US Catholic Faith in Real Life

Primary tabs

Site Section: 
Topic (work in progress): 


Submitted by Qualis Rex (not verified) on

Scott, it's a matter of church history. If you wish to hear Greek, you go to a Greek Rite church. If you wish to hear Aramaic, you go to a Syriac Rite etc. Latin was the language used in Rome when the Sea of Peter began, ergo it's the language of the ROMAN Catholic church. You are correct in that theologically it is no better or worse than Greek or Aramaic. But that is absolutely not the point here.

Submitted by William (not verified) on

Our common language allows for the CLEAR FULL PARTICIPATION of teh Faithful. Latin is no more sacred than german, swahilli, celtic, greek, hebrew, aramaic, etc...
Latin has a beauty and should be preserved -- just as the Church reservedly uses greek, hebrew, aramaic expressions of faith and prayer within our liturgical life and experiences; it is also a dead language and should not be the primary language of our present day worship.

Submitted by St. Frances of ... (not verified) on

To answer the question asked by William, the problem with American English is the growing illiteracy of its speakers. As we dumb down the language we use, the younger speakers have a contracting vocabulary. In recent years I regularly have to stop my class to explain basic vocabulary that my students (juniors/seniors/graduate students) should already understand. 
Also, in my parish and many others English is hardly a common language any more than Latin would be. There are native speakers of English, Spanish, Tagalog, Polish, Czech, and several others. Latin would be an improvement over what we have now.

[Comment edited: U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic
reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.]

Submitted by Manderino (not verified) on

This poll has created unjust divisions among preparation of language. This ought to have provided, at the least, the four basic types of translations styles used in Scriptures Translation in addition to "Latin" as a choice.

That being said, there was no choice for Old Church Slavonic; and, in the end I went with literal English.

For forty years, the US has had a translation that's only valid by the power vested in the bishops, and not by any earthly standard of translation. Basic parts of the Mass that didn't change from the old days, like the Gloria and the Creed, were made to seem radically different. Mack truckloads of prayer have been discarded.

I was born long after Vatican II, and I always trusted implicitly that the current translation was right. I trusted it so much that I told my Latin teacher that "credo" must mean "we believe".

I guarantee you, that didn't fly with him.

Why did it ever fly with our bishops? Why would anyone want to keep it that way?

As for Spanish translations, that's controlled by other bishops. Let them solve them. English is what's on the table now.

As for dew, apparently in Erie they don't have mental images of common weather events. Here, we have a whole Weather Channel because that stuff is so immediate and relevant to ordinary experience.

Submitted by Fr. Deacon Daniel (not verified) on

I certainly would favor the most faithful and literal translation of the Latin for my Latin Catholic brethren. That said, I think a mixture of Latin and the vernacular would also be a welcome change in some respects. In general, Gregorian Chant is best done in Latin. Why not simply follow the Council's guidelines and authentic spirit an restore Gregorian to its rightful and prominent place in the Latin Catholic liturgy?

The best translation must only be one step in restoring the beauty and mystery of the worship in the Latin Church's liturgy. The insertion of pop culture and music and artistic forms into the Mass has turned what should be an encounter with the transcendent into an experience of the theatrical, with the altar as a stage, ministers and assistants as actors and the faithful as an audience. Too often the roles are switched around and the script adjusted to fit the mood of the minister(s) or the liturgical commitee.

Keep in mind that the loss of authentic sacred and liturgical art, architecture, vestments, vessels, etc etc is offensive to the other 21 Churches that make up the communion of the Catholic Church. I realize it is difficult, but please remember that you are only one Church, albeit the largest, in the communion of our Catholic Church. You simply do not have the right (or the rite) to be sectarians and to create an entirely different denomination that disregards the shared tradition of orthodox worship across our communion.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

The pseudo-liturgists have basically created a "new denomination", and disturbing new forms of pseudo-liturgy!

As Fr. Deacon points out, the departures from liturgical tradition draw us Romans far apart from our brothers & sisters of the great Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church (whom the V2 Council esteemed).

These breaches with Tradition also divide us more from the Orthodox, with whom the Council sought to build unity. Can you imagine what a Greek Orthodox individual would think if he/she entered many of our parishes and witnessed the liturgical abuses and lack of reverence?

I would also point out that while here the debates are over how accurate the translations of the Novus Ordo are, let's not forget how far the Novus Ordo Latin original departs from the traditional Roman Rite liturgy. If the Latin N.O. tends to de-Catholicize the traditional Mass, should it be any surprise that the translations of N.O. further de-Catholicizes the N.O. ?

Submitted by JTK (not verified) on

... so many of us have converted to Orthodoxy -- escaping Roman innovation. We celebrate Divine Liturgy in the vernacular as has been done for millenia, but the other innovations make so many incredulous of any possible unification. Get back to the Faith, then come talk to us.

Why not just have the Priest say the Mass in Latin, and then the faithful can have the translation in whatever language they wish? It seems that this would solve ALL of the issues....those who favor the 1972 translation can follow along with that translation...those who prefer the new translation can follow along with that....those who speak Spanish can follow along in Spanish...etc...there are precious few times when the assembly all speak together, and in those cases the Latin texts can be easily memorized. Such a big mountain being made of a rather simple mole-hill.

Submitted by Old Enough (not verified) on

...there were hodgepodge mixtures of latin and english during the 60's that only exacerbated confusion over communion and did not lead to full participation. Latin is great for meditations and chant...but the Liturgy needs to be in the vernacular. I don't know why they cannot come up with phrasing and wording that is both sacred poetic and clear.