Chat with Cardinal Mahony

[PKinsale]

The Chat with Cardinal Mahony, as mentioned on several weblogs, is now online at recongress.org/chat2006.htm.

Among the Q&A:

Matt: “Just curious about some new things I’ve seen at church. May a priest change the liturgy as he sees fit? For example, may he change the words given by ICEL, use a wooden or glass chalice, or allow a lay person to read the Gospel or give a homily? Thank you.”
CardinalMahony: Matt: every priest must follow and use the Roman Missal as published, and may not change any words. In fact, the Bishops are now developing a new English translation. The material for sacred vessels needs the approval of the Local Bishop, but must be fitting for the Eucharist. At Mass, the deacon and priest are the only ones to proclaim the Gospel and give the homily. Now and then, others may give a reflection.

Joe: Hello Cardinal. With the growing interest in traditional worship of the Catholic Church are we going to see a more generous use of the Traditional Latin Mass?
CardinalMahony: It is not correct to say “traditional worship” in our Church. For a small slice of Church history, Latin was the language of Mass. But the Council moved us beyond that to a new Roman Missal. We must continue forward with the Church. However, it is important to bring with us our Latin hymns and other treasures from the past ages.

Bill: Our pastor removes the holy water from the church during Lent. I showed him the letter from the Congregation of Divine Worship in which it states that this practice is not allowed. He chose to disregard the letter and its directives. Can he do this? What can I say to him to encourage the return of the holy water from our church?

CardinalMahony: There is no reason to remove holy water from our Churches. On the Easter Vigil, we replace the former holy water with the new Easter Water. Your pastor is probably following a practice of some years ago when holy water was removed from Holy Thursday to the Easter Vigil. But that practice is no longer in effect.

Mariette: Does Your Eminence believe there is a place for liturgical dance in the US Church?
CardinalMahony: Liturgical dance should never dominate or overwhelm the celebration of the Eucharist. It must be tasteful, and must always lead us to deeper prayer and reflection. A good rule: if liturgical dance leads to applause by the participants, then it failed.

Fr. Ignatius Reilly: Why have you removed Our Lord – present in the tabernacle – from its proper place in the center of the sanctuary?
CardinalMahony: I’m not sure what Fr. Reilly is referring to.

Bill: Some of the scheduled speakers at this Religious Education Congress are well-known dissenters of our Catholic Church teachings. Why are they repeatedly invited back to the Congress and why are those who are requesting a closer monitoring of these speakers and asking for 100% orthodoxy being ignored?
CardinalMahony: I simply don’t agree with Bill.

 

[BillyT92679]

It’s kind of all over the map, isn’t it?

 

[arieh0310]

PKinsale:

For a small slice of Church history, Latin was the language of Mass. But the Council moved us beyond that to a new Roman Missal.

From say, 50-60 AD to 1969 AD. 96% of its history is a small slice?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

arieh0310:

From say, 50-60 AD to 1969 AD. 96% of its history is a small slice?

Ah, man, I keep thinking I’m not going to be sucked in, but then something like this crops up.

There is NO evidence that the Liturgy, as it was then constituted, was celebrated in Latin that early. It was more than likely celebrated in Greek. Also, there were also places where the Mass was offered (by permission) in the vernacular.

 

[Brendan]

For a small slice of Church history, Latin was the language of Mass. But the Council moved us beyond that to a new Roman Missal.

A new Missal that published in …LATIN!!

A new Missal that is normative in…LATIN!!

 

[arieh0310]

JKirkLVNV:

Ah, man, I keep thinking I’m not going to be sucked in, but then something like this crops up.

There is NO evidence that the Liturgy, as it was then constituted, was celebrated in Latin that early. It was more than likely celebrated in Greek. Also, there were also places where the Mass was offered (by permission) in the vernacular.

So, are you saying that the Apostles Peter and Paul didn’t offer the mass in the vernacular in Rome??? How unpastoral of them…

I won’t be able to get specific on dates but I am fairly certain that by the time of Augustine the mass was in Latin in the Latin Rite. So, we are looking at roughly 75% of the Church’s history.

