God doesn't speak Latin

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, the more you go to a Mass in any ‘other’ language’, the more you get to KNOW the other language. It broadens your mind.

Until relatively recently, most people did not get by in ‘one’ language. Even here in ‘melting pot’ America, where immigrants were pretty much told to ‘learn English’, until the mid 20th century the ‘mother tongue’ was spoken WITH the English. Go back a little further to the frontier, and you’ll find that people could ‘get by’ in (depending on where you lived) as much as half a dozen languages. . .and these weren’t the ‘intellectually elite’ people. They were just plain old regular people like you and me. No internet even, probably didn’t own all that many books, probably worked 16 hour days most days farming and living ‘on the land’–yet they could somehow wrap their minds around another language well enough to make themselves understood (were they ‘English’ speakers) to the dominant native Americans in the area, if any, to the French settlers in the nearest ‘fort’, to the German speaking family nearby, the Swedes who moved in upcountry. . . and were they Catholic, they would all meet with the priest who would be traveling the area (with luck, coming every month) to celebrate the LATIN mass, which even if they didn’t have nice little missals to read along with, they would have, through that sadly condemned practice of ‘rote memory’ and practice, been able to follow along, to worship with sincerity, understanding, and love.

 

[Dauphin]

I’m sorry. I don’t go to Church for entertainment and amusement.

I went to a Latin mass decades ago, when we had to get a dispensation for it, for a medieval history class in a Latin school.

I question, if the Tridentine Mass was done, with all the reverence and pomp (I have no problem per se with pomp) but in English, would it be any less?

Yes. Its value would certainly be diminished (although the sacrifice would obviously be unaffected). Did you listen to yesterday’s homily?

It’s akin to an Eastern Catholic asking: “If we tear out the iconostasis, will the divine liturgy be any less?”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Father doesn’t speak Latin.
Implying that the Father does not know something is denying His omniscience.

The Son on earth didn’t speak Latin.
Actually, most people in that area would have known at least a little Latin from their Roman rulers. That being said, Christ was God and Man, so he possessed he Father’s knowledge, did He not?

His mother didn’t speak Latin.
Read above.

None of His disciples spoke Latin.
Again, above.

When the Holy Spirit came down, Latin was only one of the languages He spoke through the Apostles.
Latin was one of the three languages inscribed on the sign hung on the Cross, proclaiming the sacrifice.

He did not speak through the writers of Scripture in Latin.
So?

I’m not even going to bother going on.

Well, it seems that opposition also comes from the Eastern Orthodox. Well, Blessed Pius IX didnt care what the Easterns thought- niether should we.

The sentiment was in return:

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

But your Vatican II did care.

Or is this a denial of the change to the vernacular?

As to your statement about Latin:

I didn’t say the Father couldn’t speak Latin, there is just nothing that shows He did.

And the scarcity of Latin loans in Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic and the Greek of the area also belies that contention that they knew any Latin of the conquerors. In contrast the Greek of Greece and Constantinople shows Latin influence.

Btw SS Cyril and Methodius received the Pope of Rome’s condemnation that the DL could only be in one of the three languages of the Cross.

Latin was evidently Pilate’s language.

 

[Walking_Home]

Then I’m in good company: two popes (that’s real ones, not mini-ones sitting in their armchairs, dreaming of the day when they’ll step out on the loggia).

---

Yes you are in good company–just as we all are. And it is those real Popes who have stated that Latin should be retained. But I guess since you don’t see a real need for it (except in certain circumstances) --who really is the mini-one sitting in an armchair.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

God doesn’t use the Glory and Praise hymnal either.

Neither do I

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You do? What would those things be?

The readings would not be in Latin. They would be in the vernacular.

There would be one confietor, made by everyone together, as in the Pauline.

The Mass would be offered in the vernacular, as well as Latin, but not a mix, unless it was the common, sung parts.

Priests would not wear birettas. The only one in the sanctuary who would have on headgear at all would be a bishop.

The prayers would be audible (note, I’m not saying that it has to be audible to be valid) and no music would be permitted “over” them.

The responses would be made by the people all of the time.

The other things I would change are not central to the Mass, but are accretions, I think:

Less emphasis on drill-team precision. That’s the best way I can describe it. It reminds me of a high school drill team.

Less fastidious fussiness: no lifting of the priest’s skirts for him (in all the years I’ve attended the NO, I’ve never seen a priest trip and they seem to be able to manage their own robes), for example.

I’d also get rid of the silly looking negligee alb and go back to one that cannot be seen through. The lace looks fussy as well. These are, however, not integral. For example, the TLM can be offered with a gothic chasuble as well as a Roman.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This old argument was rejected by the Church during the time of Saints Cyril and Methodius. Pilate’s use of the three languages did not render them in any way sacred. He was simply trying to communicate in the three tongues that most of the passersby would understand.

You beat me to it.

 

[Dauphin]

I never use a missal in the NO Mass because I don’t have to: I know all the parts and responses that I’m supposed to make. I can’t imagine trading that for having to follow along in a “script.”
And no, the Tridentine would not be any less in the vernacular. I’ve heard the “Suscipe, Domine” in English and it’s lovely.

It may seem like following along with a script the first time, but it’ll gradually become very easy. Following in a missal ensures, also, that we are attentive to the prayers being said.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You would only be totally lost if you refused to open a missal.

And the illiterate? What do they do? Or perhaps they don’t count?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I can’t wait for your suggestions.You are going to tell us how a Mass that is over 1400 years old needs to be reformed? Go for it.

Again, PLEASE, St. Maria! Pope Benedict himself bluntly told a group of “traditionalists” that the old Missal as it was offered was not what the liturgy was intended to be.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You know, JKirk, I think that both ideas are good.

