English in a "traditional" Mass

[Ad_Gentes]

Daughter of Truth,

I really would rather not make this a “personal” debate that deviates from the original post, but I will answer your arguments one LAST time.

NFP

I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say… Natural Family Planning? And…?

You enjoy questioning the Parent (Mother Church)?

Not at all. In fact, I consider myself an orthodox (with small “o”) Catholic. I also would like to discuss facts, not just opinions. Sacrosanctum Concilium (you are familiar with this document, right?) is very clear that “the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (36.1) Now, I don’t know how much have you study this subject, but notice the following two points:

1. • It uses the verb “preserved” (speaking of the Latin language), but it doesn’t state ‘as the ONLY’ language to be used.
   • Then it specifies “in the Latin rites” (there are 22 non-Latin autonomous Churches within the Catholic Church with different liturgical traditions), which obviously means that other “rites” can use other “languages”.
   If you read further, Sacrosanctum Concilium states that 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…” (36.2)
   
   Finally, it states that “it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority (e.g. the Conference of Bishops)…to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used…” (36.3)
   
   I think “Mother Church” is clear on this. Are YOU questioning Mother Church?
   

   Simple, Christ prayed that we may be one, and a universal language helps foster that, for obvious reasons already mentioned.

   Again, lets separate facts from opinions.
   • “Christ prayed that we may be one” is a fact.
   • “[A] universal language helps foster that” is YOUR opinion.
   If you disagree, please provide documentary evidence (not someone else’s opinion, but an official Church source) to support your claim.
   

   John Paul II also disagreed with the Church’s teaching regarding the worship of false gods. What’s the point?

   Are you calling John Paul II a heretic? Please provide evidence (again, not based on opinions) to support such an accusation.
   

   Pope Benedict is restoring tradition, so you can’t use him against Latin or anything else that was recently tossed out.

   I never “used” the Holy Father against Latin. Furthermore, I think Latin is a beautiful language and have no problem with using it in the Liturgy. I also have no issues with the TLM. But a NO Mass celebrated according to the rubrics is not just as valid, but can also be as beautiful, reverent, and dignifying. The Holy Eucharist is the same regardless of the language.
   

   Again, the Church grew (I’m referring to “quality” vs. quantity). You don’t allow your teen to behave like a toddler, to talk like a toddler, etc. You don’t set your 7 year old in a high chair because you did when he was two, you help him to grow up. Going back to the very beginning has already been condemned (Pope Pius XII, I think?)

   I still fail to see your point. “Growing” is a good thing. However, YOUR opinion is that WE (the Church) should grow in a certain way (embracing Latin as the only language in the Church). As stated, that’s your opinion and not that of the Church. The Church embraces different languages and there’s ample evidence of that. Or have you not seen HH Benedict XVI celebrating Mass?
   

   Latin is a dead language which is why it shouldn’t change.

   I think your statement supports my argument instead of contradicting it. But for the record, I don’t think we should get rid of Latin. In fact, I would like to see more people learning it, and that is MY opinion.
   

   Yet that’s what the Church is anyway.

   As stated on a previous post, our Eastern Catholic brethren would disagree. Visit the Eastern Catholicism forum of CAF and you will see.
   

   Which “traditions whole and entire” were kept?

   If you don’t know the answer to this question, there’s so much you still need to learn about our Church. Visit the forum mentioned above if you want to learn more about the different Catholic rites and traditions (note I’m using lower case “t”).
   

   Take a look at the bishops permitted authority. These days one does not even have to be *Catholic *

   to be Catholic.Again, if you’re going to make an accusation about “the bishops permitted authority”, you need to present evidence. The bishops’ authority comes from the Church as successors of the apostles. As for your other statement, I agree that there’s a problem with certain people (unfortunately too many) calling themselves “Catholic”, but not behaving or acting as such. While very unfortunate, that has nothing to do with the bishops’ authority which was handed from Christ, through the apostles. Besides, how is your answer replying to my quoted statement: “I think the Church is very clear about it; one does not have to be Latin to be Catholic…” That was NOT an opinion; it IS a fact…
   
   I’m moving on; God bless!

 

[Hesychios]

Hello DOT,

You enjoy questioning the Parent (Mother Church)?

Could you define what you mean by Mother church, in this context? Thanks.

Catholic, from the Greek (not Latin) καθολικός (katholikos), means universal, general, throughout the whole. It does not mean uniform, standardized, homogeneous, identical.

It seems to me that the church is anything but uniform, standardized, homogeneous…

Which “traditions whole and entire” were kept?

Not many, most have been partially kept. The emphasis now has to be on restoration of these ancient and venerable church traditions, which seems to be underway.

