Church official says old rite will be norm in 50 years

[StTommyMore]

Dreams are free, I’m afraid.

We know that very few are joining the priesthood these days and even fewer of these priests are actually studying church Latin… so project this trend into the future - there will be very few who would be able to preform a Latin Mass in 50 years time.

I may be able to correct you on this. At Franciscan University of Steubenville, there are something like 60 students in the pre-theologiate program. There are many others persuing degrees intent on going int seminary that are not in the program. I cannot speak for those not in the pro-the program, but I know for a fact that Latin is a required course of study for those in the program. This is just one small college. There is a vocation crisis to be sure, but the situation, at least from my observation, seems to be a bit less gloomy than is commonly presented.

 

[Aramis]

I suspect the EF will wind up in separate vicariates and/or overlapping dioceses, in a manner not dissimilar to the allowance now permitted for the Anglican Use.

The communities favoring each form are sufficiently distinct that such a separation makes good sense, and a separation of hierarchy would allow each to proceed without the interference of bishops attached to one or the other… and make room for some more hard line traditionalists in the magisterium.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So nothing. Vatican II and Pope Paul VI “ordered” Latin to be maintained in the liturgy. In fact in 1969 Paul VI stated:

It appears you’re saying someone gamed the system so that enough vernacular would be instilled into the liturgy so that they made sure no more universality of the faith could be preserved and the Vatican would lose control. So much so, no one synod of bishops could understand another. Another Tower of Babel occurred in other words.

I don’t think the Holy See does things for “nothing.” Neither am I saying what you have suggested. I simply stated what is real. Pope Paul VI was the pope that permitted the expansion to an all-vernacular Mass. If he had wanted to stop it, he could have. I also believe that the ideas that there is “no more universality of the faith” and “the Vatican would lose control” are hyperbolic, indeed, histrionic overstatements. When the bishops meet, I’m pretty sure that steps are taking to clarify communication and meaning.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I never said the venacular is illicit. What people should be aware of is ever since independent bishop conferences were created they have been doing their own thing. The Church is supposed to be a top down organization. The head is Jesus Christ. When the bishop conferences start making their own rules they are not following apostolic tradition.

With respect, I did not say that you DID say the vernacular was illicit. Here is what I said:

“I’m certain you didn’t intend it, but to simply say that the OF was “created to be said in Latin and ad orientum” might give some the impression that the OF offered in the vernacular and ad populum was illicit.”

I clearly state that I was sure you did not intend to give the impression that the vernacular was illicit.

Independent bishops’ conferences were created by act of the Holy See, specifically by HH Pope Paul VI motu proprio *Ecclesiae Sanctae. *They exist at the behest of and on the authority of the Holy See. Many of their decisions, if not all, are subject to *recognitios *or approvals by that same authority. The Holy Father via the Curia is free at any time to ammend or suspend what they direct or impose. Thus, the Church remains a “top down” or hierarchical organism. Bishops, however, are not simply the Pope’s representatives to geographic regions (that would be the Apostolic nuncio or legate). Their offices themselves were instituted by Christ and are important (in the Gospels, the power of binding and loosening was delegated to them also, after Peter and in union with him). They must, of course, obey the Holy Father.

Finally, there is Apostolic “Tradition” and then there’s “tradition.” It is important to distinguish between the two. As has been said, CITH may have come from Apostolic and certainly Patristic time. Thus, it could be said to be “tradition.” It is important not to confuse that with “Tradition,” that is, a truth of equal weight with Scripture, because if it IS the latter, then we could not have had the developmental devotions in our understanding of what the Blessed Sacrament IS that lead to Communion on the tongue and kneeling (and kneeling did not become the norm in the Eastern Church, Apostolic though her Divine Liturgy is). In instituting the various things of which you have spoken, no bishops’ conference has departed from Apostolic Tradition.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think the Holy See does things for “nothing.” Neither am I saying what you have suggested. I simply stated what is real. Pope Paul VI was the pope that permitted the expansion to an all-vernacular Mass.

Do you realize the absurdity of such a claim? Would the US Government allow all-vernacular (French, German, Belgian, Russian, Polish, etc) courtrooms for the hundred or so vernaculars spoken within its borders? Would you as a taxpayer enjoy paying for hundreds of translations of the US Constitution and lawbooks into whatever vernacular that suits that particular courtroom? And then have to update all of them everytime Congress passes a law? We have enough problems just with the English.

