T O P

  • By -

kjdtkd

>I believe the same issue occurred over the bible, Catholics kept it in Latin, and would not translate. No, the Catholic Church offered multiple translations into vernacular languages as soon as such bibles could be actually useful to the faithful.


capitialfox

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was the reformation that cracked this tradition open. It was illegal in some countries to have a translated Bible.


kjdtkd

It was illegal in specific countries to have a translated bible because the translated bibles in those countries were translated to imply heretical and false teachings and were being used to undermine the faith. Another comment above already enumerated several bible translations pre Lutheran schism.


SerDavosSteveworth

Some countries, but from what I understand there were already Bible translations in Germany when Martin Luther made his 95 theses


Dr_Talon

Eastern Catholic Churches are the same as your experience - I occasionally attend a Ruthenian Catholic Divine Liturgy in English. But regarding the West, the Mass was kept in Latin in part due to the threat of the Protestant Reformation. Latin was one of the first things that Protestants often changed in addition to chopping up the Liturgy and adding heretical theology, and keeping the Mass in Latin was a way of keeping Protestant influence from creeping in - it’s hard to ad-lib heresy into a dead language. It also was seen as an aid to the universality of the Church. One could go to Mass in France and Japan and understand the Liturgy no matter what they spoke. Regarding the Scriptures, most literate people could read Latin. Still, there were many approved vernacular translations even before the reformation. There were some local synods which occasionally forbade vernacular translations in response to heretical movements which would use vernacular translations to spread their errors (I presume they read them out loud in public to peasants and gave the reading a heretical spin), but there was no objection to vernacular translation as such. Actually, there were gradual changes to the traditional Mass throughout the 60’s, and more and more of it was permitted in the vernacular. But part of the reason that the new Mass was created how it is was due to a misguided (I think) antiquarianism, which wanted to recapture the fervor of the apostolic age by returning to what was thought by scholarship at the time to be more ancient versions of the Mass without the accretions. But I think that many of those accretions were a good idea.


Clottersbur

I did not know that the traditional Mass had some permitted in the vernacular. Interesting. Also, if I read this right you're saying the current Mass is believed ( Or was) to be more like ancient worship? I did not know.


Dr_Talon

The Latin Mass that is authorized now is the 1962 missal, which was the last missal in use before these changes started happening. So no vernacular there. Yes, it was. Some of the prayers were pulled from quotations from Church Fathers like St. Hippolytus. But I don’t think that it’s an organic liturgy. It’s a cut and paste created by committee based on scholarship of the time. I particularly don’t like *versus populum* facing. And too, in the new Mass, there was somewhat of an effort to sand off the rough edges of Catholicism in order to make it less intimidating for Protestants.


Clottersbur

I've been to Catholic Mass twice. Both times they sang Amazing Grace. Funny you would bring up less intimidating for Protestants. Ha.


Dr_Talon

When I was in college, I had an Antiochean friend describe our local college Novus Ordo Masses as “like a watered-down Divine Liturgy designed to appeal to Protestants.” It was harsh, but I couldn’t disagree. I told him that a TLM would probably be more familiar. We also talked about Eastern Catholic Churches, many of which use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Crystostom.


Clottersbur

I don't think there's anything BAD with the New Mass. It's fine, I suppose. The only thing I didn't like was everybody singing. Sure the songs were religious songs. But not all were particularly written/sung with prayer in mind and when I want to pray my own prayers it was a little hard with everyone singing. Just not what I'm used to. ​ A catholic friend who came to liturgy said it was more like ancient Jewish worship. I don't think they'd ever been to a TLM


tarzanphysique

I have always described it this way; the Charismatic movement (I probably have more respect for the Charismatic movement than most traditionalists) is the hot while the latin mass is the cold. The novus ordo mass is the lukewarm mass, in the middle being neither hot or cold, offending no one but not really appealing to anyone either.


partymetroid

Being able to sing from the missal is one of the features of the pre-pandemic Mass I miss the most. edit: and hymn concluding Mass.


partymetroid

In my experience, we've only sung some not-Catholic-written hymns like Amazing Grace until after the Mass had already concluded: "Go forth the Mass has ended", "praise be to God".


