Would you support the Traditional Latin Mass in the vernacular?

[choy]

The Mass being exactly the same, even the language regardless of where you are, isn’t universal? It’s not like its an extreme endeavor for people to follow along in the Missal. And Pentecost is irrelevant because most people are not blessed with the Gifts of Tongues and Interpretation.

Pentecost demonstrates that it is in God’s Will that the Gospel be proclaimed to all people in all nations in all languages

to say that a Church is only truly universal because of a common language misses the entire point of universality of the Church. it is not language that makes the Church universal, but the faith. that people in every corner of the globe regardless of background or any concievable group you can put them in, would be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and accept all her teachings.

i’m curious as to what your view is of Eastern Churches which doesn’t use Latin. are they not Catholic?

 

[Nowhere_Man]

Pentecost demonstrates that it is in God’s Will that the Gospel be proclaimed to all people in all nations in all languages

to say that a Church is only truly universal because of a common language misses the entire point of universality of the Church. it is not language that makes the Church universal, but the faith. that people in every corner of the globe regardless of background or any concievable group you can put them in, would be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and accept all her teachings.

i’m curious as to what your view is of Eastern Churches which doesn’t use Latin. are they not Catholic?

I never said, at least I didn’t intend to say, that a common and universal language was necessary for a universal Church, but I do think it’s a nice thing to have, as the Latin Rite did for five hundred years or so.

Yes, the Eastern Churches (who’s Liturgies I adore, especially the Byzantines) are every much as Catholic as we Latins are.

I guess I should clarify that I like Latin used as the Latin Rites liturgical language foremost because it has been a tradition of the Church for centuries; wanting to restore, and keep what is left of the Latin Rites tradition is my whole reasoning behind my love of Latin and the Tridentine Mass.

As a side note I greatly, greatly applaud the Eastern Churches (well, MOST of them) for hanging on to their traditions in lieu of abuse and prejudice from Latin Catholics in the past.

 

[choy]

I never said, at least I didn’t intend to say, that a common and universal language was necessary for a universal Church, but I do think it’s a nice thing to have, as the Latin Rite did for five hundred years or so.

Yes, the Eastern Churches (who’s Liturgies I adore, especially the Byzantines) are every much as Catholic as we Latins are.

I guess I should clarify that I like Latin used as the Latin Rites liturgical language foremost because it has been a tradition of the Church for centuries; wanting to restore, and keep what is left of the Latin Rites tradition is my whole reasoning behind my love of Latin and the Tridentine Mass.

As a side note I greatly, greatly applaud the Eastern Churches (well, MOST of them) for hanging on to their traditions in lieu of abuse and prejudice from Latin Catholics in the past.

my apologies, but my original reply was to this post:

a common language, Latin, stresses the Catholicity/Universality of our Faith.

and i was under the impression you were reinforcing that viewpoint

 

[Lycorth]

From what I understand of the Eastern Catholic churches, they use a single rite for the celebration of the Mass. Even though Latin is not used, a single rite (in a single language, also?) is used, and that singularity preserves the catholicity of their rite.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, their submission to the Holy Father assures universality, since they submit to the same moral teachings we Latins do (or should).

That’s part of why I wanted to stir up discussion about the Traditional Mass in the vernacular; a single rite without variation and with centuries of locked-in tradition and efficacy as opposed to dozens of variations and subtle alterations (and questionable theology) wherever the Mass of Paul VI is celebrated.

Yes, the Traditional Mass in Latin would be best and is still the ideal and the goal. But, a single, unalterable rite, steeped in tradition, does more to secure true catholicity than a rite open to tinkering and alterations and what have you.

 

[Bluegoat]

From what I understand of the Eastern Catholic churches, they use a single rite for the celebration of the Mass. Even though Latin is not used, a single rite (in a single language, also?) is used, and that singularity preserves the catholicity of their rite.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, their submission to the Holy Father assures universality, since they submit to the same moral teachings we Latins do (or should).

That’s part of why I wanted to stir up discussion about the Traditional Mass in the vernacular; a single rite without variation and with centuries of locked-in tradition and efficacy as opposed to dozens of variations and subtle alterations (and questionable theology) wherever the Mass of Paul VI is celebrated.