Yes, you can employ the vernacular to do missionary work or immigration offices or do Scripture readings and help them understand the faith but, not to sound cruel, at some point they have to understand they are part of the Church whole and not in their own tiny little world.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Do you realize the absurdity of such a claim? Would the US Government allow all-vernacular courtrooms for the hundred or so vernaculars spoken within its borders? Would you as a taxpayer enjoy paying for hundreds of translations of the US Constitution and lawbooks into whatever vernacular that suits that particular courtroom? And then have to update all of them everytime Congress passes a law? We have enough problems just with the English.

Yes, you can employ the vernacular to do missionary work or do Scripture readings and help them understand the faith but, not to sound cruel, at some point they have to understand they are part of the Church whole and not in their own tiny little world.

Provobis, you’re engaging in wishful thinking. The Holy See approved the all-vernacular MASS, not evangelistic material, and has permitted it to continue. She has not outlawed it and has even taken steps to ensure its vernacular translations (in English) are more accurate. You also disregard the fact that the change from Greek to Latin by the Church was a change to the VERNACULAR (the Koine Greek of Alexander the Great’s empire supplanted by the language of the Roman Empire), NOT an effort to find a sacral langauge.

I don’t see the absurdity of any “claim” that I’ve made. What I’ve said is historical fact and easily verifiable, not merely the wishful thinking of someone who wishes history had gone his way.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Immodest dress, irreverence, guitars, clowns and women priests have nothing to do with the OF said according to the rubrics in a reverent way, and you know it.

And if you are so naive as to think that homosexual priests came about in the aftermath of the chnge to the OF, then you actually should sit down and start doing some research.

The first priest publicly taken down in our archdioces (or at least, the first one I recall) was teaching in a Catholic boy’;s high school 9and ordained) wel before Vatican 2 started. and he was only opne of many. Homosexual men have been ordained for centuries.

And they were all saying the EF… which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Well Immodest dress, irreverence, guitars, clowns and women priests have all been in existance or at the very least Advocated as right in recent years in Churches that claim to be Catholic and you know it too.

First of all - I am not talking about “Homosexual Priests.” I am talking about Catholic Bishops with Homosexual Outreach Programs like the One in the Memphis Tennesee Diocese. Research that.

Secondly - there is no such thing as a “Homosexual.” Homosexuality is a sin. No one is born a Homosexual. Thats nonsense. Any more than anyone is born a Murderer or a Theif. So for you to label someone who takes a vow of Celibacy as though a sexual sin is part of their identity is to embrace the philiosophy of the homosexual collective prevalent in todays anti Catholic Society. As for the “Vatican II” nonsense - Vatican II ushered in an environment that Modernists took advantage of. Progressiveism has been around since the French Revolution. Now we can debate whether Vatican II is a fruit of that Movement (Some think it is) or if it merely enabled them (Others think that is the case) but I said nothing of Vatican II. You did.

Now , as for Clergy knowingly supporting and protecting Clergy who engaged in that deviant lifestyle - we know this has been happening. Not only here but in Europe. But the difference from years past is profound. St. Peter Damian’s Book of Gomorrah (1007-1072)
as compared to the Modern Churches responses an example of the differences that I am speaking of.

Yes - that Sin has always been around. But the Response to it has changed. Thats the issue. And BTW - I have researched it.

 

[otjm]

Well Immodest dress, irreverence, guitars, clowns and women priests have all been in existance or at the very least Advocated as right in recent years in Churches that claim to be Catholic and you know it too.

First of all - I am not talking about “Homosexual Priests.” I am talking about Catholic Bishops with Homosexual Outreach Programs like the One in the Memphis Tennesee Diocese. Research that.

Secondly - there is no such thing as a “Homosexual.” Homosexuality is a sin. No one is born a Homosexual. Thats nonsense. Any more than anyone is born a Murderer or a Theif. So for you to label someone who takes a vow of Celibacy as though a sexual sin is part of their identity is to embrace the philiosophy of the homosexual collective prevalent in todays anti Catholic Society. As for the “Vatican II” nonsense - Vatican II ushered in an environment that Modernists took advantage of. Progressiveism has been around since the French Revolution. Now we can debate whether Vatican II is a fruit of that Movement (Some think it is) or if it merely enabled them (Others think that is the case) but I said nothing of Vatican II. You did.

