dealing with EF/OF tension

[ConstantineTG]

Okay, that’s a fair assessment.

Maybe a little offtopic but good that you brought up the Russia-US situation. Did you see Fail Safe by any chance? The President brought in the best translator, who was versed not only in literal translations but also in all the idioms, nuances, customs, voice inflections of a person speaking Russian. Despite their best efforts, they were still unable to prevent war. True, this is fiction but it does carry a message. There are people who attend Spanish OF or Polish OF who wouldn’t attend an English OF. This shouldn’t be either. Perhaps it is the language change in the liturgy that has brought about such unintended consequences. It’s one of my theories anyway.

On the other hand, many more people feel they belong to the Church because of the Masses in the vernacular. If you look back to the first century, the Apostles never intended for a single language Church. When they came out of their room immediately after Pentecost, they started proclaiming the Gospel in different languages. I believe this is the Holy Spirit desiring that the Gospel be brought to every man within their own capacity of understanding. When they go to new lands the Liturgy is always in the local language and the traditions are in accordance with the culture of the land. Not everyone can understand Latin. Here in Canada, and I guess this is true everywhere, we have many immigrants who despite living here for many, many years and use English everyday for communication, still are not as good with English. I know you’re good with Latin, taking from some of your posts. You have to understand not everybody can be like you. Just like not everybody can be like Michael Jordan in basketball or Babe Ruth in baseball.

God desires that we all come back to Him. He makes great efforts to do so. In fact, He asked His Son to become human. To say that only we should make the effort to conform to God and God doesn’t need to conform to us shows a lack of understanding of God’s love for us. Of course God will not change the Commandments for us, but trivial things like the form of the Mass should not be a problem.

 

[ProVobis]

That the form is reformable, or that the liturgical form is not the substance of the Sacrament?

Either.

Better, show where the Church should not follow the stare decisis principle in its liturgy. Show where the wisdom would be of changing its liturgy just for the sake of changing it. Also show where the substance of the Sacrament is no way affected by liturgical manifestations or by how a Pope defines the Mass.

 

[CWBetts]

Either.

Better, show where the Church should not follow the stare decisis principle in its liturgy. Show where the wisdom would be of changing its liturgy just for the sake of changing it. Also show where the substance of the Sacrament is no way affected by liturgical manifestations or by how a Pope defines the Mass.

Study the living tradition of the Church. The liturgical forms for all of the Sacraments have changed through the centuries. To think that they have not is naive.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t even know where to BEGIN! Hyocrites? Pharisees? Small Packets of Rebels?? Please do not give advice to anyone about “people who claim the faith but do not act accordingly”. This post is hateful.

So I say something like that and I am hateful. And he is allowed to say bad things about me and you do not call him out? Why do traditionalists think they are entitled to belittle other people. That my friend is the root of the problem. When one group thinks they’re better than the other that when both sides do the same thing, but people on one side calls those of their group noble for saying what they said, and the people on the other side as hateful for saying the same exact thing.

I guess its true, one country’s traitor is another country’s martyr/hero. But that is a very subjective way of looking at the issue. I do not think Catholics were ever called to be subjective.

 

[ProVobis]

If you look back to the first century, the Apostles never intended for a single language Church. When they came out of their room immediately after Pentecost, they started proclaiming the Gospel in different languages. I believe this is the Holy Spirit desiring that the Gospel be brought to every man within their own capacity of understanding.

Despite the fact that the Apostles would have preached in Aramaic, their words were understood by everyone because the Holy Ghost gave them the gift of tongues. But, after the death of the Apostles, when the gift of tongues had all but disappeared, it was still necessary to ensure that the doctrines and liturgy of the new religion could be clearly transmitted to everyone, no matter what language they spoke.

It was particularly important that catechumens and the baptised faithful should understand and appreciate the teachings and prayers of the Mass, the most important outward manifestation of the new faith and the Church’s central act of worship.

The liturgy - from the Greek word leitourgia, meaning public service to the gods - might have developed in two ways. It could have been translated into local languages, or it could be celebrated in the same language everywhere. There is plenty of historical precedent for a single, special liturgical language. The Jews of the Holy Land used Hebrew in the synagogue, even though their daily language was Aramaic. The Babylonians used ancient Sumerian as their sacred language, while Hindus used Sanskrit. Later, other religions also came to see the value of a universal religious language. Islam, for example, uses Arabic, whatever the nationality of the worshippers, and the Orthodox Church uses old Slavonic in its liturgy.

