For the SSPXers: Men mess up, the Holy Spirit NEVER does!

[gelsbern]

jlw:

I agree and have concern bout the flattening (and ommiting) of the language, yet I wonder what God thinks about the Mass said in an African village, or a darkened basement in China?? Must it be in the language of 1962 for it to be valid and worthy of saving souls??

Heheh , again this is not about what the language is, it is about the ommissions and mistranslations. There were translations of the 1962 Mass, and in fact it was used in many countries in the local language. Again, there’s nothing wrong inherent in what language is used, it is in the FORM where the questions arise about the NO.

 

[jlw]

gelsbern:

Heheh , again this is not about what the language is, it is about the ommissions and mistranslations. There were translations of the 1962 Mass, and in fact it was used in many countries in the local language. Again, there’s nothing wrong inherent in what language is used, it is in the FORM where the questions arise about the NO.

I didn’t mean english as opposed to spanish as opposed to chinese, as opposed to arabic. What I meant is that in each language there ARE words that can be lost in translation, that it is bound to happen. That one uses “cup” instead of “chalice” is a major concern, for example??

Do not misunderstand. I am not advocating ommisions and mistranslations by any means. I was just looking at it from the “big picture” in mind. I do not want to whitewash abuses and think “to each his own” in regards how the Mass should be said. No, it should be said UNIVERSALLY the same way, regardless of the native tongue.

As I said at the beginning of this thread: I am no Canon Lawyer, nor a theologian or professional historian.

Just want to learn, inquire, and challenge–with charity.

 

[TNT]

jlw:

I didn’t mean english as opposed to spanish as opposed to chinese, as opposed to arabic. What I meant is that in each language there ARE words that can be lost in translation, that it is bound to happen. That one uses “cup” instead of “chalice” is a major concern, for example??

Do not misunderstand. I am not advocating ommisions and mistranslations by any means. I was just looking at it from the “big picture” in mind. I do not want to whitewash abuses and think “to each his own” in regards how the Mass should be said. No, it should be said UNIVERSALLY the same way, regardless of the native tongue.

As I said at the beginning of this thread: I am no Canon Lawyer, nor a theologian or professional historian.

Just want to learn, inquire, and challenge–with charity.

The difficulty with “native tongue” is that most “native” languages do not have a Christian or Christological vocabulary. So, what happens of necessity, is that the full Christology gets lost as there is no translation that is “appropriate”, unless they invent new words specifically for the Christain / Catholic Mass.
Ex:
Say the Mass prayers in Apache or TuTu or Burmese…

 

[jlw]

TNT:

The difficulty with “native tongue” is that most “native” languages do not have a Christian or Christological vocabulary. So, what happens of necessity, is that the full Christology gets lost as there is no translation that is “appropriate”, unless they invent new words specifically for the Christain / Catholic Mass.
Ex:
Say the Mass prayers in Apache or TuTu or Burmese…

Because it is not said in Latin (and with the “right” FORM, i.e. lost in translation), does that invalidate the Mass, according to SSPXers?? Sort of a silly question, but…???

 

[gelsbern]

jlw:

Because it is not said in Latin (and with the “right” FORM, i.e. lost in translation), does that invalidate the Mass, according to SSPXers?? Sort of a silly question, but…???

To be honest, they don’t know if it invalidates the Mass or not, hence the question and the adherence to what they know IS a valid Mass. The reason they don’t know is because there is discrepancy between what was taught pre-Vat II and what has been taught Post Vat-II. If Pope Pius the V said these ARE the words of consecration and can not be changed, and Pope Paul VI said we have changed the words of consecration and they are valid. How does one reconcile the two teaching? If the words can not be changed and they are changed it opens up questions.

Now granted there are extremists in the SSPX but in general, the SSPX only questions the validity based upon past pronouncements of the popes.

 

[TNT]

jlw:

Because it is not said in Latin (and with the “right” FORM, i.e. lost in translation), does that invalidate the Mass, according to SSPXers?? Sort of a silly question, but…???

1. An SSPX has NO authority to determine Validity of a rite of the Church.
   But I’ll try an analogy:
   You have 2 choices to walk home:
   A. Travel through a slum neighborhood with a high crime rate (abuses) and little patrol security (no latin).
   B Travel through a well lit neighborhood with a very low crime rate and heavily patrolled (latin)

Choose which route you will take to get safely home.

Another re latin
A. Your watch says 9:30 am (eng translation)
B. you ask your brother what time he has. He says 8:26am. (Polish translation)

Either you are both wrong or one is right.
What to do:
To be CERTAIN you consult the atomic clock at GMT (latin).
You discover that your brother is right.

Do you reset your watch or ignore the error?
If your clock keeps going into error and your brother’s never does, would it be wise to get a clock that keeps time exactly like his? Better yet, use only the GMT atomic clock (latin). Now YOU are the standard.

