WDTPRS POLL: A different Mass preference poll: language

Here is a new WDTPRS POLL for you!

Please choose the option that best describes your preference and be sure to give your reasons in the combox!



So far, people are overwhelmingly choosing Mass involving Latin over the vernacular.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in POLLS, SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. TNCath says:

    I chose “Mass in Latin (except readings) with my choice of translation in a book,” although the translated book (daily missal?) would have to be an approved translation.

    Once again, though, I do think the vernacular has its place here and there and can be helpful at certain parts of the liturgy, especially for the readings.

  2. Jaybirdnbham says:

    I chose the 3rd option, but did so with a bit of trepidation since I don’t know Latin. I attend the N.O. Mass since the only TLM available is across town in a dangerous part of town. If my own parish offered the TLM, I’d happily attend.

    The problem I have is what nowdays would be called attention deficit, and am very easily distracted during Mass. And I need to find a solution to this, so I can focus better on the prayers (even ICEL ones) instead of zoning out and not being aware of a word of those prayers.

    Maybe focusing on the words in a book would help? Would focusing on the words in English while they are being said in Latin be a help or a hindrance to someone with difficulty focusing?

  3. pforrester says:

    I would like mass in vernacular in a translation and with the liturgy of the Extraordinary form. I am a convert. I have only been to two Extraordinary masses. I liked them and wept for joy at receiving my Lord kneeling. But for our children who find Protestant churches more user friendly a mass in Latin would just be that much more difficult to connect with for children and teens who still need to “Get it!”. Yes parents need to educate their kids but many DON’T!

    I teach confirmation and due to 16 years with a progressive priest many of our teens are not even taken to mass every Sunday. So at least for my parish we need to teach about the importance of our Sunday Obligation before mass is all in Latin.

  4. Father S. says:

    Father Z.,

    I think that your poll is missing an option. This may be intentional, but it only gives the “either/or” option. There is no option for both. The fact of the matter is that there are two options and there will be two options. The mind of the Church is clearly that both are suitable. It seems to me that “Mass in Latin (except/including readings) with translation or Mass in a suitable and improved vernacular option” ought to be present, too. These are your poll and your site, but there are my two cents.

    I still maintain that, given the chance to see the Novus Ordo offered solemnly, soberly, and reverently, even in the vernacular, there would be great enthusiasm for it. As I have said here before, I will offer OF or EF. That being said, I refuse to offer either in a way that is not suitable.

    Grace and Peace,
    Fr. S.

  5. pforrester says:

    Why didn’t the Church just translate the Latin mass into the vernacular back in the 60′? I have never understood the need for an ICEL translation in the first place. Unless the vatican just caved to the progressive agenda back then.

  6. Tina in Ashburn says:

    I chose “Mass in Latin (including readings) and and my choice of translation in a book”, but I’m thinking that the Readings and Gospel would be later read in English at the homily.

    I choose this not because I particularly enjoy everything in Latin throughout, but because I understand that this is the closest to the mind of the Church. If the Mass is a holy conversation between Jesus Christ and God the Father, the whole should be in the appropriate sacred language.

    Don’t we see where the other path of the vernacular and personal preferences has taken us?

    Today’s Masses are interspersed with interruptions by unconsecrated laity, and unrelated prayers/songs. This kind of emphasis has gone too far, and de-emphasizes the role of the priest and fuller expression of the Mass.

    The Byzantine congregation sings throughout the Mass, but is not interrupting the action in the Sanctuary.

  7. Rose in NE says:

    What Tina said!

  8. TC says:

    Out of curiosity, what would be the purpose of having the Readings in Latin? [Other than the fact that Latin is the Church’s official language for worship?]

  9. William says:

    Latin with English readings. Only a tiny percentage of people are fluent in Latin; and hearing the Gospel message proclaimed in one’s own language seems very, very appropriate. Latin’s chief importance is that it provide a common language and demonstrates the Church’s universality in an un-mistakable way. There once was a time when a Roman Catholic could travel the world over and feel very much at place when attending Holy Mass — in Latin.

  10. Genna says:

    The third option for me. With the current ICEL translation I find myself drifting off all over the place to escape its sheer awfulness. The benchmark is the NO celebration in Latin ad orientem at the London Oratory. The silence of concentration during Mass is such you could hear a pin drop and there is no congregational sign of peace; not at the Sunday Missa Cantata. In the olden days when there was just the Epistle and the Gospel, the priest said them in Latin at the altar and then read them in the vernacular from the pulpit before his sermon. I must admit that with three readings I often can’t see any link between the Old and New Testament texts. A pity we can’t return to just the two readings and kick into touch the wretched bidding prayers which seem to have been captured by the most verbose of the “active“ parishioners.

