Deeply hurt by anti-Tridentine Mass homily

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

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.

Um that was talking about the Mass that existed then. If it were talking about the Mass of the future as well it would have said: “contains or will have contained”

In any case, I don’t think the new Mass contains errors. But I’ve been reading stuff which shows how the new Mass leaves a lot of things out in comparison to the old Mass.

And the Mass can be infallibly endorsed. The Mass is not unrelated to faith and morals. The Mass involves the very life of the Church. It is not something that can be discarded or changed at whim. Some disciplines (practices) are directly related to faith and morals – such as the sacraments. Other disciplines (practices) are indirectly related to faith and morals. Where there is a case of direct relation to faith and morals, to the extent that it is directly related, it cannot be changed. Where there is a case of indirect relation to faith and morals, to the extent that it is indirectly related, it can be changed but is to be changed if at all with wisdom.

 

[tuopaolo]

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.

So the Liturgy does not include the Mass? They were consulted as experts for the Mass. Are you saying that they were consulted as experts for the Mass but they were not experts in the Mass? How can you be an expert in the Liturgy without being an expert in the Eucharistic Liturgy? I think you are trying to play semantics. Were they experts in the Eucharistic LIturgy? How can a PROTESTANT be an expert in the Eucharistic Liturgy when they don’t even believe in the Eucharist!

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.

What do you mean “bound to it”? We are not bound to agree with the decision Paul VI made. We are not bound to believe that the new Mass is as good in all respects as the old Mass.

 

[Jakub]

Patchunky,

Yes there were some stories, but those were told to me 45 years ago and grandpa & grandma have long passed, opening old wounds and dwelling on mistakes made by both Catholics & Orthodox does not help, it is what learned & hopefully corrected by them…

Repentence & forgiveness is what really matters, is’nt it ? Pray that all is done before He returns and judgement day is at hand.

Pokoj,

james

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

Um that was talking about the Mass that existed then. If it were talking about the Mass of the future as well it would have said: “contains or will have contained”

I do not agree with this. You are reading into the canon saying that it only stands for the Mass of that time. If it meant that then it would state just that.

And the Mass can be infallibly endorsed.

Then prove that it wasn’t. I would say that the promulgation of the Mass by the Holy Father is enough.

And I will ask it again in a more direction manner, what does “infallibly endorsed” mean?

It is enough for me that it was promulgated and used by the pope and the Church as a whole.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

So the Liturgy does not include the Mass? They were consulted as experts for the Mass. Are you saying that they were consulted as experts for the Mass but they were not experts in the Mass? How can you be an expert in the Liturgy without being an expert in the Eucharistic Liturgy? I think you are trying to play semantics. Were they experts in the Eucharistic LIturgy? How can a PROTESTANT be an expert in the Eucharistic Liturgy when they don’t even believe in the Eucharist!

Yes, liturgy does include the Mass, but it is also much more than just the Mass.

I will say it one last time. They were consulted as experts in Liturgy and History (among other things). I do not see why you can not understand that others might know just as much as Catholics do about History and Liturgical things.

Anyways it does not matter as those who consulted, be they Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, did not write the Mass. The Church did and we could say that Pope Paul VI did as he promulgated it. End of story.

What do you mean “bound to it”? We are not bound to agree with the decision Paul VI made. We are not bound to believe that the new Mass is as good in all respects as the old Mass.

Actually, yes you do not have to agree to it but you must be obedient to the decision Pope Paul VI made.

You are bound to believe that the Mass is good and contains no errors as the Church can not teach error and according to Canon 6 of the 22nd Session of Trent, you can not say it contains error.

 

[usqueadmortem]

BillyT92679:

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.

Huh? When Pius XII condemned the venacular on his death bed, Latin was not the lingua franca of the West. When John XXIII, Pius XI etc. insisted on its use, it was in no way the lingua franca. In fact, the Latin Church was preserving the language from death.

Usque.

 

[usqueadmortem]

ByzCath:

You are bound to believe that the Mass is good and contains no errors as the Church can not teach error and according to Canon 6 of the 22nd Session of Trent, you can not say it contains error.

