What language do you want a mass to be told?

[malphono]

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.

Oh yes, I’m well aware of that. But … you know that’s not really the point.

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

There are differences between Biblical Hebrew and modern Israeli Hebrew, just as there are between Koine Greek and modern Greek.

 

[Monica37]

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.

They do here in Germany. I attend a Latin Novus Ordo here. Of course the vernacular is German. Actually it is the Latin parts of the Mass that keep me going back to that church and driving right past the all English mass on post (ok, there are other things that I have issues with on post, but that is another thread). Anyway, this Mass is very beautiful, reverent and the best part is that I instantly felt like I was “home” because the prayers were in Latin which meant I could participate. I always think the argument that no one knows Latin means that people wouldn’t come is silly. The Germans don’t seem to have any trouble learning and the choir at this church is spectacular!!

youtube.com/watch?v=IByKhltnhRk

 

[ProVobis]

Oh yes, I’m well aware of that. But … you know that’s not really the point.

Not to worry, I understood your point. I haven’t completely lost it yet.

 

[Lycorth]

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.

I daresay this was a result of poor religious instruction than the fault of the Latin Mass. Poor religious instruction prior to Vatican II was a problem, so I understand.

 

[ProVobis]

I daresay this was a result of poor religious instruction than the fault of the Latin Mass. Poor religious instruction prior to Vatican II was a problem, so I understand.

I agree. It is hard to see how the Latin Mass was so well attended and loved and inspirational for over 1600 years if everyone thought it was so “foreign” to them.

 

[Lycorth]

I agree. It is hard to see how the Latin Mass was so well attended and loved and inspirational for over 1600 years if everyone thought it was so “foreign” to them.

That is exactly it. Poor instruction on the part of those responsible to correctly transmit the fullness of the Faith coupled with laziness on the part of many modern Catholics is to blame for the TLM not being highly demanded. It is certainly not the fault of something that was cheerfully accepted and universally practiced for centuries.

 

[MarkThompson]

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.

I don’t know why I should need references, since I never said anything of the sort. As far as I know, we have absolutely no record of what languages the earliest Masses were conducted or what was said. It’s essentially certain that Masses in Apostolic times were said in Greek, very likely in Latin, and quite probably in a host of other vernaculars as well. What I said was the “the Mass,” i.e. the Roman Rite (in both forms) is written in Latin. You could write a new mass in Greek or Aramaic, but there’s nothing about using a Greek or Aramaic version of the current Mass that would offer more “strict” adherence to tradition. The earliest traditions have been lost.

 

[didymus]

latinlatinlatin!!!

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

Um . . . let me catch my breath.
I’m certainly all for making the EF as widely available as possible for all who want it. I hope within my lifetime (say, next 20 yrs) enough parishes will have at leat one EF Mass Sunday that it’s an easy drive for anyone.
But I notice a lot of Latinolators drink too much of their own Kool-Aid and seem to think the Latin Mass will cure all the world’s (or at least the Church’s ill’s.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by ProVobis
I agree. It is hard to see how the Latin Mass was so well attended and loved and inspirational for over 1600 years if everyone thought it was so “foreign” to them.

I see by your profile that you were not around in the 1960’s when these changes took place. I was, though I was a child.
When the mass went, first simply to English and then to the Pauline mass or, as it was refered to then, “the new mass”, there was simply no choice in the matter for faithful catholics. Many Catholics were upset about the change, some, a few, upset enough to set up “latin only” groups such as the SSPX . The majority of Catholics though accepted the change as the will of God in The Church, and not because they were “lazy”.

That was then

Today’s Catholics are likewise, not necessarily “Lazy”, they are just resistant to change. They are resistant in the same way as catholics were in the 1960’s when the vernacular was imposed. The only real difference today is that the EF is not being “imposed” but rather is being suggested and encouraged by The Church.
The EF is not being embrased by the local diocese for a number of reasons, primarily because there are not enough priests trained to say mass in the EF. This will hopefully change as seminarians are trained in both forms.

Peace
James

 

[ProVobis]

Today’s Catholics are likewise, not necessarily “Lazy”, they are just resistant to change. They are resistant in the same way as catholics were in the 1960’s when the vernacular was imposed.

The all-vernacular, all-the-time was an easy sell. How do you think the Reformers got away with spreading their heresies? Mistranslate, paraphrase, deceive, improvise, modernize, belittle, mock, all were tools they used. I’m not saying post-Vatican II spread heresies but certainly the period created many opportunities to do it. I was one of those “lazies” too, although I prefer to call it “unmotivated.” At least at the time I was. Point is, give them some motivation, such as promote unity, etc., they’ll do it. Force doesn’t work in the long run.

 

[gospel_life]

Gee, I guess it was laziness on the part of the people that caused the Church to change things to Latin, the vernacular of its time, because people wanted the liturgy in their own language.

It’s a pure and simple fact that most people prefer to pray in their native tongue. The constant sniping from the “all Latin all the time” crowd that has to imply laziness, lack of devotion, irreverence, and all other manner of judmental motivations of which they have no knowledge, says much more about them than it does about anyone else.

The TLM is a wonderful thing for those who feel drawn to it and prefer the Latin. I grew up with it and don’t prefer it. Please stop with all the totally uncalled for judgments on people just because they don’t share that preference. It isn’t any “rejection” of the Church; it’s simply one of the many different ways we answer our calling by God. We really need to be rejoicing that people are answering rather than being critical about what language they speak in doing so.

 

[Famule]

I voted for Latin. That is what the Second Vatican Council said that most of the Mass should be said in.

 

[dominicandinah]

If it’s not done in the language of the place it’s being celebrated, why not Church Slavonic? The Byzantine Catholics use it and they are just as much in communion with Rome as the next Catholic??? I am so tired of people implying they are better Catholics than others because they attend TLM! As someone else already stated, that’s fine it that’s what you prefer, but PLEASE don’t shove it down our throats!!