  11. drwob says:

    Ditto Tina’s comment: Mass in Latin, chanted (Latin) readings, vernacular reprise of the readings prior to the homily.

  12. NDPhys says:

    I have chosen Latin with vernacular readings. Ever since I first attended the OF Mass in Latin, and later then in a vernacular language which was not my own, I have reflected on how much Latin ought be used in the liturgy. By keeping, at the very least, most of the ordinaries of Mass in Latin, it helps to reflect the Universality of the Church; Mass will be the same, not just in content, but also in the words and language all around the world. It would also help to build Catholic identity, which is sorely needed in this day and age.

  13. Our monastic community celebrates the OF with the readings in English and the rest in chanted Latin. (I hope eventually we can do the “Gradual” and “Alleluia” in the Gregorian chant; the responsorial psalm seems problematic within a “Latin” liturgy; that’s just my opinion, though.
    The one exception is on high holy days when we chant the Gospel in Latin.
    This, in our minds, keeps the “hermeneutic of continuity”…I also celebrate, in a local parish, the OF in English. I don’t have a problem with that; I’m just waiting for the more faithful translations.

  14. Kris says:

    I answered “Mass in the vernacular with an improved translation” per personal preference and what I think is likely to be more accessible to non-Catholics. However, this does not discount encouraging many of the common prayers (e.g. Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) in Latin.

  15. Marlon says:

    I chose option #3, but I would be happy with the readings in Latin as well. The Latin is the official version that comes from Rome, and any attempt at translation is going to provide an opportunity for mistranslation. The new mass in Latin is much better than the present English translation, and the newer translation will help that, but why go through all that nonsense? Stick to the Latin and be done with it. I would not worry about whether people would be put off by the Latin. Instead of spending all that time doing translations, spend it on teaching people how to follow the Mass with a side-by-side translation and introduce some basic Latin back into the Catholic school system. There are lots and lots of Catholics who attend Mass in English who haven’t a clue what’s really going on. The issue isn’t the language, it’s the lack of catechesis.

  16. Templar says:

    I voted for the 3rd option (Mass in Latin except readings), because it is closest to my preference for an NO Mass, which would be all non-changing parts in Latin, all changing parts in vernacular with “qualified” translations. (as opposed to just approved, since, well, you all know why)

    Of course, if someone was REALLY curious what my preference would be, it would be to call a do-over on the NO Mass, admit the mistake and reset the clock and start over again from MR62.

  17. Flambeaux says:

    Mass in Latin, “readings” sung in Latin. I can follow the Latin some of the time, but more easily when chanted than when spoken since the rhythm of the chant tends to dictate a tempo that can actually be understood.

    Vernacular readings don’t really excite me as I find them less comprehensible when I travel.

  18. Flambeaux says:

    Besides, I believe every Catholic should know or learn Latin, just as every Jew should know some Hebrew and every Greek some Greek. What better way to help that project along than eliminating the crutch of vernacular readings (which don’t aid understanding, anyway)?

  19. TJerome says:

    I agree that number 3 should be modified to read with improved vernacular translation. Most of us are not fluent enough in Latin and we all know the current ICEL translation is a banal/ideological translation. So why we looking at that opposite the Latin.

    Also, I normally would say that for efficienies sake, the readings should be proclaimed in the vernacular, with one exception. If the priest/deacon is going to chant them, I would prefer that be done in Latin.


  20. Oneros says:

    You should have an option for Latin Ordinary, Vernacular Propers, ie, beyond just the readings. [Too complicated.]

    I think people could be familiar enough with the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, Ite Missa Est, and things like “Dominus Vobiscum” to do it…but if the Readings are in the Vernacular…the Collects might as well be too.

  21. Jaybirdnbham says:

    Referring to Tina’s mention of Byzantine liturgy, I’ve attended a local Melkite-Greek liturgy several times, and really love it. It’s sung, and the whole congregation joins in. And my mind doesn’t wander off there like it does in the N.O. Mass, perhaps because it’s still unfamiliar and I’m straining to keep up in the book, plus also because we’re all singing. My inclination is to continue visiting that parish maybe once a month.