Yes, the Traditional Mass in Latin would be best and is still the ideal and the goal. But, a single, unalterable rite, steeped in tradition, does more to secure true catholicity than a rite open to tinkering and alterations and what have you.

For a long time the Anglicans had a similar idea - that Common Prayer, in whatever language, would be a kind of instrument of unity. Certainly it is since they changed the liturgy in the same was that the Catholic Church did that things have really gone to Hell in a hand-basket in the Anglican Communion.

 

[Nowhere_Man]

From what I understand of the Eastern Catholic churches, they use a single rite for the celebration of the Mass. Even though Latin is not used, a single rite (in a single language, also?) is used, and that singularity preserves the catholicity of their rite.

Nope, there are five different Rites and 22 different sui Iuris Churches that is broken down as follows:
**

1. Alexandrian liturgical tradition**
   1. Coptic Catholic Church
   2. Ethiopian Catholic Church

2. Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition
1. Maronite Church
2. Syriac Catholic Church
3. Syro-Malankara Catholic Church

3. Armenian liturgical tradition:
1. Armenian Catholic Church

4. Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
1. Chaldean Catholic Church
2. Syro-Malabar Church

5. Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
1. Albanian Catholic Church
2. Belarusian Catholic Church
3. Bulgarian Catholic Church
4. Eparchy of Križevci
5. Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
6. Hungarian Catholic Church
7. Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
8. Macedonian Catholic Church
9. Melkite Greek Catholic Church
10. Romanian Church United with Rome
11. Russian Catholic Church
12. Ruthenian Catholic Church
13. Slovak Catholic Church
14. Ukrainian Catholic Church

As for the language, a lot of Eastern Churches use the vernacular, such as most Ruthenians, and others, such as Ukranians, use the language of their original territory or Patristic Tradition.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, their submission to the Holy Father assures universality, since they submit to the same moral teachings we Latins do (or should).

Bingo!

Although they do have some slight theological variations (mostly because they have a different approach to theology).

 

[ProVobis]

and the people in Jerusalem heard it in their own native tongue

And Latin is not native in Western Catholicism? If you don’t think it is, whose fault is that? It’s only been around since BC. If that isn’t native, I don’t know what is.

It would be one thing if there were no Latin resources but with the internet and text books and Latin Masses, how can one claim he doesn’t or will never understand at least some of the Latin? We use words/terms like etc., de facto, ad hominem, ad nauseam, per, re, status quo, versus, vice versa, pm, am, ps, non sequitor, eg, et al, ie, agenda, data, etc etc etc in our conversations all the time without even thinking Latin; we use the Latin alphabet so I would think it would be just a matter of expanding one’s personal vocabulary to pick up some of the vocabulary of the old Mass. But then I can’t break hardened hearts opposing anything outside their comfort zone.

“For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened” (Mark 6:52).

 

[choy]

And Latin is not native in Western Catholicism? If you don’t think it is, whose fault is that? It’s only been around since BC. If that isn’t native, I don’t know what is.

its the native tongue in Rome
we’re not in Rome you and I. or maybe you are, i don’t know. but if you are then your native tongue is Italian

i was born and grew-up in a predominantly Catholic Philippines, my native tongue will always be Filipino. though i was bilingual since birth (my parents saw the advantage being good in english) so English is a close second for me

It would be one thing if there were no Latin resources but with the internet and text books and Latin Masses, how can one claim he doesn’t or will never understand at least some of the Latin? We use words/terms like etc., de facto, ad hominem, ad nauseam, per, re, status quo, versus, vice versa, pm, am, ps, non sequitor, eg, et al, ie, agenda, data, etc etc etc in our conversations all the time without even thinking Latin; we use the Latin alphabet so I would think it would be just a matter of expanding one’s personal vocabulary to pick up some of the vocabulary of the old Mass. But then I can’t break hardened hearts opposing anything outside their comfort zone.