It might be noted that the non-Latin Sui Iuris churches number about 1-1/2% of the total, nonetheless they are equal in dignity to the Latin church.

This is important, because these churches are supposed to be an example to the world that Christian Unity is possible. Latin triumphalism always makes a lie out of that hope, it eats away at the dream.

Take a look at the bishops permitted authority. These days one does not even have to be *Catholic *to be Catholic.

It seems to me that you are deeply disappointed. Do you really think it’s all that bad?

 

[Shin]

By traditional Mass I mean one according to the rubics that were in effect for the entire Latin Church prior to the promulgation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

Would you be in favor of have a few places in a good English translation instead of Latin? I am thinking primarily of the Readings (instead of having them repeated in English as part of the homily).

Also, would you be in favor of most or all of the Mass to be in English (good translation), such as was the case of the “transitional” Mass in the late 1960’s?

No, no. One has the missal, and in the missal one can read the English (or whatever). Also, as said priests in their homily can give you the English, but this only in addition to the Latin in its proper place.

This has to do with the added virtue of the Holy Scriptures being recited in a sacred language, and the mass being in the sacred language as entirely as can be.

I would perhaps rather be in favor of the Latinization of as much as possible of the OF and the adoption of standards of movement, etc. from the EF into it. and this made -standard, not an option- for it – but NOT the other way around.

 

[Hesychios]

This has to do with the added virtue of the Holy Scriptures being recited in a sacred language…

I don’t recall that Jesus Christ or the Apostles had left us any notion of establishing a sacred language. Especially ironic for it to be the language of the people that murdered most of them.

I have to wonder where that concept comes from.

 

[Shin]

I don’t recall that Jesus Christ or the Apostles had left us any notion of establishing a sacred language. Especially ironic for it to be the language of the people that murdered most of them.

I have to wonder where that concept comes from.

It comes from the concept of sacredness itself. This is in the Holy Scriptures. You need to understand that first.

Some things are sacred, some things are profane. Some things are more sacred, some things are less sacred.

People, places, and things, are all one or the other, and more or less of one or the other.

Latin the sacred language chosen by God for the Universal Church, is by that choice demonstrably more precious in the eyes of God than other languages. Prayer therefore, all other things being equal, in this language, is more efficacious than prayer in a profane language – because God loves the language especially.

If I may compare it on a very simple level, if God tells you His favorite color is white, and you give him something white rather than red, God is the happier for this. That is not to say He will not enjoy a red gift, but He has His preferences just like people. He created some things greater goods and some things less.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Wow, this thread just went all over the place!

Answer: Yes, I absolutely favor seeing the Old Rite in English, especially Shakesperean English. I will explain why:

• Olde English in the traditional rite is nothing new. It’s use was made venerable by centuries of tradition in the old Sarum Rite, also York Rite. I wholeheartedly endore the Anglican Use since the traditional rite is emphatically orthodox and hearing it rendered in English is a mini-homily/catechisis in itself!

-Check of the website of St. Mary of the Angels in Los Angeles. stmaryoftheangels.org/ Gorgeous parish. Their priests trace their orders to the Old Catholics and have valid orders. They are attempting to rejoin Rome but are getting blocked by Cardinal Mahoney for “ecumenism.” I met the old pastor and they have been having high level talks in Rome for sometime. Let us prayer for their swift return!

Having said all this, I do believe its use should be the exception, not the rule. The use of latin does tend toward the value of universality, which is why it was used in Church and Empire both in the middle ages, as sign of the continuity of the Age of Faith. Latin preserves unity in a unique way. So, I believe it should be retained as the primary language but as others have pointed out, the use of local variants (e.g. Braga Rite in Portugal, Mozarabic in Spain, Sarum in England, etc.) does not diminish its peculiar universal power.

 

[Hesychios]

** Latin the sacred language chosen by God for the Universal Church**, is by that choice demonstrably more precious in the eyes of God than other languages.

I sincerely doubt any of this.

References?

 

[Shin]

I sincerely doubt any of this.

References?

Providence, history. To even have to look it up further is to ignore the obvious. However you will find plenty of quotes.

 

[Hesychios]

Providence, history. To even have to look it up further is to ignore the obvious. However you will find plenty of quotes.

In other words you have no references.

 

[firstmode]

In other words you have no references.

