Skip to comments.Tridentine Mass "Not a Priority," Says Cardinal Arinze (Vatican Synod)
Posted on 10/14/2005 7:01:46 AM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 13, 2005 (Zenit.org).- No one at the Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist has addressed the issue of the "Tridentine rite" Mass that the Latin Church used before the Second Vatican Council.
The prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, Cardinal Francis Arinze, mentioned this at a press conference today when he evaluated the first phase of the synodal assembly.
"No synodal father has mentioned this point," said Cardinal Arinze, the co-president of the assembly. The so-called Tridentine rite was approved by Pope St. Pius V.
"If there are groups that desire the Tridentine Mass, this is already provided for," he said. "Bishops may allow it for groups."
"It is not a priority for the synod, as no one has spoken about it," the cardinal concluded. "The problem we have discussed is that many people don't go to Mass, and those that come don't understand -- they go to Communion but not to confession, as if they were immaculate."
Cdl. Mahony would likely say much the same; would you believe him?
It's not just the use of the vernacular that's being objected to, the whole mass was changed. However if you are interested to know the benefits of retaining Latin, here you go:
No one made such a claim. Latin is still used as a working language of the Catholic Church is because it is a dead language, meaning the definition of its words are fixed, helping to communicate precise theological terms and concepts.
I agree that most of the rituals from Pre-Vatican II (the sequel!) should have been retained, but the ONLY negative of getting rid of the Language of the ROMAN EMPIRE is the lack of a universal lingua franca. As I said, the Church in that case could use Aramaic or English. The latter is unlikely due to certain Euro-Peons at the Vatican who have a cultural prejudice against "Anglo Saxons."
I like to refer to the Latin fetishists as "Jeromites" because if it weren't for St. Jerome, there would be no scripture in Latin.
[sigh] You didn't read the article that I posted a link to did you?
I no longer have a dog in this fight, although much of my family does.
OK but you still want to offer an opinion, don't you think it would be better to offer an informed opinion rather than an uninformed opinion? I provided a way for you to inform yourself, yet you seem to have ignored it.
Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church. The Pope speaks Latin fluently and has been known to give extemporaneous speeches in Latin. Are they "Jeromites"?
Yes, they are. Good people all, but Jeromites nonetheless.
It smacks of "cultural Catholicism" of the type that turned me away from Rome in the search of something more Christ centered and spiritual, rather than cultural or tribal.
"It is not a priority for the synod, as no one has spoken about it," the cardinal concluded.
Getting back to the original post, the fact that not one bishop has either recognized or spoken publicly about the traditional Latin Mass says more about the bishops than it does about the issue.
This is a real tragedy in the Church.
Perhaps. The Scripture doesn't detail what exactly she was doing. However, one presumes that she was striken with sorrow. Knowing what she was told regarding her Son and on what she pondered upon, it is likely that she was actively offering her own motherly ties up to the Father as a sacrifice in her own sense. Most mothers would desire to hold on to her son in such a situation. The Church teaches that Mary was abandoning this concept as an incredible spiritual sacrifice on her part.
This is quite different from a person who is present ONLY in body to what is happening in another language 50 yards away. In many cases, I think people were there merely to fulfill their "duty" to appear at Sunday Mass, rather than "participating" in that one-time offering of Christ on the Cross... That is the impression I get from when I was a youngster. The reading of other books or reciting the rosary during the Mass is pretty good evidence that a person's mind was elsewhere. Recall the Scriptures teach that our inner dispositions are much more important than our outer activities. Being in the building of the Church while the Mass is proceeding is not the same thing as participating in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
Certainly the NO Mass with the 10+ Eucharistic ministers in shorts, sandals and T-Shirts...the priests who skip sections of the Mass like creeds and homilies...Churches with no kneelers etc. IT AIN'T PURE. I'm Fed up with it.
Now Tridentine, Marionite, any of it is Fine with me and I know their Masses are valid for each other. But I do belong to the Latin Rite, and I have to take care of my corner.
All this doesn't matter, as the word of God takes precedence above all, no matter what some "scholar" or politician in a robe says.
So you disagree with Pope Benedict? Pope Benedict wrote that the new Mass was the only significant change or break in the mass in the history of the Church and was very disturbing. But what does he know, right?
There is no pleasing everyone, so the priority should be on pleasing God.
The good thing about Latin is that it is no longer anybody's private language, because it is no longer a spoken language.
The first language of the Church was probably Greek, but most people of Jesus' time could get by in a little Greek and a little Latin, in addition to their local native language. With the dominance of Rome, Latin eventually took over and was not used only by pagans, but by every educated person in Europe. In fact, this was the case until very late: legal and official documents were written in Latin so that no local linguistic "overlays" could confuse the meaning.
That's the reason the official language of the Church is still Latin. You have to have a central starting point, and in many ways, it is now better to have one where the definitions are fixed and the resulting vernacular translations will therefore be more uniform, both linguistically and doctrinally.