I
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
You are Orthodox–so go ahead and disagree. Why not just leave it as Patriarch Alexy II said --strong adherence to tradition and the value of the Church re-introducing her ancient liturgical form.
Because that not all that’s being re-introduced.
So again really—the Orthodox believe we have wavered from the Faith—so why be picking at straws. Just the title of thread “God doesn’t speak Latin” is meant to create problems.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Please don’t play word games with a new convert so you can win some point on a thread. It is most uncharitable.It’s true that the Eucharist is consecrated in persona Christi, but it’s still innacurate to say that “the priest consecrates the Eucharist”.
In persona Christi isn’t really that advanced a topic…
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
I posted a similar thought to which the OP said was not his/her intent.
So again really—the Orthodox believe we have wavered from the Faith—so why be picking at straws. Just the title of thread “God doesn’t speak Latin” is meant to create problems.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Because being deprived of understanding what was going on, instead of putting it in a language that they could understand, what they were supposed to understand was changed at the same time.I didn’t understand it because it was never taught, and the liturgy didn’t make it evident that I was present at a sacrifice. I had always assumed that the Mass was a symbolic representation, and a ‘community gathering’. The point is, the vernacular doesn’t give people any greater an understanding of the Mass. People have to be taught, and it’s much easier to learn the Latin Mass than you may think.
In fact, if I had attended TLMs for my entire youth, I would probably have known what the Eucharist was. I would have been moved to ask questions by the beauty, reverence, and other-worldliness of the Mass. Today, Catholics are much more ignorant of their faith than in times when the Mass was in a language nobody spoke. Why do you think this is?
A
AJV
Guest
Come on Walking Home. OK, I know this is off topic and REALLY no offense meant to you Dauphin, but please- that is splitting hairs. When people say that the “priest consecrates” they mean that he has been given the power to consecrate the Body and Blood and it is not imply that he does so of his own power. Since we are in the Trad forum, let me cite De Defectibus “Sacerdos consecret, incipiendo ab illis verbis, Qui pridie”Thursday1;2725634:
The Priest does, in persona Christi. You wouldn’t expect a freshman Math major to understand advanced set theory, so why do you expect a new convert to understand the intricacies of the Faith that took the Church centuries to understand?/QUOTE]
Maybe–because the Church already has the understanding now–it should be a priority of the programs that bring in the converts to teach this important part of our Faith.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The priest needs to be present, but he doesn’t consecrate the Eucharist.
Just so there is not mis-understanding. Not only does the priest need to be present—but it thru him in Persona christi–that the Holy Spirit consecrates the Eucharist. It is the action of God thru the priest.
D
dessert
Guest
God speaks all languages, he made them, and when we speak to him in prayer he understands us because he does understand all and he is hearing from our heart and spirit not just the letters that we put together to form the words. We make the language universal so we can understand each other but unneccassarily if we arre in prayer as God would not have included the gift of tongues which we can’t understand each other but the Spirit does .I didn’t want to post this until the Traditional Latin mass followers had their day. Since by now September 14 has come and gone, I’ll post now.
First, I don’t have anything against the Tridentine mass. Our Western Rite Orthodox use the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, which is basically the same, and I am fine with that (though I’m Arab and Eastern Rite).
I don’t have anything against Latin, or any liturgical language, per se, except when its appeal is smells and bells. It has to go farther.
Now, I saw a nun on EWTN say that “Latin is the love language of God speaking to His beloved the Church. We are just getting in on the conversation.”
A lovely thought, but also a silly one.
The Father doesn’t speak Latin.
The Son on earth didn’t speak Latin.
His mother didn’t speak Latin.
None of His disciples spoke Latin.
When the Holy Spirit came down, Latin was only one of the languages He spoke through the Apostles.
He did not speak through the writers of Scripture in Latin.
He did not speak through the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils in Latin.
He did not set the Creed in Latin.
When the Church moved on to Rome, she did not speak Latin.
All the early Popes of Rome up to Victor (end 2nd century) did not speak Latin.
The Divine Liturgy/Mass up until Victor was not in Latin. (hence the Kyrie eleison).
In the martyrdom of Perpetua, she speaks Latin, but those in heaven speak Greek.
Only after Romulus’ title of pontifex maximus was passed on from the Roman emperor to the Pope of Rome, did Rome get its Latin mass and Latin translation of the scriptures (under Damasus).
God spoke to the prophets in Hebrew, and inspired their translators in Greek. God made man spoke Aramaic (and maybe in His childhood Coptic), and his Chruch spoke Greek. At the Ecumenical Councils the 72 nations agreed on Greek texts.
