Will the latest Catholic Mass translation get another overhaul?

[ProVobis]

Why not Greek ?

The Latin Mass actually has some Greek. Yes, it’s a small part but the code change is very significant. Can one say the same for the English Mass?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

GangGreen

As Vatican II states:
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Preserved does not mean exclude vernacular in parishes, but to be kept in the Rubrics for appropriate use as in the Vatican where those present are from varying languages.
Usually clergy understand some Latin.

The general parishioner in English speaking countries does not, nor should they have to be forced to go through the gymnastics of understanding what is being said during the Mass.

Also, the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II which copied and pasted from, also includes this;

1. To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

And so it happened that the full blown use of the Vernacular was so widely accepted and preferred, that Latin is rarely used in most parishes.

To try and go back to Latin now, would disconnect people from the Mass further.

As it was, Classical Latin was used to separate the laity from the clergy.

Even in St Teresa of Avila’s time, the only translation of Sacred Scripture allowed was that in Classical Latin. In other words, St Teresa couldn’t read the Bible of her time.

FYT, my reference on this is from: The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila, Vol 1[Teresa of Avila, Otilio Rodriquez (Translator), Kieran Kavanaugh (Translator)]. In the introduction where the author explains the climate of St Teresa’s time. They also banned all the classic works on spirituality.

Christ worked through all this in St Teresa.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ProVobis

Actually Vulgar Latin was the vernacular for most of Europe. I don’t think the average Roman would have understood what a 3rd conjugation pluperfect was. Classical (or later Church) Latin was never street language.

It was the language used and understood by the aristocratic classes, and the common street person did use parts of classical Latin. Peace be with you, and with your spirit wer common greetings in Latin speaking nations.

The rubrics/actions within the Mass were theoretically all one needed. Also that I.N.R.I. on the crucifix. Besides even in the vernacular one obviously needs explanation.

The vernacular one only needs the theological explanation, not the translation of the language as well. Obviously, it Latin was working so well, the Church would not have allowed the Verrnacular. But people were so disconnected, they were praying the Rosary, sleeping or just day dreaming. A few followed the missal, but they too had to just accept the words mumbled by the priest and altar boys.

FYI, I grew up with the TLM before Vatican II and I can assure you, there were abuses for which people didn’t even realize were taking place.

Again, it’s the way Latin had been taught. If people can accept “E Pluribus Unum,” why can’t they accept “Et cum spiritu tuo.”?

Not everyone is on this level intellectually. There are those who struggle reading English, never mind trying to throw Latin at them.

The Mass is intended for the entire congregation, not the aristocratic few.

And they’re still looking for that ideal language. It’s actually a fact that Vatican II commanded Latin to be retained in the Latin rite.

Yup, in the Vatican this is particularly true.

But the vernacular was allowed in parishes around the world and it became the norm in the majority of parishes.

When I visited Nevers in France where St Bernadette’s incorrupt body was. The Masses were entirely in French in the Convent Chapel.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Latin Mass actually has some Greek. Yes, it’s a small part but the code change is very significant. Can one say the same for the English Mass?

Yes, the Kyrie is in Greek.

What not Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke ?

The language isn’t the point of the Mass.

Jim

 

[GangGreen]

GangGreen

Preserved does not mean exclude vernacular in parishes, but to be kept in the Rubrics for appropriate use as in the Vatican where those present are from varying languages.
Usually clergy understand some Latin.

The general parishioner in English speaking countries does not, nor should they have to be forced to go through the gymnastics of understanding what is being said during the Mass.

Again you ignore the piece that says that the use of the vernacular should be expanded not completely overthrow the use of Latin. This was never once in the entire document asked for. That’s a “spirit of Vatican II” reasoning that you are using. You cannot take a sentence and say well it says this, but it means this.

Also, I wonder how people managed to understand the Mass for the centuries upon centuries where no form of Latin was the vernacular. Many of our modern languages came about in the Middle Ages.

Also in today’s world with education available to the Masses, with the common person knowing how to read and write, the ease of using a English/Latin Missal leaves no excuse for people having to do “gymnastics”. Unless you believe that everyone who goes to EF Masses are fluent in Latin.