    That doesn’t solve the problem of my mind wandering off during the prayers in the N.O. Mass at my own parish, though. But the Melkite Mass experience tells me that following along in a book might be the answer to my distractability problem.

  22. FredM says:

    I picked the second option (new translation) because I am so much looking forward to it. I’m a 56 yo convert from the Episcopal Church and the new translation sounds more like the Book of Common Prayer than the current version. However, generally I prefer TLM today over the current sloppiness often found with the NO. That said, I’m hoping that the new, more dignified translation, will discourage altar servers from wearing tennis shoes or flip flops.

  23. cmm says:

    I’d be happy to have Latin for the parts of the Mass that stay the same all the time. With repetition, I can learn what the words mean in spite of the language barrier, and I would like to pray in Latin. And, for example, I love the beauty of Gregorian chants in Latin.

    But for the parts that are different every week, I want the vernacular. It would be much too distracting for me to hear one language, read another, and try to figure out how they match and where we are at. I’ve done it several times, and it goes too fast for me to understand what the words mean, let alone pray them. I end up giving up, watching the stained glass windows and whiling away the time by doing my own private prayers with the sound of the priest as background to my prayer.

  24. smad0142 says:

    I would have loved to voted in this poll, but there was no option that best appealed to me. Ideally I would like a Mass ad orientem, with parts like the Consecration, Sanctus, Agnes Dei, etc. etc. with the other prayers in an improved translation over the ICEL version.

  25. Dave N. says:

    I would pick Mass entirely in Latin, except for the homily and the prayers of the faithful, which I think should be in the vernacular–unless someone’s going to write them out in advance and print them out for me, which I don’t think is realistic. As long as we have a printed text to follow along with, Latin’s fine with me.

    And I echo many of the sentiments already expressed above. Let’s just have the Latin Mass and be done with it. If Jews can teach Hebrew to their children beginning at a young age, why can’t/don’t Catholics teach their children Latin–a much easier language, imo? (Or Greek and/or Hebrew as well for that matter?)

    So where does all this constant hand-wringing about learning Latin come from? It seems that the Church has expended and continues to expend CONSIDERABLE money, energy, angst– not to mention the ill will created on all sides, simply over the issue of translation and publishing translations. If even HALF the effort had been expended to teach children Latin, the Church would be better off by far–to say nothing of the other benefits gained by students and teachers. It’s really a scandal if you stop to think about it; I have NEVER understood why we don’t do this.

    It’s not that hard, people.

  26. Ogard says:

    I chose the third, but really, the variant of the third option which would extend the vernacular to (1) all texts that change daily, not only the readings; and (2) EP III and IV (whereby EP I would be only in Latin, and EP II and other EP-s abandoned) would be preferable.

  27. Christopher Gainey says:

    I voted for the EF, readings in Latin which I certainly enjoy when chanted and I have the translation. Either mass is fine in latin. I have found that the most successful way to introduce interested friends to the EF mass is through the OF mass in latin. They are quickly comfortable with it and then more easily “graduate” to the richer older form.

  28. “Mass in Latin (except readings) and my choice of translation in a book”

    I would prefer the Ordinary (Order) of Mass be prayed in Latin, with allowances made for the vernacular in certain places of the Propers: the readings, the prayer of the faithful, and MAYBE the Collect, Super Oblata, and Post-Communion. I’d also prefer less variation from Mass to Mass, giving preference to the Confiteor, the Roman Canon, one particular acclamation at the Mysterium Fidei, etc.

  29. eastsilica says:

    I chose the third option as Latin preserves doctrine and the old ICEL is pretty loose and thus the need for the new translation. That said, I would love to have Gregorian chant for the Ordinary prayers.

  30. I’d prefer all the options except the current translation. Not very picky, me. :)

  31. Nora says:

    For many years we attended a church which offered the Novus Ordo in Latin twice a month, with vernacular readings, and in English the remaining two or three Sundays. Given the new translation, that would be my personal, happy solution. We were familiar enough with the Latin to participate fully in a Latin mass where ever we traveled, and the meaning of the Latin was emphasized, to the extent the ICEL translation made it possible, by hearing the translations on the other Sundays. As long as it is the mass, validly and licitly offered, I am a grateful Catholic, but I do have a happy spot!

  32. catholicmidwest says:

    Dear all,

    Having the readings in Latin pre-empts the ever-present temptation to make them politically correct, just as it does with the remainder of the mass said in Latin.

