Posted on 04/08/2005 6:03:35 AM PDT by NYer
A commentator on Fox said the other day that when Pope John Paul II went to Cuba and met with Castro, it was, well, he said, about as close as he'd ever seen Castro looking like he wanted to go to confession.
"What will happen when Castro dies? When reality reaches them they will go bezerk with confusion."
From things the Bush administration have said over his term in office about Cuba, it sounds to me like our government has been addressing the situation in Cuba for some time, for this very contingency, and that we don't plan to stand idly by and let cruelty rise up at the top unopposed. How, you say? I don't know. I just have gotten that impression.
Latin has a couple of nice advantages. One is that it's no nations' language, so it's neutral and the same everywhere. Back when the Mass was in Latin everywhere a Catholic from Chicago could walk into a Mass in Tokyo and be completely at home. Now that same Catholic can't walk into a Mass in Montreal and know it by heart.
The other is that Latin is dead enough not to change ... a document written in Latin 1500 years ago is as intelligible as one written yesterday. (English didn't even exist 1500 years ago, and English 1100 years ago would be easier for someone who spoke German or Dutch to understand than for you or I.)
Is anyone replaying the mass?
Ummmnhhh..yup. I know it is always permissible.
But sometimes one has to work a bit to get priests to USE Latin.
Thanks for the response.
The Latin was printed on one page, and the English translation was on the facing-page in handheld Missals which most Catholics used all the time.
Thanks for your question. Please don't take this the wrong way--but the "pragmatic" emphasis of putting the Mass into 'understandable' language misses the point.
The Mass transcends time and space; it is the eternal and universal Sacrifice of Christ, cosmic worship(rather than Temple-bound.)
When you look at it that way, "understandability" is irrelevant (although not ignored.) Sorta like a Bach Cello sonata; we like it, but we're unable to say precisely why. Is it the key signature? The particular rhythm? The particular resonant tones above and below the one which is sounded?
I read a very erudite analysis of certain musical passages from the Britten War Requiem, analyzing the scale-forms utilized, etc., etc. half-to-death. STILL didn't understand exactly why the particular passage was so hauntingly beautiful--but I did know how it was constructed.
Same principle, different object with the Mass.
Finally, before the printing press, (and radio/TV/the 'net, et al) most people knew what all that Latin meant by rote, even if they were Germans. It was handed-down, just like the Torah and the Odyssey.
Right NOW on EWTN.
The irony with Latin is that it was the soken language of the primary persecutors of the early Church. Ultimately of course the Church prevailed, however I find it ironic that the language of the persecutors was determined to be the official language of the Church.
Addressing the dead language acknowledgement; back in the old days it wasn't a dead language.
I don't know if I'd be a Catholic today if the mass was still REQUIRED to be said in Latin. I'm personally glad I don't have to make that choice. The vernacular is perfectly suited for complete understanding and active participation by the faithful.
I do feel we have weakened catechesis and are far too tolerant of liberals within the Church. Their pulpit seems to be the voice of Catholicism to the world, and that is both unfortunate and disingenuous.
They didn't go - the Vatican wouldn't take them, and they couldn't find space as private citizens.
No photos of the idiot libs - and since Bush took Klin-ton with him, they can't even complain.
"the "pragmatic" emphasis of putting the Mass into 'understandable' language misses the point. The Mass transcends time and space; it is the eternal and universal Sacrifice of Christ, cosmic worship(rather than Temple-bound.) "
OK, but if it transcends time and space, why can't it be put in ANY language and retain its character?
"When you look at it that way, "understandability" is irrelevant (although not ignored.) Sorta like a Bach Cello sonata; we like it, but we're unable to say precisely why. Is it the key signature? The particular rhythm? The particular resonant tones above and below the one which is sounded?"
Apples and oranges. You can't translate notes into words; you can translate words into words.
"I read a very erudite analysis of certain musical passages from the Britten War Requiem, analyzing the scale-forms utilized, etc., etc. half-to-death. STILL didn't understand exactly why the particular passage was so hauntingly beautiful--but I did know how it was constructed."
Well, that's fine, but music is not about communicating a didactic message; language is.
"Same principle, different object with the Mass. Finally, before the printing press, (and radio/TV/the 'net, et al) most people knew what all that Latin meant by rote, even if they were Germans. It was handed-down, just like the Torah and the Odyssey."
