What language do you want a mass to be told?

[ProVobis]

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

I appreciate that. English isn’t my first language and I know the problems of translating. There is always something lost in translations, always, be it lingual translations, mathematical translations of co-ordinates, or computer program migrations. I’ve had plenty of experience in all of these.

Understanding isn’t the real issue, it’s being closer to the source (the truth) that counts. So you say, the earliest parts of the Bible were Hebrew and Greek of that time. Okay, St. Jerome translated those to 300 AD Latin, so now, with all its nuances and idioms and approximate (never-quite-exact) meanings, we’re one degree away from the original. Then we translate that to 1970 English, two degrees removed from the original. Then we paraphrase/change that to 1975 English, three degrees removed from the original.

What’s good, though, is that the new translations (2010 English) were translated from the never-changing Latin and not the 1975 English, bringing us one degree closer to the original. And what would we be without that Latin as our standard? Read the Veterum Sapientia of Pope John XXIII.

And speaking of the Our Father, do a google and find out how many different versions of the Pater Noster there have been in the English language, from Old English to Middle English to Modern English. I’ll bet that someone today can more easily follow the Pater Noster in Latin than that of the Old English.

 

[Palaeologos]

I said Latin, because it is the most beautiful languageon Earth, and is not infected with curse words like English is.

I’m sorry, but that’s just not true. Just like any language, Latin had words that you didn’t say in company if you were polite.

Take a look at Martial if you don’t believe me; even some of Catullus’ poetry is rather, how shall we say, earthy.

 

[JerrySeibert]

Common sense would tell anyone to vote for their language of choice. Why would you not choose so, it should be in the common language of your area.

 

[Palaeologos]

To answer the original question : In “a tongue understanded of the people,” of course.

Of course, in some times and places, that may well be Latin!

 

[choy]

I appreciate that. English isn’t my first language and I know the problems of translating. There is always something lost in translations, always, be it lingual translations, mathematical translations of co-ordinates, or computer program migrations. I’ve had plenty of experience in all of these.

Understanding isn’t the real issue, it’s being closer to the source (the truth) that counts. So you say, the earliest parts of the Bible were Hebrew and Greek of that time. Okay, St. Jerome translated those to 300 AD Latin, so now, with all its nuances and idioms and approximate (never-quite-exact) meanings, we’re one degree away from the original. Then we translate that to 1970 English, two degrees removed from the original. Then we paraphrase/change that to 1975 English, three degrees removed from the original.

What’s good, though, is that the new translations (2010 English) were translated from the never-changing Latin and not the 1975 English, bringing us one degree closer to the original. And what would we be without that Latin as our standard? Read the Veterum Sapientia of Pope John XXIII.

And speaking of the Our Father, do a google and find out how many different versions of the Pater Noster there have been in the English language, from Old English to Middle English to Modern English. I’ll bet that someone today can more easily follow the Pater Noster in Latin than that of the Old English.

i understand what you’re saying. but you can always get an expert who can translate from the original context to today’s common language. the purpose of course is that everyone understands what is being said. how can prayer be heartfelt if people don’t understand a word that is being uttered?

 

[japhy]

the Our Father, how can some everyday, average person really appreciate what is being said in the Our Father if its in Latin?

Because you know what the Our Father says, assuming you pray in the vernacular a decent translation of it! Granted, romance languages (e.g. French, Spanish, Italian) have an advantage over non-romance languages, since they are derived from Latin.

People don’t need to “learn Latin”. They only need to learn some simple Latin phrases. Et cum spiritu tuo. Deo gratis. Laus tibi Christe. They already know what these phrases mean.

And if people have a Latin-vernacular personal missal, even better.

 

[alitaptap]

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)

Dear Kabayan (fellow citizen)

Obviously, the apostles did not write the rubrics of the Holy Mass right after the resurrection of Christ. When they spread out to evangelize the world, they only carry with them the basic idea of what should be in it - to model it according to the service in synagogues. As it is, every culture derive their own rite from that basic idea. This is exemplified during ecumenical councils held centuries later. Some of the early Church Fathers did not speak Latin at all nor Greek (although the largest groups are the Latin-speaking and the Greek-speaking contingents). To insist that the early Holy Mass is either in Latin or Greek is simply wrong.

Aramaic is the lingua franca around the region where Jesus grew up. The language of the Chaldean, Assyrian, and Syriac rites are derivatives from Aramaic - and these are very old rites.

 

[peary]

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.

The reason why priests in the Philippines sometimes use Latin in the sacred Liturgy is because it is the LATIN RITE OF WORSHIP. Latin has been an integral part of the Liturgy in the Western Church for almost two-thousand years up until the Vatican granted an indult to allow Mass to be celebrated in the language of the people immediately foollowing Vatican II. Hebrew and Aramaic are not languages of the Western Church or the Mass. If anything, Greek would be. And Greek is used in the Eastern Rite Byzantine Liturgy.

The Kyrie Eleison is Greek (Lord have mercy). Some Latin is proper, and I wish that some Latin had been retained in the Latin Liturgy.

There are many parts of the Mass that I think should be in the native tongue of the people, but to retain an historical perspective, some Latin should be retained.

 

[Montalo]

honesty a mix is best. The readings, Gospels, Homily, and Prayers of the faithful in the native tounge and the rest in Latin.

 

[otjm]

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

Have you actually ever been to a Protestant service? And do you have any history at all? That urban myth just keeps going round and round.

 

[otjm]

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.

And by your logic, all of the Eastern rite Churchs should be Latinized.

 

[Palaeologos]

Have you actually ever been to a Protestant service? And do you have any history at all? That urban myth just keeps going round and round.