    I would like to see the Latin form, as approved by Rome, in a missal, such that the approved Latin form would be on one page, and an English translation would be on the facing page. Moreover, the English translation on that opposite page would NOT be viewed as a liturgically sanctioned version, officially, but merely as an discretionary or literary footnote to the Latin. Different editions of missals might even have different English translations of Scripture, but they wouldn’t be official for the purposes of liturgy anyway–which would make them no worse than what we currently have with anything else, including the rest of the Bible.

    I would like to see the readings in Mass read in Latin, as well. I don’t want to hear them in English; when I see them in English, I want to READ them from an accepted Catholic bible version, like the RSV. (Only if an accepted CAtholic Bible version, like the RSV were used, would I like to hear them in English, which is probably never going to happen, so no English version. Period. I’ll carry a bible with my missal if I have to.)

    The homily could be in English, and SHORT, since they’re not usually worth 2 inflated cents in the Catholic church anyway (might possibly encourage priests to just spit out the truth and get on with it which is what they should be doing anyway).

  33. I vote for option 4 “Mass in Latin (including readings) and and my choice of translation in a book” However, I would like to see that the readings were read in English during the sermon. For the English readings at the sermon I would like to have them read from the Douay-Rheims (or the Confraternity Version) or The Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition. We need to dump the New American Bible and its sometimes heretical footnotes and introductions which I know have lead many astray from sound traditional Catholic doctrine. I would like the Novus Ordo to be revised to be more like the Tridentine Rite as well.

  34. catholicmidwest says:

    PS, I’ve heard homilies on just about everything in my 25 years as a Catholic, including golf, little forest animals, politics (in the church and out), nature worship and the perfectibility of man (Chardin etc). I’ve even heard homilies with ribald homo jokes (just last Halloween in my geographic parish, in fact). The ones I’ve remembered the longest have been the craziest ones, simply because of their incredible pain-inducing flakiness or their shock factor.

    I’d like to hear some good but short homilies on, for a change, the evils of abortion or contraception or divorce or beating one’s wife. How about a homily on consequences and nature of sin? How about a homily on the evils of lying? These kinds of homilies are rare, almost nonexistent.

  35. catholicmidwest says:

    I’ve heard a few, rather few, good homilies. Most are neither very good, nor very bad, but instead very mediocre. Nevertheless, I think the homily has to be in the vernacular to fulfill its possible function.

    But I don’t know why anything else at all has to be in English, especially since most Catholics can read–and if a missal with Latin on one side and English on the other were available to them, they’d be fine.

  36. Paul M says:

    Until my Latin improves, I would prefer option 3. Without trying to create a rabbit hole, I must add that the NAB is dreadful and would much rather hear the Douay-Rheims, Navarre or RSV-CE translations for the readings.

    Then again, being here in LA, I’ll just take a simple, reverent English “say the black, do the red” NO Mass. It’s not too much to ask.

  37. Rob F. says:

    Readings in Latin, definitely.

    As much as I abhor the current ICEL translation like all readers of this blog, I abhor even more the Bible translation used in the readings. Simply put, I disbelieve what I hear read to me, unless I can check it against a translation I believe, like the Vulgate.

    Talk about a hermaneutic of suspicion…

  38. Father S. says:

    RE: catholicmidwest

    As for preaching, I think that you need to just look around a bit more. I find that there are a great many really great preachers. Unfortunately, they are sometimes hard to find.

    I am not going to say that my sermons are anything more than mediocre (mostly because I am not sure what you use to grade them) but if you follow the link below, you will at least hear ones that have to do with what you mentioned. In fact, I preached on marriage last week and life this week. I don’t post this to grab attention but to say that preaching on such things is out there.


  39. Father S. says:

    You can tell I am tired. The link should be:


    The homily from each Sunday is streaming. I sometimes also post the Spanish homily. If you are bilingual, you will find that they are not often the same.

  40. Mitchell NY says:

    The two vernacular choices have no place for Latin and as we know it was to be retained as per the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy….That said I vote #3….Latin must reamin, although I would also like hieractic translations for the readings..Not because I already am a scholar and know what they mean, but because it will stir my mind into finding out, and maybe incorporating it into some everyday expressions and help bring some antiquity into our normal mundane world..

  41. Mary G says:

    I chose Mass in the vernacular with improved translation. but what I really love is Mass in the vernacular with some parts in Latin – The Kyrie, Angus Dei, Dominus Vobiscum etc.

