Deeply hurt by anti-Tridentine Mass homily

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Anna Elizabeth:

Dear ByzCath,

Earlier you requested a reference to Pope Pius XII’s “condemnation” (your word), of the vernacular. I hope the extensive quotes given by usqueadmortem suffice for that.

Anna,
Yes I did see those quotes and they were extensive but I did not see any “condemnation” in them.

You will note, also in that post, that even John XXIII initially (and only shortly prior to Vatican II), required the maintenance of the Latin.

Yes I believe you are correct on this point.

Now, for a moment let 's look at the rite. I think you will have a problem confirming that the Roman Eucharistic Rite has indeed been changed “many times” in the past. First you can again refer to the Newman quote in usque’s post. Additionally, if you research the subject further, you will find this most important part of the Mass has been unchanged for approximately 1500 years, possibly longer.

From what I have read the rite had been added to since the time of Trent when it was codified. The Mass that was codifed in Trent was not the Mass of the whole western Church, it was the usage of Rome at that time.

But that is besides the point.

If you prefer, I will do the research for you, but will you then accept my data? Additionally, you will find that it is not by any means solely the use of Latin that confounds, but also the puzzle as to why the rite had to be changed and not just translated to the vernacular? Why?

No you do not have to research it as it isn’t really an issue for me.

I agree with you 100% here, why did they not just translate the old Mass into the vernacular and work out responses for the laity? That is a great question and I wish I knew the answer.

The latter question holds the promise of far more exciting discoveries than the sometimes tiresome pro and con rehashing of Latin vs vernacular!

I do not want people to get me wrong, I have nothing against Latin, or any other language I do not know like Church Slavonic (the language of my Church). The problem I have is those who want the Liturgy done in a language that the majority in the pews do not know.

I am all for using multiple languages. In the Divine Liturgy I attend at a Melkite parish. I would say that it is 85 to 90 percent in English, the rest is in Arabic and Greek. Special Holydays the Epistle reading is read twice, once in English and once in Arabic. I would be all for a Mass with both English and Latin, sort of like EWTN has been doing lately.

I hope that clears somethings up.

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

For some it is not about the Latin, but many I have talked to it is about Latin.

You comment on the protestants is a misconception. There were people that where consulted, they were advisors. Yes some of them were protestants but they were used as advisors as they were experts in Liturgy and other fields, they were not used becuase they were protestants.

So you admit that PROTESTANTS were consulted as “experts” in the Mass? A Protestant expert in the Mass is an oxymoron because Protestants don’t even believe in the Mass.

The Liturgy was not changed to make it more acceptable to protestants.

That is what I’ve been reading. I’ll write more later.

 

[usqueadmortem]

ByzCath:
Peace to you!

ByzCath:

I will say it once again, the ones I “rail” against are those who not only prefer the old Mass but deny the current Mass as being vaild. I also “rail” against those who say Latin is the only language for the Mass.

This sounds reasonable to me if you concede the fact that the Latin is and should be the norm for the Latin Rite. I have given you a very lengthy sampling from a succesion of popes and pundits and even a sampling from the Second Vatican Council itself. The issue is crystal clear.
But imposing Latin on the Eastern Churches would be a similar abuse as what has occured in the West.

ByzCath:

Yes I did see those quotes and they were extensive but I did not see any “condemnation” in them. .

You are perhaps mincing words here. I purposefully quoted extensively from a long succession of Popes who insisted that Latin is and should be the language of the Latin Rite. It is clear from these extensive quotes that the move in the West to wholesale venacular was and is an abuse. The concessions of the Vatican do not change that fact.

ByzCath:

I do not want people to get me wrong, I have nothing against Latin, or any other language I do not know like Church Slavonic (the language of my Church). The problem I have is those who want the Liturgy done in a language that the majority in the pews do not know.

No disrespect intended, but this is an objection repeated ad nauseum by many western liberals who care little for tradition and do not understand Dogmatic facts. For one thing, people are not stupid. LEARN THE ANCIENT SACRED LANGUAGE. We did it before and it can be done again. For another, we have missals that give a translation. As Pius XII notes in the above quote, the theological precision of the Latin language is just too important. Nowadays, theological imprecision is the norm. The venacular is foreign to the West and has wreaked havoc.

