Why translate the Mass at all? What is wrong with Latin? Where is the disconnect and what is the malfunction when it comes to celebrating the Mass in the universal language of the Church?
If the Mass is celebrated in one language, Latin; then there is the elimination of the majority of this discussion. The language is static, therefore the meaning is clear for each word. The words of the Mass itself are of little consequence to be heard in the vernacular tongue, so that is a non-starter. The use of a central language, Latin; allows for the universal complementarity, equity, and consistency necessary to bring the Rite back to a center position.
What we have witnessed by the "splitting" of language, is the very same thing we saw in the episode of the Tower of Babel. Often times it is wondered, why not return to one language and make all of mankind unified...I've heard that preached more than once...the same applies to the celebration of Holy Mass.
Many of the issues you list would be alleviated by the return to the liturgical language and the abandonment of the vulgar (or profane).
Another priest popped into the conversation and added the following;
Andy: What's wrong with Latin? 99% of the people reading/hearing it do not understand Latin.
Latin is not the universal language of the Church. In the Catholic universe, 99% of Catholics do not understand Latin.
Latin is not static. Latinists work every day adding new Latinized words to keep up with new words in other languages. As with any language, those who do understand it (the 1%) can and do interpret the words in various ways.
I do not agree that "the words of the mass are of little consequence." Were that so, why did we go through a re-translation of the words of the mass? Why are we discussing the words of the mass now?
Latin is not a "central language" for the 99% reason stated above.
There was never a time when all people spoke one language.
I responded thusly;
So what? What did Vatican Council II say about Latin? I do believe and I quote, " Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Sacrosanctum Concilium 36.1)
It goes on to say that the limits may be extended to some of the prayers including the readings, but nowhere does it speak of the vernacular being the normative language. So, if we are truly to be a "Vatican II people," then we are at odds with your response to me.
Regarding understanding the language, well, what does the Church say about that? It says and I quote, "...Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them." (Sacrosanctum Concilium 54)
So, Father, if the faithful cannot understand Latin, it would seem that you, priests, have failed the faithful. Because it was incumbent upon you to teach.
Latin is a static language. We can go on and on arguing this, but in reality the meaning of the words don't change and are not dynamic as they are in English or some other modern language.
Oh, the words of the Mass are of little consequence to the faithful. The meaning behind the action is what is important. The language is important, the conistency is important, but the words themselves, save the words of consecration, well....not so much, at least according to the liberals who are changing things. Also, to say "look at the changes in the English..." Poppycock. That is a change in translation to be more faithful to the actual words which are in LATIN.
Latin is a central language. If it weren't then the Holy See would have abandoned it. Vatican City would have abandoned it. The Holy Father would have abandoned it.
You're right, there never was a time, since Babel where we have spoken one language. But the Church speaks in one language and we should all be able to worship in that language. It is what Vatican II wanted after all....
My point is this and it remains that Latin is normative. It will solve a lot of problems. Sure the blue hairs and the bleeding hearts will disagree, but that is the fight they chose to fight and they lost. The Holy Father is clear that Latin, not the vernacular, is normative. While Masses are celebrated in the vernacular, they are not the fast growing Masses. They are the waning ones. The fast growing Masses are the TLM or the Extraordinary Form Masses. Young people, middle aged people and some older people are assisting there more regularly than the Novus Ordo Masses.
Bottom line, it isn't the vernacular which is saving Holy Mother Church. It is Latin. And according to the Council Fathers, that is the way it always should have been.
My point is this and it remains that Latin is normative. It will solve a lot of problems. Sure the blue hairs and the bleeding hearts will disagree, but that is the fight they chose to fight and they lost. The Holy Father is clear that Latin, not the vernacular, is normative. While Masses are celebrated in the vernacular, they are not the fast growing Masses. They are the waning ones. The fast growing Masses are the TLM or the Extraordinary Form Masses. Young people, middle aged people and some older people are assisting there more regularly than the Novus Ordo Masses.
Bottom line, it isn't the vernacular which is saving Holy Mother Church. It is Latin. And according to the Council Fathers, that is the way it always should have been.
No comments:
Post a Comment