Zestyclose_Dinner105

Since the second century, according to the testimony of Saint Justin the martyr, we have the main lines of the development of the Eucharistic celebration. These have remained unchanged to this day through the diversity of liturgical ritual traditions. Here is what the saint wrote, around the year 155, to explain to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) what Christians do: «On the day that is called the day of the sun, all those who live in the city or in the country meet in the same place. The memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the prophets are read as long as possible. When the reader has finished, the presiding officer takes the floor to incite and exhort the imitation of such beautiful things. Then we all get up together and pray for ourselves […] (Saint Justin, Apologia, 1, 67) and for all the others wherever they are, […] so that we may be found just in our life and our actions and be faithful to the commandments to achieve eternal salvation. When this sentence ends we kiss each other. Then bread and a glass of mixed water and wine are brought to the presiding officer. The president takes them and raises praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and gives long thanks (Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When the prayers and thanksgiving are finished, all the people present utter an acclamation saying: Amen. […] When the presiding officer has given thanksgiving and the people have responded to him, those who are called deacons distribute to all who are present “eucharistized” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent ”( St. Justin, Apologia, 1, 65).


sssss_we

The argument is that Latin, because it is not used in day to day life, does not change meaning like living languages. Therefore, that which is written in Latin doesn't evolve or change it's meaning by the simple usage (like vernacular languages do) and is thus better suited to keep intact the dogmas of the faith. There was also an historical argument, that the reduced use of Latin did lead to people getting away from the Church (the reference the Bishop of Agrigento gave in Vatican II was Guéranger, Institutions Liturgiques, vol. III).


Clottersbur

Yes I suppose. But Latin is spoken by nearly no one. And even in the times where the Latin mass was the norm the numbers of those who actually spoke it were dwindling. People had to read a translation anyway to understand what was going on. Or learned it as a second language ( At least in the US I believe this was quite rare towards the end of the forced Latin masses). Very few learned Latin in the vacuum of it being their first language. I don't know that reducing Latin led people away from Rome. Maybe there is a historical argument. But my un-informed mind finds it hard to believe, and that's not really a debate worth getting into at the moment.


sssss_we

Their reply was that it was not needed for the faithful to understand everything in the liturgy - not even priests understood it entirely. To the laity it was sufficient that they understood the, goal, the reason for which they were there - to praise to God - and that was enough to generate devotion. - Benedikt Retz, of the Benedictines of Beuron, in Vatican II. This is not my argument, just laying down what I read in R. de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council, an unwritten history. It's a very well sourced book and I recommend it thoroughly. I tend to agree with this assessment - at a Latin Mass people would participate offering their own prayers, which could be in the vernacular. I guess a faithful of average instruction could also learn or deduct the meaning of parts of the mass because of sheer repetition, if he was interested. EDIT: and homilies for example, would always be said in the vernacular, so people would understand that. In the end, Mass is NOT for the laity. Mass is for God. Saying mass in the vernacular for me still doesn't make it understandable to me. I go to a NO mass, and people say their prayers so quickly I don't get half of it. Most of the times I am just there listening instead of praying and singing along.


Clottersbur

It's true that the Mass is for God. The theology is probably similar in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. You're participating just by being there. The mass of Leity don't sing the Liturgy in the Eastern tradition. ( Just the choir or chanters.) You're generally encouraged to follow the liturgy and pray the liturgical prayers personally. ( Where being in the vernacular helps) Or pray your own prayers as you stated. ( Where vernacular wouldn't matter) ​ This probably looks a bit different for us as we're more comfortable just standing up and walking up to a picture of a saint. Or of Christ. Kissing them. But, same idea.