ByzCath:

I am all for using multiple languages. In the Divine Liturgy I attend at a Melkite parish. I would say that it is 85 to 90 percent in English, the rest is in Arabic and Greek. Special Holydays the Epistle reading is read twice, once in English and once in Arabic. I would be all for a Mass with both English and Latin, sort of like EWTN has been doing lately.

In the West we are not for multiple languages (save for translations of the scripture readings) And we have countless Popes and pundits to back up our position. You should not confuse the two distinct spiritualities of West and East. For the East, the venacular has been the norm from the beginning. For the West, the venacular is foreign and unwelcome, at least by those faithful to her spirit and history. You don’t abandon a 1700 year old tradition! At least not without terrible consequences! We have to go back!

Pax Christi.

 

[netmilsmom]

Dr. Bombay:

The swine always squeal loudest right before they’re slaughtered

That quote is a keeper.

 

[Patchunky]

Jakub:

Please stop persecuting those who prefer the Latin Tradition.

james

I, for one, take great offense to the use of the term PERSECUTING…

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PERSECUTION IS!!!

When was the last time the door to your home was broken down and you were dragged off to prison because you prefer the Latin Rite?

When was the last time you were arrested for celebrating the Latin Rite Mass and you were deported to another country and did not see your wife or children for 15 years?

When was the last time you had to celebrate the Latin Rite Mass in the cellar of a home with someone guarding the windows so that the Secret Police did not find you and arrest you??

This has happened to friends and relatives of mine simply because they are Byzantine Rite Catholics.

YOU **need to THANK GOD that you live in this country where you can talk and act as freely as you do on this forum and not worry about disappearing in the middle of the night! **

 

[Steve_Green]

Please elaborate your diatribe Patchuncky. You do not make your point well.

 

[BillyT92679]

usqueadmortem:

ByzCath:
Peace to you!

This sounds reasonable to me if you concede the fact that the Latin is and should be the norm for the Latin Rite. I have given you a very lengthy sampling from a succesion of popes and pundits and even a sampling from the Second Vatican Council itself. The issue is crystal clear.
But imposing Latin on the Eastern Churches would be a similar abuse as what has occured in the West.

You are perhaps mincing words here. I purposefully quoted extensively from a long succession of Popes who insisted that Latin is and should be the language of the Latin Rite. It is clear from these extensive quotes that the move in the West to wholesale venacular was and is an abuse. The concessions of the Vatican do not change that fact.

No disrespect intended, but this is an objection repeated ad nauseum by many western liberals who care little for tradition and do not understand Dogmatic facts. For one thing, people are not stupid. LEARN THE ANCIENT SACRED LANGUAGE. We did it before and it can be done again. For another, we have missals that give a translation. As Pius XII notes in the above quote, the theological precision of the Latin language is just too important. Nowadays, theological imprecision is the norm. The venacular is foreign to the West and has wreaked havoc.

In the West we are not for multiple languages (save for translations of the scripture readings) And we have countless Popes and pundits to back up our position. You should not confuse the two distinct spiritualities of West and East. For the East, the venacular has been the norm from the beginning. For the West, the venacular is foreign and unwelcome, at least by those faithful to her spirit and history. You don’t abandon a 1700 year old tradition! At least not without terrible consequences! We have to go back!

Pax Christi.

The thing is, Latin was the lingua franca of the western world at the time the Western Church utilized it for the Liturgy. Technically, Greek would be the native tongue of all of Christendom, but since most Westerners didn’t speak Greek, the West utilized the vernacular language so that people could celebrate the Liturgy and comprehend it at the same time.

 

[BillyT92679]

Steve Green:

Please elaborate your diatribe Patchuncky. You do not make your point well.

I thought he did very well. We shouldn’t be using terms like “persecution” while there are folks out there who were literally persecuted for their beliefs. Our Byzantine brothers and sisters spilt their blood to emphasize Union with Rome. Cardinal Slipyj is a great example of a true warrior for the faith.

That’s persecution, and that is true loyalty to the faith. Saying that we’re “persecuted” by heterodox Bishops or Priests or by people who prefer the Pauline Mass is grossly insensitive.

