Posted on 10/10/2006 5:35:42 PM PDT by Petrosius
"Sorry, but it is NOT. It's just another language."
Not JUST another language, a 'dead' or fixed language with a universal set of defined words. It allows for certainty in an uncertain world.
I read recently that some diocese were already offering classes on the Tridentine rite to clergy. This would seem to be a good idea as they will be learning from priests who have maintained a devotion to this Mass.
I read it. It's garbage. Typical of the gross sentimentality for the past that typifies the entire debate.
However, no one will be forced to say or attend a Tridentine Mass, I wish I could say the same courtesy had been extended to Catholics after Vatican II. when all the tradition and love that millions of Catholics had for the Tridentine Mass... was swept away. And so was much of the beauty of the Church, I just happen to include Latin in that beauty.
There are also those who think some of the teachings of the Church are irrelevant to any thing they have interest in, or that Shakespeare or classical music or whatever you want to put a name to has no relevance to their lives, doesn't make it true but they think, at least for a time, that it is true. You sound very young and if I am correct and you are, I hope one day you do see the relevance of Latin. I will mention only one. Catholicism is a dogmatic faith, the Church guards this dogma which has been handed down through the millennia. The use of a "dead" language like Latin is very beneficial because the meanings of the words do not change. Living languages do alter over time and rather quickly at times. I would remind you of our past president's tortured use of the word "is." My opinion is that Latin serves the meaning not the ego.
Nope--not young. Turn 60 next year. PhD Chemist. Converted to Catholicism from Episcopalian this past Easter.
And your point about the "unchanging" nature of Latin is the ONLY legitimate argument in the debate---all the rest is sheer romantic nostalgia. But said point is the reason to keep Latin as the internal language of the Church hierarchy---NOT the language of the Mass.
You don't need Latin to express the dogmas of the faith (and in fact you MUST be able to express those dogmas in EVERY LANGUAGE ON EARTH to fulfill the Church's mission).
But of course ...
Sorry, should have been more specific -- I'm talking about the church in the West.
I wound up once with an Italian client whose command of English was VERY shaky (it's a long story) . . . we understood each other best when he spoke Italian and I spoke Latin back at him.
He is a big fan of kneeling.
**
I did not know that. Thanks for the info. Yet another reason to love our B16!
If the Catholic church would adopt the BCP translation (with appropriate adjustments to the Consecration to eliminate the foolishness introduced by Edward VI's advisors) it would be a Very Good Thing.
My affection for the Latin Mass is partly based on my childhood experiences, and partly on the fact that the current English translation is so bad in spots.
I am wholeheartedly in agreement. :)
I dunno if we'll ever get to the point where the US bishops will approve this formal English in the Mass. But I hope so! It *is* after all, more in keeping with Anglo-American tradition: both in terms of the Anglican liturgy as well as the translations of the old Latin Mass and the Catholic vernacular prayers/liturgies that were in the pre-1965 missals. I was married in the traditional Roman rite, and the exchange of vows was done in formal English: "I plight unto thee my troth".
The current ICEL translation is a departure from over 500 years of prayer in English.
"Because many of them remember Masses where the priest skipped whole portions of the Mass or where much of the Mass was mumbled."
I never saw portions of the Mass skipped and I still hear a lot of mumbling.
"They remember many people coming to Mass and praying the rosary because they (the people) didn't understand the Mass."
Missals were avilable for those who chose to use them. I still see folks using their rosaries, especially when the "music groups" are performing.
"I keep trying to tell people that pre-VII the TLM was not normally celebrated with the exactness and attention to rubrics that it is being celebrated today."
I don't know where you went to Mass, but in my experience a sloppy, irreverent padre was a rare exception. Kind of like a padre who makes an effort to follow the rubrics and avoid ad-libing appears to be the exception now.
They're praying that the "music groups" will shut their nasty yaps sooner rather than later.
That "only" there is very important...the anathema extends to those that say that the Mass *cannot* be offered in a non-vernacular language. So the Easterns are safe.
Moreover, even in the East, no one speaks Church Slavonic anymore that I'm aware of. So even when the "vernacular" has been introduced, enough time has gone by that it is not the vernacular anymore. Which is exactly analogous to what happened in the West with Latin and the Romance languages that grew out from under it.
You don't need Latin to express the dogmas of the faith (and in fact you MUST be able to express those dogmas in EVERY LANGUAGE ON EARTH to fulfill the Church's mission).
Ah yes, another reason Latin should be retained, the universality of the Church. You could go anywhere in the world and understand what was going on, not just by what you saw (and that is increasingly difficult considering the imaginative innovations to the rubrics that can be viewed), but by the mere fact every Mass was in Latin so, you brought your Missal. It is the Latin Rite after all. But, I'm one of those so called calcified Catholics, I suppose you could also consider me a calcified lover of Western culture.
all the rest is sheer romantic nostalgia
I see you must be one of those who's got his feet surely planted in reality. Such condescension towards romantics is generally a feature of "high minded" rationalists. I doubt I would be able to truly convince you of the real reason Latin should be retained... because it's not a reason that would even fit your understanding of the universe. However, I will say that Christianity, and especially Catholicism, is irredeemably romantic.
All of which has exactly NOTHING to do with understanding the doctrines of the church.
"I see you must be one of those who's got his feet surely planted in reality. Such condescension towards romantics is generally a feature of "high minded" rationalists. I doubt I would be able to truly convince you of the real reason Latin should be retained... because it's not a reason that would even fit your understanding of the universe. However, I will say that Christianity, and especially Catholicism, is irredeemably romantic."
Guilty as charged. But as to Catholicism being "irredeemably romantic"---BAH-LONEY. Roman Catholicism is the ONLY religion that is irredeemably rational and logical. See Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas for just a couple of magnificent examples. The fundamentals of Catholicism are MYSTERIOUS, not "romantic". And EVERY element of Catholic doctrine comes from the application of human reason to those mysteries as revealed by Christ and/or the Holy Spirit. Rational thought is at the very core of Catholicism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.