Are Some People Afraid Of The Latin Mass?

[bkovacs]

No, it’s Vatican teaching, not my perspective.

An abuse of Vatican teaching. Vatican 2 teaching that is!.

Did the Vatican tell the parishes to remove altar rails, turn the altar around, suppress the EF Mass. Give up learning Latin!. Give up Gregorian Chant!. Remove statues, etc…

 

[LilyM]

An abuse of Vatican teaching. Vatican 2 teaching that is!.

An abused Mass, unless the consecration isn’t done properly and the Sacrament not validly confected, IS still a true Mass, a true Eucharist, although it may be a poor offering of that true Eucharist.

THAT has been constant Church teaching, and has nothing to do with post-Vatican 2 abuses.

 

[bkovacs]

An abused Mass, unless the consecration isn’t done properly and the Sacrament not validly confected, IS still a true Mass, a true Eucharist, although a poor offering of it.

THAT has been constant Church teaching, and has nothing to do with post-Vatican 2 abuses.

So I guess the Clown Mass everyone heard or read about was valid?.

 

[LilyM]

So I guess the Clown Mass everyone heard or read about was valid?.

As I have been saying all along, there ARE levels of abuse which will render the Mass invalid. Proper intent is questionable in a clown Mass, so quite possibly such a Mass IS rendered invalid.

 

[bkovacs]

de.gloria.tv/?video=devezdy60mfudoqzjw0l&view=flash

A Valid Mass from the Archdiocese of Vienna. With Cardinal present.

 

[LilyM]

de.gloria.tv/?video=devezdy60mfudoqzjw0l&view=flash

A Valid Mass from the Archdiocese of Vienna. With Cardinal present.

If valid form, matter and intent were present, so was Jesus. I’m sure He’s happy that you’d dare to laugh and sneer at His Real Presence.

 

[bkovacs]

If valid form, matter and intent were present, so was Jesus. I’m sure He’s happy that you’d dare to laugh and sneer at His Real Presence.

No I just think it is sad how the Devil destroyed, what was once sacred. How Protestantism has infiltrated the modern day Catholic clergy. How Benedict XVI wants Catholics to return to their Catholic identity and most of the clergy are clueless or just don’t plain care. Thank God for the Eastern Churches!. And that does include the Orthodox!. Wow one TLM in the whole Diocese of Orlando!. Real progress!.

 

[Extempore]

de.gloria.tv/?video=devezdy60mfudoqzjw0l&view=flash

A Valid Mass from the Archdiocese of Vienna. With Cardinal present.

Interestingly, people (generally) seem less concerned about something like this than they do with the idea of the SSPX. Just an observation…

Obviously this is not an ordinary Novus Ordo Mass, but from my perspective at least, something like this is a lot more likely to lead people away from the faith than the activities of a non-regularized group of Traditional Catholics.

 

[LilyM]

Interestingly, people (generally) seem less concerned about something like this than they do with the idea of the SSPX. Just an observation…

Obviously this is not an ordinary Novus Ordo Mass, but from my perspective at least, something like this is a lot more likely to lead people away from the faith than the activities of a non-regularized group of Traditional Catholics.

True, possibly something like this would have a bad effect on more faithful than the irregular status and contempt of Rome and His Holiness often displayed by the SSPX.

But it’s a very weak argument indeed to say about the SSPX ‘well, at least they’re not the WORST thing out there’. Point is they’re bad, damaging to the faithful and must be stopped.

So must the abuses. I don’t think people are unconcerned (generally) about abuse, although too many are ignorant and don’t recognise abuse when they see it.

Unfortunately for those who ARE educated and ARE concerned, there’s only a limited amount the laity can do about those if their priests and bishops are stubborn. They’re lacking this stubborness, of course, when it comes to the SSPX.

 

[Extempore]

True, possibly something like this would have a bad effect on more faithful than the irregular status and contempt of Rome and His Holiness so frequently displayed by the SSPX.