Now onto my earlier point; I attend the TLM about 70% of the time I go to Mass. I love it. The Low Mass to me is hardly any different than a Pauline Mass, but the High Mass is quite solemn and lovely.
The important point to make is that the TLM is NOT objectively superior to the NO or the Divine Liturgy. One can say they have a subjective preference for the form of the TLM, but to use phrases, as I have heard traditionalists say, that the NO is “inferior” is wrong. It’s putting the form of the Liturgy on level ground with the Substance of the Liturgy; especially with the Consecration. All Liturgies are equally majestic because at them the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord is confected. That is the pinnacle of existence on earth, and no matter how it is celebrated, as long as the valid matter and words of consecration are used, it is august and eminently dignified.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

usqueadmortem:

This sounds reasonable to me if you concede the fact that the Latin is and should be the norm for the Latin Rite. I have given you a very lengthy sampling from a succesion of popes and pundits and even a sampling from the Second Vatican Council itself. The issue is crystal clear.
But imposing Latin on the Eastern Churches would be a similar abuse as what has occured in the West.

Yes Latin should be and is the norm for the Latin Church, that has not changed.

You are perhaps mincing words here. I purposefully quoted extensively from a long succession of Popes who insisted that Latin is and should be the language of the Latin Rite. It is clear from these extensive quotes that the move in the West to wholesale venacular was and is an abuse. The concessions of the Vatican do not change that fact.

I am not mincing words, I did not seen any condemnation of the vernacular. The word “condemnation” is a very strong word.

No disrespect intended, but this is an objection repeated ad nauseum by many western liberals who care little for tradition and do not understand Dogmatic facts. For one thing, people are not stupid. LEARN THE ANCIENT SACRED LANGUAGE. We did it before and it can be done again. For another, we have missals that give a translation. As Pius XII notes in the above quote, the theological precision of the Latin language is just too important. Nowadays, theological imprecision is the norm. The venacular is foreign to the West and has wreaked havoc.

I do not buy into the “sacred language” argument. Language is language. No one language is more sacred than another.

Having said that, yes we can learn the languages but they must be taught. I for one, and I know there are many like me, can not just go out there and learn a language on my own.

I disagree with you last poing of the vernacular wreaking havoc.

In the West we are not for multiple languages (save for translations of the scripture readings) And we have countless Popes and pundits to back up our position. You should not confuse the two distinct spiritualities of West and East. For the East, the venacular has been the norm from the beginning. For the West, the venacular is foreign and unwelcome, at least by those faithful to her spirit and history. You don’t abandon a 1700 year old tradition! At least not without terrible consequences! We have to go back!

This is not true. Multiple languages are used in the West. Right from the 1962 Missal, The Kýrie to be specific, Greek is used along with Latin.

The use of language has nothing to do with spirituality.

The Vernacular was used in the Latin Church. It first used Greek then changed to Latin, which was the vernacular at the time. You also can not deny that the Latin Church had used the vernacular in certain places all though that, supposed, 1700 year period.

 

[coralewisjr]

ByzCath:

Yes, this is a fact that many of the Latin only crowd do not know.

From the time of Trent, there have always been dispensations to celebrate the Mass in the Vernacular in certain places.

I just do not understand the argument for Latin only as when the Church changed the language of the Mass from Greek to Latin, Latin was the Vernacualr.

I really like the idea of the Latin Mass. Missionary priests don’t have to figure out how to celebrate the Mass in a language they barely know (though they should know the language anyway if they’re a missionary). The Traditional Latin Mass helps me feel much closer to God. Everyone is modest. All the women wear veils. The communion rail is so much better than receiving in the hand! It promotes reverence for the Eucharist that I never experienced at the NO. I wish that more NO Catholics would give the TLM a try.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

 

[netmilsmom]

coralewisjr:

I really like the idea of the Latin Mass. Missionary priests don’t have to figure out how to celebrate the Mass in a language they barely know (though they should know the language anyway if they’re a missionary). The Traditional Latin Mass helps me feel much closer to God. Everyone is modest. All the women wear veils. The communion rail is so much better than receiving in the hand! It promotes reverence for the Eucharist that I never experienced at the NO. I wish that more NO Catholics would give the TLM a try.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

I went to a funeral at a Polish parish. It was in the vernacular. We got along okay.
But had, at least the Agnus Dei, and the Kyrie been in the traditional languages, it would have been easier.

It also eliminates the “Catch as you can” liturgy. I have no clue what I am walking into when I go to a church in another city. I might find a “Happy Mass” or an EWTN type Holy Mass. Some uniformity would be nice.

