Posted on 10/10/2006 5:35:42 PM PDT by Petrosius
I am not on who argues that is not a legitimate mass.
The reason I called you out on the language part is that it appeared to be all you've been arguing. But I will stand corrected.
Why in the world did you convert if you don't believe what the Church teaches (post 84)? As others have pointed out, the Church herself says that Latin is the language of the Church, precisely because it is a dead language and the meanings cannot be changed. Even the Novus Ordo was written in Latin, and our priest celebrates it that way each Sunday. (The Latin is printed on one side of the page with the English translation on the other. Each paragraph matches up and it is very easy to follow. Translations can be printed simultaneously, so that is no excuse for not using Latin.)
The language of the liturgy DOES matter! “Lex orandi, lex credendi.” “The law of prayer is the law of creed,” or “how we pray affects how we believe.” As has been pointed out many times before, the use of “casual” English in the Mass has resulted in many Catholics not even believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Why would they believe Christ is Truly Present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, when the Priest and Mass are so irreverent? I'm not talking about the use of the vernacular for the Readings or Homily, but for the Canon of the Mass.
And another thing, the Early Church was part of the Roman Empire for several hundred years. Latin was the language of the Empire and everyone had to know it. You keep talking about history (post 106), but the history of the Roman Empire is that they forced their language, government, and customs on all the people that they conquered because that was their way of uniting everyone into the Empire. Their reasoning was that those who became a part of the Empire would be loyal to it. You have failed to provide a source for your claim that the liturgy was in the local languages all the time and I, for one, don't believe it, because it makes no sense. Latin was the language of the Roman Empire and as a result, Latin became the language of the church. Remember, St. Paul would have been set free if he had not appealed his case to Rome as a Roman citizen. I just can't imagine he spoke anything other than Latin in his travels around the Mediterranean and you can't get more “Early Church” than St. Paul.
In short, you have provided no sources for your claim and I don't believe it. You have belligerently argued and called people's posts “malarkey,” “balderdash,” “ridiculous,” and "bah-loney" even when they are quoting documents of the Church, while failing to provide any kind of source for your argument. But the more important question, which I will ask again, is: Why did you convert if you don't believe what the Church teaches?
Did it occur to you that it just "might" have been because I found the Church's DOCTRINES to be true, as attested by history and reason??? The use of Latin is a tradition, not a doctrine.
"The language of the liturgy DOES matter! “Lex orandi, lex credendi.” “The law of prayer is the law of creed,” or “how we pray affects how we believe.” As has been pointed out many times before, the use of “casual” English in the Mass has resulted in many Catholics not even believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Why would they believe Christ is Truly Present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, when the Priest and Mass are so irreverent? I'm not talking about the use of the vernacular for the Readings or Homily, but for the Canon of the Mass."
I can only say "malarkey" again. The "law of prayer is the law of creed" means that the liturgy should be true to the DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH. The language used (Latin, English, Croation, or Chinese) has nothing to do with the point (or with Catholics are failing to believe in the "Real Presence"--which is a failure of catechesis--not use of English).
"And another thing, the Early Church was part of the Roman Empire for several hundred years. Latin was the language of the Empire and everyone had to know it. You keep talking about history (post 106), but the history of the Roman Empire is that they forced their language, government, and customs on all the people that they conquered because that was their way of uniting everyone into the Empire.
No, actually they didn't. Aramaic was spoken in Judea, Greek elsewhere. And in fact, Greek was the language of choice for the more "sophisticated" Romans--just as French was the language of choice for "sophisticated" Russians. Latin was the language of law and in some areas, of commerce, and not much else. The native languages remained in place and continued to be used. Most folks did NOT speak Latin--only the "more educated" classes.
"In short, you have provided no sources for your claim and I don't believe it."
What claim?? You mean the claim that Latin was the third language of the Church?? Church history (and general history of the period) are my sources.
"You have belligerently argued and called people's posts “malarkey,” “balderdash,” “ridiculous,” and "bah-loney" even when they are quoting documents of the Church, while failing to provide any kind of source for your argument.
I calls'em as I sees'em. If a claim is ridiculous, I say so. I tend to assume that most folks here know basic history of the period of the Gospels. You obviously do not.
"But the more important question, which I will ask again, is: Why did you convert if you don't believe what the Church teaches?"
See point 1) above.
Now as for the other issue, you are still missing so much of Catholicism. Explain Catholic Art? Why does Our Lady of Guateloupe look the way she does? What logical and totally reasonable significance are certain beasts associated with the Gospel's authors? You are preceeding from a false understanding of my point. You seem to think that because I refer to your understanding as "realistic" and or "rational" that I meant these words in the objective sense. I was being sarcastic, one who does not see, or denies the romantic sensibilities of man has from my perspective given up on reality , the reality of what humans really are. I advise you to read Chesterton.