So the idea of Latin being God’s love language is a novelty.
Desert
D
Dauphin
Guest
It’s far from a word game; It’s one of the most central concepts of the Mass. I’m sorry if I my tone was unfriendly.Please don’t play word games with a new convert so you can win some point on a thread. It is most uncharitable.
D
Dauphin
Guest
Absolutely.
Just so there is not mis-understanding. Not only does the priest need to be present—but it thru him in Persona christi–that the Holy Spirit consecrates the Eucharist. It is the action of God thru the priest.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Oh please. Ego te absolvo. I’ve seen plenty of talk in works predating '62 on how the priest has the power to change bread into Christ, forgive sins, etc…(I think it’s in the Baltimore Catechism, but I would not stake my life on it). You can’t blame V II for this one.Wrong. The priest doesn’t consecrate the Eucharist; Christ does. Apparently, the Mass being in the vernacular hasn’t led you to a full understanding of the sacrifice.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Walking_Home;2725639:
Walking_Home;2725639:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thursday1
The Priest does, in persona Christi. You wouldn’t expect a freshman Math major to understand advanced set theory, so why do you expect a new convert to understand the intricacies of the Faith that took the Church centuries to understand?
Maybe–because the Church already has the understanding now–it should be a priority of the programs that bring in the converts to teach this important part of our Faith.
Come on Walking Home. OK, I know this is off topic and REALLY no offense meant to you Dauphin, but please- that is splitting hairs. When people say that the priest consecrates they mean that he has the power to consecrate the Body and Blood. Sicne we are in the Trad forum, let me cite De Defectibus “Sacerdos consecret, incipiendo ab illis verbis, Qui pridie”
AJV–I was not arguing against that. I was leading to the responsibility of the programs–to give proper catechisis-- so people will have understanding of what happens and who is responsible for the consecration.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
I waited to see if you would answer. I knew you would know.And that is exactly what it is until it is consecrated by the priest.
And perhaps more importantly, your son knows.
D
Dauphin
Guest
I would argue that the sudden removal of Latin and the ‘veling’ effect of that language contributed to a confusion about the meaning of the Mass. It made it a “regular, everyday” event and removed the aura of sanctity surrounding the sacred mysteries. I think this fact is linked to decreasing reverence and a diminished understanding of the Eucharist.Because being deprived of understanding what was going on, instead of putting it in a language that they could understand, what they were supposed to understand was changed at the same time.
D
Dauphin
Guest
In his own person, the priest has no power to consecrate the Eucharist or to forgive sins. All such power is in the person of Christ. This has always been the teaching of the Church.Oh please. Ego te absolvo. I’ve seen plenty of talk in works predating '62 on how the priest has the power to change bread into Christ, forgive sins, etc…(I think it’s in the Baltimore Catechism, but I would not stake my life on it). You can’t blame V II for this one.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
When Christ asked for the children to come to Him I don’t think he expected them to understand every nuance of what He preached.It’s far from a word game; It’s one of the most central comments of the Mass. I’m sorry if I my tone was unfriendly.
I truly believe that He loves those who follow without fully understanding.
I have too, I don’t fully understand.
D
Dauphin
Guest
I never said He doesn’t love them! I should also point out that I meant to type ‘concepts’ not ‘comments’.When Christ asked for the children to come to Him I don’t think he expected them to understand every nuance of what He preached.
I truly believe that He loves those who follow without fully understanding.
I have too, I don’t fully understand.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isa Almisry
Oh please. Ego te absolvo. I’ve seen plenty of talk in works predating '62 on how the priest has the power to change bread into Christ, forgive sins, etc…(I think it’s in the Baltimore Catechism, but I would not stake my life on it). You can’t blame V II for this one.
In his own person, the priest has no power to consecrate the Eucharist or to forgive sins. All such power is in the person of Christ. This has always been the teaching of the Church.
I think the confusion here is in that the Orthodox do not follow the teaching of a priest being in Persona Christi. I could be wrong --but I think I came across this over at the Eastern forum.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie.The church never refers to the Eucharist simply as “bread”.
Panem coelestem accipiam, et nomen Domini invocabo.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
When Christ asked for the children to come to Him I don’t think he expected them to understand every nuance of what He preached.
I truly believe that He loves those who follow without fully understanding.
I have too, I don’t fully understand.
Yes our Lord loves us—but just as the Church has the responsibility to teach–it is also our responsibility to learn what the Church teaches. How are we to instruct our children if --we ourselves do not know.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.