More at latinmassireland.org/thelatinmass/why_latin.html

 

[ProVobis]

Study the living tradition of the Church.

Well, give me some links please. I want to make sure we’re on the same page.

 

[CWBetts]

Well, give me some links please. I want to make sure we’re on the same page.

My info is not from the internet.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Should we be looking at other faiths to justify what must be done within our faith? Kind of ironic that many Traditionalists dismiss the Pauline Mass because its too “Protestant”, but if its justifying Liturgy in one language we would use Islam and Hinduism for justification? I’d rather copy something from Protestants, who are also Christians, than Muslims and Hindus.

Also, again I encourage to look what happened in the 1st century. Every particular Church established has its own language based on its locale. Had we continued what the Apostles did, then as the faith expanded into other parts of the world then we should have continued to adopt the faith to the language and culture of each region. Never in the history of the Church was it in one language. From Pentecost the Church was already multi-lingual. And even after the Apostles died, the Church that has been established are in different languages.

 

[CradleCath]

CWBetts;6924011]The form of the Liturgy is not part if the infallible Magisterium.

But infallible declarations made by different Popes are part of Sacred Tradition & cannot be changed.

It (the Mass) can be reformed, and had been reformed many times.

Yes it can be reformed, however, it is not supposed to be rewritten by a Pope or a committee. You may have already read the books I’m going to recommend, but I’m sure there are some here who haven’t. Since, you claim to be in complete agreement with the Pope, I’m including some remarks he made as Cardinal Ratzinger:

“What happened at the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living, process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” ****

From the preface to the French edition of “Reforms of the Roman Liturgy Its Problems and Background” 1993

“I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that.** A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.” **
“Salt of the Earth”, Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1997 p 176

“The second great event at the beginning of my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase of only half a year, of using the missal we had had until then. (….) The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, **a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic.”/B]
“Milestones – Memoirs 1927 – 1977”, Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius, San Francisco, 1998, p 146

And as to the pastoral nature of Vatican II: pastoral and dogmatic are not mutually exclusive terms. There are infallible statements in VII, just as there ire non-infallible statements in Trent.

Please link me to these Infallible statements defined & promulgated during Vatican II. Perhaps this will help:
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma20.php

This shows the source of catholic dogma (that was DEFINED during the centurty…1900-2000**

 

[ProVobis]

Should we be looking at other faiths to justify what must be done within our faith?

Not necessary to look at other faiths. Consider what Pope John XXIII wrote a few months before he convened Vatican II:

Venerable languages

The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.

A primary place

But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.

And since in God’s special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire – and that for so many centuries – it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See.3 Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.

The nature of Latin

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity"4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

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

more at papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23veterum.htm

 

[pnewton]

The problem of division is as old as the Church is.

1 Cor. 1:11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. 12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

The solution as I see it is:

Philippians 2:3 Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, 4 each looking out not for his own interests, but (also) everyone for those of others.

Every faction, in a parish or the Church as a whole, should fulfill this challenge, working as hard for the good of those on the opposite side as they did for their own good, then all will receive the greater blessing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The problem of division is as old as the Church is.

The solution as I see it is:
Every faction, in a parish or the Church as a whole, should fulfill this challenge, working as hard for the good of those on the opposite side as they did for their own good, then all will receive the greater blessing.

I always say this spat between trads and non-trads is very similar to the Jewish Christians vs. Gentile Christians of the 1st century. Because Jewish Christians want to keep the Jewish Traditions while Gentile Christians do not see the worth of the traditions that were not part of their heritage. Also, Jewish Christians see themselves as better because of circumcision. We all know what happened. I don’t know why people don’t refer to the wisdom of St. Paul on the matter. Good that you bring this up.

 

[CWBetts]

But infallible declarations made by different Popes are part of Sacred Tradition & cannot be changed.

