I think this is a new opportunity to experience the great diversity and variety that the Universal Church offers.
Here is the Pope's letter on the subject: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles celebrates the Mass in the following languages of the people:
American Sign Language
Arabic
Aramaic
Armenian
Cambodian
Chinese (Cantonese)
Chinese (Mandarin)
Croatian
French
Garifuna (Ukrainian-Byzantine)
German
Haitian
Hungarian
Igbo
Indian
Indonesian
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Lithuanian
Polish
Portuguese
Samoan
Slavonic
Spanish
Tagalog (Philippene)
Tongan
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
and
African-American Cultural Focus
Native American Cultural Focus
and, of course,
English
and now we can add Latin.
http://www.archdiocese.la/directories/language/index.php
With love in Christ.
2007-07-12 17:05:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by imacatholic2 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The vernacular mass was instituted at Vatican II. Latin is a scholarly language that was falling out of favor. It was felt that the language separated people from God. The "New Mass," was designed to make the service more personal to the congregants.
2007-07-11 21:08:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
That never happened. The early church fathers chose Latin because that was the universal language of the learned in that part of the world at that time. Tradition is what kept it around.
Or is your question about Vatican II, allowing mass to be said in the vernacular? Not exactly sure of your question.
2007-07-11 21:01:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by Augustine 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you may be asking about Paul VI, but your question is a little fuzzy.
2007-07-11 20:59:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Are you asking who the specific one is or more in a "who does he think he is" type way?
2007-07-11 20:58:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6
·
1⤊
0⤋