Argument over the use of Latin
#11
(06-10-2017, 05:23 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote: The Latin Church makes up most of the Church, so would it not be more uniform for the Roman Rite to be celebrated in Latin, rather than the vernacular?

Yes, but I'm just not sure that uniformity in language is, in and of itself, a virtue. I also think one has to be careful how he phrases this kind of "uniformity" or "universality" talk - Eastern Catholics are just as Catholic as Western Catholics. Catholicism is not Latin by default and Eastern only by concession to certain ethnic groups. It's all of the above.

Quote:It's true that Eastern Catholics generally opt to use the vernacular, but just cuz the Eastern Catholics do it doesn't mean Western Catholicism should assimilate to Eastern ideas. The Eastern Catholics use leavened bread, should we not also use leavened bread?

I only mentioned Easterners because "universality" and "uniformity" talk tends to forget their existence. I do not think the West needs to be the East, nor do I think the East needs to be the West. They should learn from each other and leave each other intact.

Quote:There's no reason to discard lowercase t tradition (and our use of unleavened bread for example); the same is true with Latin. You're right that there's no intrinsic sacrality to Latin. But I do think it adds a sense of holyness and dignity to the liturgy compared to mundane use of the vernacular. Although I agree with you in regards to Church music.

That said I'm not vehemently opposed to the use of the vernacular either. Most of the Masses I attend are English OF Masses, and I find that they still are reverent, even with common trad objections such as EMHCs. I think it's prudentially unwise to replace Latin totally with the vernacular, nonetheless the vernacular is not bad in and of itself.

I think the problem with the vernacular has been that since Vatican II the Catholic Church — and this goes for Eastern Catholics, too, btw — has too often opted for an insipid, low-level, dumbed-down vernacular. A dignified vernacular like the traditional Book of Common Prayer would have solved a lot of issues and lessened the impact of the loss or reduction of Latin, but of course the post-conciliar liturgical reformers seem to have been pretty iconoclastic and convinced the laity were only marginally more intelligent than the pews they sit on.
Reply
#12
I remember in talking to Protestants that for them when we translated the Latin prayers into English they were in agreement with what we were saying. However it was an obstacle to them that we had Latin. I thought for sure that one of the results of Vatican II would be some kind of mass conversion. boy was I wrong. 
Reply
#13
A pretty convincing argument for Latin is this:

Our Lord is also a human being. If you visited the King of Spain or Sweden, you would try to speak Spanish or Swedish to them, as a sign of respect.

During his mortal life, there were three that languages spoken in his region: Latin, Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic. That's why these languages are considered holy. And that's why all liturgies in the first ~100 years of Christendom have been held in one of those three languages.
Reply
#14
(06-10-2017, 03:43 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote: He said this after all of the previous:
Quote:I fail to see what is your issue with vernacular mass: you seem to agree with me nowhere has been set to stone that liturgy should be celebrated in latin. So I guess it is a matter of personal preference or sensitivity for you. But then again, you are free to attend old-rite latin masses as much as you want. Or, maybe, you see latin language as a sign of the universality of the Church? But I am sure you know eastern-rite Catholics have never used latin. So what am I missing?

Actually it is set in stone...in Vatican II no less!

Sacrosanctum concilium Sec C Wrote:36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

Vatican II never intended for an all-vernacular Mass (just like it didn't intend for Communion-in-the-hand, homo-pagan worship, eco-pagan worship etc.) it intended that the readings be in vernacular and some, emphasise some...the Eucharistic prayers I believe were still supposed to be all in Latin.

So tell your Vanilla friend that annulling Latin from the Mass is not just going against the Popes, but Vatican II as well.  And tell you friend that as a Protestant-convert he can go join the Lutherans or Methodists and suck eggs.  I'm sick of shit-heads like him trying to force me back into Protestantism because Catholicism is not as watered-down as they'd like.  I lived on a diet of water and stale bread....I want the wine and living bread in the beauty and mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Sorry don't mean to be un-charitable towards with a fellow Catholic, but it really makes my blood boil...you have 35,000+ different bland styles of worship...why must you be a cancer and ruin the beautiful Catholic one?
Reply
#15
(06-10-2017, 05:23 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote:
(06-10-2017, 04:07 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: My mind has changed a lot on this over the years. I am more in favor of the vernacular than I used to be, but I still think Latin has its place. I think arguments about "universality" or some intrinsic sacrality in Latin are dubious at best and border on magical thinking. His comment about Eastern Catholics puts the lie to the "universality" claim - indeed, Latin is not part of their patrimony at all.