Well, there are Protestants who are liturgical and Protestants who are not. If you compare a high-church Lutheran or Anglo-Catholic service to the average RC Mass, the immediate impression is that the Protestants are taking the liturgy much more seriously than the Catholics.

 

[otjm]

It would be wonderful, for once, to hear the Mass offered in Aramaic, Jesus’ native tongue!

See if you can find a Maronite rite Holy Mysteries. The Mass in the US is celebrated in English, Arabic and Aramaic. and it is awesome!

 

[otjm]

Well, there are Protestants who are liturgical and Protestants who are not. If you compare a high-church Lutheran or Anglo-Catholic service to the average RC Mass, the immediate impression is that the Protestants are taking the liturgy much more seriously than the Catholics.

Yep. and I am well aware of the high vs. low vs. (almost) no liturgy spread. I can remember going to a wedding service in a (high) Lutheran church in about 1978 that was more formal and seemed a lot closer to the EF than the Mass I attended every Sunday.

I tire of the same old rant about protestanizing the Mass when much of what was done was to go back to the Mass before all the acretions started creeping in. That is not to say that what we ended up with was organically developed; but liturgical knowledge is interestingly sparse in some areas.

The “prtoestantized” rant makes as much sense as the one which says that if you are used to one form, you will have problems knowing where you are in the other form. What hogwash. I attended far more EF Masses when I was young than anyone here has likely had the opportunity to attend. and I ahve never had a problem recognizing where I am in either form, as the of did not break the general outline of the EF. Good grief, what claptrap.

 

[Aramis]

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.

Not thoughts… understanding of canon law:

The Latin version of the Roman Mass is the Normative version, the version which all priests of the Roman Rite are expected to be able to say.

While the local dialect may be used (this is one of the changes the council made during the Vatican II council), it is never the “Norm” for the Roman Church; the norm is Latin.

 

[Jehoshua]

And by your logic, all of the Eastern rite Churchs should be Latinized.

I am of course talking about the Latin Rite.

The eastern rites have there own ecclesiastical languages which should remain as part of a legitimate form of worship. They have for the most part had or have a universiality within their rites in the use of Aramaic, or Greek which is what in my opinion should remain in the Latin rite. By universiality of language i meant that in a single particular church, the mass of each rite should be universal so that all memebers wherever they are partake of the same form of mass.

Personally also i have no problem with the homily being in the vernacular as it is meant to teach the people. This should clearly be in the vernacular, as to the mass on the whole it should however in each individual rite be in the language of that rite. In the Latin Rite latin, in others the ecclesiastical language of their particular church for reasons of universiality, reverence and exhultation of the mass by clearly seperating it from the profane.

---

The eastern churches are sui-iuris churches and therefore entitled to their form of worship which is of equal validity and greater antiquity then the latin rites forms. I of course do not want, wish or expect them to change their form.

 

[ProVobis]

i understand what you’re saying. but you can always get an expert who can translate from the original context to today’s common language. the purpose of course is that everyone understands what is being said. how can prayer be heartfelt if people don’t understand a word that is being uttered?

Again, it’s not a matter of understanding, it’s being presented with the truth, or something as close to the source as possible. If Aramaic is that language, good, but someone on this thread told me or implied that Aramaic itself has changed over the last 2000 years, so I don’t know how many degrees away from 40 AD Aramaic today’s Aramaic is to be called the ultimate tool of truthful information.

Perhaps we can see the point best if we conduct this experiment: Take ten people at your next party and whisper a two or three sentence statement, business or news event, to the first person. Then have that person tell the next person, and so on. By the time it’s reached the tenth person, that news event has turned into pure hilarity. (I’ve been involved in this experiment twice, and it was worth the chuckles.)

The same can be said for preaching the faith throughout all of Christianity, can’t it? Yet Latin (and to some extent, the East liturgies) have been cited by Pope John XXIII to be that of being able to hold the faith in the most precise way. Continued.

 

[ProVobis]

Pope John XXIII, shortly before he convened the Second Vatican Council:

Venerable languages
The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.

A primary place
But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.

And since in Gods special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire-- and that for so many centuries-- it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See.3 Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.

The nature of Latin
Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with **equal impartiality to all **and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latins formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See
For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.” She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Churchs life, “is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.” 6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Churchs nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time . . of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non vernacular.”

Universal
Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have “true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faith-full” of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

Immutable
Furthermore, the Churchs language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Non-vernacular
Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."0 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure . . . of incomparable worth.” (11). It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Churchs teaching.2 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

 

[mulrooney]

I prefer the Traditional Latin Mass, sometimes known as the Tridentine Mass. Let us remember that whether EF or OF, the mass must be in Latin! Not many folks are aware of this, but in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church all masses must be in Latin. The reason you have Novus Ordo Masses in English, is by an indult, or permission from Rome. That indult may be removed at any time, and if it is removed anywhere, forn any reason, then mass must be said in Latin.

 

[centurionguard]

Pope John XXIII, shortly before he convened the Second Vatican Council:

**Venerable languages
The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.

A primary place
But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.

And since in Gods special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire-- and that for so many centuries-- it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See.3 Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.

The nature of Latin
Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latins formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See
For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.” She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Churchs life, “is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.” 6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Churchs nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time . . of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non vernacular.”

Universal
Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,"8 and since the Supreme Pontiffs have “true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faith-full” of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

Immutable
Furthermore, the Churchs language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Non-vernacular
Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."0 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure . . . of incomparable worth.” (11). It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Churchs teaching.2 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.**

Good Article.
Pundits Against the Novus Ordo
tanbooks.com/doct/vatican_liturgy.htm
catholicpunditwannabe.blogspot.com/2010/02/notes-on-devastated-vineyard-by.html
Dietrich von Hildebrand Devastated Vineyard and Trojan Horse in the City of God.