P
ProVobis
Guest
Nonsense.
- Status
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
I did not mean extraordinary in a hyperbolic sense. I meant it vis-a-vis a vernacular liturgy. The EF translated into the vernacular would be more readily understandable to a layman without any understanding or training in Latin. He would not require, for instance, a missal inclusive of a translation to follow along or contemplate on what is being said and done in the context of the liturgical action.
I remember the story of one biblical scholar who is now a very famed Catholic scripture scholar. He said he was blown away at his first time attending the Catholic Mass by how much reference there was to the Scriptures; it weaved a story together from Scripture, with borrowings from, e.g., Revelations, that brought these verses to light for him within the liturgical context. These connections or associations were made immediately accessible to his intellect within the liturgical action or context. The Scriptures were brought to life before his very eyes, which had a profound effect upon him and ultimately led to his conversion. Had he walked into an EF as he had happened to walk into an OF that day, it is unlikely this would have occured for him. Indeed it is unlikely it would have made any sense to him at all.
E
edwest2
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
I doubt if Catholics 400 years ago were any smarter than those of today. But a whole lot of them chose the liturgy of the Catholic Church over the liturgies of the Reformers, who among other things imposed the use of the all-vulgar tongues.
O
otjm
Guest
Thank you for your note. As you say, this is one of the documents that has been implemented in a very positive fashion with excellent results - as Bro. JR has pointed out repeatedly elsewhere.I would say that PERFECTAE CARITATIS is one of the most important, yet often overlooked documents of VII.
From my understanding (which is very limited), it was this document that called for Religious Orders to go back to their original charisms. I know that in the US the time between VI & VII saw many grave injustices pop up in the Orders- clericalism, classism, not living in the “spirit” of the founder, etc. This document called for all Orders to convene “geneal congregations” (not sure of the exact terminology) and fix the problems. It was one of the reasons that many people left Orders after VII. Some had joined Orders during this “boom time” and were not really prepared in the way of life, as it was originally meant, and could not commit to the life. This, IMHO was a very good thing, this life is not for everyone.
Br. JReducation has written much about this. I’m sure some of what I am remembering here is things I have learned from him, as well as research done for papers in my MA Theology program. As I said, just this document went far in correcting a grave injustice, and helped to make Religious life just as relevant in the 21st century as it was in the 11th!
And, as noted by the moderator, this thread has devolved to a discussion of the EF and the OF, and ignores the rest of the documents practically.
Perhaps we should all go back and read them again?
Keep in mind, also, that much of the work of implementing the documents is not something that will necessarily register on your local parish radar. In particular, ecumenism can be taken to mean such things as the local Catholic parish joining with others to set up a local food bank or homeless shelter; and that ignores, for example, the joining of forces of the Catholic Church and the LDS in California over measure (8, I think - the marriage issue), and the work that has been done between the Catholic Church and some of the Lutherans, and the Catholic Church and some of the parishes of the Anglicans/Episcopalians. Both are fruit of Vatican 2 and its documents.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Ed,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Your observation, dear brother, is such an important one and is sadly not, I fear, appreciated by many contemporary Catholics.
Much of the problem, I believe, is that modern Catholicism has sadly lost the sense of the numinous in divine worship, resulting in worldly informality and, yes, even irreverence. In some churches Holy Mass resembles more a Protestant Pentecostal style worship service with hand clapping, guitars and swaying in the pews. This free and easy approach is apparently favoured by so many today, especially the youth, but it is a most undignified affair to behold, a sort of on the spot product which makes one inwardly shiver and want to take flight.
However, to return to your excellent point, dear brother, men need to remember that the Mass is not a sermon but a Sacrifice, thus intellectual apprehension is not what it is all about. Therefore, it is just plainly wrong to contend, as some are wont to do, that the use of the Latin Mass presents a serious impediment to participation and worship. Clearly, if it were such an impediment then there would be no obligation to attend Holy Mass in foreign parts unless one knew the local language or the language of the Liturgy.
