What language do you want a mass to be told?

[alitaptap]

Generally, mass in the Philippines is told in our native language (Tagalog and other local dialects) and second language (English). However, I am interested to know the reasons why priests in the Philippines sometimes use Latin language in a sacred liturgy. Besides, if we are to be very strict about it, it should be in Hebrew or Aramic – as these are the language known among the apostles who are ordinary people. I feel that it is much better if priests told it in our native tongue.

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

[MarkThompson]

Besides, if we are to be very strict about it, it should be in Hebrew or Aramic – as these are the language known among the apostles who are ordinary people.

I voted for English, although that assumes that the Mass is said faithfully and with reverence. I wanted to point out, though, that I don’t think your claim here is right. The Mass is written in Latin, and Latin is the official language of the Mass. If there’s a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Mass (I’d guess the former but not the latter exists), it too is a translation from the Latin, not an older form of the rite. You can argue that “to be very strict” the Mass should have been composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, but it was not. Of course, too, the Evangelists wrote (as far as we can tell) in Greek, and we actually do have a very very ancient remnant of Greek in our Mass in the Kyrie Eleison.

 

[alitaptap]

I voted for English, although that assumes that the Mass is said faithfully and with reverence. I wanted to point out, though, that I don’t think your claim here is right. The Mass is written in Latin, and Latin is the official language of the Mass. If there’s a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Mass (I’d guess the former but not the latter exists), it too is a translation from the Latin, not an older form of the rite. You can argue that “to be very strict” the Mass should have been composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, but it was not. Of course, too, the Evangelists wrote (as far as we can tell) in Greek, and we actually do have a very very ancient remnant of Greek in our Mass in the Kyrie Eleison.

What was the common language at the time of the apostles?

 

[puzzleannie]

I voted for English, although that assumes that the Mass is said faithfully and with reverence. I wanted to point out, though, that I don’t think your claim here is right. The Mass is written in Latin, and Latin is the official language of the Mass. If there’s a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Mass (I’d guess the former but not the latter exists), it too is a translation from the Latin, not an older form of the rite. .

actually I believe if you visit the Eastern Catholicism forum you will find that Mass in Aramaic, the venacular language of the apostles is among the oldest rites, along with Greek, Syriac and other languages of the peoples converted by the apostles. Latin became the language for Mass in the Roman rite because it was the common language of the Empire. But the rites in ancient languages predate even the Latin. --and are still in use in those rites–

OPs question is about Mass in the Phillipines, which was colonized by Spain who brought the Catholic Faith their, with Mass in Latin as was universal in the Western Church up until Vatican II allowed translations into vernacular languages. Latin remains the preferred language in the Latin Rite.

The language for Mass is that established by the Church, not by the personal preference of the congregation.

 

[aspirant]

I voted for “Other (native tongue).” I want everyone to have a vernacular option, not just English speakers like me.

 

[MarkThompson]

I voted for “Other (native tongue).” I want everyone to have a vernacular option, not just English speakers like me.

Right, I wasn’t sure what to make of those two options (I certainly don’t want to make English the universal tongue of the Mass); I like it in the vernacular, and my vernacular is English, so I went with that. I’m also fine with it in Latin, and I don’t mean to disparage that either.

What was the common language at the time of the apostles?

I’m not claiming Christ spoke Latin or Greek, although it’s quite certain that several of the Apostles spoke one or both of them. But since we don’t have the words of Christ in their (presumably) original Aramaic, it’s pointless to try to reverse-engineer them from the Greek (though several have tried). And since very few if any of the prayers or other texts of the Mass, except for Scriptural references, actually date to Apostolic times, it would also be strange to claim that an Aramaic translation of the Mass could be more “original.” If we had Mass texts from Apostolic times, we might well want to use them, but since we don’t it’s fruitless to try to invent an “Apostolic Mass” out of an antiquarian impulse.