Also, the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II which copied and pasted from, also includes this;

The section you quote deals with mission territories which the United States, Europe, and I would even include Latin America were not included as being.

And so it happened that the full blown use of the Vernacular was so widely accepted and preferred, that Latin is rarely used in most parishes.

Widely accepted is not necessarily true. Many people hated the fact that the Mass changed. Many left the Church. Those who stayed around either tolerated it or embraced it. The generations that followed have practically no exposure to the Latin Mass.

To try and go back to Latin now, would disconnect people from the Mass further.

Maybe, but the switch shouldn’t have been made from the beginning. I would love to have tested people in 1950 and in 2014 and see if the people’s knowledge of what’s happening at the Mass increased. Judging by the surveys that say that the majority of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence, I would say no.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

GangGreen

Again you ignore the piece that says that the use of the vernacular should be expanded not completely overthrow the use of Latin.

No I didn’t ignore it, I read what it said,

**may be of great advantage to extend **

“may be” is the operative here, not “must be.”

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

The language isn’t the point of the Mass.

And yet, we’ve managed to make it ALL about language. This because some committee was determined to set new doctrinal standards, setting up “for all” in the consecration for example, and not only in the English translation.

The vernacular works in theory but we don’t have an ideal that will last for more than a few years. As I’ve stated before true vernaculars would be preferable to a one-size-fits-all-English-speaking-world translation. This would require more people (presumably better educated) who know the Latin in order to be able to explain it at the parish level. In a world no one knows Latin, corruption of doctrine would be inevitable. We’re in bad shape already when it takes over an hour to figure out that the Pope was actually resigning, and it was only because some female journalist who knew Latin became able to pick up on it.

 

[ProVobis]

No I didn’t ignore it, I read what it said,

“may be” is the operative here, not “must be.”

That whole translation seems to be biased. “Haud raro” means “not rarely” not “frequently” as they rendered it. And the Latin was “vernacular” not “mother tongue” or however they worded it. There’s a difference when it’s applied to major languages like Spanish or English where one-size-fits-all doesn’t work too well. One should go back to the line which is quite clear, that Latin is to be preserved in the Latin Rite liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

Not everyone is on this level intellectually. There are those who struggle reading English, never mind trying to throw Latin at them.

The Mass is intended for the entire congregation, not the aristocratic few.

I came upon an interesting point made by Jurgen Leonhardt in his book “Story of a World Language - Latin.”

“…It would require us essentially to assume that the Romance populations of the Middle Ages simply held on to the Latin longer, whereas the Germanic peoples, because their own languages were more removed from Latin, gravitated toward it more quickly. A look at history of Latin literature from this perspective, something that has apparently never been done before, leads us to completely different conclusions. On the whole, vernacular literature flourished precisely where Latin culture flourished as well. This process bean in the seventh and eighth centuries in Ireland and England, which were the most important centers of the ancient Latin tradition. Interestingly, these were the first regions in Europe to develop a written form of the vernacular.”

Perhaps this would explain why the study of Latin improves SAT scores?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Latin use in the Mass was the vernacular for most of Europe at that time.

Why not Greek ?

Because the Church wanted a Mass that the people could understand without great amounts of instruction.

The use of Latin today would exclude too many people, who are not intellectually equipped to learn Latin,.

As Vatican II stated, the language used should be easily understood without much explanation.

Jim

Jim, could you tell me why people in Europe in say the 5th century, who were mainly illiterate peasants, could understand Latin without a lot of instruction, but today in the 21st century when people are not only literate, but have all kinds of ‘tools’ for learning languages available at the touch of a fingertip, aren’t ‘intellectually equipped’ to learn Latin?

You’ll say, "But the peasants spoke Latin, so it wasn’t hard’. . .but not all the peasants spoke Latin for starters (Germanic tribes, Celts, all part of the empire). . .they spoke it as a second or even a THIRD language. . .and they managed to get along.

