Latin Mass only? Here's some food for thought from 2 saints from 863

Constantine and Methodius were dedicated to the ideal of expression in a people's native language. Throughout their lives they would battle against those who saw value only in Greek or Latin. Before they even left on their mission, tradition says, Constantine constructed a script for Slavonic -- a script that is known today as glagolithic. Glagolithic is considered by some as the precursor of cyrillic which named after him.
Arriving in 863 in Moravia, Constantine began translating the liturgy into Slavonic. In the East, it was a normal procedure to translate liturgy into the vernacular. As we know, in the West the custom was to use Greek and later Latin, until Vatican II. The German hierarchy, which had power over Moravia, used this difference to combat the brothers' influence. The German priests didn't like losing their control and knew that language has a great deal to do with independence.
So when Constantine and Methodius went to Rome to have the Slav priesthood candidates ordained (neither was a bishop at the time), they had to face the criticism the Germans had leveled against them. But if the Germans had motives that differed from spiritual concerns, so did the pope. He was concerned about the Eastern church gaining too much influence in the Slavic provinces. Helping Constantine and Methodius would give the Roman Catholic church more power in the area. So after speaking the brothers, the pope approved the use of Slavonic in services and ordained their pupils.

Read the entire article:

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=39

[quote="Lainey63, post:1, topic:186827"]
But if the Germans had motives that differed from spiritual concerns, so did the pope. He was concerned about the Eastern church gaining too much influence in the Slavic provinces. Helping Constantine and Methodius would give the Roman Catholic church more power in the area.

[/quote]

The article you quote claims that Pope Adrian was motivated by political considerations rather than concern for the salvation of souls, but doesn't produce any evidence to back up the claim.

Pope Adrian was careful to examine the saints' orthodoxy before he would bless and support them.

IMHO, orthodoxy, reverence, beauty, and fidelity to the original, in the case of translations, are more important than which language is used. It is not obvious that these were the chief concerns of the individuals that produced the current translation of the new Mass. Hopefully, the translators of the soon to be released version of the Mass have been more careful than the 1960's group was.

[quote="Lainey63, post:1, topic:186827"]
Constantine and Methodius

[/quote]

It's Sts. Cyril and Methodius. That's why the modern alphabet is called Cyrillic. They're copatrons of Europe. :)

Check out here*Slavorum Apostoli*.

How about St. Thomas More and others in England who campaigned against the Latin Vulgate being translated into a vernacular?

St. Thomas More campaigned against Wycliffe's translation. At the same time, he argued that many Catholic translations already existed. Henry Graham includes the following quotes in his book: "We have proof of [pre-Wycliffe English translations] in the words of Blessed Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who says: 'The whole Bible long before Wycliff's day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read' (Dialogues III). Again, 'The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good, or such as be already reproved for naught (i.e., bad, naughty) as Wycliff's was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff's days, they remain lawful and be in some folks' hand. I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in laymen's hands and women's too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion.'"

[quote="aspirant, post:5, topic:186827"]
St. Thomas More campaigned against Wycliffe's translation.

[/quote]

That is true. English also wasn't as widespread as it is now.

That said, most of the Reformists used the vernacular to sell their heresies. You also run the risk of changing the theology when you translate. The Council of Trent and Vatican II both recognized this and attempted to minimize the amount of vernacular introduced.

[quote="ProVobis, post:6, topic:186827"]
That is true. English also wasn't as widespread as it is now.

That said, most of the Reformists used the vernacular to sell their heresies. You also run the risk of changing the theology when you translate. The Council of Trent and Vatican II both recognized this and attempted to minimize the amount of vernacular introduced.

[/quote]

The Council of Trent and Vatican II both recognized this and attempted to minimize the amount of vernacular introduced

I think the key word you use here referring to Vatican II is attempted.
Looking back over 40 years since the closing of Vatican II and the Joint Commission of Catholic Bishops and seeing the well deserved criticism of the I.C.E.L. its a wonder why the vernacular English liturgy has been a succession of reform after reform. One has to ask why in the first place considering how badly the Latin Mass was originally translated into vernacular English.
You wouldn't have seen such a discombobulated mess of confusion in translations had the Mass always been Traditional Latin.

That being said I am glad were getting a new Roman Missal.

The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation does not suggest that vernacular translations of scripture should be minimized. On the contrary: “Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation; of the Old Testament which is called the Septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the Vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.”

Here’s an excerpt of what Blessed Pope John XXIII wrote in Veterum Sapientia just a few months before he convened the Vatican II council:


[8] Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but
also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one
of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of
the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the
meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to
everyone with sufficient clarity and precision.
There would, moreover,
be no language that could serve as a common and constant norm by which
to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. It has
long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of
words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin
words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed
and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have
long since become accepted and firmly established.

[9] Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of
every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord.
It is
altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble
and majestic, and non-vernacular
.

[10] In addition, the Latin language ‘can be called truly Catholic’.
It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the
mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed ‘e treasure . .
. of incomparable worth’. It is a general passport to the proper
understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of
the Church’s teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the
Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful
continuity.

Which in no way contradicts what the Dogmatic Constitution says about “Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful… since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books.” (Primarily because Blessed Pope John XXIII was not talking about whether the Bible should or should not be translated. Clearly it should.)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.