LOL

 

[Shin]

The Latin language is consecrated as a sacred language by the mystic inscription attached to the Cross, as well as sanctified by the usage of nearly two thousand years. The inscription on the Cross: “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (John 19:19-20). These were the three principle languages of that epoch, and by divine dispensation were destined and consecrated on the Cross for the liturgical use of the Church. Through the inscription on the Cross they proclaimed to the whole world the dignity, power, and glory of the Redeemer, the royalty and dominion of grace which He acquired by His bloody death. Of these three languages, Latin at an early date gained the precedence; for, being the language of the Roman world, it became throughout the West with the spread of Christianity also the language of the liturgy. Divine Providence from eternity selected Rome as the center of the Catholic Church. Thus, the language of the Roman Catholic Church became the common language of worship. For centuries the Latin language has ceased to be spoken in the daily life of the world, but it will continue to live by ecclesiastical usage and in the sanctuary of divine worship." (Rev. Nicholas Gihr, Ph.D. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Dogmatically, Liturgically, and Ascetically Explained. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 194)

“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . .The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .” (“The Anti-Liturgical Heresy” by Dom Prosper Guéranger, O.S.B., Abbot of Solesmes)

“The devil doesn’t like Latin,” “He [Fr. Gabriele Amorth, Rome’s “chief exorcist”] prefers to use Latin when he conducts exorcisms, he says, because it is most effective in challenging the devil.” (‘The Vatican’s Exorcists’)

“The language proper to the Roman Church is Latin. Hence it is forbidden to sing anything whatever in the vernacular in solemn liturgical functions - much more to sing in the vernacular the variable or common parts of the Mass and Office.” (Pope St. Pius X, “Inter Sollicitudines”, 1903 A.D.)

The Latin Language may be considered “immutable”. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time…requires a language which us universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.” (Pope Pius XI, “Officorum Omnium”, 1922 A.D.)

In addition, the Latin language ‘can be called truly catholic.’ It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed ‘a treasure…of incomparable worth’. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity." (Pope Bl. John XXIII, “Veterum Sapientia”, 1962 A.D.)

“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.’ 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.’ 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.’” (Pope Bl. John XXIII, “Veterum Sapientia”, 1962 A.D.)

“Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.” (Pope Bl. John XXIII, “Veterum Sapientia”, 1962 A.D.)

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Shin,

The Latin language…

None of this supports your contention that " Latin the sacred language chosen by God for the Universal Church, is by that choice demonstrably more precious in the eyes of God than other languages. "

Although it does reflect the once widespread and now discredited and inoperable policy of Praestantia Ritus Latini.

It’s essentially a form of religious chauvinism, such as “KJV 1611 Only-ism” is for many Protestants. It has no basis in the teachings of Christ, it is an accident of history.

Your own opinion goes far beyond anything you have quoted here.

Michael

 

[JMJ_coder]

Providence, history. To even have to look it up further is to ignore the obvious. However you will find plenty of quotes.

In other words you have no references.

I was thinking the same thing Hesychios. This reminds me of my Discrete Mathematics book, which takes a very complex answer, gives an equally complex solution and the answer is: this is so obvious it isn’t worth our time to go indepth.

The lesson that has become a joke to my class: “obviously” is not a good answer for much more than 2+2=4!

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello Shin, None of this supports your contention that " Latin the sacred language chosen by God for the Universal Church, is by that choice demonstrably more precious in the eyes of God than other languages. "

Although it does reflect the once widespread and now discredited and inoperable policy of Praestantia Ritus Latini.

It’s essentially a form of religious chauvinism, such as “KJV 1611 Only-ism” is for many Protestants. It has no basis in the teachings of Christ, it is an accident of history.

Your own opinion goes far beyond anything you have quoted here.

Michael

Of course, I have met equal (and much more so) attitudes from many Eastern Orthodox regarding the Greek language and culture (though, the culture part seems relegated to “Greek” Orthodox).

 

[Hesychios]

Of course, I have met equal (and much more so) attitudes from many Eastern Orthodox regarding the Greek language and culture (though, the culture part seems relegated to “Greek” Orthodox).

I agree.

Equally indefensible.

 

[Shin]

Of course, I have met equal (and much more so) attitudes from many Eastern Orthodox regarding the Greek language and culture (though, the culture part seems relegated to “Greek” Orthodox).

The quotes I have make the matter clear for anyone willing to think about it or open to it rather than predisposed against it.

It does not take much to add 2+2 and get 4.

Greek too is chosen by God, it is one of the three sacred languages.

And the evidence as I said is Providence chose them. This is clear. If you don’t understand that Providence guides the Church in these matters, or that sacred use makes something the more sacred – You probably don’t even truly understand why priests consecrate churches or bless houses, or why we have relics of the saints.

So, all I can say is you have a lot of study of fundamentals to do. For your own sake. If you do not wish to do it… That is your decision and you will have to bear it.

Good books for understanding the nature of Providence include ‘Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence’.

 

[JMJ_coder]

It does not take much to add 2+2 and get 4.

Yes, but the joke is:

2+2=4, so obviously:


The point being, trying to prove something anymore complicated than about a 2+2=4 with an “obviously” is not going to prove your case at all

 

[JMJ_coder]

Greek too is chosen by God, it is one of the three sacred languages.