“For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened” (Mark 6:52).

when you say “native” tongue, it means you don’t need to go through all the resources to understand the language. mind you that not everyone in the world is literate. how will you send those who are poor and illiterate to a Church using a language no one uses in the world today unless you have to make an effort to study and learn? if these people never had the means to study and learn to become literate in their own language, how do you expect them to do so in Latin?

and arguing the use of a handful of latin terms doesn’t mean latin is still alive and well today. those terms have been incorporated in the english language and while the origin is recognized as latin, it can be found in an english dictionary today. the same way that many foreign words find their way into the vocabularies of many other languages. thats how language evolve. in the Philippines, where Filipino was based on the dialect, Tagalog, its origin is Malay. there are many words in Tagalog that are the same words with the same meaning in Malay. it doesn’t mean i speak in Malay, i speak in Tagalog/Filipino. so when you use the Latin words incorporated into the english vocabulary, you’re not speaking Latin, you’re speaking english.

also, even without actually looking it up, i bet there’s less then 1% of the entire english vocabulary that are strict latin words

 

[ProVobis]

its the native tongue in Rome
we’re not in Rome you and I. or maybe you are, i don’t know. but if you are then your native tongue is Italian

Quibble all you want but Latin is native to Western Catholics, whether they live in Italy or French Canada.

when you say “native” tongue, it means you don’t need to go through all the resources to understand the language.

And who’s fault is it when “native” tongues get conveniently forgotten? Has there been some kind of revolutionary war to suppress Latin as there was to suppress the NATIVE American’s language? I don’t seem to recall one.

also, even without actually looking it up, i bet there’s less then 1% of the entire english vocabulary that are strict latin words

And 50% of English words are derived from Latin and they don’t count? And what about the Latin alphabet? Who made that up? Look at your US currency. Is that only 1% in Latin? What about E PLURIBUS UNUM everyone knows about? What about the “NOVUS ORDO SEC(U)LORUM” or “ANNUIT COEPTIS” paper that we exchange everyday?

You know, simply dismissing Latin in favor of “more understandable” language really ignores a lot of human principles. Having done a lot of translations myself (English is not my first language either), listening to Italian operas, having studied Sanskrit, and simply watching my cats communicate with one another, I can tell you that the level of understanding goes way beyond a limited vocabulary. There are formations of sounds, pitches, amplitudes, inflections, tones, poetic attributes (rhyme, rhythm, alliteration), speed, harmonics, and accents that affect one’s neurological state and how he’s able to communicate or listen effectively. What can be complimentary in one set of vocabulary words can be insulting or funny in a translated set of words or sounds. I hate to use this example but imagine if Hitler talked in Spanish or French. Would he have that same “umph” and power? I doubt it.

As they say lex orandi, lex credendi. Change the prayer in any way, including the language, verbal or otherwise, you change the beliefs behind the prayer.

And I’ll give you the last word on the matter. I don’t seem to be getting anywhere here.

 

[Lycorth]

For a long time the Anglicans had a similar idea - that Common Prayer, in whatever language, would be a kind of instrument of unity. Certainly it is since they changed the liturgy in the same was that the Catholic Church did that things have really gone to Hell in a hand-basket in the Anglican Communion.

Hmm…

Nope, there are five different Rites and 22 different sui Iuris Churches that is broken down as follows:

Ah, thank you. The Eastern churches aren’t my forte

 

[Nowhere_Man]

Ah, thank you. The Eastern churches aren’t my forte

It’s my pleasure.

 

[choy]

Quibble all you want but Latin is native to Western Catholics, whether they live in Italy or French Canada.

well its a good thing i don’t live in French Canada

And who’s fault is it when “native” tongues get conveniently forgotten? Has there been some kind of revolutionary war to suppress Latin as there was to suppress the NATIVE American’s language? I don’t seem to recall one.

it just evolved into something else. no one uses it anymore in casual conversation. as you pointed out, English, Italian, Spanish, all trace their roots to Latin. its not Latin anymore. languages evolve all the time. the civilization that carried Latin is long gone.

And 50% of English words are derived from Latin and they don’t count? And what about the Latin alphabet? Who made that up? Look at your US currency. Is that only 1% in Latin? What about E PLURIBUS UNUM everyone knows about? What about the “NOVUS ORDO SEC(U)LORUM” or “ANNUIT COEPTIS” paper that we exchange everyday?