Moreover, dear brother, let us never forget that Latin expresses the inherently ‘traditional’ (that is to say, ‘handed-on’) nature of the sacred Liturgy and as such should command the deepest respect and adherence of the faithful. Our Latin Rite is beyond partiality, trivialisation and vulgarity and rises above the ceaseless changes in living languages, thus rendering it apt to express those eternal verities on which the Liturgy depends. Moreover, its mysterious and venerable character aids in transporting men’s minds beyond the limit of the present moment to the contemplation of the divine and invisible, be they learned or unlearned. Surely in this age of frivolity and shallowness we need the majestic language of the Latin Mass more than ever to vouchsafe to us a sense of the numinous in divine worship.
God bless and may you have a very blessed Easter, my dear brother.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear ProVobis,
I doubt if Catholics 400 years ago were any smarter than those of today. But a whole lot of them chose the liturgy of the Catholic Church over the liturgies of the Reformers, who among other things imposed the use of the all-vulgar tongues.
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
Jolly good point that. Quite interestingly, Archbishop Cranmer, architect of the reformed Anglican Prayer Book, was desirous to not only incorporate the ‘rediscovered truths’ of the Reformation into his new liturgy, but also to set it out in English, rather than Latin, so that the common man could supposedly worship God intelligently.
Indeed, one of the chief principles which guided Cranmer as he sought to redesign the English liturgy, was intelligibility; the worship of Almighty God must be intelligible to all who participate, be they clergy or laity, the ploughboy or the local squire. Undoubtedly he had in mind the firm resolve of St. Paul: “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also” (I Cor. 14: 14,15). Thus for Cranmer, dear friend, the translation of the services from Latin into English was but the logical sequel to the reading of Scripture in the mother tongue which had now become almost universal throughout England. It was but a short step from reading or hearing the bible intelligibly to saying prayers in the same way. Accordingly, to quote Cranmer, the 1549 Anglican Prayer Book was issued “that the people might continually profit more and more in the knowledge of God, and be the more inflamed with love of true religion”. Cranmer and the Reformers firmly believed that by restoring intelligibility in divine worship they were taking the first step towards making a religious revival possible, for so long as the words used in the liturgy had been unintelligible to those that heard them, there was no means whereby God’s truth could touch the heart of the common man. When he began to understand, so it was argued, he began to respond and spiritual renewal became a very real possibility.
Whilst, dear friend, there is an element of truth in all of this it is, notwithstanding, a very Protestant understanding of things,as I know only too well having formerly been an Anglican churchman. Even if the faithful did not understand what was being said, they certainly knew what was being done. Moreover, it is not necessary that a man should follow the sense of every word used during the sacrificial rite of Holy Mass. However, if it is important for a Catholic to know what the priest is saying at a Latin Mass, then he can know if he so wishes. He has but to secure a Mass book containing the translation of the Latin into English. Most prayer books give the Latin and the English of the Mass parallel columns. However, even if they did not contain an English translation it would not matter since the Mass, as edwest2 observed, is not experienced on a purely intellectual level. In any event, even ifa man does not know Latin the priests prayers can still win for him the graces requested.
It does rather seem, dear friend, that many contemporary Catholics have been, at least to some extent, influenced by distinctly Protestant notions of worship. Holy Mass is an act of Sacrifice to Almighty God and irrespective of whether the Mass is in Greek, German or Latin the faithful understand it as an act. However, at every Mass the homily is given in the native language of where the church happens to be and thus the Catholic faithful do not go uninstructed in the cardinal truths and requirements of their holy religion.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
It is simply not the consensus by those at the time that in all areas the new direction was clear, in terms of how to carry it out and what liberalities could and could not be taken (catechetically, liturgically, and in many other ways). And liturgy was only one aspect of that vagueness.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I could not disagree with you more. Participating and understanding the Latin Mass does not require the kind of deep knowledge of the faith generally reserved for clergy (for example). However, it does require essential knowledge of the faith which most Catholics today do not have. The solution is not to acquiesce to ignorance. The solution is to educate Catholics in the essentials of their faith.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Elizabeth502,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hear, hear especially to those last couple of sentences.