And the evidence as I said is Providence chose them. This is clear. If you don’t understand that Providence guides the Church in these matters, or that sacred use makes something the more sacred – You probably don’t even truly understand why priests consecrate churches or bless houses, or why we have relics of the saints.

So, all I can say is you have a lot of study of fundamentals to do. For your own sake. If you do not wish to do it… That is your decision and you will have to bear it.

Good books for understanding the nature of Providence include ‘Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence’.

Listen now, you do NOT need to try to brow beat those who don’t agree 100% with you, or merely question your opinion. GOT IT SONNY! GOOD!

That being said: There is a definite place for Latin, Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic in the Church’s liturgical life. The Kyrie Eleison is Greek, so is the Trisagion of Good Friday. Every time we pray Amen, Alleluia, Hosanna, etc. we are indebted to the Semitic languages. Latin is the official language of the Latin Rite(s) of the Church, just as Greek would be the official language of the Eastern Churches. For example, the Creed recited in the Byzantine Catholic Churches is translated from the Greek version, as the Creed recited in the Latin Churches is translated from the Latin version.

There is a definite value of the vernacular in the Church’s liturgical life. The Eastern Liturgies have almost always been heavily vernacular, though they looked to Greek for certain things and for certain times (and they are not ones to be thought of as non-traditional ). The Second Vatican Council recognized this value, and thus gave the approval for the use of vernacular, while still retaining the value of the Latin.

Some of the benefits of using the vernacular, is that Liturgy has a definite catechetical nature. And even when you are familiar with the Latin, it is hard to dynamically flow with the catechetical lessons being conveyed unless you are fluent in Latin (which most aren’t today – fluency goes well beyond being able to know the ordinary of the Mass and have a feel for what is going on).

There is a benefit of using a language set aside for sacred use, as Latin has become, in helping to raise us from the ordinary, “set aside all worldly concerns”, and “ponder nothing earthly minded”. But, this can also be achieved with good vernacular translations. For example:
Upon which vouchsafe to look with a propitious and serene countenance, and to accept them, as Thou wert graciously pleased to accept the gifts of Thy just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and that which Thy high priest Melchisedech offered to Thee, a holy Sacrifice, a stainless Victim.
Does a superb job of lifting our minds and hearts out of the profane everyday language of our world into a higher realm. And it is not just the form of language, but of the very essence of what is being conveyed.

Please note, I am not trying to advocate for banishment of Latin from the Liturgy, but I am also not claiming that vernacular in the Liturgy is an abomination.

 

[Hesychios]

Greek too is chosen by God, it is one of the three sacred languages.

And the evidence as I said is Providence chose them. This is clear. If you don’t understand that Providence guides the Church in these matters, or that sacred use makes something the more sacred – You probably don’t even truly understand why priests consecrate churches or bless houses, or why we have relics of the saints.

You said:

"Latin the sacred language chosen by God for the Universal Church, is by that choice demonstrably more precious in the eyes of God than other languages."

Now you say three languages are chosen by God.

You cannot prove this assertion…how in the world can one know what God chooses, and how can we presume to know Almighty God even has a preference?

God does not need our language, He can see into our hearts. We are the ones who need language, it is a crutch for us because we are not perfect.

Whenever anyone says they know what color socks God prefers, step back a minute and think about it. We cannot put God in a box, we cannot speak for Him and we cannot limit Him.

It is people, human creatures, who have at times retained old language styles for prayer, and it is all about practical considerations, not a dictate from the Divine.

 

[JMJ_coder]

You said:

"Latin the sacred language chosen by God for the Universal Church, is by that choice demonstrably more precious in the eyes of God than other languages."

Now you say three languages are chosen by God.

You cannot prove this assertion…how in the world can one know what God chooses, and how can we presume to know Almighty God even has a preference?

God does not need our language, He can see into our hearts. We are the ones who need language, it is a crutch for us because we are not perfect.

Whenever anyone says they know what color socks God prefers, step back a minute and think about it. We cannot put God in a box, we cannot speak for Him and we cannot limit Him.

It is people, human creatures, who have at times retained old language styles for prayer, and it is all about practical considerations, not a dictate from the Divine.

One thing that must be looked out for is this attitude: one that makes the sacred rites of the Church into magical incantations that only work if it is done in precisely the right language with precisely the right pronunciation and with precisely the right rubrical structure. There are those who are overly scrupulous about this and this attitude and though is a falsity. The Liturgy is just as efficacious in English as in Spanish as in Greek as in Old Church Slavonic as in Aramaic as in Coptic as in French as in Italian as in any other language as in Latin.