You have people in our modern world who learn KLINGON, for heaven’s sake, for ‘fun’. You have hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the US who speak everything from Armenian to Serbo-Croatian as their ‘first’ language and who manage to go on and learn English, not just well enough to follow along in a primer, but to ‘think’ and ‘speak’ of abstract and complex ideas. . .

and yet somehow people who can speak ‘just English’ are so DUMB they can’t learn a small amount of Latin, much of which is so close to the English words (spiritu – spirit) that it’s hardly ‘learning’ at all?

I don’t buy it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I came upon an interesting point made by Jurgen Leonhardt in his book “Story of a World Language - Latin.”

Perhaps this would explain why the study of Latin improves SAT scores?

It might improve SAT scores, but has little to do with union with Christ in the Eucharist at Mass.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Tantum ergo

Jim, could you tell me why people in Europe in say the 5th century, who were mainly illiterate peasants, could understand Latin without a lot of instruction, but today in the 21st century when people are not only literate, but have all kinds of ‘tools’ for learning languages available at the touch of a fingertip, aren’t ‘intellectually equipped’ to learn Latin?

Although illiterate, peasants were not disconnected from Latin. The nobles they slaved for used it and it was a status symbol in the culture to be fluent in it.

People are attracted to what they perceive will improve their status, even among illiterate peers.

Anyway, what was done in the 1500’s and prior, doesn’t apply today.

Since Vatican II, I have attended the Noros Ordo format in Latin and English at two different monasteries. Both were equally reverent. The English however, was deeper because I didn’t have to play with the Latin.

But, in a parish setting, were all levels of intellects are present, it would not be the same.

In fact, when I grew up in the 50’s, people attended the Mass that was the shortest, said by the priest who said it quickly. Did he skip prats ? Who knows, perhaps he did, but he mumbled through it so quickly and being few followed Latin anyway, it made no difference.

For me, as for the Bishops of Vatican II, the main point is to engage everyone at Mass and have them more actively participating in the responses and hymns. The vernacular serves this purpose, and although not perfect, it’s far better than trying to force feed people with Latin.

My parish priest knows no Latin. He is near retirement, but said that if they were to force Latin, he would retire immediately. I can imagine that other priest trained during the same time as him, without Latin, would do the same.

Jim

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum ergo

Although illiterate, peasants were not disconnected from Latin. The nobles they slaved for used it and it was a status symbol in the culture to be fluent in it.

People are attracted to what they perceive will improve their status, even among illiterate peers.

Anyway, what was done in the 1500’s and prior, doesn’t apply today.

Since Vatican II, I have attended the Noros Ordo format in Latin and English at two different monasteries. Both were equally reverent. The English however, was deeper because I didn’t have to play with the Latin.

But, in a parish setting, were all levels of intellects are present, it would not be the same.

In fact, when I grew up in the 50’s, people attended the Mass that was the shortest, said by the priest who said it quickly. Did he skip prats ? Who knows, perhaps he did, but he mumbled through it so quickly and being few followed Latin anyway, it made no difference.

For me, as for the Bishops of Vatican II, the main point is to engage everyone at Mass and have them more actively participating in the responses and hymns. The vernacular serves this purpose, and although not perfect, it’s far better than trying to force feed people with Latin.

My parish priest knows no Latin. He is near retirement, but said that if they were to force Latin, he would retire immediately. I can imagine that other priest trained during the same time as him, without Latin, would do the same.

Jim

Jim, with respect, you first are not addressing the question but attempting to say that anything ‘before 1500’ doesn’t matter.

You are also not addressing what the documents of Vatican 2 actually said (and yes, I’ve read them).

Finally, you are using one example of one priest and attempting to extrapolate his personal feelings onto every single priest ‘of his time’.

Even if this were the case for ‘all those priests’. . .with respect, so what? The Church is not a democracy.

Nobody is forcing anybody to go to a "Latin Mass’ but the current translation could be changed to incorporate more Latin (up to and including the Eucharistic prayers, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Pater, the Agnus Dei) and people could easily still ‘fully participate’. Are you really trying to tell me that people who are 30, 40, 50 and up, after all their years at Mass, would not be able to hear (or say) “Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi” and understand this was “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins or the world”?

I remember the Mass in 1962 (I was 6). I remember the pre-Paul VI Masses (1965-1970). I certainly remember the Mass prior to 2011.