So how to argue for Latin? I think the biggest single argument in favor of Latin is Church music. Whatever the utility of the vernacular, and I do believe there is quite a bit, it is apparent to anyone with sense that there has been ZERO ecclesiastical music produced in the vernaculars that even approaches the sublimity of Gregorian chant. Even if I am exaggerating (and I'm sure I am), 50 years of new compositions simply cannot compete with centuries of sacred music. One weakness of this argument is primarily that in arguing for traditional music we're talking about sung or high Masses, not low Masses, which is what a lot of people attend, and they often have vernacular hymns anyway. But I do think the utter dearth of lasting service music in the vernaculars is a major point in favor of Latin.

The Latin Church makes up most of the Church, so would it not be more uniform for the Roman Rite to be celebrated in Latin, rather than the vernacular? It's true that Eastern Catholics generally opt to use the vernacular, but just cuz the Eastern Catholics do it doesn't mean Western Catholicism should assimilate to Eastern ideas. The Eastern Catholics use leavened bread, should we not also use leavened bread? There's no reason to discard lowercase t tradition (and our use of unleavened bread for example); the same is true with Latin. You're right that there's no intrinsic sacrality to Latin. But I do think it adds a sense of holyness and dignity to the liturgy compared to mundane use of the vernacular. Although I agree with you in regards to Church music.

That said I'm not vehemently opposed to the use of the vernacular either. Most of the Masses I attend are English OF Masses, and I find that they still are reverent, even with common trad objections such as EMHCs. I think it's prudentially unwise to replace Latin totally with the vernacular, nonetheless the vernacular is not bad in and of itself.

How many Eastern Rite churches use the vernacular for the service (not the sermon)? I thought that most Byzantine Rite churches would use Slavonic or Byzantine Greek, the Coptic church uses Coptic and Greek (possibly with some vernacular Arabic), the Ethiopian church uses Ge'ez, the Maronite church uses Syriac, as does the Chaldean church. I do know the Syro-Malabar church in Christchurch uses Malayalam, but I don't know if it's the vernacular or an older form of the language.
Reply
#16
(06-11-2017, 06:34 AM)MichaelNZ Wrote:
(06-10-2017, 05:23 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote:
(06-10-2017, 04:07 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: My mind has changed a lot on this over the years. I am more in favor of the vernacular than I used to be, but I still think Latin has its place. I think arguments about "universality" or some intrinsic sacrality in Latin are dubious at best and border on magical thinking. His comment about Eastern Catholics puts the lie to the "universality" claim - indeed, Latin is not part of their patrimony at all.

So how to argue for Latin? I think the biggest single argument in favor of Latin is Church music. Whatever the utility of the vernacular, and I do believe there is quite a bit, it is apparent to anyone with sense that there has been ZERO ecclesiastical music produced in the vernaculars that even approaches the sublimity of Gregorian chant. Even if I am exaggerating (and I'm sure I am), 50 years of new compositions simply cannot compete with centuries of sacred music. One weakness of this argument is primarily that in arguing for traditional music we're talking about sung or high Masses, not low Masses, which is what a lot of people attend, and they often have vernacular hymns anyway. But I do think the utter dearth of lasting service music in the vernaculars is a major point in favor of Latin.

The Latin Church makes up most of the Church, so would it not be more uniform for the Roman Rite to be celebrated in Latin, rather than the vernacular? It's true that Eastern Catholics generally opt to use the vernacular, but just cuz the Eastern Catholics do it doesn't mean Western Catholicism should assimilate to Eastern ideas. The Eastern Catholics use leavened bread, should we not also use leavened bread? There's no reason to discard lowercase t tradition (and our use of unleavened bread for example); the same is true with Latin. You're right that there's no intrinsic sacrality to Latin. But I do think it adds a sense of holyness and dignity to the liturgy compared to mundane use of the vernacular. Although I agree with you in regards to Church music.

That said I'm not vehemently opposed to the use of the vernacular either. Most of the Masses I attend are English OF Masses, and I find that they still are reverent, even with common trad objections such as EMHCs. I think it's prudentially unwise to replace Latin totally with the vernacular, nonetheless the vernacular is not bad in and of itself.

How many Eastern Rite churches use the vernacular for the service (not the sermon)? I thought that most Byzantine Rite churches would use Slavonic or Byzantine Greek, the Coptic church uses Coptic and Greek (possibly with some vernacular Arabic), the Ethiopian church uses Ge'ez, the Maronite church uses Syriac, as does the Chaldean church. I do know the Syro-Malabar church in Christchurch uses Malayalam, but I don't know if it's the vernacular or an older form of the language.

I know the Ruthenian-Catholic parish near where I live, did the whole Mass in English, and saved only a few prayers in Romanian.
Reply
#17
austen is correct. Vatican II said that Latin was to remain.

In fact, an all-vernacular liturgy was condemned by the Council of Trent.
Reply
#18
(06-11-2017, 07:16 AM)In His Love Wrote: In fact, an all-vernacular liturgy was condemned by the Council of Trent.

Eh, not really, unless you really mangle what the Council said far beyond what they mean.

