What language do you want a mass to be told?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alitaptap
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hear the consecration in Aramaic every Sunday at my Maronite church. It exists, it is not absurd, and it is beautiful.
 
alitaptap said:
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.
Click to expand...
Kamusta kababayan?

If we are to be strict about it, then the mass should be in Greek, which is the universal language at the time the Apostles taught Christianity throughout the known world. i believe Greek would be used more in early masses. also, most of the New Testament was written in Greek, for the same reason

not that i live in another country, i do miss hearing the mass in our native tongue. although i must admit that the Tagalog bible must be updates as some of the words used are very traditional and uncommon these days. while i prefer the Liturgy of the Word in english, i do miss singing the Ama Namin (Our Father)
 
I think the mass should be said in Latin: Why? Universiality.

Having a single language in the mass emphasises the universiality of the church, this is the reason why latin was used in all amsses worldwide until very recently, and remains the official language of the church. Latin belongs to no country and so it is perfect in this sense, not to mention its a beautiful, reverential language.

Using national languages excludes catholics from elsewhere (who don;t understand the language) from the mass, by creating a de-facto nationalistic exclusivism instead of a collective belongingness emphasised by a non-exclusive ecclesiastical language. Although many people wouldn’t be able to understand Latin, the universiality will be emphasised and all people would be using the same language everywhere. Making it abundantly clear that the Catholic Church is indeed the Universal Church of Christ.
 
It would be wonderful, for once, to hear the Mass offered in Aramaic, Jesus’ native tongue! 🙂
 
i don’t think Latin is for universality, since no one outside the Church ever uses that anymore

i agree with those here who would like masses in languages they understand. i personally struggle with a short attention span and a mass in a language i do not understand would mean my mind would be drifting off somewhere instead of trying to figure out whats going on

there are three main languages in the world today. English, which is the most universal i think and because it is the modern day language of commerce, similar to what Greek was during the time of Jesus

Spanish, which is spoken by a lot of people throughout South America and even in the US, and a lot of these people are Catholics

and Chinese. at least 1/6th of the world population is Chinese and while they do have varied dialects, they have a common mother tongue in Mandarin
 
Thats the point about Latin.

Using a language some group uses means others are excluded via the exhultation of a language owned by a grop of people as a “universal” language. Whereas latin, having no native speakers can be used for universiality simply because it belongs to no one and therefore can be used for the mass, by all people equally therefore becoming a truly universal ecclesiastical language by avoiding the connotations of ownership associated with any vernacular language.
 
gloria97000 said:
I hear the consecration in Aramaic every Sunday at my Maronite church. It exists, it is not absurd, and it is beautiful.
Click to expand...
I don’t know much, if anything, about Aramaic, but has it changed as much in 2000 years as English has in 1000 years? Were these EXACTLY the same words Christ used, do you know? Let’s not assume or take somebody’s word for it.
 
choy said:
i don’t think Latin is for universality, since no one outside the Church ever uses that anymore
Click to expand...
Anatomical parts of the body and the legal profession (and to some extent, pharmaceuticals and chemistry) use it to communicate internationally in those areas. If we go to vernaculars for some of that, we are headed into big trouble in my opinion. 🙂

That said, we do use other standards for universality, musical notations, weights and measures, the American dollar for trade, etc. I don’t see why Latin can’t be preserved for liturgical standards across national borders, do you?
 
Lycorth said:
Latin was not the vernacular language when the Tridentine Mass was made official.
Click to expand...
Which totally misses the point. The Mass only came to be said in Latin at all because it was the vernacular of its time and people wanted Mass in their own language. If it had not been for that we would likely still have it in Greek as the Church would have had no other reason to change to Latin.

Your continued insistence on your omniscience and ability to read people’s motivations to be laziness are truly astounding. “Thank you God for not making me lazy like those other miserable people who call themselves Catholic.” :rolleyes:

It begins to sound like the older brother from the prodigal son story who just can’t abide the idea of the Father wasting His love on those who aren’t as “righteous” and “pure” as they are. An awful lot of scripture parallels condemning such positions from Peter to James to John to Paul to Jesus himself.

There’s an awful lot of us who love God and love the Church and aren’t the least bit “lazy”. We just don’t prefer to pray in Latin. We’re not sitting around judging why you want to; it would be nice if you could consider the possibility that just maybe our prayer is just as real and devoted as your and that maybe working together instead of sniping at each other over such petty things is what we’re called to.
 