But it’s a very weak argument indeed to say about the SSPX ‘well, at least they’re not the WORST thing out there’. Point is they’re bad, damaging to the faithful and must be stopped.

So must the abuses. I don’t think people are unconcerned (generally), although too many are ignorant. Unfortunately for those who ARE educated and ARE concerned, there’s only a limited amount the laity can do about those if their priests and bishops are stubborn.

My point was not to say that the SSPX are not the “worst thing out there” (I would, in fact, argue the opposite) however, my only intention was to point out that it seems interesting that sometimes the perception is that people care less about severe abuses from within the Church than they do about the actions of the SSPX which, quite frankly, probably have little to no bearing on the ordinary OF-attending Catholic.

Perhaps the perception needs to be changed that Catholics must simply “sit back” and accept these abuses. If petitions to the Bishop don’t work, one might need to question whether remaining at a parish like that is actually doing more harm than good and thus, by leaving and (hopefully) supporting a more traditional parish the local dioceses might finally get the message. Along the same lines, young people might play a huge role in letting their local dioceses know that it is insulting to think that all teenagers are attracted by loud, obnoxious things as “Life Teen” and, perhaps, are just as able to comprehend reverence as adults. There are things that can be done…

 

[LilyM]

My point was not to say that the SSPX are not the “worst thing out there” (I would, in fact, argue the opposite) however, my only intention was to point out that it seems interesting that sometimes the perception is that people care less about severe abuses from within the Church than they do about the actions of the SSPX which, quite frankly, probably have little to no bearing on the ordinary OF-attending Catholic.

Perhaps the perception needs to be changed that Catholics must simply “sit back” and accept these abuses. If petitions to the Bishop don’t work, one might need to question whether remaining at a parish like that is actually doing more harm than good and thus, by leaving and (hopefully) supporting a more traditional parish the local dioceses might finally get the message. Along the same lines, young people might play a huge role in letting their local dioceses know that it is insulting to think that all teenagers are attracted by loud, obnoxious things as “Life Teen” and, perhaps, are just as able to comprehend reverence as adults. There are things that can be done…

And as far as possible I do all these things. I’m sure I’m far from unusual in doing so - a quick glance through these boards will reveal people who go to great lengths to find an abuse-free parish, and who ARE concerned and DO report abuses and take whatever other steps they can to correct them.

Like I said, it’s not apathy or laziness or not caring, but ignorance and being poorly catechised - mostly through no fault of theirs - that is the issue with the vast majority of Catholics.

Then again I’m fortunate to live in a large city with plenty of choice of parishes - so I have the option of seeking out the best and most abuse-free parishes at which to attend Mass. Lots of folks aren’t so fortunate.

And there’s still that pesky little commandment telling us to honour the Sabbath, which unfortunately doesn’t say ‘but only if your Mass is completely abuse-free!’.

 

[I_Believe]

It’s not so absurd. Not everyone relates to or processes language in the same way as you do, and some DO automatically, by default if you will, feel ‘pushed out’ of a conversation or a situation when they encounter a foreign language. Firstly, some people in my experience are simply ‘foreign language deaf’ in the way that my father, God love him, is completely tone deaf musically. No amount of learning WILL get them to be comfortable around foreign languages, any more than you can get a tone deaf person to learn to sing in key.

Then again, even the best translation there isn’t a perfect correlation between any two languages, there are nuances that often get lost. And thus people AREN’T getting the meaning of the prayers perfectly when they read an English translation, unlike when they hear it said in English!

Lily, look at what you just acknowledged ! That is exactly why Cardinal McIntyre passionately said this at the Council…

“In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata.”
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.

Look at the words Pro multis. It means “for many”, not “for all”. That is exactly what the good Cardinal foresaw. Same with “and also with you”. Et cum spiritu means “and with Thy spirit”. “And also with you” is telling the priest, acting as Chist, who IS Lord, that we wish the Lord be with Him. That is absurd, and exactly what the Cardinal was speaking of, and also what John XXIII was trying to prevent in his Veterum Sapientia !
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html
The good Pope writes…

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 which 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.