Nononono, you are misrepresenting the canon. We are bound to believe that the Mass is valid and free of heresy in its Latin (i.e it is promulgated) edition. It is quite possible that an ICEL translation would be invalid, especially since the liberty of translating the entire Mass was taken without direction from the Second Vatican Council.

 

[BillyT92679]

In the early church, Mass was in Greek. It was changed to the vernacular of the people in the Roman provinces, namely Latin.
Latin was indeed the lingua franca of the West and that’s why the Mass was celebrated in it.

One can make a point that Latin is efficacious because it is a dead language, not simply because it is Latin. The Church could celebrate the Mass in Old Church Slavonic, another traditional language, if it wanted to.

We need purer and more sacred vernacular translations more than anything else.

 

[BillyT92679]

My thing is, can’t people just trust the Church to do what is best? The Church is all-holy and is greater than any of us. She dictates how worship will be, and we are bound to accept her decisions. Christ is her Bridegroom and the Head of the Church! His Vicar legitimately speaks for Him; and Pope Paul certainly did back in 1969. We MUST have an assent of will to all magisterial decisions of the Church.

 

[netmilsmom]

BillyT92679:

One can make a point that Latin is efficacious because it is a dead language, not simply because it is Latin.

Only conversational Latin is dead.
Check your root words, medical terminology, botanical terminology. Latin is alive in all of those.

We would do ourselves some good to go back to Latin in our Holy Masses. Children who are taught Latin do better with English.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

usqueadmortem:

Nononono, you are misrepresenting the canon. We are bound to believe that the Mass is valid and free of heresy in its Latin (i.e it is promulgated) edition. It is quite possible that an ICEL translation would be invalid, especially since the liberty of translating the entire Mass was taken without direction from the Second Vatican Council.

Sorry but I do not see that in the Canon, and the Mass is pomulgated in each language as the Vatican approves each translation. The translation may be lacking (such as translating “Et cum spiritu tuo” as “and also with you” instead of “and with your spirit”) but it does not contain error.

And you are incorrect about the translating of the Mass was taken without directoin from Vatican II.

Please see Constitution On The Sacred Liurgy

Mainly these paragraphs.

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

Article 22, 2 says;

1. 1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

So by reading these, Article 36, 3, gives the decision to the local National Conference of Bishops to decide to what extent the vernacular language is to be used subject to approval from Rome and Article 36, 4, says that the translation must be appoved by the same local National Conference of Bishops.

As the ICEL translations fit into that framework I disagree with you that Vatican II did not mandate this.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Only conversational Latin is dead.
Check your root words, medical terminology, botanical terminology. Latin is alive in all of those.

We would do ourselves some good to go back to Latin in our Holy Masses. Children who are taught Latin do better with English.

There is also an office in the Vatican for the creation of words as they are needed.

And I have heard, but am waiting for someone who goes there to confirm this, that the ATM machines in the Vatican have a choice for Latin on them.

Latin is the offical language of the Vatican State.

 

[usqueadmortem]

ByzCath:

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

Read again what Pius XII said on his deathbed.

ByzCath:

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

Greek and Hebrew, the language God chose to write His Scriptures in are not a Sacred language?plenty of Saints would disagree with that. The Latin language, the language used in the west for 1800 years (not 1700 as I said before, sorry) for the Most Holy Sacrifice is indeed a Sacred Language.

ByzCath:

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.

Again, for us in the west, Latin was a staple in our Catholic schools. My mom had to take three years of it. Children learned it, and they did well doing so. If little altar boys can recite Latin with a perfect Roman accent and understand what they are saying, anyone can. And if not, read the translation. It is quite a simple matter.

ByzCath:

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

The ICEL translations have wreaked havoc. They distort and change the meaning of the original Latin text at whim to suit a more Protestant perspective. Bottom line. Compare and see.

ByzCath:

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.

Oh comon! Greek is used for three lines of the Roman Mass!

ByzCath:

The use of language has nothing to do with spirituality.

Well, according to my long list of quotes from the mouths of many many popes and pundits, this is not true at all.

ByzCath:

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.

Sure, but you cannot deny that the Latin was the normative and universal language in the Latin Church for 1800 years (not 1700 years sorry). Your argument is pale in comparison to that fact. Again, you are approaching the Western Liturgy from and Eastern perspective. I respect the East with my whole heart. But mixing the two spiritualities is dangerous, as you well know. (latinization of the East for instance)

 

[usqueadmortem]

ByzCath:

Sorry but I do not see that in the Canon, and the Mass is pomulgated in each language as the Vatican approves each translation.