Yes it can be reformed, however, it is not supposed to be rewritten by a Pope or a committee. You may have already read the books I’m going to recommend, but I’m sure there are some here who haven’t. Since, you claim to be in complete agreement with the Pope, I’m including some remarks he made as Cardinal Ratzinger:

“What happened at the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living, process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” ****

From the preface to the French edition of “Reforms of the Roman Liturgy Its Problems and Background” 1993

“I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that.** A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.” **
“Salt of the Earth”, Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1997 p 176

“The second great event at the beginning of my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase of only half a year, of using the missal we had had until then. (….) The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, **a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic.”/**B]
“Milestones – Memoirs 1927 – 1977”, Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius, San Francisco, 1998, p 146

Please link me to these Infallible statements defined & promulgated during Vatican II. Perhaps this will help:
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma20.php

This shows the source of catholic dogma (that was DEFINED during the centurty…1900-2000

Dei Verbum and Lumne Gentium are dogmatic constitutions

 

[CradleCath]

Not necessary to look at other faiths. Consider what Pope John XXIII wrote a few months before he convened Vatican II:

more at papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23veterum.htm

Thank you for this ProVobis. I’ve been a Catholic for 68 yrs. & had not thought about the fact that the use of Latin in all Church documents… sent to so many nations… favors no single nation. Can you imagine how many different translators would be needed to send EACH document the Pope pens if the vernacular was used??

 

[CWBetts]

Thank you for this ProVobis. I’ve been a Catholic for 68 yrs. & had not thought about the fact that the use of Latin in all Church documents… sent to so many nations… favors no single nation. Can you imagine how many different translators would be needed to send EACH document the Pope pens if the vernacular was used??

Yet they do all get translated. You will never hear me say that Latin has no use, but the vernacular is also of value.

 

[LittleSoldier]

What’s the reason for this, if I may ask?

It’s from a thread I was on recently. I was attacked for my views on modesty and want to point out that when we are at Mass we should be paying attention to the Lord, not at extraneous things like clothes (not like I’m wearing a bikini or anything like that, but I was attacked for not having my knees and elbows covered in church and being blamed for leading men into sin).

I feel so strongly about it I decided to include it in my posts. I’d put it down below where my signature is but there isn’t enough room.

 

[CradleCath]

Dei Verbum and Lumne Gentium are dogmatic constitutions

Without one word contained in them being declared a NEW Doctrine of the Church, not one word proclaimed ex-Cathedra.

From Pope John XXIII
"The Second Vatican Council (1963-5) was not intended to be an infallible doctrinal council but was conceived as a “pastoral” renewal of the Church to bring it into line with the Revolution of 1789**.“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church **which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. …] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.

romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.htm

Try this: <<<<< looking right, looking left>>>>>>>>(I was wrong) It’s not so hard to say, I’ve been wrong before.

 

[CWBetts]

Without one word contained in them being declared a NEW Doctrine of the Church, not one word proclaimed ex-Cathedra.

From Pope John XXIII
"The Second Vatican Council (1963-5) was not intended to be an infallible doctrinal council but was conceived as a “pastoral” renewal of the Church to bring it into line with the Revolution of 1789**.“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church **which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. …] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.

romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.htm

Try this: <<<<< looking right, looking left>>>>>>>>(I was wrong) It’s not so hard to say, I’ve been wrong before.

That no NEW doctrine was contained therein is irrelevant, they still reaffirmed Dogma previously uttered. I know that the only reason you take this tack is to find an excuse to challenge the validity of the council. Why don’t you run and join your buddies in the SSPX?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Might have something to do with that shiny armor

actually I think that is par of his sig.

You can’t know how hard it is to wear all that armor and mail and such and try to walk up to receive Communion when one has a back injury. The armor is heavy and it makes horrible creaking noises and people stare and then I fall down and my horse is outside because there’s no room for her inside so people have to help me get up.

Some soldier! That’s one reason I’m the humblest soldier in God’s Army.

Oh, I’m a female soldier of God.

 

[CWBetts]

You can’t know how hard it is to wear all that armor and mail and such and try to walk up to receive Communion when one has a back injury. The armor is heavy and it makes horrible creaking noises and people stare and then I fall down and my horse is outside because there’s no room for her inside so people have to help me get up.

Some soldier! That’s one reason I’m the humblest soldier in God’s Army.

Oh, I’m a female soldier of God.

By declairng yourself the “humblest,” does that not disqualify you from being so?