And he made sure, later in the document, that he demanded obedience…

With the foregoing considerations in mind, to which We have given careful thought, We now, in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority, decree and command the following:

Responsibility for enforcement

1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.

1. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

As you can see Lily, the stance of traditional laity regarding the dangers of a venacular Liturgy is not some nutty, armchair theological error or paranoia. We are just taking precise and clear teaching to heart, rather than accepting the, obvious by now, errors and dangers that the ambiguous documents of VII enabled. I’m not saying masons seized the Council and intentionally produced the documents that way to destroy the Liturgy. But the fact is, the revolutionary changes JXXII wrote against, and that many, including Cardinal McIntyre, warned of, have indeed manifest. It’s a mess and they are working on fixing it as we speak. Deo gratias, they have acknowledged we have a problem.

continued…

 

[I_Believe]

Another consideration - some people aren’t comfortable with or skilled at reading, even in their own native tongue, and so would have trouble following along even a purely written vernacular translation.

Ok, so they have trouble with the OF missal ?
By that argument they certainly should be.

Others simply find Missals too fiddly and confusing - there’s usually a fair bit of jumping around involved - and tend to lose their place and the plot. Or feel that by reading a book instead of attending to the priest’s words they’re missing something in terms of participation.

We are not reading a book, we are praying the Mass WITH the priest, not listening to him pray it.

There are probably other reasons why the solution of a vernacular written Missal might be far from ideal for everyone, and why some people do much better with a vernacular Mass.

Sure, absolutely ! It’s undeniably easier to understand the venacular Novus Ordo. But what is it you are understanding ? Errors.
Again, Pro multis means “for many”. How many years have the laity been told it means “for all”, despite those who were in the Upper Room bearing witness to the words of Our Saviour Jesus Christ ? Kyrie eleison

Why do you think churches used to have stained glass windows to relate Bible stories and other teachings in a non-verbal (ie non-written AND non-spoken) manner, if everyone related perfectly well to either the spoken Latin???

I’m not sure when the practice of installing these windows started, but it has nothing at all to do with the Liturgy issue we are discussing. Those stories were not included in every single Epistle or Gospel of every Mass. People didn’t look at the windows to follow the Mass

Lily I love you. You are one of the first, if not the first, person to give me a warm welcome here at CA. But you are killing me here with your reasoning and defense of the venacular.

Culture and convenience does not trump Tradition and Doctrine.
I’m tempted to post the quotes from the writings of prominent clergy, including BXVI, supporting my stance on this, but I’m afraid the thread will be closed if I do. So here is the link instead…
ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

Compare those quotes with Veterum Sapientia and Cardinal McIntyre’s concerns, and then tell me if I’m some nutty renegade trad making this stuff up.

 

[LilyM]

IB, in what parallel universe did you think I was going to pretend that the English was exactly the same as the Latin? Of course it isn’t.

Was that Latin the same as the Greek that preceded it as the language of liturgy and scripture? No. Were things lost and changed in THAT translation (from Greek to Latin)? Certainly.

Was the Greek the same as the Aramaic in which Our Blessed Lord ACTUALLY spoke those words at the Last Supper? No. Were things lost in THAT translation (from Aramaic to Greek)? Absolutely.

Just look at the ‘petra/petros’ (rock/pebble) debate so popular among our non-Catholic brothers. Fact is Our Lord would actually have used the word ‘kepha’ which had no gender - the same word with the same meaning for Peter and ‘the Rock’.

And yet the non-Catholics have made a mountain of a molehill of the fact that the Greek words have genders, and also that petra has a slightly different meaning from petros. That’s certainly something that wasn’t present in the original Aramaic - a sideffect of the most imperfect art of translation

Your problem is that you think Latin is the be-all and end-all. It’s actually only one or two steps up the ladder in a chain of translations from the English, that stretches back to the Greek or Aramaic. At each stage things have been lost and changed - no language is really frozen in stone.