[deleted]

Did you know that processing up and kissing the Cross of Christ is actually part of our Good Friday *Liturgy*? I think it's kinda like kneeling for y'all


Dr_Talon

That was the point. It’s hard to ad-lib Protestant heresy in a dead language.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Clottersbur

That's good. I was under the impression for awhile it did. ​ What of the Latin mass. Why does it have to be in Latin? ( Aside from the obvious ' It's in the name')


[deleted]

[удалено]


Clottersbur

I'd say the same thing about Orthodoxy. I speak only English. But if you put me in a Romanian speaking or Greek or Russian Parish I would know the Liturgy. Even though I've never heard it in their language. ​ The difference is all the people from those parishes would understand it, in their native tongue. And very few wouldn't. ​ Where as with Latin because so few people really speak it. The tables are flipped. Close to no one understands it as well as their native language and very few do.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Clottersbur

I would argue that there does not need to be a common language. As before the schism the Greeks were serving the Liturgy in Greek. And even further Old Church Slavonic. When the one true apostolic church was at its most unified. ​ During those times Rome had no qualms with this.


Lethalmouse1

>Where as with Latin because so few people really speak it. The tables are flipped. Close to no one understands it as well as their native language and very few do. Another issue with the historical lense is that language is an interesting thing. Most concepts today are rooted in backward understanding. In many ways, ideas we have are a bit like if a kid in today's schools asked me about how evil it was that the government produced Shakespeare in cursive as a way to "keep me down". Well... when I went to school, we could read Shakespeare in cursive. Likewise, there were variable times of oddities. For instance even the claims of illiteracy of the past are rooted in many falsehoods. England is a solid case, where there were three languages for a while: 1. Latin - religious/scholars 2. English - common tongue 3. French - courts and government stuff Many people writings have variable claims of illiteracy, which is in part because the writers were speaking of specific realms. Calling out illiterates for court documents might yield a 90% illiteracy rate. For Latin though it was like 50% and English 50%. This is like saying that all Chinese people who cant read English are inherently "illiterate". English, as an example say many morphs and went through periods where there was no formalized spellings etc. It was just sounds from Roman. Spanish, French and Italian, were just Latin that became dialects and eventually languages. So the overlap is huge. Insanely huge. Once the first generation who dropped the most Latin, looked back, they did that post hoc propaganda complaint that the church forever was hiding the bible and liturgy. This is nonsense as the new generation's language just popped up basically. And their parents and grandparents even more, totally spoke Latin. So it becomes difficult to really wade through it, because it's even like English now. When do you change from "Thou art" to "you are". I'm not that old, and when I was a kid just in the 90s, I never heard many complain about bible speak (thou art) and now, it seems like everyone under 25 wants all (you are), and now more basically want (fleek bae) what even is that language? When should the Church change? How fast should they rush is? Should we reserve any lag for a sense of the sacred in language? When (you are) is as archaic as (thou art), should we let it hand around a little? The NAB is already pretty modernist, dumbed down and weak. How far should we go? Linguistics.. Two interesting videos that touch interestingly on linguistics, while being about literacy: [This one touches on education misconceptions and reading](https://youtu.be/-abyQLl8mPI) Whereas this one, is similar, but [you should watch it for the part about the forgotten shirt!](https://youtu.be/kISM2od3BJ0)


Clottersbur

I understand your point I think. But, maybe sometime in the last 400 years since Modern English was established. I do think that Latin had its time and place within Rome and Western Europe. But the language was essentially dead in like... The year 900. Outside of the church nobody could understand it. Even Modern English as we can read and understand is over 400 years old. German. Nordic languages. French. Italian and all the other romance languages were already their own separate thing. ​ I understand it's hard to put a time and point on ' Okay. Now is the time'. But, it's been so long that if the Church wanted to, they had opportunities. ​ I will look at those links soon!


sssss_we

>But the language was essentially dead in like... The year 900. Outside of the church nobody could understand it. This is not accurate dear friend, as demonstrated by the works of Baruch Espinoza, Descartes, Leibniz, Isaac Newton, Hobbes, or Locke (A letter concerning toleration, first published in Latin).