 

[alitaptap]

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.

The Holy Mass started with the last supper at the upper room. Most scholars would tell you that it probably was celebrated in Aramaic or in old Hebrew. Latin only became an official language of the Catholic Church centuries later. The Holy Mass is celebrated in Eastern churches (some of which are as old or even older than the see of Rome) in different languages.

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.

Sorry but you probably have not considered history of the liturgy very well.

I don’t know why I should need references, since I never said anything of the sort.

You presented claims. To us here, you need to present your sources to verify the veracity of such claim.

As far as I know, we have absolutely no record of what languages the earliest Masses were conducted or what was said.

And how far do you know?

It’s essentially certain that Masses in Apostolic times were said in Greek, very likely in Latin, and quite probably in a host of other vernaculars as well. What I said was the “the Mass,” i.e. the Roman Rite (in both forms) is written in Latin. You could write a new mass in Greek or Aramaic, but there’s nothing about using a Greek or Aramaic version of the current Mass that would offer more “strict” adherence to tradition. The earliest traditions have been lost.

How do you know that the earliest traditions have been lost?

 

[alitaptap]

The Gutenberg Bible is a Latin Vulgate.

Again, you’re correct that the first printed bible using Gutenberg moving types is a Latin Vulgate. My bad, really. I am deeply sorry for that gaffe.

 

[Lycorth]

Today’s Catholics are likewise, not necessarily “Lazy”, they are just resistant to change. They are resistant in the same way as catholics were in the 1960’s when the vernacular was imposed. The only real difference today is that the EF is not being “imposed” but rather is being suggested and encouraged by The Church.
The EF is not being embrased by the local diocese for a number of reasons, primarily because there are not enough priests trained to say mass in the EF. This will hopefully change as seminarians are trained in both forms.

Resistance, laziness, to-may-to, to-mah-to. Objectively speaking, it takes no effort to just go with the flow of the OF and it does require more effort to get accustomed to the EF. Preferences aside, sloth makes us say “no, I want it in my tongue and my own way.” The atomization of the Church doesn’t matter, so long as their own church caters to them.

Gee, I guess it was laziness on the part of the people that caused the Church to change things to Latin, the vernacular of its time, because people wanted the liturgy in their own language.

It’s a pure and simple fact that most people prefer to pray in their native tongue. The constant sniping from the “all Latin all the time” crowd that has to imply laziness, lack of devotion, irreverence, and all other manner of judmental motivations of which they have no knowledge, says much more about them than it does about anyone else.

The TLM is a wonderful thing for those who feel drawn to it and prefer the Latin. I grew up with it and don’t prefer it. Please stop with all the totally uncalled for judgments on people just because they don’t share that preference. It isn’t any “rejection” of the Church; it’s simply one of the many different ways we answer our calling by God. We really need to be rejoicing that people are answering rather than being critical about what language they speak in doing so.

Latin was not the vernacular language when the Tridentine Mass was made official.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s a pure and simple fact that most people prefer to pray in their native tongue.

The Reformers knew this as well and took full advantage of that simple fact.

 

[Lycorth]

The Reformers knew this as well and took full advantage of that simple fact.

If modern Catholics knew how protestantized the Mass has become in comparison to how it was pre-Vatican II…

 

[sinnerdexter]

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.

Please consider what the Evangelical Rev. Henry G. Graham (in his book ‘Where We Got the Bible’ Chapter 11) said about the English Bible:

People who could read at all in the Middle Ages could read Latin: hence there was little need for the Church to issue the Scriptures in any other language. But as a matter of fact she did in many countries put the Scriptures in the hands of her children in their own tongue. (I) We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing, but we shall confine ourselves to England, so as to refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382.

To anyone that has investigated the real facts of the case, this fondly-cherished notion must seem truly ridiculous; it is not only absolutely false, but stupidly so, inasmuch as it admits of such easy disproof; one wonders that nowadays any lecturer or writer should have the temerity to advance it. Now, observe I am speaking of the days before the printing¬press was invented; I am speaking of England; and concerning a Church which did not, and does not, admit the necessity of Bible-reading for salvation; and concerning an age when the production of the Scriptures was a most costly business, and far beyond the means of nearly everybody. Yet we may safely assert, and we can prove, that there were actually in existence among the people many copies of the Scriptures in the English tongue of that day. To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the seventh century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died whilst busy with the Gospel of St. John. In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time. Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great who was working at the Psalms when he died, and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury; as well as popular renderings of Holy Scripture like the Book of Durham, and the Rushworth Gloss and others that have survived the wreck of ages. After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1050), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). I say advisedly ‘specimens’ for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwards perished. We have proof of this in the words of Blessed Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who says: ‘The whole Bible long before Wycliff’s day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read’ (Dialogues III). Again, ‘The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good, or such as be already reproved for naught (i.e., bad, naughty) as Wycliff’s was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff’s days, they remain lawful and be in some folks’ hand. I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in laymen’s hands and women’s too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion.’ (2) But you will say, that is the witness of a Roman Catholic. Well, I shall advance Protestant testimony also.

 

[Lycorth]

Heck, as I’ve said before, I’d love to see the OF changed and slowly made to resemble the EF to the degree it basically becomes the EF in the vernacular. Latin would be icing on the cake to complete the evolution, but I’d gladly attend vernacular Masses where traditional reverential disciplines are practiced and a truly reverent atmosphere is created, if that’s what it takes to have a truly reverent Mass.

Of course, this should have been what was done at Vatican II - and logically, it was the easier thing to do. One has to wonder why all the strange and unnecessary changes were made to the Mass, if the idea was to make it so people could understand what was going on.