Latin Mass

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Nov 26 2004, 07:05 PM'] I understand why, say, in St. Augustine's time, Mass was in Latin - Latin was the [i]lingua franca[/i] of the people. However, why, in the 16th Century (indeed, before) did the Roman Church keep its liturgy in Latin when it knew full well people wouldn't be able to understand it. Remember the Day of Pentecost? The apostles preached in [i]tongues known to the people[/i]. Why should not the modern Church do likewise by conducting its liturgy in a known tongue? [/quote]
Church Latin was never the "lingua franca" of the people. That's fictitious. The language was developed from Classical and Vulgar Latin (<-- the lingua franca) specifically to accomodate theological concepts. That's why Latin is still the official language of the [b]Latin[/b] Catholic Church.

[mark3200]

I always like threads like this!

Without getting into the detail (Todd is awesome), some people like the Tinitine Mass, because of its reverence - it's tough to have a Mass in Latin and not acknowledge the immense reverence of the event, not to mention the rest of the rubrics involved in that Mass.

You know, I like threads like this because it underlines a theme I'm quickly seeing on the boards and in the Church. We have a wonderful Church, as we allow for a wide range of views and desires, yet all fall into one Church. I agree with the comment above vis-a-vis arrogance (not here, outside of here) for or against Trinitine Mass or Novus Ordo Mass. As usual, we are allowing ourselves as Christians and Catholics to become divided. It is much easier for Satan to mess with us if he can set us against each other. Debate is good, but after we've all had our say, we're all on the same side!

Latin vs vernacular - I've never hit a Latin Mass, so can't say one way or the other. At this point in my life, I'm happy when I can find a priest AND a congregation that aren't sloppy (bowing to the person in front of them instead of the Eucharist, et al) when they celebrate Mass. Really, the standard should be where you feel you can worship the best and which community you best fit into. Just like with anything else, some will tell say that one form is better than the other for whatever reason.

Because Latin is a "dead" language (ie, it's not spoken as a mother tongue anywhere), it is unchanging (no slang, outside influence, etc). As it is unchanging, the Church considers the Mass in Latin to be a perfect form of Mass. Obviously, the other side of the coin is that few people understand or appreciate the Latin form. That's also a reason we will continue to see the translations change from time to time - we are attempting to approach that same perfection in the vernacular that we have in Latin.

Once again, my $0.02

mark

[amarkich]

I think it is interesting that protestants are the source of the vernacular Mass (from the Reformation) and that they are bringing up the same question that many liberal "Catholics" will bring up concerning Latin as the language of the Church and the Mass. Just a comment.

Mark, one of the Marks of the Church is Oneness. The Church is One because of an established doctrine believed by all members and a discipline practiced by all members. It is not a "Big Tent Church" (like the "Big Tent Republicans") in which we simply say that there is room for everyone, thus ensuring unity by allowing for diversity. This is one of the many misconceptions of people in the Church today. This kind of thing was not an issue before Vatican II (and really, during the entire history of the Church), but it is something that has come about as a result of the immense pluralism in the Church. Unity in diversity is not true unity. That is Americanism (E pluribus unum).

Edit: N.B., you cannot have a "perfection" of the vernacular because it is a translation from the Latin. Some of the phrases and meanings cannot be translated perfectly, so there can be no perfect translation. In addition, since these vernacular languages are always changing, there is no way to have a perfect translation because they will have to change it in 20 years to accommodate the language changes (according to USCCB).

Rant: I can't imagine what any of the Saints would have said of such nonsense as this. Everything about the vernacular: 1,000 different Masses with 1,000 different translations, with abuses galore. Everything about the New Church: "president presider" presiding over an assembly rather than a priest offering a sacrifice. The watered-down, dis-edifying, downright ugly liturgies in general (with all their tablecloth-esque vestments, goblet and crystal vessels, wooden table altars, etc, etc, etc). Ugh... there is nothing to describe the disaster of the Liturgical Shipwreck after Vatican II (everyone should read Liturgical Shipwreck by Michael Davies, God rest his soul: Requiem aeternam, etc.). It just amazes me that people will even try to defend the indefensible and the lesser in 'all of the above' (ritual, beauty, sanctity, history, etc).

