The GIRM seems to envisage a Mass where some parts are in Latin and others in the vernacular.

My impression from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (para 36(b), for example) is that this sort of "hybrid" between the vernacular and Latin is exactly what the Council Fathers have in mind.

Regarding the Ordinary of the Mass in particular, we are all strongly encouraged to know a few settings of the Ordinary in Latin. Again, I refer to the Council Fathers at para 54 of the above (and also to the ill-fated "Jubilate Deo" booklet supported by Pope Paul VI).

We routinely use the Latin Ordinary at my Parish. I do not find it confusing - and neither do the congregation seem to find it confusing - to mix languages. It is just a question of being familiar with it.

I agree with Liam: when people object to this sort of arrangement it is generally (although not always) because they object to Latin per se.

I would shy away from putting words in peoples' mouths that may not reflect what they actually meant and said. Most people who 'just don't like Latin' are not at all reticent or diplomatic about letting you know it. If they said 'it was confusing', then be glad that they didn't say 'I don't like Latin'. If they didn't like it, they would have said so in no uncertain terms.

As for this and that in Latin and English in the same mass? I find this insulting to both langauges' beauty and liturgical potential. Many are they who disagree with me about this, but I think that such pastiche masses should be discouraged.

I love Latin, and thoroughly enjoy Latin masses.
Ditto English.
Just choose one language or the other.
Mixing them is a distracting pastiche without an aesthetic continuum.

I shant gainsay what you have said, Liam. No doubt that you are right - at least concerning some numbers of people. But! I myself have never heard from a person who didn't like Latin who wasn't shamelessly crude, unthinking, unkind, and crotchety about saying so. And, if anyone nearby DID like Latin, he or she would be afraid to let it be known. Such are the dynamics of the 'everybody I heard from' syndrome. Still, I'm sure that you are right about many people.

Stuff which doesn't change are good for use of Latin.

I've regularly used the (Greek) Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus Dei and Pater Noster and all are fine with it. I then end to use English Hymns and Propers.

We mix it up all the time! No problem once people get used to it.

It's easy in my area. About half of the families in our diocese speak at least two languages at home, so to them Latin is just amother language.

I always want to agree with MJO about liturgical languages, but I find I have to (at least) quibble somewhat.

His assertion that mixing Latin and English is "an insult" to both languages doesn't work well for me, excepting perhaps in the world of Anglican Prayer Book English. In the modern (non-AU) vernacular-English Roman Rite, I'm not sure there's much potential or beauty to insult.

The issue (in my opinion) is what your use of language(s) says about the liturgical text itself. In BCP/BDW English, the language makes clear that the English prayers ARE the prayers, though they may be based on Latin originals. In that context, Latin acts as something of an encroachment or addition to the Liturgy. (Whether that's good, bad, or indifferent is another Diet can of Worms.)

On the other hand, the new translation (rightly, IMO) makes it clear that the Mass is in Latin, and we - in this current celebration - are glossing it with an English translation. In this paradigm, I think it is right and just to allow the gloss to fall away at points where it is not needed. (This works, somehow, differently from doing practically the same thing but from a mindset of "replacing the English with some Latin.")

I am also perplexed by the assertion that mixing languages is an insult. Even in a fully "latin" Mass in either form, we still have hebrew (Amen, Alleluia, Sabaoth, Hosanna) and greek (Kyrie).

Not to mention, Vatican II clearly envisioned a mixed language liturgy, at least in some cases.

Thanks, Peter, at least for your qualified agreement. I shouldn't want to be a grinch who is perceived of as frowning while all are having fun doing their 'pastiche' masses. I do, of course, love Latin only a little less than I love English. Further, my sense of aesthetic integrity and continuum is greatly offended even when, at Latin masses, the liturgy of the word is sung in English. No, I am not such a classical scholar that I can understand Latin very well as it is being read out. But, still, it is jarring, inconsistent, insulting, and patronising, to pretend to have a Latin mass, but proclaim the lessons in the vernacular. This sense of aesthetic continuity is one I apply equally to any langauge in which a given mass is being celebrated, whether it's Bulgarian, Danish, or Hindi. After all, we, all of us, know perfectly well what is going on (don't we?), and are, at best, being facetious and petulant when we chortle that we 'couldn't understand'.

Of course, too, there is a concern by many of my colleagues to preserve the great polyphonic ordinaries. This is certainly a worthy sentiment and goal. As for me, I would do so in the context of a Latin mass which was a part of every parish's mass schedule. This, though, leaves one with the option of doing less than good music during great seasons and solemnities (unless he/she belongs to the Anglican Ordinariate) at English masses. In light of this, I would urge all of you, and all your choirs, and all your friends, and all your aqaintances, all your pastors and colleagues, your children, and everyone else, to inundate (that means 'flood!') our publishers with bitter complaints about the quality of mass music they are offering, and demanding a more artfully composed and ecclesiastical style.

Lastly, several above have asserted rather authoritatively that the council 'envisioned' Latin-vernacular masses. Is this really true? We all know that the mass was allowed into English only piecemeal. But, was this actually 'envisioned' as normative? I would question such an assertion seriously. I would really question that the council fathers 'envisioned' much at all, liturgically, that in fact happened in the council's name. It is clear that the council envisioned all people being able to know and celebrate the mass in Latin as well as English. But, where is it written that 'pastiche' masses were thought of as any kind of normative ideal? (I ask this a little fearful that someone may tell me just where it is so written.)

I don't understand either. Why must it be all one or all the other, or be considered insulting?

Not looking for an argument here. I truly do not understand what your objection is.