LOL. you’re defence of Latin is scary, you’re already missing the entire point.

and no, they do not count. like i said, language evolved. no one would claim to speak Latin nowadays when speaking english. are we talking in Latin right now or English. you’re grasping at straws trying to win an internet argument with foolish facts

You know, simply dismissing Latin in favor of “more understandable” language really ignores a lot of human principles. Having done a lot of translations myself (English is not my first language either), listening to Italian operas, having studied Sanskrit, and simply watching my cats communicate with one another, I can tell you that the level of understanding goes way beyond a limited vocabulary. There are formations of sounds, pitches, amplitudes, inflections, tones, poetic attributes (rhyme, rhythm, alliteration), speed, harmonics, and accents that affect one’s neurological state and how he’s able to communicate or listen effectively. What can be complimentary in one set of vocabulary words can be insulting or funny in a translated set of words or sounds. I hate to use this example but imagine if Hitler talked in Spanish or French. Would he have that same “umph” and power? I doubt it.

why not? Spanish and French had their empires in the past, they had their own “umphs”
but i do agree with you, if Hitler spoke in Spanish or French, then the German people wouldn’t buy into his lies

As they say lex orandi, lex credendi. Change the prayer in any way, including the language, verbal or otherwise, you change the beliefs behind the prayer.

And I’ll give you the last word on the matter. I don’t seem to be getting anywhere here.

you’re not. you’re making arguments for the sake of making argument instead of trying to find the truth.
no, changing language doesn’t change the prayer. the early Apostles never taught in a single language. the Church was never founded on a single language. and even today, the Church in its entirety is not based on a single language. using Latin does not make one holier. you see, if the effectiveness of a prayer is based on the language, then the effectiveness of a prayer is based on words, not on the heart of man. and that misses the entire point of prayer. a prayer is effective not because of the words used, but by the desire of man to connect with his maker. you can recite all the Latin prayers in the world, if in your heart you don’t mean it, it doesn’t mean a thing to God

 

[Bluegoat]

As they say lex orandi, lex credendi. Change the prayer in any way, including the language, verbal or otherwise, you change the beliefs behind the prayer.

Wow, do you really want to take that to it’s logical conclusion? How very post-modern.

People who go to the Latin Mass in general do not know Latin. They know what the Latin means translated into their own languages, which is totally different.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

I think that the majority of people must actually experience a traditional latin mass in english in order to decide if they support it.

It is the same idea for the people who are prejudiced towards traditional latin mass, they must actually visit them a few times before they can accurately criticize them.

The first time my local schola cantorum heard of chant in english they thought it was a bit odd and strange and probably not very good. Once they actually started to sing it they changed their mind and fell in love with it to a certain extent…not to say it has replaced their latin but the respect and idea that all languages can be used to praise God with the same integrity quality and melody is manifested quite clearly and strongly once you experience it in person.

 

[Tradycja]

This would be a good replacement for the Novus Ordo.

 

[ProVobis]

People who go to the Latin Mass in general do not know Latin. They know what the Latin means translated into their own languages, which is totally different.

I believe the people in the Reformation period used the same argument. They ended up hearing and believing and spreading heresies in “their own languages.”

 

[Bluegoat]

I believe the people in the Reformation period used the same argument. They ended up hearing and believing and spreading heresies in “their own languages.”

I don’t think there is a connection with language in the way you are thinking. And there were plenty of heretics to go around before the Reformation too.

In any case, the Church has never been uni-lingual, and it is just bad history to pretend otherwise.

 

[mangy_dog]

No, I would not support this.

Then it would be the TVM and not the TLM.

It’s the whole package - the traditional langauage is deeply intertwined with the traditional liturgy of the whole package…TLM.

 

[ProVobis]

the Church has never been uni-lingual, and it is just bad history to pretend otherwise.

Here is what Cardinal Arinze said on the matter in 2006.

Most rites have an original language which also gives each rite its historical identity. The Roman Rite has Latin as its official language. The typical editions of its liturgical books are to this day issued in Latin.