Latin is the standard by which translations are judged. That is why the Church promulgates all universal documents in Latin. She’s pretty smart eh? She knew about “monkey business” before it was cool. And, the liberals despise Latin, which out’ta tell you something.

SSPX re. TLM. = “SAFETY FIRST” beyond which they have no authority to judge.

 

[gelsbern]

1. An SSPX has NO authority to determine Validity of a rite of the Church.
But I’ll try an analogy:
You have 2 choices to walk home:
A. Travel through a slum neighborhood with a high crime rate (abuses) and little patrol security (no latin).
B Travel through a well lit neighborhood with a very low crime rate and heavily patrolled (latin)

Choose which route you will take to get safely home.

Another re latin
A. Your watch says 9:30 am (eng translation)
B. you ask your brother what time he has. He says 8:26am. (Polish translation)

Either you are both wrong or one is right.
What to do:
To be CERTAIN you consult the atomic clock at GMT (latin).
You discover that your brother is right.

Do you reset your watch or ignore the error?
If your clock keeps going into error and your brother’s never does, would it be wise to get a clock that keeps time exactly like his? Better yet, use only the GMT atomic clock (latin). Now YOU are the standard.

Latin is the standard by which translations are judged. That is why the Church promulgates all universal documents in Latin. She’s pretty smart eh? She knew about “monkey business” before it was cool. And, the liberals despise Latin, which out’ta tell you something.

SSPX re. TLM. = “SAFETY FIRST” beyond which they have no authority to judge.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Thank you TNT, that is exactly what I have been trying to get across, but failing miserably.

 

[demolitionman65]

Since WHEN did Latin become the liturgical equivalent of the atomic clock???

I say it again: at one time, Latin was adopted because it was the vernacular that people understood at the time (replacing Greek, of memory serves). We then lock into it for 1500 years, as it is replaced by various Romantic and Germanic vernacular languages. . . and the vernacular is not to be trusted??? What is this???

If you really want to get back to the “original meaning”, we need Ancient Greek, or even Aramaic, translations.

 

[TNT]

demolitionman65:

Since **WHEN did Latin become the liturgical equivalent of the atomic clock???
**
I say it again: at one time, Latin was adopted because it was the vernacular that people understood at the time (replacing Greek, of memory serves). We then lock into it for 1500 years, as it is replaced by various Romantic and Germanic vernacular languages. . . and the vernacular is not to be trusted??? What is this???

If you really want to get back to the “original meaning”, we need Ancient Greek, or even Aramaic, translations.

I say you are a Godsend! I propose we become partners, like Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis.

I was referring to the Latin of Paul VI’s mass, not a manuscript fragment of 250 AD.
But I’ll give you a practical application of the “ATOMIC CLOCK” (latin) vs Local vernacular (Mickey mouse watch)​

**NOM as Promulgated in LATIN: **

So, in the Latin it’s: (Atomic Clock)
*Tibi gratias agens
*Literal:
again giving You thanks (Rolex President translation)
Which Mickey Mouse watch caused the English to be:
*“again he gave you thanks and praise”

• How about (atomic Clock)*
  mea culp mea culpa mea maxima culpa
  Literal:
  through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious (or greatest) fault (Rolex President translation)
  Which Mickey Mouse watch becomes:
  'through my fault

How’s that…just for starters? I got some more, but nearly everyone sees my point.

 

[TNT]

demolitionman65:

Since WHEN did Latin become the liturgical equivalent of the atomic clock???

I say it again: at one time, Latin was adopted because it was the vernacular that people understood at the time (replacing Greek, of memory serves). We then lock into it for 1500 years, as** it is replaced by various Romantic and Germanic vernacular languages. **. . and the vernacular is not to be trusted??? What is this???

If you really want to get back to the “original meaning”, we need Ancient Greek, or even Aramaic, translations.

Great!
When was a Universal Papal decree, codification of a Latin Church Mass Rite, or Council decree originally promulgated in Germanic, Spanish, or French or Portugese?

The Year _______________ AD.

 

[Catholic29]

The traditional liturgical language of the Byzantine Rite is Greek, and it was actually used in Rome prior to Latin being introduced. So does that fact invalidate their Divine Liturgies, and of those used in Rome in the early centuries of Christendom?

If you don’t believe any other language came before Latin in the Mass, look here liturgica.com/html/litWLLit.jsp?hostname=null

 

[Kielbasi]

To be honest, they don’t know if it invalidates the Mass or not, hence the question

**That’s a pretty huge question, wouldn’t you say? **If someone isn’t sure of the validity, can they in good faith receive communion at such a mass?

I would think not, as it would put them in danger of committing idolatry, at least in their own conscience.

 

[jlw]

**That’s a pretty huge question, wouldn’t you say? **If someone isn’t sure of the validity, can they in good faith receive communion at such a mass?

I would think not, as it would put them in danger of committing idolatry, at least in their own conscience.

That’s the Catholic Answers Forum’s Quote of the Day.