Just by way of background, I have had the glorious consolation of attending a very reverent, 1962-missal Latin Mass almost exclusively for the last 3+ years. Prior to that I spent many years in the Novus Ordo. So I think I have a pretty good idea of how both of them work in terms of day-to-day parish life: good and bad.
The church Catholic is larger than all of us...larger than Novus Ordo devotees, larger than us trads, larger than East and West, larger than America and Rome. I realize there is a temptation among us to remake the Church according to our "perfect" specifications--all Latin, half Latin, all English and no Latin. Even among trads, some use the 62 missal, some go back to the previous one. Some do the second Confiteor, some do not. Some people who want a reformed Missal are happy with the ICEL Pauline Rite...others like the Anglican Use, one guy is advocating for the hybrid Missal of 1965.
We can all have our preferences, but I suspect that the Holy Spirit has plans for Holy Mother Church that don't exactly fit any of our specifications.
One could have heard the same or very similar arguments at any time in the history of the Roman Rite: like when the disciplies of St. John held to the Quartodeciman Easter, or when Colman resisted the Romanization of the Celtic Rite in Ireland, or when Cyril and Methodius introduced Slavonic, or when Trent abrogated the old uses that could not prove 200 years of history, or when Pius XII changed the Holy Week liturgy.
The liturgy wars have gone on, and will go on. The tension between holding on to a tradition and allowing changes, between universality and particularity. There are good points to be made on each side.
I'm not one to sidestep an important issue--and these issues need to be discussed. But when we harden our hearts to the other person's position such that we cannot hear good arguments, we do ourselves a disservice. Yes, Latin is the patrimony of the West, and to lose it would be a massive mistake. But yes also, English is more easily understood and now far more universal of a tongue. Holy prudence, not academic polemics, should decide how far one should extend permissions on the one hand and restrict them on the other.
We are not serving anyone trying to score points in a debate. We should rather, sit down and discuss how best to accommodate the various positions within Holy Mother Church in a way that most comports with the dignity and majesty of the Holy Sacrifice
My wife and I want a Latin Mass...I find it not a little petty that certain bishops treat us like second-class Catholics with some nostalgia fetish. However, I also understand that many people do *not* get the same thing out of that Mass that I do. What are we going to do about that? Wag a finger at them? Tell them they are wrong? Well, I used to do that a bit, but I haven't the stomach for it anymore.
While we are having this discussion, the Novus Ordo goes on. The reform is being reformed. The Traditional movement also grows among young people and old. History is moving around us, slowly, inexorably.
I can't predict the future, but I do know this. We are all members of the Body of Christ, and unless we really want to cultivate the poison of schism in our ranks, we have to shed our all-too-American lust for getting things the way we want and instead lobby for our particular viewpoint patiently, obediently, and most of all, charitably.
I stand by my assertion that you don't believe what the Church teaches. As has been stated before, Vatican II, as well as John Paul II, decreed that Latin **is** the language of the Church. There is a reason for it and it is not your place to argue. When you were confirmed you made a vow to believe what the Church teaches, and you obviously don't. If you want to privately think that this teaching is "balderdash," that is up to you and the Lord. But to publicly express your opinion, after vowing to uphold the Church's teachings, is just plain wrong. You are causing scandal to the faithful.
Then you're also being foolish. I haven't at all "denied the romantic sensibilities of man". What I said was that those "romantic sensibilities" are NOT the core of Catholicism--they are ancillary frills around the edges. The CORE of Cathoicism are the dogmas, which are mysteries revealed by Christ and the Apostles, and RATIONAL conclusions derived by REASON from those revealed dogmas (one prime example being the Trinity).
I've read Chesterton (also Belloc, and Thomas Merton).
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
And it is "the language of the Church". However, that SAME Vatican II also said that Latin would no longer be the "language of the Mass". There IS a distinction between the two. There are practical reasons (time invariance) to keep Latin as the primary language of the Church. But there are also practical reasons why Mass in the vernacular is also now a "teaching of the church".
And as far as "causing scandal to the faithful", it is you "Latin purists" who are causing the scandal by trying to crawl back into your comfortable "snail-shell" of the "traditional Latin Mass".
Those are beautiful words. Unfortunately for whatever reason there are some things about which even the most romantic and conservative Catholics are rationalists; historical criticism of the Bible, for example, or evolutionism. For some reason the "changelessness" of the "changeless Church" never seems to quite reach that far. The Bible is still "inerrant," but "inerrant" is always re-defined. These are simply areas where the most "leftwing Protestant" (not the modern political sense, but the sense of the "radical" Reformation) are lightyears to the Right of the most conservative Catholic or Orthodox.
Please excuse my butting into this thread. I've been reading it with interest as a former Catholic and do not intend to start a fight or anything.
Sometimes I get the idea that the ancient liturgical religions subconsciously agree with the late Romanian critical scholar Mircea Eliade (mach shemo!) that "ritual" transcends "myth" and that it makes perfect sense to continue the ritual even after the last believer in the "myths" it teaches have long since departed.