There’s an awful lot of us who love God and love the Church and aren’t the least bit “lazy”. We just don’t prefer to pray in Latin.
Click to expand...
Okay, okay, you need not be so defensive about it. 😦
 
gospel_life said:
The Mass only came to be said in Latin at all because it was the vernacular of its time and people wanted Mass in their own language.
Click to expand...
The Latin used in the early Roman Rite was not, strictly speaking, “the vernacular of its time”. It was a stylized “dialect” of Latin, much like the new English translation is a stylized “dialect” of English. The structure and vocabulary of the earliest Latin Rite was distinct from common Latin.
 
ProVobis said:
I don’t know much, if anything, about Aramaic, but has it changed as much in 2000 years as English has in 1000 years? Were these EXACTLY the same words Christ used, do you know? Let’s not assume or take somebody’s word for it.
Click to expand...
I do, but I do not want to derail this thread, so I’ll be brief.

Aramaic is like most languages in that it has several dialects, three of which survive:

  1. *]Western Aramaic (aka West Syriac) which is the traditional liturgical language of the Syriac OC & CC, the Syro-Malankara OC & CC, and the Maronites. It is still spoken in certain places in northern parts of the Middle East.
    *]Eatern Aramaic (aka East Syriac or Assyrian) which is the liturgical language of the Chaldean Church and the ACoE, and the Syro-Malabar Church. It is also still spoken in certain places in northern parts of the Middle East.
    *]Palestianian Aramaic (aka Palestinian Jewish Aramaic) which is liturgically used only by the Greek (Antiochian) Orthodox in 3 small villages in southern Syria, where it also still spoken. This was the dialect mentioned in the Gospels.

    As is usually the case with major linguistic dialects, there are noticeable differences among the 3, mainly in pronunciation. There have been some changes in the spoken tongue over the centuries as well. But, if one knows the pronunciational variants, it is possible for someone versed in one of the dialects to understand the others.

    In any case, each of the 70+ West Syriac Anaphorae has a slightly different text of the Institution Narrative. The Chaldean recension of the Anaphora of Ss Addai and Mari (the original recension of this Anaphora, as used by the ACoE, has no Institution Narrative) uses what amounts to a Syriac translation of the text from the Roman Canon. That was also the case with the Maronites, where that text was substituted for the proper text in all Anaphorae. (Currently, the Maronites continue to use a standardized text for the Institution Narrative, although the text now in use is of recent composition.)
 
ProVobis said:
Anatomical parts of the body and the legal profession (and to some extent, pharmaceuticals and chemistry) use it to communicate internationally in those areas. If we go to vernaculars for some of that, we are headed into big trouble in my opinion. 🙂

That said, we do use other standards for universality, musical notations, weights and measures, the American dollar for trade, etc. I don’t see why Latin can’t be preserved for liturgical standards across national borders, do you?
Click to expand...
how about that fact that no one really speak latin anymore?

i mean, legal terms use latin but not entire sentences in latin. even the one or two word in latin usually causes a lot of confusion. and for some reasons, lawyers always want to talk in language no one understands, even the english so is deep and unnecessarily lengthy

for example, the Our Father, how can some everyday, average person really appreciate what is being said in the Our Father if its in Latin? i’m bilingual myself but even then i do not appreciate the Filipino (Tagalog) masses because a lot of the language are in old Tagalog thats a bit antiquated and the words are harder to understand and appreciate, and its my native language! what more with Latin
 
Jehoshua said:
Thats the point about Latin.

Using a language some group uses means others are excluded via the exhultation of a language owned by a grop of people as a “universal” language. Whereas latin, having no native speakers can be used for universiality simply because it belongs to no one and therefore can be used for the mass, by all people equally therefore becoming a truly universal ecclesiastical language by avoiding the connotations of ownership associated with any vernacular language.
Click to expand...
and thats my point. if no one uses it, then its not unversal. or it is universal, universally incomprehensible
 
puzzleannie said:
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.
Click to expand...
Er, Aramaic is Syriac.

But that’s a nitpick; you’re absolutely correct otherwise.
 
malphono said:
Oh, could I give you a critique on this … but this thread is not the place so I’ll refrain. 😉
Click to expand...
I take it that you find something wrong with the Mass other than language?

Thanks for the Aramaic explanation of differences, by the way. Very informative.
 
I said Latin, because it is the most beautiful languageon Earth, and is not infected with curse words like English is. Latin is also the official language of the Church. I much prefer the TLM over the vernacular.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top