In the over 20 years that I have been playing trumpet, I have on many occasions had the opportunity to perform selections from some of the more famous operas. I don’t really know much about opera, but I do know that some of my favorite pieces of classical music are arias from the likes of Puccini and Verdi. Since this is my last year in Chicago, I’ve decided to make a more deliberate effort to get down to the city more often and take in the unique opportunities of this big city. One of the things that I did was to buy a ticket package to several operas presented by the Lyric Opera of Chicago. I decided that I needed to see some of my favorite music in its natural habitat, live on stage.

I’ve only seen two operas in my life and these past two weeks I brought the total to four…by seeing the same two operas again! Last week it was La Traviata and last night it was La Boheme. Both performances were masterfully done and I did love the music. I have to admit that I found the plots to be less rewarding. In La Boheme, two perfect strangers manage to fall hopelessly “in love” in the course of about five minutes…and I thought things were unrealistic in movies today! La Boheme is set in the 19th century!

Anyway, I don’t plan to bore you with my review of the opera here, but I thought I might share something unexpected that caught my attention. Both of the operas that I saw were Italian operas. This means that of course they were performed in Italian with English supertitles projected above the stage so you could follow along. While riding the train back home with plenty of time to think it occurred to me that no one there seemed to mind that the opera was in a language they didn’t speak. In fact, I’m willing to bet that almost all of the people there would protest wildly if it was suggested that an English translation of the opera be sung. Puccini must be in Italian! To do a translated version would be less than the full experience and clearly not as good.

I do speak a little Italian and so that helped, as did the supertitles. However, in order to enjoy the show more, I did my homework before I went. I read through a plot summary and even looked at a libretto so that I would know what they were going to say ahead of time. The supertitles are nice, but it’s much nicer if you can focus on the actors’ expressions and not have to be constantly looking up to the screen.

I couldn’t help but think how on the surface this surely seems like a lot of trouble to go through just to have the opera in Italian. Wouldn’t doing it in English be more enjoyable? Real fans of opera, I’m told, cringe at the idea of La Boheme in English. I wondered why this might be and two things came to mind. First, doing the opera in Italian gives you the sense that this is the “real” Puccini. You know you’re seeing the opera just as it was written by Puccini himself and has been performed for over a century. You kind of feel like you’re part of a tradition. Note that technically nothing different is communicated, but it makes me “feel” different to hear it in the original Italian. It created an ambiance, if you will.

Secondly, the music was written to help express the emotion of the text and the text was written in Italian. No translation, no matter how good, will be able to perfectly match the unity of text to music achieved in the original. Either the text will have to suffer or the music will have to suffer. Again, what you get is not the authentic Puccini.

Since I tend to think about things liturgically quite a bit, I couldn’t help but see how perhaps my experience at the opera has some relevance for some current discussions regarding the use of Latin in the liturgy. There has been much talk of the how the Pope has now allowed for a free use of the Missal of 1962, what some people remember as the “Traditional Latin Mass” or Tridentine Rite. (I’ve been meaning to write a post on this…but this one isn’t it) Some people have protested that using Latin, a language that “no one can understand”, makes no sense. Shouldn’t we communicate clearly in the liturgy and isn’t this best done in the language spoken by the people?

Well, I do think that what we communicate in the liturgy should be as clear and as understandable as possible. However, just as in the opera, the words of the liturgy at face value often don’t reveal the fullness of what is being communicated. If one priest says the words of consecration slowly and reverently that communicates something different than a priest that rushes through, even though they may use the same words. An aria communicates a text differently than monotone recited singing. The thing that the opera reminded of me was that even the language used can communicate a message beyond what is in the text itself, even when the language used is not understood clearly by all.

If we consider the use of Latin in the liturgy we can see an analogy with the use of Italian in opera. The first reason that some people might enjoy a Latin Mass is that this is the language the Mass has been in for centuries. There is a feeling of belonging to a tradition and a sense of history. You know you are praying the very same words prayed by Augustine or Aquinas and most of the saints throughout history. Again, this is less about what the text actually says and more about how it makes you feel, the experience of God that it facilitates. This is true even though one may not be an expert in Latin grammar.