    A bit each way?

  42. Melody says:

    Although I prefer to attend the Tridentine mass, I chose “Mass in the vernacular with an improved translation” for a few reasons.

    I believe mass can celebrated properly in the vernacular because I have seen the Norbertines do so. Knowing the prayers in English before I began the TLM helped my ability to participate immensely, and I would vote to retain a repaired Novus Ordo as an instructional tool for children and those who for whatever reason will never warm up to the TLM.

  43. Agnes says:

    I prefer Latin with readings in English. My second preference would be English with a better translation. There is an unlisted third that I see at the school Mass here: Mostly English with Latin chant for the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and Pater Noster. What would you call that? Mostly vernacular with a chance of Latin?

  44. Just as an add-on: Even Pope Benedict (and Archbishop Lefebvre) have said that the reading of the Word of God could (should) be in the vernacular (as well as Fr. Klaus Gamber ). I see no problem with the readings from Scripture, since they are addressed to the People of God (forgive me here, if this term might offend anyone), being in their native tongue; as long as they are are faithful to the authentic Latin. Prayers addressed to God should be in Latin (although it is allowed in the vernacular)…that is just my opinion based upon the tradition of our Holy Church in continuity with Sacred Tradition.

  45. jlmorrell says:

    This is a no-brainer. We are Latin Catholics. In my opinion, the Mass – both forms – should be entirely in Latin with the possibility of the readings being re-read in the vernacular before the vernacular sermon.

    It’s sad beyond description that probably 90% of Catholics don’t even know what Dominus Vobiscum means. I believe that the widespread enforcement of Latin in the liturgy, among other things, is essential to a renewal of Catholic identity in the Church.

  46. TomB says:

    After years of the Traditional Mass in Latin, I am actually beginning to understand some of the readings now, just by having followed the hand missal all these years. I’m for keeping the Latin, and restating the readings in vernacular before the homily/sermon. (We usually get a sermon, if you want to make distinctions.) But I really don’t have a problem, as at daily mass, with following along in the hand missal.

  47. JaneC says:

    Well, I voted for option three, but I’ll take all of the last three options, please! I like variety. The current English translation is bad, but once that problem is solved, I’ll be happy with whatever as long as they say the black and do the red, and don’t abandon Latin entirely.

  48. I still prefer Latin for the prayers. Only the new translations for the readings and not the old ICEL ones. Faithfulness to the original liturgical texts is still the one for me so that I can meditate upon the words intended by the Church in the collects and prayers.

  49. Anthony OPL says:

    EF all in Latin, with vernacular in the missal of my choice. I’m a 24 year old, multilingual cradle catholic who hasn’t studied more than a month of Latin as a teenager. I believe the common practice with Latin readings is to repeat the readings in the vernacular before the homily, so even for those few in the western world (or those many in the third world) who are illiterate, the initial, solemn reading in Latin should not pose a barrier.

    I am also convinced from my few experiences with the EF that the public proclamation of Sacred Scripture in Latin is a richer expression of our heritage, and opens more homiletical doors to the priest than reading even a good translation does. Furthermore, there are some iconic phrases from the Latin rendition of the scriptures which were once fixtures in Catholic lay culture (even as mundane as “in illo tempore…”) which have vanished.

  50. John Fannon says:

    The exam question was with respect to the NO Mass. I chose the Mass in Latin except the readings. I have heard a NO Mass at Westminster Cathedral with this arrangement and it was conducted beautifully.

    At that Mass, I noted that the majority of communicants including all the boys in the Choir received the Sacred Host on the tongue.

    For the EF, of course all in Latin. I like to hear the Deacon, sub-deacon proclaim the scriptures in Latin clearly. Also at the end of Mass, it is customary for the priest to say the last Gospel silently. I don’t know why this is – such beautiful words deserve to be said out loud for the whole congregation to hear.

  51. Jono says:

    I said “Mass in the vernacular with an improved translation”. This is primarily because I want a good translation, and I don’t think everyone would be ready for a reintroduction of Latin throughout all or most of the liturgy. Still, I want such a translation to be accompanied by music actually suitable to the liturgy, and at least using the proper texts (whether vernacular or Latin). I personally see no reason why there would not be able to be a) an Ordinary Form in Latin w/ English readings; b) an Ordinary Form in (properly translated) English; c) an Extraordinary Form, all on Sundays, in parishes with at least two priests. All should be celebrated reverently, according to the rubrics, with as much solemnity as possible. People may then justly choose according to what is right for them, in terms of their liturgical and catechetical formation. I suspect that most converts would probably prefer the OF in English. Those who are more grounded in the faith (be they young or old) might prefer one of the other two options.