 

[ProVobis]

We’re only stating our perception of the TLM, and we’re not saying that the Holy Mass IS theater, just that it looks like theater.

A theater where everyone faces the same direction? Now that would really be a good show.

 

[ProVobis]

Hi Gert, I think you may not know that there are missals that have the english translation right next to the latin.

I agree with you. But you can’t sell TLM missals to those who are dead set and deeply biased against the TLM. Oh, sure, they will continue to say “The Mass is the Mass” but they’re only talking about THEIR Mass. It isn’t a fear of the Latin Mass that’s driving them away. They are only following the path of least resistance in their personal lifestyles.

 

[Gertabelle]

Hi Lily, fair enough, but she said more than why she likes the OF. **She stated that she resents being pushed out of the prayers because they are in Latin.

That is absurd. When did she get pushed out ? Has she attended a TLM ? Or does the fact that she knows the prayers are in latin “pushes her out of the prayers” by default ?**

I’m not talking about preferrence. I’m talking about people making those kind of statements, when in fact, they are ignorant of how laity assist the TLM without speaking latin.

And I’m not using the word ingnorant as a derogatory term. Again, it’s frustrating to see, time and time again, folks assuming something that just isn’t so. She obviously assumes she must speak fluent latin to understand the Mass. And that is an absurd assumption.

And no one can accuse me of being biased and just looking to jump on one who isn’t interested in the TLM. I attended an OF today at noon, and I will also attend one tomorrow. Not saying you did say I was biased, but I just thought I’d add that.

If someone, after knowing missals with the english translation are available, still feels it takes too much effort, fine. Just don’t expect absurd statements like “latin pushes us out of the prayers” will go unchallenged on a forum frequented by catholics who know better.

Wow, I never expected such a passionate response to my little opinion. Go figure…

Actually, I have attended a TLM, and was handed a little booklet with the Latin and English side-by-side. I have also attended a mass in which half was in Spanish and half was in English – again, side-by-side translations. (It was Holy Thursday, and the parish is about equal native Spanish and native English speakers.) Both times I was perfectly capable of reading and responding in a language other than English. Both times I had to say words out loud while thinking other words in my head, which is to say that although I can read another language, I cannot think in another language. Except for the translation on the page, and my familiarity with the English prayers, there is little difference for me in praying in Latin or praying in tongues. It’s mostly just random syllables to my brain…

So I do not speak from ignorance of the TLM. Although it may be hard to believe, I am someone who has attended TLMs and felt very much “pushed out” of the prayers by the language difference.

This may be a revelation to you, but not everyone who disagrees wtih your preferences does so out of ignorance (that is, if we just knew better we would clearly come over to your well-reasoned and insightful point of view).

I come by my preference for the venacular honestly, and I stand by it.

That said, I will support and attend whatever form of the mass Rome sets forth. And if that form is the EF, then I will set about learning it, teach it to my son, and help others to do the same. But I will not put in that sort of time and effort for the sake of pushing a cause to make the TLM the exclusive form of the mass in the Church. To my mind, that would be the equivalent to campaigning for women priests or liturgical dancers.

Again, just my two cents. But please refrain, in the future, from assuming I speak (i.e., write) without knowledge behind my opinion. And yes, I know my opinion is nothing more or less than my own opinion.

Gertie

 

[Cat]

A theater where everyone faces the same direction? Now that would really be a good show.

It’s quite possible that some enterprising playwright will create such a show. Strange things are done in theater.

Have you seen the new production of Sweeney Todd? Believe it or not everyone in the cast plays an instrument throughout the show. I personally did not like it. I prefer the horror story of Sweeney told straight and chilling with a little bit of humor, not with cellos and trumpets.

And of course one of the most famous “weird” shows was Strange Interlude, where people stepped aside and talked to the audience.

And in Avenue Q, everyone carries a puppet.

