to realize that it is not the case. Maybe this question answers itself, but why is it that the people who know the least Latin are the most likely to ascribe magical powers to it?
You probably won’t believe me, but when Pope Benedict was still Cardinal Prefect of the CDF, he wrote how the many/all question is really not a big issue.The pope who called VII decreed and commanded that no one even write against the use of Latin in the Liturgy. He identified the use of vernacular in the Liturgy as a “revolutionary change”.
"In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata."
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.
And what happened ?
A missal was put in place that changed the words of Our Savior in the consecration ! Deo gratias they are fixing that.
Seems the only thing that hasn’t been tampered with is the Sign of the Cross !
Latin est angelus lingua
Misquoting Christ is an issue or they wouldn’t be changing it to the correct translation.
Theologically, there is a good argument to be made for the use of “all.” DOn’t get me wrong, I prefer the “many,” but just be aware that there are good theological arguments for both. This was not uniqe to English. The German translation of the liturgy had the same issue. The real point here is it is not for the laity to criticize ANY translation of the liturgy promulgated by the Church. As laity our responsibility is obedience to our bishops. If they see issues, it is theor responsibility to fix them, but it is bot for us to criticize the Church, which is what criticizing the liturgy is: criticizing the Church.
Hey, I bothered learning it. So I can tell you it is not (1) particularly precise, (2) much more beautiful than plenty of other languages, (3) unchanging, or (4) sacred. I thought about this when I saw a motet by Palestrina the other day (I think it was also set by Victoria and others and comes from the -]Song of Songs/-] Canticum Canticorum), called Trahe Me Post Te. Sounds lovely, I’m sure, if all you know is “ooh, Palestrina” and “in Latin!” – but to me it has all the glorious beauty of its English equivalent: “Drag me after you”!Take the translation up with the software owners. Twas just a goat getter in jest
You are right about the exact words/moment of the Consecration, but you are denying the translation in question is wrong. Or see no problem with it. No matter, they are changing it.
I think your pride is starting to eat you alive there Mark.
But not that big an issue, or you wouldn’t prefer the Tridentine misquotation with “mysterium fidei” to the corrected version in which it has been moved outside the Words of Institution proper. Right?
Oy vey. The ‘angelus’ Gabriel certainly wouldn’t have communicated with the simple Jewish village maiden Mary in anything but her own language - Aramaic. Assuming he used any human language at all - angels are spirits, after all, and for all we know may be able to communicate without language.Latin est angelus lingua
I think you can tell by “At Trent”'s username that he is a pure Romantic.Oy vey. The ‘angelus’ Gabriel certainly wouldn’t have communicated with the simple Jewish village maiden Mary in anything but her own language - Aramaic. Assuming he used any human language at all - angels are spirits, after all, and for all we know may be able to communicate without language.
Not to meniton Raphael of course - how did that particular ‘angelus’ communicate with Tobias and Sarah in language that hadn’t even been invented yet? And wouldn’t be for hundreds of years? Let alone the other angels?
Seriously, there is absolutely no reason for not equally asserting that English is the language of the angels.
He was using a poetic phrase to convey his belief that angels are sacred, holy, timeless beings that watch over us by the command of God. Their holy power received from the Lord is akin to the power exuded by the Latin language over our friend; I’m sure that’s his point. 
Are you a trianed theologian? Are you in Holy Orders? I am not, and as such, it is not my place to criticize any promulgated missal as being “wrong”
You are right. The new translations are an admission that the original translations are/were fallible if benefical at all.
That would have been a tough sell in the early Roman Empire. You need to remember that Greeks were the “conquered” people. It would be like Poland in the 30’s and 40’s. Although many Poles loved their own language (and still do), many of them learned German simply because they had to. My own mother did and became very fluent in German well after the war. On the other hand, my father (to his death) despised the English language even though (or maybe because) his division became under British command after the war.At once, I am in agreement that we need a universal “catholic” language, but I am also sympathetic to these vernacular arguments regarding the Annunciation, Christ’s teachings, & c. After all, Greek was the lingua franca in the eastern Mediterranean in Apostolic times, but if we all went by Greek, Matthew 16 might not enthrone Peter as the Aramaic language does! We would have a very different understanding of the Chair of Peter had Our Lord used the “universal” language and not His vernacular, right?
Uh huh - the whole ‘petros’ v ‘petra’ debate beloved of Protestant bible scholars only makes sense in reference to the Greek version of said scripture. And it is us Latin Catholics who have to point out that Christ was most likely speaking to Peter in Aramaic, in which case he used ‘kephas’ in place of both ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ and the whole point is shot down in flames.After all, Greek was the lingua franca in the eastern Mediterranean in Apostolic times, but if we all went by Greek, Matthew 16 might not enthrone Peter as the Aramaic language does! We would have a very different understanding of the Chair of Peter had Our Lord used the “universal” language and not His vernacular, right?