  52. Konichiwa says:

    I would like an improved translation using formal English words such as “thee”, “thy”, “thine”, etc. Otherwise, trusty ol’ Latin will do.

  53. priest up north says:

    I put Mass in the vernacular with the improved translation only because my real preference is not an option: Mass where most if not all of the Ordinary is done in Latin, with all of the propers (not just the readings) done in the vernacular, with an improved translation…

  54. I agree with priest up north: Mass said with the Propers with a revised and improved vernacular and the Ordinary said in Latin. So I chose the new vernacular option in the poll.

  55. Art says:

    Mass in hieratic English would be great replacement to the current translation. Isn’t it one of the benefits that the Anglican Ordinariates are supposed to bring over?

  56. ghp95134 says:

    “Mass in Latin (including readings) and and my choice of translation in a book”

    But with the Latin readings following the vernacular.

  57. budgeri says:

    I have difficulty focusing during mass (I understand St. Therese had similar difficulties), and that is exacerbated when the mass is done in latin. I think it’s a beautiful language, but understand very little latin and feel so frustrated when I can’t “connect” with the mass. Doing the readings in latin seems particularly puzzling, since God gave the apostles the gift of tongues in order to deliver the Gospel to all sorts of people. I know of a very good priest who was almost prevented from becoming one due to his inability to learn latin…the requirements were changed just in time. Another thing that people sometimes don’t think of is the hearing impaired. Myself, my father and three siblings have genetic hearing loss. I attended a latin mass during which the priest was facing the high altar (of course), but no microphones were used. I could not hear a thing.

    Of course I have no problem with priests offering the latin mass for those who enjoy it, but I think it’s important to offer the mass in the parish’s native language as well. I would love to see aspects of the latin mass (kneeling for communion, etc.) incorporated with an improved English translation!

  58. Henry Edwards says:

    An unexpected (at least, until you think about it) benefit of the liturgy in Latin, whether EF or OF: Good solid, meaty sermons in English.

    Really, can’t recall an exception. I’ll leave it to someone else to explain this.

    Indeed, it appears to suffice for the priest to celebrate the Mass in Latin only occasionally. Then his sermon ordinarily will be solid even when he celebrates the liturgy in English.

  59. MichaelJ says:

    Perhaps an appropriate follow on poll could be something like:

    What is the *primary* purpose of the Mass

    1. Offer the worship due to God first and foremeost with any graces received as “icing on the cake”
    2. Edification and spiritual nourishment of the laity because people cannot offer due worship if they do not understand

    I’m just speculating now, but I suspect those who chose option 3 or 4 of this poll would be the ones who choose option 1 of the proposed poll above.

  60. M. K. says:

    I find that I pay closer attention to the readings when they are in Latin (partly because I’m reading along in the missal and referring to the vernacular translation in the facing column) and that I remember their content better later on than when the readings are only given in the vernacular. I should note, however, that the same applies to my experience of the Mass in general – I pray with greater concentration when the liturgy is in Latin than I do when it is in the vernacular.

  61. Navarricano says:

    I chose Option 3, the Mass in Latin with the readings in the vernacular, although I do not think that the choice of translation should be left up to me or anyone else. What I want is be able to go to Mass with the “shields lowered”, i.e., not on the defensive, on guard against faulty translations of Sacred Scripture. The vernacular translations used at Mass should be prepared in the strictest accordance with the Latin original and be the only translations authorized for use at Mass.

    Basically, I do think there is a good idea to proclaim the Word of God in the vernacular. I would also retain the final reading at Mass from the first chapter of St. John’s Gospel after Holy Communion in Latin as part of the ritual.

  62. The Cobbler says:

    I’m guessing this poll is misleading without another one on everyone’s second-best preference and how close it is to their first-best. For example, I would usually take Latin over even an improved translation unless the translation is beyond my current wildest dreams (we’re talking maybe if someone on par with Tolkien in every aspect only studied in Latin instead of Norse could translate it), but if the translation is truly decent and the Mass celebrated with a pipe organ and gregorian chant as well as the obvious should-bes like ad orientem, I’d switch out from time to time for the change of pace.

Comments are closed.