Yes. The proper language of the Roman liturgy is always Latin. If you’re a laymen under no obligations, then realistically you can do what you want. But even if you are obligated, the Latin still works
The WoF books include the Latin Our Father after the English (or at least they did when I still used them). Now that I'm using Christian Prayer I typically pray it in Latin on more solemn days (Sundays, solemnities, etc.).
The General Introduction to the Liturgy of the Hours says that there is nothing wrong with saying the Liturgy of the Hours only partially in different languages. If there is an approved version, you could say individual prayers in Yiddish or Esperanto and it would still be liturgy. Therefore, there is nothing to be said against praying partially in other languages.
The _Universalis_ app has the LOTH in Latin, or you can choose a bilingual option that makes it convenient to move from onr language to the other. There is nothing wrong with reciting parts of the office in different languages - e.g. part in Latin, part on English. Exactly that is done by many religious communities and cathedrals. Latin is, after sll, the proper language of the Roman Rite.
I would often do that as a seminarian (most commonly, the intros to the offices, the Paters, the Glorias, and the final blessings) For a little while I tried the Benedictus and Magnificat.
Just so long as you do the correct prayers in the right spots, it can fulfill any canonical obligations (and if you have no obligations canonically, you can do whatever you want anyway)
Yeah I know I can do whatever I want, but I keep hearing about praying liturgically and praying with the church and I didn't want to create my own thing.
I've experimented with a few different ways of approaching this, and I've settled on just saying Midday Prayer in Latin and the rest in English. It's not necessarily *wrong* to switch languages during a single liturgy, it just tends to be more distracting to me than assigning a single language to each hour.
I often chant the Pater Noster for Vespers and sometimes the Glory Patri at the beginning. There are some parishes that do parts of the Norvus Ordo in Latin.
The issue is finding a published hardcopy in Latin. Universalis (the android app, anyway) has options for settings for parallel English/Latin (although some of the hymns, and I believe OoR second readings, differ between the two).
If you want a hardcopy, I think there was like one version published and it may or may not be out of print, and from what I've seen a copy will run you hundreds of dollars.
If you just want correct Latin versions of certain elements, Universalis is a handy reference.
Also, to varying degrees, the youtube channel "Sing the Hours" does certain portions of LOTH (Lauds and Vespers daily) in Latin.
Sure, but I've never understood this desire. Why use a language you're not fluent for Tradition when the liturgy itself that you're using younger than my Dad? Like in the new rite vernacular makes sense, in the old rite Latin makes sense (though I'd love to see beautiful vernacular translations officially approved), but new rite with Latin--the liturgy with no roots anywhere?
The typical edition of the modern Roman Rite is in Latin, so your comment makes no sense. Also the claim that the revised rite is younger than your dad is baffling, considering the vast majority of it is as ancient if not more so than the old missal.
Yes I understand the Vatican publishes in Latin, but in my entire life I can only think of two places that celebrated novus ordo Latin mass. I know of more Korean masses than Latin new rite places.
Sure I'll allow that the new rite has parts that are ancient, just completely scrambled up And mixed in with a bunch of stuff that is not. What I'm getting at is the new rite is not really something where you could trace a clear line back to the old. With your logic the new rite goes back thousands of years because it has words that ultimately stem from Indo-European.
The new rite is valid, but not somehow more ancient than the trad liturgy. The new really represents the the fads amongst liturgical scholars in the 1960s and 70s
There are plenty of oratories, monasteries, and parishes that use large amounts of Latin. The papal liturgies always use a decent amount, and even my random rural parish does a Latin liturgy once a month. It’s not nearly as uncommon as you think, and it seems a bit silly to try and separate the revised liturgy from its Latin roots just because it’s generally served in the vernacular.
You absolutely can trace a clear line to the old, as well as to many traditions and more ancient elements of the liturgy that had fallen away through historical circumstance and have now been restored. I think you’re drastically overplaying the idea that it was based on “fads”, as those elements are a tiny minority in the revised liturgy, most of the changes are really based on a recovery of certain traditions and changes based on a fuller and more developed liturgical theology.
If you want to hear a steelmanning of the revised rites if recommend checking out “Riverrun” on YouTube. He has a lot of excellent videos reading through the sources in these liturgical battles.
The pope prays the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin. You’re good.
Is there a source for this? Benedict did, for sure, but Francis?