JKirk, I wasn’t taking shots at your love of the vernacular mass, but taking shots at a ridiculous statement by Card. Mahony.

 

[gelsbern]

arieh0310:

From say, 50-60 AD to 1969 AD. 96% of its history is a small slice?

Heheh, you beat me to it? Must be the Novus Arithmetic.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

BillyT92679:

It’s kind of all over the map, isn’t it?

yeah, some of it I was like - well what’s the problem w/ that? But then others made me go hmmm.

In regards to the “small slice of Church history” on the surface as I was reading I thought what he meant was more of a “let me give you a small history lesson”.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

arieh0310:

So, are you saying that the Apostles Peter and Paul didn’t offer the mass in the vernacular in Rome??? How unpastoral of them…

I won’t be able to get specific on dates but I am fairly certain that by the time of Augustine the mass was in Latin in the Latin Rite. So, we are looking at roughly 75% of the Church’s history.

JKirk, I wasn’t taking shots at your love of the vernacular mass, but taking shots at a ridiculous statement by Card. Mahony.

Yeah, but Augustine wasn’t alive in the 50’s. And that’s what I was commenting on. And we’ve no idea if Saint Peter could speak Latin at all, though it seems likely that Saint Paul could have, since he was a citizen of Rome (though he grew up in Tarsus) and from the educated classes. And it has nothing to do with my love of the Pauline Rite. It’s just on the par with those who think the liturgy fell out of the sky in a Sacramentary bound in red leather with gilt edges (as bad as Protestants who think the Bible fell out of the sky bound in BLACK leather with gilt edges). Granted, for most of the Church’s history, the Mass has been in Latin. But from 50 AD? Nothing I’ve ever read has suggested that early a date for a fully formalized, scripted liturgy, let alone one established in Latin.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Still, even if we take a late 5th century date (Council of Nicea?), Mass in Latin was said for close to 1500 years before changing to the vernacular. 1500 years of Latin Mass /2000 years of Christianity is three-quarters of the Christian epoch–not a “small slice”. Mass in the vernacular, if we assume it took place even from 50 AD to 500 AD, and then add on 1970-2006, is just under 500 years, or one-quarter of the Christian epoch.

I have no objections whatsoever to Mass in the vernacular… .but I’m with you JKirk in that just as you get annoyed by the Protestants who think the KJV fell from the sky in 50 AD, I get annoyed by the people who try to argue that: a. Those 1500 years of Latin Mass weren’t REALLY all “Latin”, there were all kinds of pockets of people doing it in other ways, b. the “Latin” mass just prior to vatican II itself was not the “Latin mass” of the early Church, or the middle ages church either, c. The church never should have had Latin to begin with, d. Vernacular is more “authentic” anyway, e. Latin is too hard to learn and the people don’t understand so we are “hurting” people. . .on and on.

Just as some Protestants do not want to admit that there was ever anything OTHER than the KJV, some Catholics do not want to admit that anything OTHER than the current vernacular Mass could have any worth. (and to be fair, there are some who do not want to admit that anything other than the LATIN mass could have worth.–the difference, of course, being that for 35 years or so, EVERYBODY had the vernacular Mass offered if there was ANY Mass available, and HARDLY anybody had the LATIN mass offered if there was any Mass available.)

Why, even the documents of Vatican II DID NOT CALL FOR the Mass in the vernacular as we have it today. Latin was still to be used for a sizeable portion of the liturgy.

 

[johnnykins]

JKirkLVNV:

Ah, man, I keep thinking I’m not going to be sucked in, but then something like this crops up.

There is NO evidence that the Liturgy, as it was then constituted, was celebrated in Latin that early. It was more than likely celebrated in Greek. Also, there were also places where the Mass was offered (by permission) in the vernacular.

Let’s see, the international language was Koine Greek. the Septuagint was in Greek. The earliest NT scriptures were in Greek. The common person in Rome spoke Latin, i.e., Latin was the vernacular in Rome in the 1st century.

