K
KMG
Guest
And if we want to parse John XXIII’s words, he actually speaks of languages that are to be venerated (Latin, Greek, Hebrew)…
- Status
K
KMG
Guest
It’s a pity though that John was ignored. His document also talks about how professors of sacred theology/philosophy who can’t handle Latin should find themselves unemployed. He is quite charitable about how that should happen…but he is quite clear that Latin proficiency is an absolute must for sacred theology/philosophy.
Sadly, today, both John and, for that matter, Canon Law are totally ignored in some locales.
Sadly, today, both John and, for that matter, Canon Law are totally ignored in some locales.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good question, especially since it leads to translation wars.
Curiously enough, Veterum Sapientia was only translated into English and Spanish. (Maybe Italian, by now?)
Good job in suppressing the effects of what an Apostolic Constitution intended.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I really have to look into this. I am fine with it. I am questioning that the use of Latin in a mass is superior to the vernacular and that they are not equally meritous.
If that is so, why change to the vernacular and allow the hundreds of millions of Catholics going to less meritous mass?
That’s what I wanted to know.
If that is so, why change to the vernacular and allow the hundreds of millions of Catholics going to less meritous mass?
That’s what I wanted to know.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
No…is not more meritorious.
K
KMG
Guest
Actually, he uses the gerundive or passive periphrastic construction, which indicates obligation or necessity. Hence my translation.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Thank you, Father.Reuben_J:
No…is not more meritorious.
The things we pick in the Forum, a life long Catholic get told of something quite new.
K
KMG
Guest
When someone writes an Apostolic Constitution on the vernacular, and signs it on the Altar of the Confession the way John XXIII did his document on the sacred language Latin…then we can argue that the vernacular is “as meritorious” as Latin. Until then…nonsense.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
You are welcome.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Anyway, I do not believe you.
The mass once validly said, whether it is in Latin or English, becomes a valid Sacrament, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist becomes the word made flesh and Transubstantiation take place, and the congregation who take part will receive NO LESS the grace which is also received in a mass said in Latin.
You are talking heresy here as far as I am concerned.
K
KMG
Guest
This is really outrageous…calling someone a heretic because they state simple facts about Latin and the liturgy.
K
KMG
Guest
Also, go back and read my posts. Not everything is about validity or grace. There are merits that are obtained that have nothing to do with validity or grace. Starting with connecting the worshipper to the centuries of the Latin tradition.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Validity is determined by a decree called “De Defectibus,” which itself needed to be changed to reflect the new verbatim Consecration formula when the consecration went to English.
Last edited:
K
KMG
Guest
Let’s also not forget that all the people who attended English Mass instead of Latin for the decades we had that deplorable translation were losing out on all the rich content of the prayers that ICEL didn’t bother to translate properly.
Last edited:
A
Augustinian
Guest
K
KMG
Guest
Well let’s see. When you repeatedly leave out mentions of “sin” and “penance”…that’s a good place to start. Or when you just refuse to translate entire clauses in any way.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, theology is impacted by translations. For example, there is a difference between “The Lord be with you” and “The Lord is with you.” However, this is minor when compared to, say, “for all” when “for many” is meant. There are other examples but also what needs to be evaluated also is the elimination of prayers such as the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar which the reformers thought unnecessary until Pope Benedict approved them for the Anglican Ordinariate and of the course, the EF.
O
OraLabora
Guest
What? In the Order of the Mass for the Ordinary Form, I counted roughly 19 times that the word “sin”, “sinner” or “sinning” is used. I may be off the count by one or two times because of the different options available in the OF for the penitential rite and Eucharistic Prayers, but that won’t change the order of magnitude.
In the Extraordinary Form, 21 times is “sin” or “sinner” is used, but some of those times are duplications such as the duplication of the confiteor for the priest and the faithful.
In neither Missal is the word “penance” used. except perhaps in the homily, which is independent of form. And except this mention, in the rubrics of the OF:
I get that maybe you prefer some of that old-fashioned fire-and-brimstone religion, but you are seriously misrepresenting the OF vs the EF Mass with your statement; the mention of “sin” is roughly equivalent in each form, and in neither form is the word “penance” used.
It really galls me when people make bald-faced accusations about some omissions in the OF without even bothering to check. You can find on-line PDF versions of the Order of the Mass for both forms, a quick search of each document is all that I needed to refute your statement.
And if you’re only talking about the new vs. old English translations, here is a side-by-side comparison:
http://misguidedmissal.com/wp/wp-co...-Side-Comparisons-of-the-The-Roman-Missal.pdf
There was no systematic removal of the word “sin” (or words with the same root like sinner, sinning) in the old translations. And again, nowhere is the word “penance” to be found.
Last edited:
K
KMG
Guest
Yes, there has been, in the collects of the Mass. Read Father Zuhlsdorf’s excellent series of posts showing the original Latin and what was omitted in the 1974 translation.
- Status