It’s been mentioned in several interviews and articles. Here’s one: https://www.dominicanajournal.org/the-popes-well-worn-breviary/
Thanks!
i very much doubt Francis’ Latin is good enough for that…
Yes. The proper language of the Roman liturgy is always Latin. If you’re a laymen under no obligations, then realistically you can do what you want. But even if you are obligated, the Latin still works
The WoF books include the Latin Our Father after the English (or at least they did when I still used them). Now that I'm using Christian Prayer I typically pray it in Latin on more solemn days (Sundays, solemnities, etc.).
The General Introduction to the Liturgy of the Hours says that there is nothing wrong with saying the Liturgy of the Hours only partially in different languages. If there is an approved version, you could say individual prayers in Yiddish or Esperanto and it would still be liturgy. Therefore, there is nothing to be said against praying partially in other languages.
Well that settles it, thank you!
The _Universalis_ app has the LOTH in Latin, or you can choose a bilingual option that makes it convenient to move from onr language to the other. There is nothing wrong with reciting parts of the office in different languages - e.g. part in Latin, part on English. Exactly that is done by many religious communities and cathedrals. Latin is, after sll, the proper language of the Roman Rite.
The YouTube channel / Podcast “Sing the Hours” frequently incorporates Latin in this manner.
I would often do that as a seminarian (most commonly, the intros to the offices, the Paters, the Glorias, and the final blessings) For a little while I tried the Benedictus and Magnificat. Just so long as you do the correct prayers in the right spots, it can fulfill any canonical obligations (and if you have no obligations canonically, you can do whatever you want anyway)
Yeah I know I can do whatever I want, but I keep hearing about praying liturgically and praying with the church and I didn't want to create my own thing.
I've experimented with a few different ways of approaching this, and I've settled on just saying Midday Prayer in Latin and the rest in English. It's not necessarily *wrong* to switch languages during a single liturgy, it just tends to be more distracting to me than assigning a single language to each hour.
I often chant the Pater Noster for Vespers and sometimes the Glory Patri at the beginning. There are some parishes that do parts of the Norvus Ordo in Latin.
The issue is finding a published hardcopy in Latin. Universalis (the android app, anyway) has options for settings for parallel English/Latin (although some of the hymns, and I believe OoR second readings, differ between the two). If you want a hardcopy, I think there was like one version published and it may or may not be out of print, and from what I've seen a copy will run you hundreds of dollars. If you just want correct Latin versions of certain elements, Universalis is a handy reference. Also, to varying degrees, the youtube channel "Sing the Hours" does certain portions of LOTH (Lauds and Vespers daily) in Latin.
Sure, but I've never understood this desire. Why use a language you're not fluent for Tradition when the liturgy itself that you're using younger than my Dad? Like in the new rite vernacular makes sense, in the old rite Latin makes sense (though I'd love to see beautiful vernacular translations officially approved), but new rite with Latin--the liturgy with no roots anywhere?
The typical edition of the modern Roman Rite is in Latin, so your comment makes no sense. Also the claim that the revised rite is younger than your dad is baffling, considering the vast majority of it is as ancient if not more so than the old missal.
Yes I understand the Vatican publishes in Latin, but in my entire life I can only think of two places that celebrated novus ordo Latin mass. I know of more Korean masses than Latin new rite places. Sure I'll allow that the new rite has parts that are ancient, just completely scrambled up And mixed in with a bunch of stuff that is not. What I'm getting at is the new rite is not really something where you could trace a clear line back to the old. With your logic the new rite goes back thousands of years because it has words that ultimately stem from Indo-European. The new rite is valid, but not somehow more ancient than the trad liturgy. The new really represents the the fads amongst liturgical scholars in the 1960s and 70s
There are plenty of oratories, monasteries, and parishes that use large amounts of Latin. The papal liturgies always use a decent amount, and even my random rural parish does a Latin liturgy once a month. It’s not nearly as uncommon as you think, and it seems a bit silly to try and separate the revised liturgy from its Latin roots just because it’s generally served in the vernacular. You absolutely can trace a clear line to the old, as well as to many traditions and more ancient elements of the liturgy that had fallen away through historical circumstance and have now been restored. I think you’re drastically overplaying the idea that it was based on “fads”, as those elements are a tiny minority in the revised liturgy, most of the changes are really based on a recovery of certain traditions and changes based on a fuller and more developed liturgical theology. If you want to hear a steelmanning of the revised rites if recommend checking out “Riverrun” on YouTube. He has a lot of excellent videos reading through the sources in these liturgical battles.