Be well.
If Latin is not the language of the Mass, then why was the original Novus Ordo in Latin?
I am not causing scandal. I am upholding the teachings of the Church and of the Holy Father. You are not.
Really?
It said that where, exactly?
What Sacrosanctum Concilium actually said, is this:
36 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.
I think a reasonable person would read this to mean that there is provision for extending the use of the vernacular, where necessary.
I see nothing here which could be construed as meaning that Latin is to be dispensed with entirely.
Because Latin is the "native language" of the Church, and all original documents are issued in Latin. This is different from the language USED in the execution of the Mass, which is the vernacular language of the different nations. That's the way the system works. The problem (disconnect) occurred "in translation" between step 1) and step 2).
"I am not causing scandal. I am upholding the teachings of the Church and of the Holy Father. You are not."
If you are advocating a return to the "traditional Latin mass" then you are NOT "upholding the teachings of the Church and of the Holy Father", and are thereby causing scandal. My position throughout this thread (and other threads on the same subject) is that BOTH the Latin Mass and a vernacular Mass should be available (which is in exact accordance with Church teachings, both in letter and in spirit). I know what the Church's teachings are. You, apparently know as little about the Church's actual teachings as you do about the history of the first centuries of the Church.
Well, it obviously was, and the Bishops obviously "signed off" on agreeing that it should be, as I'm sure that the "Novus Ordo" went through all the relevant review procedures.
Church historians will eventually detail just exactly what "review procedures", or lack thereof the Novus Ordo went through. The story of how it was concocted and implemented does and will make fascinating reading.
However, to return to my basic point. This was not mandated by Vatican II.
The documents of this council nowhere support the assertion that Latin is no longer to be the liturgical language of the Church.
To anyone interested in listening, Fr. Thomas Loya (a Byzantine Catholic priest) is discussing this on Drew Mariani's show on Relevant Radio RIGHT NOW.
www.relevantradio.com
May I remind you of what you have written:
“And that time period is long dead---time to bury it. The notion that Latin is somehow "special" is simply ridiculous. The retention of Latin was a convenience for the church heirarchy--nothing more. It saved on translation needs, because everyone in the heirarchy was required to know Latin. It is needed no longer.” Post 70
“I simply don't understand this gigantic fixation on Latin. The Church switched to Latin from Greek for the very practical reason that it was the most widely spoken language in the "known world". And it retained the use of Latin because of it's conservative nature and the practical advantages for translation among the church hierarchy. In today's world, the language that fills both of those critera is ENGLISH.” Post 75
“Yes. The notion that a Pope can bind the church to a specific liturgical device for all history is simply ridiculous. The language of liturgical celebration is NOT a "matter of faith and morals", and can be changed at any time (as it WAS changed MANY times). In the early church ALL masses were "in the vernacular". Why not stick to REAL historic practice instead of the phoney one of "all Latin, all the time"??” Post 84
“Latin was used for a long time---so what!! I say again--there is NOTHING SPECIAL about Latin. It's just another (dead) language.” Post 90
“I'm not opposed to a Latin mass--AS AN OPTION. If any parish wants to have a Latin mass as well as a Novus Ordo mass, then more power to them. But there is NOTHING MAGIC, special, or anything else about Latin. It's a historical language, used for a long time, and now dead.” Post 94
“The idea of "all Latin, all the time" is simply not supported by the history of the Church.” Post 160
“More "magick Latin" malarkey.” Post 162
I, as well as others, have pointed out to you that according to Vatican II and the Holy Father, LATIN IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH – and has been for a very long time, whether it be the TLM or the Novus Ordo, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. The Holy Father has celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin several times, and it (including all four versions of the Eucharistic Prayer) can be found in Latin along with ICEL translation in "The Adoremus Hymnal."
Your comments on this thread have been very rude to individual posters and very high-handed and arrogant with regard to facts, which have been pointed out to be in error. Would it possible for you manage to have a civil discussion without being so rude?
Ohhhhh, did I hurt 'oo liddle feelings by being so ROUGH.
I made no errors. The statements above are completely accurate. Latin has no "special properties". It is not "more majestic", "more romantic", "more melodious" , "more reverent" or "more anything" than any other language.
The ONE "special property" that Latin has--that it's meanings change only very slowly with time, it shares with other "dead languages" such as ancient Greek, Sanskrit, or several others. That SINGLE "special property" DOES make it useful as the central language of the Church hierachy, and I've agreed with that repeatedly.
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
This thread is not about you and me or anyone else. It conveys information about the Catholic Church and is a witness to our love for the truth. I was asking you to please be more charitable in your posts, as behooves our Christian witness. Since you are so determined to be rude and sarcastic, it is pointless to continue.
Sinkspur has a new name?
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.