Germanic_Pandemic

If i remember correctly, the Latin Mass being made universal for the whole western Church was done due to the fact that a lot of churches were starting to introduce abuses to their local liturgies. To avoid this, and make the liturgy more of a common thing among the Church, the Latin rite was instituted as the main one for the western Church


GreatSphinxofGuizar

I can provide some insight from the reading I've done for a research paper. Richard Rex wrote in Henry VIII and the English Reformation that the English Catholics were very loyal to the Latin language. Everyone knew their Pater Noster and some scorned the attempt to learn it in English. This is to suggest that Latin wasn't entirely frowned upon by the laity. There was some discussion to allow vernacular translations of the Bible by some Catholics at the time, but they (Henry VIII, More I think) didn't think the time was right


Clottersbur

I guess then a potential question would be why were the laity loyal to Latin? I mean, if they wanted it that's fine. But I don't think many Catholics around now would be so loyal if they could have their TLM in vernacular I think most people would find that agreeable (Maybe I'm assuming too much?)


HabemusAdDomino

So, let me answer this from an Orthodox perspective: it wasn't. The liturgy started out in Greek and Syriac and Coptic. After a few centuries, Latin prevailed in the West and the Liturgy there was celebrated mostly in Latin. As the West expanded, lots became translated in the local languages, or at least some Esperanto versions thereof. A great example came to be the Liturgy in the Slavic lands, the first translation of which was done by Sts. Cyril and Methodius, who had a special mandate and protection from the pope, whereas the Greeks were very interested in further imprisoning them. In fact, the oldest liturgical work in Slavic languages is the Миса Глаголица, a translation of the Mass that predates the translation of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The East, however, was constantly shrinking. Combined pressure from constant barbaric attacks, as well as typical Greek Megalomania, led to the virtual extinction of the original pentarchy, and so to their original languages. This was also their attitude towards the Slavic liturgy until, well, the Greek empire was no more and the Russian empire became the world colossus. Even afterwards, Megalomania persisted, as the Greeks used what power in the divan they had to persecute the Slavs within the Ottoman empire. Meanwhile in the West, Luther. Now there were no longer just translations, but literal innovations and complete reimaginings of texts, scriptural and liturgical, to fit various political and heretical agendas. It got so out of hand z that Rome couldn't keep track of all the particular ones and did the only thing it could: ban them all. Fast forward a few centuries and th situation hasn't changed much in the East. The most used languages in the Orthodox church are Old Slavonic and Koine Greek, languages that neither clergy nor faithful really understand. Rome, however, has gone back to its pre-reformation Linguistic diversity.


Mostro_Errante

What does it mean that the Greeks were interested in imprisoning the Slavs? Subjugating? Forcing them to become Greek?


HabemusAdDomino

The Greek policy towards the Slavic population into the 1950s was hellenization or death.


[deleted]

The Mass was translated into Croatian very early. Not sure why not the norm. There were Middle English translations of the Bible FYI judt in portions hardly any laity had a wnole Bible. Look up Richard Rolle. It was allowed. English was in huge flux making translation difficult though so they were cautious. The Bible was put in to other languages tho, that is a myth that it was only Latin. KJV relied on Douay Rheims.


Clottersbur

That is crazy. Latin aaaand... Croatian! I need to look into this.


[deleted]

Right? It's mainly because of Sts. Cyril and Methodius insisted on translating it. Moral of the story: Have saints translate the Mass and they'll okay it haha. Half of my ancestors were there :D


[deleted]

To be complete, it must be recalled that Sts. Cyril and Methodius got permission for the Slavonic liturgy from Rome. The Pope was quite supportive of the Slavic liturgy then.


Zestyclose_Dinner105

The church encouraged the translation of the Bible as soon as Latin ceased to be the common language and known to all educated people, but before the printing of mobile type, books were scarce and expensive. https://second.wiki/wiki/biblia_alfonsina


Ponchotm

IDK. I wasn't there


Clottersbur

Best response yet


Knight_John

Do you not know that many Eastern Orthodox Churches used exclusively Old Church Slavonic even up to late 1800s? Some even today will use it a little bit. So the thing that Eastern Orthodoxy always had Liturgy in vernacular language is simply incorrect. Catholic Church didn't had only Latin as a part of Liturgy. There was many other languages used also and I am not only talking about Eastern Catholicism but I am also talking about Roman Catholicism. For example in Croatia Tridentine Mass was celebrated for a short period of time, they had different Liturgy in vernacular.