Now , as for Clergy knowingly supporting and protecting Clergy who engaged in that deviant lifestyle - we know this has been happening. Not only here but in Europe. But the difference from years past is profound. St. Peter Damian’s Book of Gomorrah (1007-1072)
as compared to the Modern Churches responses an example of the differences that I am speaking of.

Yes - that Sin has always been around. But the Response to it has changed. Thats the issue. And BTW - I have researched it.

Obviously you need to do more research. I won’t take this post further off track.

 

[MarkThompson]

First of all - I am not talking about “Homosexual Priests.” I am talking about Catholic Bishops with Homosexual Outreach Programs like the One in the Memphis Tennesee Diocese. Research that.

Secondly - there is no such thing as a “Homosexual.” Homosexuality is a sin. No one is born a Homosexual. Thats nonsense. Any more than anyone is born a Murderer or a Theif.

No, having a same-sex attraction is not a sin, any more than having volatile temper. Both of those disordered conditions imply an increased propensity to sin, and a person with same-sex attraction no more asked for it than a person with a bad temper or a nervous disposition asked for that. The conditions are disordered in that they are oriented to sin, but, unlike murder and thievery, they are not themselves sinful unless acted upon. It’s correct to say that no one is “born” a sodomite (a person who has homosexual sex) just as no one is born a murderer, but it is not correct to say that no one is born with (or, possibly, develops early in life) same-sex attraction, just as it would not be correct to say that no one is born with an unusually violent personality.

In fact, because being attracted to members of the same sex is a great temptation to sin, persons who labor under such a condition merit “outreach” more than most. Different people have different crosses to bear on the path to a holy and sanctified lifestyle: some are sedate and tranquil, born to devout parents in a locale that knows nothing but Catholicism. Others are born into broken homes, brothels, or war-torn ghettos. Which group really needs the outreach? Ministry to the imprisoned – people literally in jail for their crimes – is one of the works of mercy; why shouldn’t ministry to people suffering under a strong temptation to sin be considered a work of mercy rather than an object of derision?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No, having a same-sex attraction is not a sin, any more than having volatile temper. Both of those disordered conditions imply an increased propensity to sin, and a person with same-sex attraction no more asked for it than a person with a bad temper or a nervous disposition asked for that. The conditions are disordered in that they are oriented to sin, but, unlike murder and thievery, they are not themselves sinful unless acted upon. It’s correct to say that no one is “born” a sodomite (a person who has homosexual sex) just as no one is born a murderer, but it is not correct to say that no one is born with (or, possibly, develops early in life) same-sex attraction, just as it would not be correct to say that no one is born with an unusually violent personality.

In fact, because being attracted to members of the same sex is a great temptation to sin, persons who labor under such a condition merit “outreach” more than most. Different people have different crosses to bear on the path to a holy and sanctified lifestyle: some are sedate and tranquil, born to devout parents in a locale that knows nothing but Catholicism. Others are born into broken homes, brothels, or war-torn ghettos. Which group really needs the outreach? Ministry to the imprisoned – people literally in jail for their crimes – is one of the works of mercy; why shouldn’t ministry to people suffering under a strong temptation to sin be considered a work of mercy rather than an object of derision?

Mark, if you’re not a priest you should be, and then a bishop.

 

[ProVobis]

Provobis, you’re engaging in wishful thinking

Beg to differ. You have been misled. And here I thought you were going to be a pillar of new information.

If you want to be technical, yes it is allowed. But it’s still an absurd statement to make. I’m “allowed” to chew gum in or bring a gun into church but that would be an absurd statement to make too, no? The real question is whether they “should” have introduced so many vernaculars, when it forces the Vatican to sit and have to authenticize literally hundreds of translations. You think the new English translations were a piece of cake for the Church?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Beg to differ. You have been misled. And here I thought you were going to be a pillar of new information.