 

[demolitionman65]

Great!
When was a Universal Papal decree, codification of a Latin Church Mass Rite, or Council decree originally promulgated in Germanic, Spanish, or French or Portugese?

And the point would be?

I was referring to the Latin of Paul VI’s mass, not a manuscript fragment of 250 AD.
But I’ll give you a practical application of the “ATOMIC CLOCK” (latin) vs Local vernacular (Mickey mouse watch)

Again, I fail to see how you have answered my objection.

You are ascribing to Latin an arbitrary prominence better occupied by Greek or Aramaic.

Now, if you are claiming (as you state, though your example does not reflect this) that the original TLM is superior to the Paul VI NO Latin translation, OK. But I keep hearing you claim that the Latin is superior to the vernacular. I say in response (again), if we are going to back to original statements to prevent things from getting “Lost In Translation”, then let’s go back to the Greek or Aramaic.

Are you advocating this, TNT?

 

[gelsbern]

demolitionman65:

And the point would be?

Again, I fail to see how you have answered my objection.

You are ascribing to Latin an arbitrary prominence better occupied by Greek or Aramaic.

Now, if you are claiming (as you state, though your example does not reflect this) that the original TLM is superior to the Paul VI NO Latin translation, OK. But I keep hearing you claim that the Latin is superior to the vernacular. I say in response (again), if we are going to back to original statements to prevent things from getting “Lost In Translation”, then let’s go back to the Greek or Aramaic.

Are you advocating this, TNT?

The problem with going to the Greek or Aramaic is that the Mass was in Latin when Pope Pius said “This is the Mass for ALL Time”. So if that Pope spoke infallibly, that would not mean going back to the Greek or Aramaic, but the Latin.

 

[TNT]

demolitionman65:

And the point would be?

…I say in response (again), if we are going to back to original statements to prevent things from getting “Lost In Translation”, then let’s go back to the Greek or Aramaic.

Are you advocating this, TNT?

Again from Post 29:
**NOM as Promulgated in LATIN: **
How do you reconcile this…
So, in the Latin it’s: (Atomic Clock)
*Tibi gratias agens
*Literal:
again giving You thanks (Rolex President translation)
Which Mickey Mouse watch caused the English to be:
*“again he gave you thanks and praise”

• OK, let’s do that. You present the Original promulgation in Aramaic or Greek of the Mass of P VI and we’ll go from there.

If, however, it was ORGINALLY promulgated in Latin, then I’ll be happy to have you continue to dance with the straw man.
…and I’ll stay with the incomprehensible “Atomic Clock”.

BTW:
I’m not running a comparitive of the TLM and the NOM. Just the NOM-Latin vs NOM-ICEL english translation (the Mickey mouse watch )
Hope that clarification puts us in the same orbit.

 

[jlw]

I am so freakin’ lost.

Look, just give me the smells and bells, altar boys with reverence, gregorian chant from the balcony, kneelers, communion rail, and a valid and holy priest presiding.

“this is my body…this is my blood” preferably in Latin.

If The Pope allows the Mass, NO or TLM, then that is how it should be, minus OBVIOUS abuses of the the liturgy.

 

[TNT]

jlw:

I am so freakin’ lost.

Look, just give me the smells and bells, altar boys with reverence, gregorian chant from the balcony, kneelers, communion rail, and a valid and holy priest presiding.

“this is my body…this is my blood” preferably in Latin.

If The Pope allows the Mass, NO or TLM, then that is how it should be, minus OBVIOUS abuses of the the liturgy.

Sounds like the abuses are LACK of:

… the smells and bells, altar boys with reverence, gregorian chant from the balcony, kneelers, communion rail, and a valid and holy priest presiding.

“this is my body…this is my blood” preferably in Latin.

One can abuse by Omission, not just Commission.

Another vote for the SIG:

 

[jlw]

SIG??

 

[demolitionman65]

The problem with going to the Greek or Aramaic is that the Mass was in Latin when Pope Pius said “This is the Mass for ALL Time”. So if that Pope spoke infallibly, that would not mean going back to the Greek or Aramaic, but the Latin.

If, however, it was ORGINALLY promulgated in Latin, then I’ll be happy to have you continue to dance with the straw man.
…and I’ll stay with the incomprehensible “Atomic Clock”.

That was Pius V. And how did he infallibly claim that this was the mass in perpetuity? The doctrine of Papal Infallibility was not found/declared until Vatican Council I, (if memory serves), in the 19th century, long before Pius V. How was the Mass of his time superior to the pre-Latin Greek and Aramaic rites? (See my argument here).

I’m not running a comparitive of the TLM and the NOM. Just the NOM-Latin vs NOM-ICEL english translation (the Mickey mouse watch )
Hope that clarification puts us in the same orbit.

OK. Fair enough. My only caveat stems again from the reality that the Mass was intended, many many years ago, (LONG before Vatican II, or even Trent, for that matter) for access by the laity. So, Mass in the vernacular is desired.

Does that mean that we need to be exceptionally careful in our translations? Certainly.