Edited November 29, 2004 by amarkich

[qfnol31]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 29 2004, 10:20 AM'] I think it is interesting that protestants are the source of the vernacular Mass (from the Reformation) ... [/quote]
*cough**cough* Trent *cough**cough*

[amarkich]

I hope you are not implying that the Traditional Latin Mass began at Trent...

[theculturewarrior]

the Vernacular Mass has its origins in the Early Church. That, and protestants don't have mass.

[amarkich]

Luther had the Mass, but even he forbade another priest from saying it in the German vernacular. The Anglicans had the Mass (not anymore, though), but even they said it in Latin. When I said Mass, I was referring to the prot "services" (I was just contrasting them with the actual Mass, so I did not specify; I apologize). Also, the vernacular may have been used in the early Church, but the early Church did not reverse a Tradition that had stood for the entire history of the Church, Latin Mass. The early Church did not [i]change[/i] a Tradition, even if some of them had vernacular Masses, but I am not even saying they had vernacular Masses. From what I have read, the Masses were in a different variant of the local languages, not the vernacular (language of the people).

[cmotherofpirl]

The early Masses would have been in the vernacular: Aramaic, Greek or Latin depending on what you happened to speak.

Edited November 29, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 29 2004, 11:43 AM'] Luther had the Mass, but even he forbade another priest from saying it in the German vernacular. The Anglicans had the Mass (not anymore, though), but even they said it in Latin. When I said Mass, I was referring to the prot "services" (I was just contrasting them with the actual Mass, so I did not specify; I apologize). Also, the vernacular may have been used in the early Church, but the early Church did not reverse a Tradition that had stood for the entire history of the Church, Latin Mass. The early Church did not [i]change[/i] a Tradition, even if some of them had vernacular Masses, but I am not even saying they had vernacular Masses. From what I have read, the Masses were in a different variant of the local languages, not the vernacular (language of the people). [/quote]
I agree that translating from Latin creates a lot of problems. I don't think what we have now is way Vatican II envisioned it though.

Latin [b]does[/b] translate well into English; in fact, often it sounds as forcefully stated (I'm groping for words here) in English as well as Latin. The problem is one of translating paradigms. ICEL traditionally hasn't been faithful to the original texts.

I think, translating edifying parts of the mass to English in a literal way to keep the poetic nature of the original Latin, and leaving problem areas and the most Sacred parts in Latin is what the reformers envisioned. Like on EWTN.

There is precedence in the Melkite Church.

I take exception to the idea that Latin is a Tradition. It is a language. It is a tradition. For a language to be a Tradition, it would have to be Universal, and there is no such language.

[amarkich]

Right, they had those languages, but the variant of the language used at Mass was not the same as that of the people (vernacular). It would be like having a Mass in Old English (real Old English, not Victorian English) when the people do not speak that. The same is true for Latin. Ecclesiastical Latin is a development from the vernacular, but it is not the vernacular itself. The Mass was not in the actual vernacular; it was in the same language, but not the variant spoken by the people. It would be like having a Mass in Old English, which is almost a different language than modern English. It was in the same language but not in the vernacular of that language.

Edited November 29, 2004 by amarkich

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 29 2004, 11:53 AM'] Right, they had those languages, but the variant of the language used at Mass was not the same as that of the people (vernacular). It would be like having a Mass in Old English (real Old English, not Victorian English) when the people do not speak that. The same is true for Latin. Ecclesiastical Latin is a development from the vernacular, but it is not the vernacular itself. The Mass was not in the actual vernacular; it was in the same language, but not the variant spoken by the people. It would be like having a Mass in Old English, which is almost a different language than modern English. It was in the same language but not in the vernacular of that language. [/quote]
I think you're wrong. The Early Church's Masses were in Koine Greek, the language of the people.

Also, if I understand it correctly, the Chaldean Church's Liturgy is in Aramaic...a language as intelligible today to the people as it was in the time Jesus spoke it. I have no problem with "Liturgizing" languages, but what's wrong with people understanding it?