If you want to be technical, yes it is allowed. But it’s still an absurd statement to make. I’m “allowed” to chew gum in or bring a gun into church but that would be an absurd statement to make too, no? The real question is whether they “should” have introduced so many vernaculars, when it forces the Vatican to sit and have to authenticize literally hundreds of translations. You think the new English translations were a piece of cake for the Church?

It’s not even “technical,” it’s allowed, it’s approved, it’s embraced. When the Pope goes to other countries, he offers Mass in the language of the country he’s in. He offers it in Italian at the Holy See. Certainly, he wants us to know the Latin for the ordinaries, he’s said that that is so we can pray in international gatherings, but the vernacular Mass is here, probably to stay. There’s nothing “technical” about it, so I don’t see what is an absurd statement (except that your “technical” bit!). You can “should have” anything. Yes, I agree with Pope Benedict (in an interview with Raymond Arroyo of EWTN while still head of the CDF): Mass in the vernacular was and is “helpful.” I’m glad it get to hear the Mass in my own tongue.

If you are alledging that my recounting of how the vernacular mass is absurd, ie., that it exists by the legitimate authority of the Holy See, then I challenge you to prove it. If you believe that the Mass being in the vernacular is absurd, well, you’re entitled to your opinion. You are not, however, entitled to misrepresent truth, without being challenged.

 

[ProVobis]

it’s embraced.

Not in the way you make it sound. According to Cardinal Arinze:

"…At the same time, it is not difficult to envisage how demanding and delicate the work of translation must be. Even more difficult is the question of adaptation and inculturation especially when we think of the sacredness of the sacramental rites, the centuries-old tradition of the Latin Rite, and the close link between faith and worship encapsuled in the old formula: lex orandi, lex credendi.

We turn now to the thorny question of translations into the vernacular in the liturgy.

1. On Translations into the Vernacular

The translation of liturgical texts from the Latin original to the various vernaculars is a very important consideration in the prayer life of the Church. It is a question, not of private prayer, but of the public prayer offered by holy Mother Church, with Christ as the Head. The Latin texts have been prepared with great care as to sound doctrine, exact wording “free from all ideological influence and otherwise endowed with those qualities by which the sacred mysteries of salvation and the indefectible faith of the Church are efficaciously transmitted by means of human language to prayer, and worthy worship is offered to God the Most High” (Liturgiam Authenticam, n. 3).

The words used in the sacred liturgy manifest the faith of the Church and are guided by it. The Church, therefore, needs great care in directing, preparing and approving translations, so that not even one unsuitable word will be smuggled into the liturgy by an individual who may have a personal agenda, or who may simply not be aware of the seriousness of the rites…

**The Latin liturgy expresses not only facts but also our feelings, our sentiments, for example, in front of God’s transcendence, majesty, mercy and boundless love **(cf. Liturgiam Authenticam, n. 25). Expressions like “Te igitur, clementissime Pater”, “Supplices te rogamus”, “Propitius esto”, “veneremur cernui”, “Omnipotens et misericors Dominus”, “nos servi tui”, should not be deflated and democratized by some translating iconoclast.

Some of these Latin expressions are difficult to translate. The best experts in liturgy, classics, patrology, theology, spirituality, music and literature are needed so that translations beautiful on the lips of holy Mother Church can be worked out. Translations should reflect that reverence, gratitude and adoration before God’s transcendent majesty and man’s hunger for God which are very clear in the Latin texts.

 

[StTommyMore]

Due to some rather intense discussions I have been involved in recently, I am taking some time away from the forums. I just need time to reflect and reorganize my thoughts. I will probably be back in a few days. Until I run into you all again, peace be with you!

 

[ProVobis]

If you are alledging that my recounting of how the vernacular mass is absurd, ie., that it exists by the legitimate authority of the Holy See, then I challenge you to prove it. If you believe that the Mass being in the vernacular is absurd, well, you’re entitled to your opinion. You are not, however, entitled to misrepresent truth, without being challenged.

Not my opinion. Unless you believe the Catholic Church started with Pope Paul VI, you need to accept what the Magisterium of the Church (Pope John XXIII) states in Veterum Sapientia just prior to Vatican II:

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws."5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7

and

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.