I would guess the earliest preaching in Rome probably was in aramaic, hebrew or greek - to the local jews. As the other Romans came to hear the news, and as they were usually the uneducated, I would guess things were most likely in Latin - with soem Greek.

I don’t know what the bias is against Latin - but surely the poor and uneducated in Rome in the first century were taught in their own language - LATIN

Don’t you realise that the Vulgate is called that because it was a translation from Greek into the vulgar (common) language of LATIN

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Tantum ergo:

Still, even if we take a late 5th century date (Council of Nicea?), Mass in Latin was said for close to 1500 years before changing to the vernacular. 1500 years of Latin Mass /2000 years of Christianity is three-quarters of the Christian epoch–not a “small slice”. Mass in the vernacular, if we assume it took place even from 50 AD to 500 AD, and then add on 1970-2006, is just under 500 years, or one-quarter of the Christian epoch.

I have no objections whatsoever to Mass in the vernacular… .but I’m with you JKirk in that just as you get annoyed by the Protestants who think the KJV fell from the sky in 50 AD, I get annoyed by the people who try to argue that: a. Those 1500 years of Latin Mass weren’t REALLY all “Latin”, there were all kinds of pockets of people doing it in other ways, b. the “Latin” mass just prior to vatican II itself was not the “Latin mass” of the early Church, or the middle ages church either, c. The church never should have had Latin to begin with, d. Vernacular is more “authentic” anyway, e. Latin is too hard to learn and the people don’t understand so we are “hurting” people. . .on and on.

Just as some Protestants do not want to admit that there was ever anything OTHER than the KJV, some Catholics do not want to admit that anything OTHER than the current vernacular Mass could have any worth. (and to be fair, there are some who do not want to admit that anything other than the LATIN mass could have worth.–the difference, of course, being that for 35 years or so, EVERYBODY had the vernacular Mass offered if there was ANY Mass available, and HARDLY anybody had the LATIN mass offered if there was any Mass available.)

Why, even the documents of Vatican II DID NOT CALL FOR the Mass in the vernacular as we have it today. Latin was still to be used for a sizeable portion of the liturgy.

I’m sorry, I’m not understanding your point. I wasn’t defending Cardinal Mahoney’s assertion, I was asserting that in 50 AD, the Mass wasn’t in Latin or even codified into a scripted form (Our Lord had only ascended back to the Father 17 years previously). I agreed and continue to do so that for the majority of the Church’s history, the Mass was in Latin (though for a goodly space of that time, I’d wager 400-500 years, the Latin Mass WAS the “vernacular” Mass because Latin was the vernacular where it wasn’t Greek and in the east, it wasn’t in Latin). Yes, I am aware of what VII called for and didn’t call for, I am nonetheless grateful that the Mass is in “the vernacular as we have it today.”

 

[Brendan]

JKirkLVNV:

. And we’ve no idea if Saint Peter could speak Latin at all, .

Well, we DO know from the story of Pentecost that no matter what Peter spoke, people heard it in their own language

 

[JKirkLVNV]

johnnykins:

Let’s see, the international language was Koine Greek. the Septuagint was in Greek. The earliest NT scriptures were in Greek. The common person in Rome spoke Latin, i.e., Latin was the vernacular in Rome in the 1st century.

I would guess the earliest preaching in Rome probably was in aramaic, hebrew or greek - to the local jews. As the other Romans came to hear the news, and as they were usually the uneducated, I would guess things were most likely in Latin - with soem Greek.

I don’t know what the bias is against Latin - but surely the poor and uneducated in Rome in the first century were taight in thier own language - LATIN

Don’t you realise that the Vulgate is called that because it was a translation from Greek into the vulgar (common) language of LATIN

Yes. I am aware of where the term Vulgate comes from. I am not in this thread attempting to make any disparging remark about Latin, I was simply saying that it is a mistake to assert that the liturgy of 50 AD was formally in Latin or even formally scripted (I seem to remember the earliest description of the Mass was that the “president” prayed “as he was able.” I wasn’t agreeing with Cardinal Mahoney (I would find it truly odd to be defending Cardinal Mahoney!). The “slice” is a lot larger than he apparently thinks it is. It just doesn’t encompass 50 AD, not in any formal sense. Now, it may well have been in Latin in Rome, as you suggest, to the benefit of the “poor and uneducated people” you speak of. But then that would seem to argue for the vernacular…which I’m not doing…in this thread.