[amarkich]

The biggest problem is changing something that had already been done. There is no precedent for this. If languages other than Latin developed in the East, so be it; that is their Tradition, but that is not a reason to rip out the Tradition of the Latin Rite. It is ridiculous to do something like that. The people should be adapting to fit the liturgy, not the other way around. The Mass is a standard; it is an explication of ritual and doctrine that should be unchanging (at least since its universal promulgation). The Mass is something that should be giving the people a sign of stability, among other things. To change the Mass to suit the people is outrageous. The Popes of the Middle Ages would not even add the name of Saint Joseph to the Canon, saying that they had no power to change the Mass, but now the Mass is changed daily, not only by the Pope, but by Bishops, and even individual priests, ad libbing ("licitly") the prayers of the Holy Sacrifice. If a person cannot understand a Latin Mass, it would seem expeditious for him to learn Latin! What a concept! That is just too much trouble, though... Also, it is not even necessary to understand Latin as a language in its entirety to understand the Mass. One needs only to understand the responses and the other prayers to be said. Other than that, he can read from an English translation if necessary (but he really should just learn Latin).

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 29 2004, 12:06 PM'] The biggest problem is changing something that had already been done. There is no precedent for this. If languages other than Latin developed in the East, so be it; that is their Tradition, but that is not a reason to rip out the Tradition of the Latin Rite. It is ridiculous to do something like that. The people should be adapting to fit the liturgy, not the other way around. The Mass is a standard; it is an explication of ritual and doctrine that should be unchanging (at least since its universal promulgation). The Mass is something that should be giving the people a sign of stability, among other things. To change the Mass to suit the people is outrageous. The Popes of the Middle Ages would not even add the name of Saint Joseph to the Canon, saying that they had no power to change the Mass, but now the Mass is changed daily, not only by the Pope, but by Bishops, and even individual priests, ad libbing ("licitly") the prayers of the Holy Sacrifice. If a person cannot understand a Latin Mass, it would seem expeditious for him to learn Latin! What a concept! That is just too much trouble, though... Also, it is not even necessary to understand Latin as a language in its entirety to understand the Mass. One needs only to understand the responses and the other prayers to be said. Other than that, he can read from an English translation if necessary (but he really should just learn Latin). [/quote]
so what it all boils down to is "just because?"

[amarkich]

Also, Latin really does not translate as well as you might think into English. Take a basic expression that is often used in the Mass. In the example I will give, the instance is the Agnus Dei:

"Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, misserere nobis."
The ICEL translation:
"Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us."
Traditional English translation:
"Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us."

Here is a basic problem. The Latin literally says (without the pronoun) "Lamb of God, Thou Who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us." The issue is that in English it is necessary to use the pronoun with the conjugated verb; it cannot be dropped, but in Latin this is not the case, so one could say "Qui (tu) tollis" meaning "Thou Who takest", but the pronoun is dropped, leaving just "Qui tollis". This is not possible in English to retain the proper grammar. Older translations are faithful to the Latin saying "Who takest" (dropping Thou, like the Latin did), but ICEL translations often make statements that directly address a statement to God, as if we are telling Him something (not the intent in the original Latin), saying: "You take away the sins of the world" rather than "Thou [b]who[/b] takest away the sins of the world". By completely ignoring the 'qui' (who) here, the ICEL creates a huge translation problem. They follow this throughout all their translations, and this is why the Collect, Postcommunion, etc, sound so superficial. Rather than saying "Deus, qui humanae substantiae dignatem mirabiliter condidisti, et mirabilius reformasti" (that is actually from the Offertory in the Old Mass) "O God, who didst exalt human nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew" they would say "God, you exalt(ed) human nature very wonderfully and you establish(ed) it again more wonderfully" (if that). As you can see, this causes another problem with the tense. Should it be exalt or exalted, establish or established? With the new form, it is up to interpretation. Latin does not translate into English very well. It translates better into the Romance languages, but it is still not perfect. There is no perfect translation.

[amarkich]

No...the argument for changing it into English is "just because" and "I am too lazy and indifferent to learn my Faith and learn Latin". It is disgusting that the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc, all have more piety than the people who are too lazy to learn Latin. Every religion has a specific language designated, set aside for use in religious ceremonies. This used to be true in Catholicism, but we Americans can't be bothered with all this Tradition...

Edit: Also, the whole "let's change this" mentality in general is not Catholic. It is protestant, at best. You wouldn't have made it in the Middle Ages. You do not change something just because people are too stupid to understand. You educate the people. Some of the peasants in the Middle Ages did not understand the Mass, but that is no reason to change it. During that time period the people did not even have missals. The attitude of the so-called "Reformers" (I speak not of the protestants) was not Catholic. No wonder there were Masons and Protestants among them (and leading them).

Edited November 29, 2004 by amarkich