 

[Luke-Jr]

tuopaolo:

I’ve read recently that PROTESTANTS were consulted when they changed the Mass … making the Mass more acceptable to Protestants does not seem like a wise thing to do … it seems utterly idiotic actually.

I haven’t heard about protestant involvement (other than references to N.O. as ‘protestantised’), but IIRC, a now-known FreeMason was the primary person in charge of creating the N.O.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

So you admit that PROTESTANTS were consulted as “experts” in the Mass? A Protestant expert in the Mass is an oxymoron because Protestants don’t even believe in the Mass.

You need to go back and read what I posted again.

No where did I say that they were “experts” in the Mass.

They were experts in Liturgy and History.

The Church does not have a monopoly on these fields.

That being said, it does not matter who was consulted because the Mass was promulgated by Pope Paul VI so it is from him and as he was the pope we are bound to it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

coralewisjr:

I really like the idea of the Latin Mass. Missionary priests don’t have to figure out how to celebrate the Mass in a language they barely know (though they should know the language anyway if they’re a missionary). The Traditional Latin Mass helps me feel much closer to God. Everyone is modest. All the women wear veils. The communion rail is so much better than receiving in the hand! It promotes reverence for the Eucharist that I never experienced at the NO. I wish that more NO Catholics would give the TLM a try.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

If a missionary doesn’t know the language well enough to lead prayers in that language then he shouldn’t be a missionary there.

As for the altar railing, that is not part of the Mass and is not required for the Old Mass.

I have attended the current Mass in a parish with an altar railing. You need to look around.

A piece of architecture does not promote reverence. One’s attitude does.

 

[netmilsmom]

ByzCath:

You need to go back and read what I posted again.

No where did I say that they were “experts” in the Mass.

They were experts in Liturgy and History.

The Church does not have a monopoly on these fields.

That being said, it does not matter who was consulted because the Mass was promulgated by Pope Paul VI so it is from him and as he was the pope we are bound to it.

But don’t you know that PPVI was kidnapped and a False Pope was put in his place! I know, I read it on the internet!

 

[Jakub]

Patchunky,

Did you strike your head when you fell on the tracks ?

By the way, my grandparents were from Poland so don’t use that pers-card with me.

james, x-u.s. navy and proud 30 year public works servant,retired

 

[Luke-Jr]

ByzCath:

That being said, it does not matter who was consulted because the Mass was promulgated by Pope Paul VI so it is from him and as he was the pope we are bound to it.

Popes are not always infallible. In particular, the N.O. has never been infallibly endorsed.

 

[Patchunky]

Jakub:

By the way, my grandparents were from Poland so don’t use that pers-card with me.

So, ask your grandparents about the deportations of the Greek Catholic Lemkos from Lemkovina, Southeastern Poland, in 1945 and 1946. They were deported from villages that they lived in for hundreds of years simply because they were Greek Catholic (Byzantine Rite).:yup:

Also ask about the Greek Catholic priests who were denied “permission” to minister to Greek Catholics in Poland because they were married… :bigyikes:

My best friend’s father is a Greek Catholic priest and he was ordained at a kitchen table in the middle of the night by an underground Bishop because the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church was illegal.

My own cousin was arrested on Good Friday night, released on Holy Saturday and was arrested again on Bright Monday (the day after Easter) and was deported to Germany for 10 years where he worked in a labor camp. He did not see his wife or children during his imprisonment. When he returned to Slovakia, he was told he could join the Orthodox church and work as a priest BUT, he would never work again if he remained with Rome.

My cousin remained faithful to Rome and never worked again. He did odd jobs around the surrounding villages and lived off the money brought in by his wife and children.

So, you DON’T want to argue the “persecution” thing with me 'cause you will loose…

 

[Patchunky]

Jakub:

By the way, my grandparents were from Poland so don’t use that pers-card with me.

This should help in your research…

lemko.org/lih/depo1.html

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Luke-Jr:

Popes are not always infallible. In particular, the N.O. has never been infallibly endorsed.

The form of the Mass is a discipline so it can never be infallibly endorsed, what ever that means, as the Holy Father can only teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals. By definition a discipline is out side of that.

As I suggested in another thread. I think you need to read Canon 6 of the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent.

CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.