 

[johnnykins]

This particular concern all started with Kinsale’s OP quote from HE about the use of Latin for a “small slice” of church history,

His Eminence clearly has a refined sense of humor to put that in writing (or ignorant beyond belief - or disingenous).

Whether Latin was used in 50AD or not - formally or informally (I guess it would have to have been informal ) is not the point. What is startling is that a prince of the Church has seemigly stated that Latin was used for only a small slice of the last 2000 years.

 

[arieh0310]

JKirkLVNV:

It’s just on the par with those who think the liturgy fell out of the sky in a Sacramentary bound in red leather with gilt edges (as bad as Protestants who think the Bible fell out of the sky bound in BLACK leather with gilt edges). Granted, for most of the Church’s history, the Mass has been in Latin. But from 50 AD? Nothing I’ve ever read has suggested that early a date for a fully formalized, scripted liturgy, let alone one established in Latin.

Oh, come on JKirk, you know I wasn’t suggesting that Ss Paul and Peter celebrated a Tridentine mass in 50 AD. I was suggesting that Latin is an immemorial part of the Church’s history. I am also aware that St Augustine wasn’t alive in 50 AD, but that by the late fourth century the Latin Rite had standardized on a Latin liturgy. So, Cardinal Mahony is mistaken to say that Latin has only been around for a small sliver of Church history.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

arieh0310:

Oh, come on JKirk, you know I wasn’t suggesting that Ss Paul and Peter celebrated a Tridentine mass in 50 AD. I was suggesting that Latin is an immemorial part of the Church’s history. I am also aware that St Augustine wasn’t alive in 50 AD, but that by the late fourth century the Latin Rite had standardized on a Latin liturgy. So, Cardinal Mahony is mistaken to say that Latin has only been around for a small sliver of Church history.

I agree with you. But the above isn’t what you said in your first post and it was on the first post that I offered comment.

“Small slice” is indeed very disingenous and I wonder who the Cardinal thought was dumb enough to buy it?

 

[arieh0310]

JKirkLVNV:

I agree with you. But the above isn’t what you said in your first post and it was on the first post that I offered comment.

“Small slice” is indeed very disingenous and I wonder who the Cardinal thought was dumb enough to buy it?

My first post was assumption about the apostolic origin on a Latin mass (I don’t think it is unfounded since Latin was the vernacular at the time). However, there is no need to go to hyperbolic extremes and suggest that I think the mass of the first Christians was TLM.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

arieh0310:

My first post was assumption about the apostolic origin on a Latin mass (I don’t think it is unfounded since Latin was the vernacular at the time). However, there is no need to go to hyperbolic extremes and suggest that I think the mass of the first Christians was TLM.

I don’t think I went to hyperbolic extremes and I should be sorry if you felt I did so at your expense. I apologize. I have not, however, in any post in this thread, even mentioned the TLM nor do I think that YOU think that the mass of the first Christians WAS the TLM. Perhaps we need to use the smiley faces?

Yes, you’re quite right, Latin WAS the vernacular of the time.

{cough, cough}

 

[arieh0310]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t think I went to hyperbolic extremes and I should be sorry if you felt I did so at your expense. I apologize. I have not, however, in any post in this thread, even mentioned the TLM nor do I think that YOU think that the mass of the first Christians WAS the TLM. Perhaps we need to use the smiley faces?

Yes, you’re quite right, Latin WAS the vernacular of the time.

{cough, cough}

OK, I has assumed that

“It’s just on the par with those who think the liturgy fell out of the sky in a Sacramentary bound in red leather with gilt edges (as bad as Protestants who think the Bible fell out of the sky bound in BLACK leather with gilt edges). Granted, for most of the Church’s history, the Mass has been in Latin.”

was a direct reference to the TLM.