Well, Western Liturgists are well aware of that fact. You are arguing against the experts here.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

usqueadmortem:

Oh comon! Greek is used for three lines of the Roman Mass!

And the Epistle and Gospel readings are in English along with the Homily.

Did you or did you not say

usqueadmortem:

In the West we are not for multiple languages

So I have pointed out that this is incorrect. So either they are or they aren’t, doesn’t really matter how much is used.

Also, the translation of the Mass to the Vernacular came out of Vatican II as I have pointed out in my reply above.

Now we can talk about bad translations, but that is a different topic and I say again, while the tranlation might not be the greatest, it in now way introduces any errors into the Mass.

As Canon VI of the 22nd Session of Trent states.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

usqueadmortem:

Well, Western Liturgists are well aware of that fact. You are arguing against the experts here.

Liturgists are not qualified to interpret Canons from the Councils.

Actually the only Liturgists who have any authority are the Bishops of the Catholic Church as they are the Magisterium in union with the Holy Father and as the Mass has been promulgated and all translations approved of according to the mandate from Vatican II, there is no question as to the validity of the Mass or that it contains any errors as the Church can not teach error.

By the way, I have numerous times resorted to actual teachings of the Church. Such as the Canon from Trent and the quotes from Vatican II document, it would be nice to see some such support for your comments on this and not just blurbs or qusposed quotes but actual links to Church Documents.

So until such a time as those appear I am going to stop responding as I feel I have fully supported my side of the discussion.

 

[usqueadmortem]

ByzCath:

Liturgists are not qualified to interpret Canons from the Councils.

Actually the only Liturgists who have any authority are the Bishops of the Catholic Church as they are the Magisterium in union with the Holy Father and as the Mass has been promulgated and all translations approved of according to the mandate from Vatican II, there is no question as to the validity of the Mass or that it contains any errors as the Church can not teach error.

Liturgists are qualified to interpret the Canons from Councils as they apply to the liturgy.

The Venacular traslation of the Mass does not carry the infallible guarantee that the Latin text it was promulgated in does. It participates in the authority of the Holy See, sure, but only on its its lowest scale. It was merely rubber stamped by the CDSW, which Congregation does not carry the guarantee of indefectability. It only participates in the authority of the Holy See to a lower degree. Thus it is quite possible that the translation “favors” and even embraces certain errors. Moreover, it is quite possible for it to be invalid if the words of consecration are substantially altered. With that said, the ICEL Mass is indeed VALID.

Participating in the authority of the Holy See and participating in the Indefectability of Mother Church are distinct issues.

Usque.

 

[usqueadmortem]

ByzCath:

And the Epistle and Gospel readings are in English along with the Homily.

So I have pointed out that this is incorrect. So either they are or they aren’t, doesn’t really matter how much is used.

Also, the translation of the Mass to the Vernacular came out of Vatican II as I have pointed out in my reply above.

Now we can talk about bad translations, but that is a different topic and I say again, while the tranlation might not be the greatest, it in now way introduces any errors into the Mass.

As Canon VI of the 22nd Session of Trent states.

The venacular came out of the Consilium AFTER the Second Vatican Council was closed and its directives were given. The Novus Ordo was promulgated in 1970! the NO does not have any guarantee attached to it that it will be in keeping with the desires of the fathers of the second Vatican Council. It does have the guarantee of being Valid and heresy free in its promulgated edition however.

 

[grotto]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/3/3_3_12v.gif He probably failed Latin! Now he wants to appear intellectually superior! Or, maybe he wants to steer people away from finding their own joyfilled spirituality in Catholic traditions - no room for psycho-babble, new age, and “universal language”. Keep your joy, keep your Faith! Latin leaves no room for misinterpretation.

 

[usqueadmortem]

ByzCath,
One last thing, sorry.
The homily is not considered part of the Sacrifice of the Mass. That is why we used to cross ourselves before and after the homily/readings.
Moreover, the Greek words in the Mass are Latinized. They are presented in Latin characters in the Altar Missal.

God Bless!!
Usque.