I remember when World Youth Day came to Toronto and we had kids who spoke all different languages at Mass. Suddenly it came to the ordinary and those attending chanted it in Latin. It was an amazing experience and put into perspective the universality of the church for me. Without the Latin, and the people knowing the Latin, the Mass would have not been as impressive because we could not have responded as one.

hartleymartin, you left out the first part of your quote from Sacrosanctum Concilium:

54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

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.

This article, in particular, shows that the Council Fathers envisioned a Mass that was mixed with Latin and vernacular, else they would not have singled out "readings and the common prayer," as well as others, for vernacular use. They would have specified that the liturgy is either in Latin or in the vernacular. This was further elucidated earlier in the document:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

MJO's point about whether or not the council "envisioned" Latin-vernacular Masses is well-taken, but the primary way we can determine the wishes of the council are by its legislation, which I believe is very clear above.

While I don't think mixing languages is insulting or damaging, I agree the effect can be jarring. I think it's a Western thing, though, since many Eastern Rites have multilingual liturgies. I can only think of a handful of instances in the last few centuries where this was done in the West (Indian Masses, etc.).

In the Maronite rite, the ancient languages are preserved in certain places in the Mass, while the vernacular tongues are used extensively as well. I think that this is true for all the Eastern rites. For instance, part of the Mass is in Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke), and part is in Syriac (comparable to Latin in the West in that it was the language of the Rite for many centuries and slowly passed out of use when Arabic became the language used by the people). The Eastern Fathers believe in preserving the ancient languages while embracing the vernacular tongues. That policy has saved the Eastern rites a ton of grief. Sometimes I think that the Eastern Fathers are way ahead of the West
and the West would do well to consider this. It does seem to me that the universal human condition requires the preservation of the old as well as the embracing of the new.

Also, if we really love the faithful, and we really desire their sanctification, the faithful must be taught the psalms (the Propers of the Mass) to simple melodies in their own language. Let us save the Latin for the easier Ordinary parts of the Mass, such as the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei.

Also, if we really love the faithful, and we really desire their sanctification, the faithful must be taught the psalms (the Propers of the Mass) to simple melodies in their own language. Let us save the Latin for the easier Ordinary parts of the Mass, such as the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei.

This is what we do. Ordinary in Greek & Latin, (although we sing the Gloria in Latin as well) Propers in English, with the exception of the occasional motet. Hymns in English and Latin (with translation on the page).

was criticized by purists fussbudgets

fixed

Um, what is a fussbudget?

fuss - state of agitation over a trivial matter
budget - from the French "bougette," a small pouch or purse

fussbudget - a bag full of trifling nonsense and irritation.
cf. The combox at a Traddie website.

That's what I thought... so, I'll tell Maggie Smith.

Adam's's

This is an example of why I ALWAYS want to agree with MJO about liturgical language issues. Even when I don't agree with him, I wish I did.

Charles "melo", My wife and I just watched "Quartet" this past week. Great movie!
Now, back on track. Although the EF must be all Latin, the advantage of the OF is that
that restriction is lifted. We sing Latin ordinaries and propers regularly at our Missa Cantata (OF); however, collects, readings, and general intercessions are sung/said in English. The beauty of the OF is that is possible to sing some of the great sacred music that was written in English. I love doing the EF- We're preparing for the Assumption the
Missa "Assumpta est Maria" and the motet "Assumpta est" of Palestrina. But on the Feast of Saint Edward, King-Confessor we'll rattle the rafters with "Christ Is Made the Sure Foundation" (Willcocks' setting), Handel's "Zadok the Priest" and "The King Shall Rejoice."
That same mass we'll sing the "Laudes Regiae," full Latin ordinary and proper. But even at the English masses with cantor & organ, we sing "Kyrie" (How did Greek slip in?) and
regularly sing the seasonal Marian antiphon in Latin in place of a "closing hymn". I don't
see a problem with it. At Notre Dame de Paris, the French will unabashedly sing Latin
and French together at an OF Messe Solennelle. That's where I got the idea years ago
of singing the Marian antiphon after the final blessing and Ite, although we don't quite
have a like venue, where the procession can "make the station" at the Blessed Mother.

.

Um, what is a fussbudget?

Just in case the previous explanation did not carry the full weight of my disdain for this personality type, I wrote a poem to better explain.

On Fussbudgets

Does any blight or cursed venom
Have a bite that's worse than them in
whom no happy triffling matter
fails to launch an angry pratter
blusterbunding out the gullet,
of dispar'ging comments, full? It
really is an aweful mir'cle
how the purtin prudy jerk'll
blab displeasure, frown on happy
thoughts and spread his brand of crappi-
ness where ere his gazing lands,
confident he understands.

Sure he knows the right and reason,
thinking adaptation treason,
squaling for some ideal marmy
rule to keep us safe from harm, he
pukes his half-digested fussing
on the rest of us there, cussing
anyone who dares to change,
expand, adapt, or rearrange
whatever pointless, made-up cannon
at this moment good for damnin'
things that other folks have done,
and those people's sense of fun.

Giddy at the thought of every-
body else's happy reverie
really being wrong, and more
"it goes to show how really poor
the thinking and the culture is
these days." They never seem to notice
(stubborn as a tired ass is)
that they see through poop-hued glasses.
Not to mention half the time
or more they haven't caught the rhyme
or reason for the rules they follow,
[[insert vulgar pun on "swallow"]].

Scared to have a joyful living,
hiding from decisions, giving
weight too much to old opinions
acting as the soulless minions
of a kingdom's vain pretender,
wanting what they can't remember.
Gone be you! I banish thusly
buckle-hatted pikers fuss'ly
stewing in their greivous jury-
room of molding righteous fury,
Glad I am that unlike he,
I am mostly scruple-free.

Idle hands... we know how that one ends! ;-)