I suspect the Odyssey wouldn't mean much to anyone if the readers did not understand the language. Stories passed from generation to generation in language that was understood, obviously; if the mass is going to mean something to the audience, they have to understand the language--that's obvious from the translations provided. A previous poster mentioned that someone could go to a Latin mass in the US or elsewhere and get the same Mass, but what if that church doesn't have a translation in HIS language?
The obvious answer is he doesn't need a translation to know the same mass is being said...but that's the same sitation as one going into a mass in English or one in French--someone who speaks Japanese doesn't need to understand either to know he's hearing the same mass. And if there are slight imperfections in translation, well, you said yourself the Mass transcends time and space, right?
Thanks again for the info.
Most of it doesn't change. Someone who has years of experience with it doesn't need a translation anymore.
but that's the same sitation as one going into a mass in English or one in French--someone who speaks Japanese doesn't need to understand either to know he's hearing the same mass.
Sure, but I don't know the words in Japanese. I do know many of them in Latin.
In addition to the comments above, I would add that the Latin Mass has a majesty and an intangible but perceivable connection to the ancient past. This is an institution that goes back almost 2000 years - few human institutions can claim that. When the Mass is celebrated in contemporary tongues, what it gains in comprehensibility it loses in solemnity and the indefinable quality that separates the Mass from a random prayer service. (No disrespect to anyone intended.)
"How come...[any] language...?"
You are right of course--except that in the RC Church, Latin is the 'sacral' language, like Hebrew in the synagogue, and Old Slavonic in the Russian Orthodox.
"Notes..notes/words...words"
Wrong. Languages are not easily translatable, as most folks understand. While A translation is available, it may not be THE, or the BEST translation. That's the utility of using Latin--
Boy was the loveliness and solemnity of the Mass clear at the Pope's funeral...it was so lovely...
You touch on "sacred time/sacred space/sacred language" which has been sorely lacking in Western liturgy for about, oh, 30 years.
Just a co-incidence, of course.
Great homily by Card. Ratzinger.
My brother was an altar boy for a few years prior to Vatican II when the language of the Mass was converted to English. I was a couple of years younger than my brother, but I was at an age when everything I heard, I would repeat. So while he was learning the Latin Mass, I learned it too. I'm amazed at how much of it I still remember almost 50 years later.
I don't believe there are any churches in my neck of the woods which have Latin Masses anymore. At one point, there was a church which conducted Masses in Latin, but it was disowned (if that's what you would call it) by the local diocese. In fact, the diocese went to great lengths to advertise that this church did not belong to the diocese. I'm not sure the church is still in existence anymore. Too bad. Latin is a great language. One advantage is that it's the basis of Italian, French and Spanish...if you know Latin, you can learn the other languages fairly easily.
Don't get me wrong, the contemporary Mass is certainly useful in attracting and retaining members; I don't advocate the return to all Masses being in Latin. However, I think it should be used on high holy days such as Easter or Christmas, and for solemn rites such as baptisms, weddings, and funerals. I think the pendulum of "language accomodation" has swung a wee bit too far.
In the end, the Church should speak to the world with one voice, and that voice should be Latin.
BTW, my father was a Father--for ten years until he left the priesthood to marry my mother. He went to the Catholic University of America and back in the early 60's, I got to go to DC and see his ordination picture hanging in the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. When I was little, my father would recite, along with the celebrant in Rome, the Midnight mass broadcast from the Basilica. Of course, back then, it was in Latin. I LOVE Gregorian chant, and though I was not raised a Catholic (and am now a Lutheran), I have a great respect for much of the traditions of the Catholic Church. And I HAD to stay up to watch the funeral of the Holy Father.
This whole week has been incredible! I thank God for John Paul II, who has been such a good and faithful Vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ--and for all His children whose expressions of love and respect have been expressed on this forum and through all the media. Dominus vobiscum--et cum Spiritu Tuo!
I could do without the tone in the last sentence--yes, most folks DO understand we're not talking precise translations--which is why I didn't feel the need to go into detailed explanations we don't need. But to claim you cannot translate words into words with any more accuracy than you could translate notes into words is just silly. The differences are in terms of tone and, for example, subject-object correlations, but I don't feel like discussing this with anyone with that attitude.
I'll leave this thread now that it's heading into insult territory, which seems to happen whenever I "dare" ask questions about religion here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.