Poor catechesis, dear sister, is the bane of contemporary Catholicism and the urgent need of the hour is for a more educated laity who clearly know what they ought to believe respecting faith and morals. Moreover, there surely needs to be more thinking with an authentic Catholic mind, even concerning those issues about which the Church has chosen not to make any specific magisterial pronouncements, for example profanity and what sort of clothing is manifestly immodest and inappropriate for those who profess the holy religion of Christ. The Church cannot be expected to micro-manage every aspect of our moral life and thus it is vitally important that the faithful develop a properly formed conscience so as to avoid catastrophic errors of prudential judgment.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
ProVobis
Guest
Important point IMO.
And the thought has occurred to me that if the all-vernacular did indeed make the Mass as understandable as they claim, then there would be no need of a homily or a sermon. Yet the sermons are today much longer, and even more so in the Protestant ranks, I understand. So perhaps the vernacular has also introduced an element of overanalysis, something which seemed to have surfaced over the recent retranslation of the English in the English Mass, though I would agree that it was a good exercise even for people like me who despise having English in a Catholic liturgy.
P
ProVobis
Guest
True this. Understanding the Mass is not as important as believing in it. Our human minds couldn’t possibly comprehend the power and mercy of the Almighty, vernacular or no vernacular.
C
crazzeto
Guest
C
clem456
Guest
C
crazzeto
Guest
For clarity, I prefer the EF mass on a personal level to OF. But I completely agree with this, and in humility I admit Latin it’s self is one more piece of tradition building up the case that the Mass can properly be said in the vernacular (after all, before Latin Mass was Greek only and only switched to Latin because Africa ‘forgot’ Greek).
I will never say one word tearing down the EF and Latin Mass, but equally I can not and must not ever say one word tearing down the OF Mass. Both are equally the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The difference maker for me is my personal prayerfulness, and admittingly a greater “feeling” of connection to the communion of the Saints. In context of the equality of both forms, it is perfectly valid to choose one over the other based upon personal feeling. It is not, however a basis to suggest that one has a greater legitimacy.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Only that the Church has chosen the non-vernacular Latin to be the main vehicle of expressing its beliefs. As each language has its own purpose, culture, history, poetry, tradition, mutability, etc. it’s erroneous to think that one is as good as another in expressing those characteristics. I can vouch for this as I have a different understanding of the faith in Polish than in English; Latin levels the playing field, so to speak. If the Church addresses God as the clementissime Pater, what other language can express this better? Or if you dislike Latin, what language can better express Sabaoth or Kyrie eleison, something even the Latin Mass didn’t translate for fear it might be inaccurate?
C
clem456
Guest
A language which expresses the same sacrifice, and is understood by that people, where they live? And is best absorbed into their hearts and minds?
Speaking for myself, it’s not a matter of disliking Latin at all.
I come at this from the lens of evangelism, bringing converts through RCIA, explaining the faith and the Mass to protestant friends and atheists, talking to my lapsed Catholic friends who have bolted to the new megachurch because the service is “relevant” to their lives. Having the Mass in Latin adds another fence to hop over for these people.
To those of us who think about these things every day and have a better understanding of why the Mass is “relevant” to our lives, Latin is not much of a hurdle and can aid us in entering into the mystery of faith. I reverence the Church’s appreciation of tradition and the special place Latin holds, but the Church is inspired in allowing the vernacular to speak to people right where they are. The Church is participating in the mission to bring Christ to all people by doing so.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The prayer is between the priest and God; it was also silent for well over 400 years in the entire Latin Rite culture. The people put their trust in what he said knowing it was the same everywhere, regardless of culture or country. What’s absorbed should be the graces and benefits of the sacrifice. If they want inspiration, they can turn to Protestant ministers for that.
Again, there is no substitute for the vernacular in evangelizing. But worship is a different matter, and the change in language has meaning in itself. Shakespeare did this; lawyers do this; some speakers do this. Even “E Pluribus Unum” leaves one with a deeper and longer lasting impression than any English rendering. Know that I’m not necessarily making a case for all-Latin though. But all-vernacular, all-the-time liturgy? I don’t think so.
- Status