So wait for it–we will see a show where everything is done facing away from the audience.

Interestingly, in the theater, when the character(s) has his(their) back to the audience, it is considered a very strong position with a lot of meaning.

 

[Sarabande]

It’s quite possible that some enterprising playwright will create such a show. Strange things are done in theater.

So wait for it–we will see a show where everything is done facing away from the audience.

Already has been done - at least with certain scenes. The Canadian tv show “Slings and Arrows” (three seasons of a theater company evolving around three of Shakespeare’s plays and other shows being performed at the yearly festival of the company) also incorporated it into one their seasons. The avant-garde, jerk director tries to do it for some really, cheesy musical. The entire scene is done with their backs to the audience.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the subject.

Interestingly, in the theater, when the character(s) has his(their) back to the audience, it is considered a very strong position with a lot of meaning.

It is interesting, but mass isn’t the theater or in the theater, so when the priest faces the same direction as the rest, it does not have the same meaning as how it is construed in actual theater.

But it doesn’t really matter to me much whether or not the priest is facing us or has his back to us, although there is something of a feeling when the priest faces away from us. It reiterates the fact that he is like us. But I’m sure others have interpreted differently. Again, it doesn’t really matter to me… as long as he is reverent and does it right.

 

[I_Believe]

IB, in what parallel universe did you think I was going to pretend that the English was exactly the same as the Latin? Of course it isn’t.

Was that Latin the same as the Greek that preceded it as the language of liturgy and scripture? No. Were things lost and changed in THAT translation (from Greek to Latin)? Certainly.

Was the Greek the same as the Aramaic in which Our Blessed Lord ACTUALLY spoke those words at the Last Supper? No. Were things lost in THAT translation (from Aramaic to Greek)? Absolutely.

Just look at the ‘petra/petros’ (rock/pebble) debate so popular among our non-Catholic brothers. Fact is Our Lord would actually have used the word ‘kepha’ which had no gender - the same word with the same meaning for Peter and ‘the Rock’.

And yet the non-Catholics have made a mountain of a molehill of the fact that the Greek words have genders, and also that petra has a slightly different meaning from petros. That’s certainly something that wasn’t present in the original Aramaic - a sideffect of the most imperfect art of translation

Your problem is that you think Latin is the be-all and end-all. It’s actually only one or two steps up the ladder in a chain of translations from the English, that stretches back to the Greek or Aramaic. At each stage things have been lost and changed - no language is really frozen in stone.

The Church has embraced Latin. It has been the language of choice for a very long time. The Church accepted the Latin translation.

Now, I’m not studied in Greek and Latin, so I can’t say if there are errors in translation. But I feel confident that the Church has had enough time to identify any errors. We are not talking about translations into languages that were brand new. Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t Latin, Greek, and Aramaic all in use during Jerome’s time ? And had been for quite a while ?

The fact is, Catholicism was defined at Trent and the language used was Latin. It’s an ancient language and it has been the universal language used by those responsible for building faith and saving souls. It enabled all clergy to know Catholicism and when the Councils were held there was no confusion or misunderstanding of the revealed Truth, HMC’s Doctrine, or Her Dogmas. Latin was necessary to bring those of Apostolic Succession together and make them one. One group of clergy that understood the Faith and taught the same Faith back home.

Latin ensured they were all on the same page. And the Liturgy surely had to shed it’s regional novelties. At Trent, Holy Mother Church, by the Holy Spirit, bore Her most magnificent and fitting manner to express our Faith. Latin insured the Liturgy would be Catholic. Universal. Holy Mass would forever be prayed as to leave no questions, doubt, or confusion of what we as Catholics believe.

Now look where we are since we gave vernacular a try. Right back to Trent’s concerns. Rome is working on shedding the regional novelties and abuses.

And, just as at Trent, the solution is the Gregorian Rite. In Latin.

English (and other modern languages) isn’t a couple of steps up the ladder from Latin and Greek, it’s a couple of thousand years behind it.