We aren’t ‘sacrificing’ the vernacular Mass!! It is the ordinary form. And when properly celebrated according to the rubrics, as you note, it is a joy and a glory.

But it is certainly true that in the extraordinary form --which we likewise need not sacrifice–*it is much more difficult for celebrants and/or congregation to make the type of abuse that we can sometimes see in a vernacular Mass, that of ‘embellishing’ or altering or ad libbing text.

What would be good–and I think this was the point of the poster–would be for those celebrating the vernacular Mass to take to heart the rubrics and to obey them, when it comes to text adherence especially. Since the extraordinary form -Latin Mass–gives such an excellent example of strict adherence to the text, it is a good example to those celebrating the vernacular Mass.*

Why can’t the Extraordinary Form be in the Vernacular? The Western Rite Orthodox don’t have a problem.

 

[anthony022071]

When the Church moved on to Rome, she did not speak Latin.

There was a church in Rome as early as Peter’s arrival there in 42,which pre-dates Paul’s arrival in Corinth in 49. It would be foolish to suppose that members of the church in Rome,especially Gentile converts native to Rome,could not speak Latin.

 

[Dauphin]

This old argument was rejected by the Church during the time of Saints Cyril and Methodius. Pilate’s use of the three languages did not render them in any way sacred. He was simply trying to communicate in the three tongues that most of the passersby would understand.

And the use of a cross to murder Christ didn’t render it sacred?

 

[Dauphin]

Again, PLEASE, St. Maria! Pope Benedict himself bluntly told a group of “traditionalists” that the old Missal as it was offered was not what the liturgy was intended to be.

Quote and context, please.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Is there some move afoot to “sacrifice” the vernacular Mass?!?! Tell me about it, and I’ll work to defeat it.

And to say that all we need is a “very simple adherance to the rubrics” is to display an innocence about the reality of the last 40 years that borders on the perverse.

I think the problem was that the change of language and a perceived change in mentality went on at the same time.

If the Latin church had celebrated in the vernacular all along, the liberties that some felt free to do, taking the change of language as their cue, would not have happened.

 

[pyropam]

I’m curious as to whether you have attended a TLM. In order to truly participate in the TLM, you must have a Missal, with both the Latin and the English. If you follow along in your Missal, you would find it very easy to participate.

I can understand how daunting it must seem to you. Raymond Arroyo made an interesting comment on “The World Over” last night on EWTN. He said that people in NYC pay $300 or more to go to the Metropolitan Opera and listen to people sing in other languages. The audience then reads the subtitles either on the back of the chair in front of them or on a screen above the stage, and they don’t seem to have a problem with that. Why would we have a problem with the Mass in Latin?

All I can say is give it a try before you make a judgment. I think you will be very surprised.

Mary

You must be a “cradle Catholic” or at least have been exposed to the TLM since a very young age.

The missal is a very hard book to follow. We flip back and forth so that we can read the prayers, the songs, and follow the litergy. Yes, I have been to a TLM and I never wanted to go back into the Catholic Church. As a young person just visiting… it seemed “cult-like”. Why were they speaking in a language that their visitors couldn’t understand?

I love going to Mass, and I won’t miss on Sunday. I love the Catholic Church!

Since God understands all language, don’t you think he would be more pleased to know that his followers are truly praising him and not just trying to follow a missal throughout the service?

I love to look at the priest during the Mass. I watch and listen to everything going on. I would have to miss most of that if I were having to read the missal interpretation. It would be a terrible distraction to me.

Not even the Catholic schools here teach Latin anymore… The children would be lost as well.

Forgive the spelling… but even the Kyrie gave me the creeps and I refused to sing along until I finally figured out what they were singing.

And, I’m really not trying to be ugly about this but… how many people do any of us know that would pay $300 to go to the opera and see something that wasn’t in our language? Not very many of us unless we already knew the story… or a free ticket. But, the box office is running full force at the movie theatre to see movies in our own language.

 

[Dauphin]

And the illiterate? What do they do? Or perhaps they don’t count?

They should probably attend the ordinary form, although it isn’t impossible to teach them to understand Latin.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry;2724730:

---

Well Isa Almisry–by saying that there is no evidence that it is their language of choice --you are still applying human limitation to our Most Holy Trinity and our Lord Mother who resides in heaven.

No, I’m just questioning the limitation that somehow Latin is their language.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry;2724386:

Greek can not only be used all over the world, but has been used from the beginning of the Church. Latin cannot make that claim even for Rome./

QUOTE]

So you know more than Pope John XXIII???

Pope John XXIII - Veterum Sapientia
Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression… 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… Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority… There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings… But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use… 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…

Responsibility for enforcement

2.In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy Sees will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

Even in the liturgy there should be Latin.

Sorry, I don’t think this is ex cathedra, so even according to your beliefs the pope of Rome can’t claim any special guidance.

Just the first point expresses a Occidentocentric view of the world at odds with the facts of the early history of the Chruch.

The East has never had any use for Latin. The West has had a need for Greek (a fact also mentioned I believe by the pope of Rome). My original OP points out that even in Rome, Latin did not fulfill the role you are quoting until Damasus, and did not even start until Victor.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And the use of a cross to murder Christ didn’t render it sacred?

You’d have to make the CHURCH understand why you feel that the use of the 3 languages on the cross rendered them sacred. It was the Church that condemned the view at the time she gave Cyril and Methodius the right to celebrate the liturgies in the vernacular of the area where they were ministering. That was the argument that was made by some: we can only use one of these three tongues from the signboard on the cross. It was condemned.