"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.
"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--
Any language can be used as long as that language is sufficiently developed and equivalent to other liturgical languages. Thus, Saints Cyril and methodius, two Greek 9th century monks, developed a liturgical language for the vast numbers of Slavic converts, known as the Church Slavonic which is still used in Orthodox Churches of Slavic nations and which is still quite intelligible.
The biggest problem Martin Luther faced with translating the Bible was that German was simply not sufficiently developed to express accurately liturgical concepts in a manner equivalent in meaning and intent to Latin.
English has similar limitations. Even Latin translations are not always in agreement with the Greek originals, and this has resulted in some serious theological issues that divide us. Even slightly different concept can lead to a very different conclusion.
But what ninenot is referring to is the spiritual meaning of the Mass (Liturgy). The reading of the Gospels and the homily is vernacular, because that is where it is needed.
We don't write the way we speak and we don't speak street language in business meetings because it's not "befitting" for the atmosphere and the occasion. Why? because language and musci set the "mood."
The liturgy itself is a deeply spiritual experience (or it should be), not something that requires verbal comprehension. The other part ninenot was referring to is the artistic part (which is why he or she linked it to Bach). Music raises vibrations, and not all music is the same. Some music moves us, and some doesn't.
Thus a bad singer can make us really dislike an otherwise beautiful song. By the same token, a poorly sung liturgy, or one spoken in a language that is more a "street" language in its tone can take away from the occasion -- and the mood.
English is expressly unfit for Orthodox chants because the intonations of the Church Slavonic are completely off-key in English. Thus, English Orthodox liturgy could be very pleasing to the ear if its intonations were to be changed to reflect the melodic characteristic of the English language.