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the** Latin language "can be called truly catholic**."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure … of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Not in the way you make it sound. According to Cardinal Arinze:

I believe Cardinal Arinze is probably talking about the unfortunate period when translations were made according to the “dynamic equivalency” school of thought, if I remember the word for it correctly.

But even if he’s decrying ALL translations, that leaves an EF attendee in something of a pickle, since the page he’s following (usually) in his missal is translated into the local vernacular.

Cardinal Arinze, in appearances on EWTN, has said, “The vernacular Mass is not going away.”

 

[Ockham]

2.3 An effort will be made to make common Latin chants popular during this year. With this aim in mind the Archdiocesan Coordinator for Liturgy, together with Mr Francis D’ Almeida will be organising sessions of practice in all 15 deaneries and teach all choirs some basic Latin chants which could be used in parishes and institutions. Once these practice sessions take place parishes may sing at least the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei at parish Sunday Masses on the first Sunday of the month. No. 36 of the Constitution on the Scared liturgy clearly sets forth the principles in this regard. Latin still remains the main liturgical language of the Church. In Sri Lanka we made a mistake in abandoning the language of our worship altogether. Let this Eucharistic Year be an occasion for us to resuscitate this lost tradition at least to some extent. I appeal to all priests, religious and laity to cooperate.

H.E. Malcolm Ranjith

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/we-cannot-tolerate-liturgical-errors.html

 

[OraLabora]

In fact, because being attracted to members of the same sex is a great temptation to sin, persons who labor under such a condition merit “outreach” more than most. Different people have different crosses to bear on the path to a holy and sanctified lifestyle: some are sedate and tranquil, born to devout parents in a locale that knows nothing but Catholicism. Others are born into broken homes, brothels, or war-torn ghettos. Which group really needs the outreach? Ministry to the imprisoned – people literally in jail for their crimes – is one of the works of mercy; why shouldn’t ministry to people suffering under a strong temptation to sin be considered a work of mercy rather than an object of derision?

Very well said.

As a monk at our abbey says: “the monastery is not a resort for the righteous, it is a hospital for sick souls”.

You could extend that to the whole Church for that matter. And while we’re at it, that was precisely Christ’s mission on Earth, to heal the sick and take the weight of our sin on His shoulders. In particular Christ exhorts us to visit prisoners.

God bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Not my opinion. Unless you believe the Catholic Church started with Pope Paul VI, you need to accept what the Magisterium of the Church (Pope John XXIII) states in Veterum Sapientia just prior to Vatican II:

And you need to accept that this is not a matter of faith and morals, but of discipline, so Blessed John XXIII’s directive is not assured of an infallibility other than the negative one that protects all disciplines, ie, any discipline of the Church cannot lead the faithful to impiety. Further, Blessed John’s teaching here could not be construed as binding on his successors, who DID permit the liturgy in the vernacular, any more than Quo Primum can be construed as binding on future popes who might make changes to that liturgy.

The all-vernacular Mass is a legitimate part of the Church, authorized by the proper authority of the Holy See.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

2.3 An effort will be made to make common Latin chants popular during this year. With this aim in mind the Archdiocesan Coordinator for Liturgy, together with Mr Francis D’ Almeida will be organising sessions of practice in all 15 deaneries and teach all choirs some basic Latin chants which could be used in parishes and institutions. Once these practice sessions take place parishes may sing at least the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei at parish Sunday Masses on the first Sunday of the month. No. 36 of the Constitution on the Scared liturgy clearly sets forth the principles in this regard. Latin still remains the main liturgical language of the Church. In Sri Lanka we made a mistake in abandoning the language of our worship altogether. Let this Eucharistic Year be an occasion for us to resuscitate this lost tradition at least to some extent. I appeal to all priests, religious and laity to cooperate.

H.E. Malcolm Ranjith

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/we-cannot-tolerate-liturgical-errors.html

That’s great. Pope Benedict has asked us to learn the ordinaries and basic prayers in Latin, which I’ve try to do (the ordinaries of the Mass in my parish are sung by our schola in Latin). The above does not mean that the vernacular Mass is unlawful, illicit, or exists without proper authority. AND I doubt it’s going away. One could always appeal to the Pope, of course.

There’s a point, ProVobis, why don’t you send a dubium to the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and ask them if the all-vernacular Mass exists by proper authority? Let us know what they say.