It is a remarkable phenomenon that many religions of the world, or major branches of them, hold on to a language as dear to them. We cannot think of the Jewish religion without Hebrew. Islam holds Arabic as sacred to the Qur’an. Classical Hinduism considers Sanskrit its official language. Buddhism has its sacred texts in Pali.

It would be superficial to dismiss this tendency as esoteric, or strange, or outmoded, old or medieval. That would be to ignore a fine element of human psychology. In religious matters, people tend to hold on to what they received from the beginning, how their earliest predecessors articulated their religion and prayed. Words and formulae used by earlier generations are dear to those who today inherit from them. While a religion is of course not identified with a language, how it understands itself can have an affective link with a particular linguistic expression in its classical period of growth.

1. Advantages of Latin in the Roman Liturgy

As was mentioned above, by the fourth century, Latin had replaced Greek as the official language of the Church of Rome. Prominent among the Latin Fathers of the Church who wrote extensively and beautifully in Latin were St Ambrose (339-397), St Augustine of Hippo (354-430), St Leo the Great († 461) and Pope Gregory the Great (540-604). Pope Gregory, in particular, brought Latin to a great height in the sacred liturgy, in his sermons and in general Church use.

The Roman Rite Church showed extraordinary missionary dynamism. This explains why a greater part of the world has been evangelized by heralds of the Latin Rite. Many European languages which we regard as modern today have roots in Latin, some more than others. Examples are Italian, Spanish, Romanian, Portuguese and French. But even English and German do borrow from Latin.

The Popes and the Roman Church have found Latin very suitable for many reasons. It fits a Church which is universal, a Church in which all peoples, languages and cultures should feel at home and no one is regarded as a stranger.

Moreover, the Latin language has a certain stability which daily spoken languages, where words change often in shades of meaning, cannot have. An example is the translation of the Latin “propagare”. The Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples when it was founded in 1627 was called “Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide”. But at the time of the Second Vatican Council many modern languages use the word “propaganda” in the sense in which we say “political propaganda”. Therefore, there is a preference in the Church today to avoid the expression “de propaganda Fide”, in favour of “the Evangelization of Peoples”.

Latin has the characteristic of words and expressions retaining their meaning generation after generation. This is an advantage when it comes to the articulation of our Catholic faith and the preparation of Papal and other Church Documents. Even the modern universities appreciate this point and have some of their solemn titles in Latin.

Blessed Pope John XXIII in his Apostolic Constitution, Veterum Sapientia, issued on 22 February 1962, gives these two reasons and adds a third. The Latin language has a nobility and dignity which are not negligible (cf. Veterum Sapientia, nn. 5, 6, 7). We can add that Latin is concise, precise and poetically measured.

Is it not admirable that people, especially well-trained clerics, can meet in international gatherings and be able to communicate at least in Latin? More importantly, is it a small matter that 1 million young people could meet in the World Youth Day Convention in Rome in 2000, in Toronto in 2002 and in Cologne in 2005, and be able to sing parts of the Mass, and especially the Credo, in Latin? Theologians can study the original writings of the early Latin Fathers and of the Scholastics without tears because these were written in Latin.

It is true that there is a tendency, both in the Church and in the world at large, to give more attention today to modern languages, like English, French and Spanish, which can help one secure a job quicker in the modern employment market or in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in their country.

But the exhortation of Pope Benedict XVI to the students of the Faculty of Christian and Classical Letters of the Pontifical Salesian University of Rome, at the end of the Wednesday General Audience of 22 February 2006, retains its validity and relevance. And he pronounced it in Latin! Here is my free English translation: “Quite rightly our Predecessors have urged the study of the great Latin language so that one may learn better the saving doctrine that is found in ecclesiastical and humanistic disciplines. In the same way we urge you to cultivate this activity so that as many as possible may have access to this treasure and appreciate its importance” (in L’Osservatore Romano, 45, 23 February 2006, p. 5).

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20061111_gateway-conference_en.html

 

[Hesychios]

I believe the people in the Reformation period used the same argument. They ended up hearing and believing and spreading heresies in “their own languages.”

I believe Luther’s 95 thesis were in Latin, and the Catholic responses were also in Latin.