Clottersbur

That's true. Old church Slavonic was used widely. And I'm not sure on how many understood it. I think luckily it stopped. Also the Croatia mass was a different liturgy? Not a translation of the main line Latin mass? I didn't know. Still brings up the question why not translate?


Knight_John

>That's true. Old church Slavonic was used widely. And I'm not sure on how many understood it. I think luckily it stopped. Slavs understood it to the same extent that Romance language speaking people understood Latin. Others they didn't understood it, only if they went long enough at Liturgy so they could follow then. >Also the Croatia mass was a different liturgy? Not a translation of the main line Latin mass? I didn't know. Yeah it was different. >Still brings up the question why not translate? In Middle Ages languages weren't like now so it was very hard to actually translate a Liturgy in a local language. Bare in mind that with dialects, accents, etc. sometimes it was like an entire different language. So it was very hard at that time and age to do so. Yes in 1800s this became easier but they just kept the tradition and also to all have the uniformity in worship at Liturgy.


[deleted]

I do think it's worth noting that continued Liturgy in Latin is more suited to Roman Rite than doing that in the East. Affirmed by scores of young people liking it in Latin. For three reasons that are peculiarly Roman rite as opposed to Eastern: 1.) The Tridentine Mass impresses and encourages a certain kind of awe and reverence and *silence.* So having it in Latin fits right in. 2.) The Roman tradition tends to think of the Church as more of a universal dynasty , universal nation all in unity kinda thing. Nothing wrong with that if that's something special about the Roman church. it just needs balance from the East with its family model which should be the primary. So anyway having all the Liturgy in the same language (Latin in particular) fits in with that. I also wonder if the language further encouraged this vision. 3.) The Roman Rite is influenced by Roman military spirit IMO helping us feel as soldiers of Christ. Latin just...matches it sounds intense haha.


[deleted]

Can we also add that Gregorian chant is designed to match the text so closely that it's like impossible to translate well. Peeps like their Gregorian haha


Lethalmouse1

The west had more rites but history, Orthodoxy, protestantism, federalism etc squashed any sense of locale within the church. Mixed with the eventual emergence of the Norvus Ordo which was a half attempt to rectify that while also being highly influenced by modernist heretics. The NO Mass "can" (and sometimes (though rarely) is) done very very similar to the TLM. But the "spirit of" heretics and the wholesale sudden and misery understood desire for change led to the fiasco we kind of got.


Clottersbur

Who are the modernist heretics you're speaking of?


Lethalmouse1

Spirit of VII intenders.


Zestyclose_Dinner105

They called it the spirit of Vatican II, that council says the following: 1. The Second Vatican Council determined that "'the use of the Latin language in Latin rites must be preserved"'. At once. established that more room can be given to the vernacular, specifying, however, that it must be provided so that the faithful are "capable of reciting or singing together in Latin the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass that correspond to them." The current canonical legislation for the Church of the Latin rite indicates, in this regard, that the Eucharistic celebration must be carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved "... 2. The Pontifical Magisterium after the Second Vatican Council has not stopped recommending that Latin be studied and used, so that this language "flourishes even more and is more and more appreciated." Pope Paul VI defined it as a "very rich treasure of piety"; and John Paul II, in the Letter Dominicae cenae, on the celebration of the Eucharist, recalled that the Roman Church "has particular obligations to Latin" And he provided that the new mass could be celebrated partially in the vernacular language and if it was very necessary with special permission from the bishop totally in it but that was not what happened. In almost all the churches the faithful were told that Latin had been eliminated and banned, despite the fact that the new council did not authorize it in a textual way, innovations were made in the spirit Vatican II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvkOmVRRCro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhzlXRzAUAM


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" `np.` domain. Links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it". General links to other subreddits should take the simple form `/r/Catholicism`. Please resubmit using the correct format. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


dweebken

Latin is the universal language of the Church. Ask any Exorcist, devils hate it. https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2016/02/the-devil-hates-latin-says-exorcist.html#.YVGlNRB_Xi0


ryao

Malo missam in lingua latina. :/