 

[alitaptap]

I’m not claiming Christ spoke Latin or Greek, although it’s quite certain that several of the Apostles spoke one or both of them. But since we don’t have the words of Christ in their (presumably) original Aramaic, it’s pointless to try to reverse-engineer them from the Greek (though several have tried). And since very few if any of the prayers or other texts of the Mass, except for Scriptural references, actually date to Apostolic times, it would also be strange to claim that an Aramaic translation of the Mass could be more “original.” If we had Mass texts from Apostolic times, we might well want to use them, but since we don’t it’s fruitless to try to invent an “Apostolic Mass” out of an antiquarian impulse.

From what I have read, Aramaic and Greek are the common languages spoken at the time. Most of the books in the Bible are written in those languages. St. Jerome translated the whole Bible into Latin at a time when Latin becomes the common language. The Catholic Church lead the way to translating the Bible in the vernacular as real history will tell us. For most of its history, the Bible had been hand-written by Catholic monks. Consider the fact that the printing press was only invented around 1436. Johann Gutenberg, the inventor of printing press, printed the (what is now known as) Gutenberg Bible - in English and a Catholic version at that! - around 1454 or 1455.

 

[aspirant]

Johann Gutenberg, the inventor of printing press, printed the (what is now known as) Gutenberg Bible - in English and a Catholic version at that! - around 1454 or 1455.

The Gutenberg Bible is a Latin Vulgate.

 

[alitaptap]

The Gutenberg Bible is a Latin Vulgate.

You’re correct. The first thing ever printed by the inventor of the printing press, was a Latin Bible printed in Germany in 1455. However, there are two different productions of the Gutenberg: a Four-Volume Set with two volumes of English translation, and a less expensive Two-Volume Set.

 

[alitaptap]

I voted for English, although that assumes that the Mass is said faithfully and with reverence. I wanted to point out, though, that I don’t think your claim here is right. The Mass is written in Latin, and Latin is the official language of the Mass. If there’s a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Mass (I’d guess the former but not the latter exists), it too is a translation from the Latin, not an older form of the rite. You can argue that “to be very strict” the Mass should have been composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, but it was not. Of course, too, the Evangelists wrote (as far as we can tell) in Greek, and we actually do have a very very ancient remnant of Greek in our Mass in the Kyrie Eleison.

I hope you could put some references that the very first masses, the ‘breaking of the bread’ of the bible, was first written in Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

Besides, if we are to be very strict about it, it should be in Hebrew or Aramic – as these are the language known among the apostles who are ordinary people. I feel that it is much better if priests told it in our native tongue.

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this.

The Church made a decision a long time ago that Latin holds its doctrine and liturgy in the most precise and unaltered fashion. Pope John XXIII said it best in Veterum Sapientia.

It’s now okay to have the Church-approved vernacular in the liturgy but remember, that the Latin Mass is for EVERYONE, a particular vernacular is only for selected Catholics. (How many understand an Italian sermon?) Latin is the standard and basis for all Church vernaculars.

 

[ProVobis]

What was the common language at the time of the apostles?

In the Roman Empire, one would think that Latin would be the most common. However, the Romans thought so highly of the Greeks, whom they had conquered, that they adopted the Greek language (as well as their art and science and philosophy) as part of their culture.

I’m currently studying Biblical Greek so I’ll let you know more as time goes on.

 

[alitaptap]

In the Roman Empire, one would think that Latin would be the most common. However, the Romans thought so highly of the Greeks, whom they had conquered, that they adopted the Greek language (as well as their art and science and philosophy) as part of their culture.

I’m currently studying Biblical Greek so I’ll let you know more as time goes on.

Yes, please.

 

[KC91]

latinlatinlatin!!!

Latin masses attract much more people, so the problem of reduced mass attendances would be solved

 

[Bbigam]

I didn’t vote - I personally like to hear a mix of Latin and English. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a Mass in all vernacular - but I love to hear the Latin, especially for the people’s sung parts of the Ordinary like Gloria, Sanctus, Pater Noster, and Agnus Dei (plus Kyrie in Greek).

Likewise, I don’t think anything is wrong with all Latin, but it’s nice to hear some of the Propers in English, not only the readings but also the Preface and some other prayers.