The relevant passage is Session 22, de sacrificio Missæ, Canon 9 :
Quote:If any one says, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

That's how it's usually given, but is actually a bad translation. The Latin text is :

Quote:Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiae Romanae ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari Missam celebrari debere; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem: an. s.

Debere can be translated as "ought" but always carries the sense of an obligation or necessity. In English "ought" can carry this sense ("You ought to go to Mass every Sunday"), but it can also carry a more suggestive sense of fittingness ("You ought to vacuum the house before it gets much more filthy"). Debere can only be used in this first sense, and never carries this second sense.

If we want the second sense, the Latin would use something like convenire or esse debet which has this sense sense of fittingness. The similar word (that can both suggest necessity or fittingness) in Latin is opportere, generally it carries the sense of a necessity out of fittingness, rather than out of strict obligation.

The only accurate way of translating this canon is to take debere as carrying the sense of obligation -- as the English "must" -- "or if Mass must be celebrated only using the vulgar tongue".

In this case the canon makes far more sense. The condemnation is against those who say that the Mass must be celebrated totally in the vernacular, not against those who say that, given some circumstances, it would good if only vernacular were used.

That can be plainly seen from reading the related decree (Sess. 22, de sacrificio Missæ, cap. 8):

Quote:Although the Mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained; and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, among the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals.

So the Fathers at Trent were condemning vernacular, nor a totally vernacular Mass, but those Protestants who insisted that the Mass must be in the vernacular, because it must be understood by all.

That matches historical practice since the Popes have allowed the translation of the Mass into vernacular for missionary purposes. One case in Sts. Cyril and Methodius, where Slavonic was permitted. The Jesuits in the early 17th century missions in China, also worked on a Mandarin Roman liturgy, and were never condemned or chided for this effort, even though with the Chinese Rites controversy no such liturgy was officially approved.

Also, recall that until the 4th century the Latin Church mostly used Greek for the liturgy, and Latin came in later because it was the vernacular, and as the Church expanded less of the Westerners understood Koine Greek. It would the height of irony to suggest that Trent condemned the vernacular, given that the very reason the Latin liturgy is in Latin and not Greek is because it was a 4th century vernacular.

Trent in short, could have allowed a totally vernacular liturgy, but the Fathers judged it not expedient, meaning it was possible, but not fitting given the circumstances.

It still is a terrible idea, IMHO, because it brings the liturgy down a quasi-Protestant service, but can the Church allow it?

Sure can.

Is one a heretic for holding it should be all vernacular?

Nope.
Reply
#19
(06-11-2017, 06:34 AM)MichaelNZ Wrote: How many Eastern Rite churches use the vernacular for the service (not the sermon)? I thought that most Byzantine Rite churches would use Slavonic or Byzantine Greek, the Coptic church uses Coptic and Greek (possibly with some vernacular Arabic), the Ethiopian church uses Ge'ez, the Maronite church uses Syriac, as does the Chaldean church. I do know the Syro-Malabar church in Christchurch uses Malayalam, but I don't know if it's the vernacular or an older form of the language.

Most of the Byzantine churches do.  The largest in the world are the Ukrainians and the Melkites, which in their homelands use, respectively, Ukrainian and Arabic exclusively, other than a few short common prayers in Slavonic or Greek.  In the English-speaking world, parishes that aren't predominantly made up of immigrant communities - and that tends to be a lot nowadays - use English in the liturgy.  But even in the immigrant parishes, they're using the language that was the vernacular in their homeland. 

In my parish, probably about 95% of the liturgy is in English,  very little Arabic, and even less Greek.  The things that are routinely sung in Greek and Arabic are some of the hymns that are sung at baptisms, memorials and after the liturgy while people are receiving the antidoron.  These are sung in English, Greek and Arabic, not one to the exclusion of the other.  Arabic gets a little more because about half of the parish is ethnically Arabic - but most born here - so the theotokion usually is sung in Arabic, and on feast days the Gospel is read in Arabic before it is read in English.

The Ruthenian parish I attended a long time ago is almost entirely in English, with some Slavonic used occasionally.  A lot of Ruthenian parishes that use English predominantly will have an annual liturgy in Slavonic for nostalgia's sake.

I also occasionally visit a Ukrainian parish in the Toronto area.  There are a lot of English Canadians who go, and a lot of ethnic Ukrainians, and a lot of recent immigrants from Ukraine.  It's been a few years since the last time I've visited, and since then they have switched from being exclusively on the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar for the fixed schedule and Julian for the Paschal cycle.  I don't know if anything else has changed, but their weekend schedule used to be that Vespers would be in English, Matins and Liturgy in Ukrainian one week, and the next week, Vespers in Ukrainian and Matins and Liturgy in English.
Reply
#20
(06-10-2017, 11:04 PM)Jeeter Wrote: WHat on earth are "other kinds of sacred music?" That's a new one for me.

Music that isn't chant.  It gives the example of polyphony.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)