I sat through Masses where we all sang SPANISH hymns, African hymns, and Native American hymns. Gee, everybody loved those because we were so ‘diverse’. . .

Amazingly, people were able to sing these ‘non vernacular’ hymns with understanding.

What makes Latin so different?

(Though I’m a little younger than you are, the Masses I remember in Latin were not ‘short and mumbled’, and I really loved reading along in my missalette and recognizing what Father was saying. . .just as I would have enjoyed reading along in my missalette the way that children in the last 40 years have done, their ENGLISH missalette, as they learned to read ENGLISH. The only difference was that I was learning TWO languages, at a time when (developmentally speaking) this was the best possible time for me to learn language at all.

All we have done in the last 50 years or so is short-change our children, our youth, our ‘mature adults’ and our elders, by LIMITING their opportunities to learn language and culture and history.

 

[ProVobis]

My parish priest knows no Latin.

He probably does. According to Canon Law

Can. 249 The Charter of Priestly Formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also well versed in latin, and have a suitable knowledge of other languages which would appear to be necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of their pastoral ministry.

 

[ProVobis]

It might improve SAT scores, but has little to do with union with Christ in the Eucharist at Mass.

That’s where the inscription on the cross, which you see as INRI but was spelled out in Latin, as well as Greek and Hebrew, comes in.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That’s where the inscription on the cross, which you see as INRI but was spelled out in Latin, as well as Greek and Hebrew, comes in.

The inscription on the cross by the Roman Procurator is hardly an attempt at union with Christ which I’m referring to.

Jim

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The inscription on the cross by the Roman Procurator is hardly an attempt at union with Christ which I’m referring to.

Jim

So wait. You’re telling me that English gives you ‘union with Christ’.

And for a French person, French would give him or her ‘union.’

For a bilingual person who speaks Mandarin Chinese and English, either would give union.

Etc.etc.

but for some reason, Latin would. . .not.

Even though for the average English speaker, to hear Mass in Spanish would require an "English to Spanish’ dictionary and/or Missal translation. . .

But hey, if the congregation is 50% Spanish, and 50% English, the 50% Spanish get to have ‘union’ and the 50% English can ‘read along’.

If THAT is peachy keen, what’s the problem with a ‘vernacular/Latin’ guide. . .if the people who don’t normally speak the ‘vernacular’ can ‘follow along’ and be fine, it would be exactly the same.

After all, there are lots of parishes where there are ‘Spanish masses’ and they are attended by non-Spanish speakers. . .there are French masses attended by non French speakers. . .

Jim, you are NEVER going to have a situation where you can satisfy everybody, right?

Suppose you are an English speaking tourist and your group of an Italian, a German, a Korean, an Ethiopian, an Inuit, and a Peruvian were all in France and wanted to attend Mass.

Suppose the French church offered a missalette for “French/English”. You’d be fine; what about the others in your party? Most churches in France don’t have umpteen ‘French to whatever’ missalettes to offer. . .

but wait! What if Mass were in LATIN?

Then no matter if you were in Timbuktu or Toledo, Boston or Bogata, Cairo or Ceylon. . .you would whip out your personal "Vernacular to Latin’ Missal.

Amazing! You would follow along the Latin and ‘translate’ to YOUR OWN LANGUAGE.

You could be standing with 50 people each speaking a different language, and if they had their ‘vernacular latin’ missals, each and every one could ‘participate fully’ at Mass.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Tantum ergo

So wait. You’re telling me that English gives you ‘union with Christ’.

No, that’s not what I’m saying.

You apparently missed the point in the conversation.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

In fact, when I grew up in the 50’s, people attended the Mass that was the shortest, said by the priest who said it quickly.

In fairness, I don’t think that part has changed. People still walk out of church right after communion. And I’m using the word “walk” charitably. Makes you wonder, though, take away communion and the obligation, how many would attend Mass at all.

 

[GangGreen]

In fairness, I don’t think that part has changed. People still walk out of church right after communion. And I’m using the word “walk” charitably. Makes you wonder, though, take away communion and the obligation, how many would attend Mass at all.

If the polls are any indication, then you could probably change your sentence to

take away the obligation, how many would attend Mass at all