I’m not sure what I prefer for the Eucharistic Prayer. I’ve never heard it in Latin. (I’ve been to EF numerous times, but of course you don’t hear the Canon there. I do know that I prefer to hear the Canon.)

 

[japhy]

However, I am interested to know the reasons why priests in the Philippines sometimes use Latin language in a sacred liturgy.

Because the normative language of the Roman (Latin) Rite is… Latin. That’s how it was before Vatican II, and that’s how Vatican II said it should remain. Latin has been used in the Roman Rite since at least the 4th century, if not earlier.

Besides, if we are to be very strict about it, it should be in Hebrew or Aramic – as these are the language known among the apostles who are ordinary people.

Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” Many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek. (John 19:18-19)

Many of the first Christians knew Greek. It is not unimaginable that some of them knew Latin as well.

Also, every time someone brings up the “if we want to be authentic, we should be using Hebrew or Aramaic” excuse, I have a nagging feeling that they’re being dishonest: they wouldn’t want to use Hebrew or Aramaic, they’re just offering them as “absurd” options to try and making Latin seem as “absurd”. Maybe that’s not your motive, but that is what comes to mind for me.

I feel that it is much better if priests told it in our native tongue.

I would be very happy with a Mass prayed partially in Latin and partially in the vernacular. In fact, that’s what Vatican II said! Too bad practically no one cares about what Vatican II actually said.

 

[malphono]

Also, every time someone brings up the “if we want to be authentic, we should be using Hebrew or Aramaic” excuse, I have a nagging feeling that they’re being dishonest: they wouldn’t want to use Hebrew or Aramaic, they’re just offering them as “absurd” options to try and making Latin seem as “absurd”. Maybe that’s not your motive, but that is what comes to mind for me.

FWIW, I agree 100%, and will add Greek to the list. Time and again, the same thing pops up and it always seems to be proffered by those who are opposed to any language other than the vernacular. I’ve met such people, and can say from experience that when those of the same position are members of a Church sui juris that actually uses Aramaic or Greek, they inevitably seem to be in the forefront of the all-vernacular movement.

 

[frenchbeatle]

My issue with a Latin Mass is this, and I don’t mean to offend by this:

I understand that there will be missalettes available with the vernacular printed next to the Latin. That’s good, but that’s also the problem; if I have to read along in a booklet to know what’s going on, I don’t feel like I’m really participating, I feel like I’m watching a movie or something. When the Mass is said in a language I understand and speak, that means I can respond and feel like a participant not a spectator.

Now I’m sure the parts of the Mass are similar enough between OF and EF that I wouldn’t be totally lost if I didn’t use a missal, but I feel like I’d be missing most of what’s going on.

Like I said, I don’t mean to offend any Latin Mass lovers out there, but this is my main problem of Latin Mass. Does anyone know what I mean, or have any comments on this?

 

[tweetymom]

My issue with a Latin Mass is this, and I don’t mean to offend by this:

I understand that there will be missalettes available with the vernacular printed next to the Latin. That’s good, but that’s also the problem; if I have to read along in a booklet to know what’s going on, I don’t feel like I’m really participating, I feel like I’m watching a movie or something. When the Mass is said in a language I understand and speak, that means I can respond and feel like a participant not a spectator.

Now I’m sure the parts of the Mass are similar enough between OF and EF that I wouldn’t be totally lost if I didn’t use a missal, but I feel like I’d be missing most of what’s going on.

Like I said, I don’t mean to offend any Latin Mass lovers out there, but this is my main problem of Latin Mass. Does anyone know what I mean, or have any comments on this?

I don’t mean to offend any either. Went to Latin Mass as a child and it was so foriegn to me and everything seemed not real. Now the Mass in English is a whole lot better for me.

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW, I agree 100%, and will add Greek to the list.

Be careful with the Greek. There are plenty of differences between Koine Greek and modern Greek, or so I’ve heard. But then there are bigtime differences between Old English and modern English; you could hardly make out the Old English and I doubt if we have many scholars in Old English.

I don’t know how much the Hebrew has changed or if at all since Christ.