Secondly, like it or not, even today the “original” texts of the Mass are in Latin. This is just as true of the Mass following Vatican II as it was before. The original thought of the author of the texts of the Mass was first expressed in Latin. In creating English versions, or any translation, we have the same problem we have with translating an opera, you always lose something. It’s not just that there aren’t exactly equivalent English words for all the Latin, but that the rhythm of the text, the “music” of the Latin text, just doesn’t match up as well in translation. We can’t quite communicate the same thing in English that the author intended. Many of you are aware that a new version or the texts for Mass was approved over two years ago now and we are still probably two years away from having an English translation. It’s just a lot of work to try to express the sensibility of the original Latin in English. There is so much more communicated in the text than merely the words and this too leads some people to prefer Mass in Latin, the “original Puccini”.

While the above reasons are sufficient, there is yet another more important reason why I think Latin can play an important role in the liturgy. The Mass is not fundamentally about communicating a message! Yes, the readings and homily communicate a message and thus they are appropriately done in English. However, the other parts of the Mass are not designed so much to tell us something, but to allow us to experience something, someone in this case. People don’t go to the opera to receive a message from the words spoken. As I said, the story is actually not all that great. Last night there was a lecture before the opera and the commentator started by saying that La Boheme was probably the most well-known opera of all time and he was going to forego the normal plot summary since everyone already knew it. The audience all laughed and nodded. No one was there to receive any communication from the actors; they were there to experience something. In the case of the opera and in the Mass, the language helps to create the experience. Ironically, in both La Boheme and the Mass it is a love story that people come to be immersed in and such stories a not so easily told with words.

I mentioned above how the use of Latin in the liturgy can help create the experience of tradition and indeed the presence of the communion of the saints praying with us. However, I think perhaps the most important fruit of Latin in the liturgy has not yet been mentioned and has no analogy in opera. As the new texts for Mass are being translated, many people are arguing that the English being used should not make use of words that are “too complex” or “not easily understood”. The words of the Mass should communicate a message in a clear and distinct way common to every day speech, they claim. Remembering of course what I said above about the Mass not being about communication, I think we are forgetting that the very ideas we might want to communicate in the Mass are themselves not so clear and distinct. We’re talking about the worship of God here and God is not so simple as to be “easily understood by all”.

This is where I think Latin can have an important place. Even when people don’t understand all the words, something is still communicated. We might use the word “transcendence”, but what I think this really boils down to is the fact that it is precisely when we don’t feel like we understand everything that is going on at Mass that we have most fully understood what the Mass is about. There is good reason why the term “sacred mysteries” has always been used to refer to the liturgy. The realities that we celebrate are way beyond our ability to understand in a “clear and distinct” way. The use of a “dead” language that not everyone understands can in fact be a help rather than a hindrance to having the experience of God’s presence that He desires for us at Mass. If Latin can leave us with a sense of mystery and feeling that something is going on that I just don’t quite understand then I propose that the right “experience” has been communicated far better than if all the words were understood.

Now, I’m not saying that people shouldn’t do a bit of work to get the most out of Mass. We’re back to the opera now. You’ve got to do your homework. Look at the texts beforehand; read some commentaries; bring your “supertitles” along in your missal. Even with a little bit of knowledge of Latin you can more easily enter into the experience of the Mass just as my little Italian helped me at the opera. In closing, I would say, as the Church says, that Latin still has an important role to play in the liturgy. If people not only tolerate but demand that La Boheme be sung in a language they don’t understand and are willing to put up with the “inconveniences” of supertitles, etc. for the sake of the experience, shouldn’t we be willing to at least give it a try in the Mass, for the sake of the “experience”? People know the story of La Boheme and the Italian just makes it more beautiful. Couldn’t the Latin do the same thing for the Mass?