God doesn't speak Latin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isa_Almisry
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, JK, the readings are in both. . .first the Latin, then the vernacular. That was done quite some time ago. . .over 40 years if I remember. So you don’t have to 'change anything".

There is already I believe a Latin version of the Novus Ordo. That is what you appear to ‘want’ as it contains all the things you like in the “new” ordinary Mass. Why do you wish to change the other Mass–a Mass which Pope Benedict XVI has told us has been a treasure of the church, is, was, and remains valid as it is done and requires no ‘change’ to remain valid???

As far as the rest – it appears to me that what you REALLY want is for all the stuff that you personally find unnecessary, unappealing, irrelevant, to be ‘changed’ to what you find necessary, appealing, and relevant. You basically want not the Extraordinary Mass --but the vernacular Mass the way it is done now, with maybe a few bits of Latin, everybody ‘responding orally’–as if there is no OTHER way to respond in prayer and silence is somehow anathema.

What is ‘fussy’ to you is based on your personal preference. Well, it isn’t ‘fussy’ to me. I find deep meaning and significance in it. Why must I sacrifice MY understanding to YOUR personal preference?
 
pyropam said:
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?
Click to expand...
So your ignorance and ineptitude with a missal nullifies the holiness of the Traditional Latin Mass? Should we ban it again to ensure that those darn cult-like traditionalists don’t get their way?
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?
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Following along in the missal ensures that we’re focused on the prayers. I suppose those who bring a missal to the NO are just doing some distracting reading duing the Mass, are they?
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.
Click to expand...
Over time, as you become familiar with the language, it becomes easier to do both. If you really don’t like multi-tasking, don’t go to a TLM. Problem solved.
Not even the Catholic schools here teach Latin anymore… The children would be lost as well.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah… the children always pay attention during the english Masses. They really know what’s going on when it’s in the vernacular. Give me a break. I didn’t know what the Eucharist was until I was 17 (yes, well after first communion). Children can be taught. They can be given the basics of the Mass.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
stmaria;2724777:
Oh, PLEASE, St. Maria, you “traditionalists” go on and on and ON about how popes can be wrong. You continually point out how popes have erred after the council when compared with “before” the council. On this point, which is clearly
Click to expand...
a matter of discipline (unless you want to argue that Latin as a sacred tongue was handed down by the Apostles as a matter of dogma or doctrine), certainly the pope can be wrong. As it happens, Blessed John XXIII ISN’T wrong, because the Church does need a common tongue. Those who prefer and advocate for the vernacular Mass, however, are equally NOT wrong, because as Pope Benedict has said, there are advantages to the vernacular Mass (and I think that being able to understand the language of the Holy Sacrifice is one of them).

As your sig says.
Click to expand...
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Yes, if every priest had followed the rubrics that we have today. . .but as Pope Benedict XVI noted, there was a very sizeable number of clergy who ‘thought’ that the rubrics called for experimentation and change.

Further, if the actual documents for Vatican II had been carried out regarding the liturgy, we would not have the vernacular Mass as most know it–“all” vernacular. We would have a Mass which had the main parts in it (Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei etc) in Latin, which had many responses in Latin, etc.

Further still, if the actual documents had been carried out regarding the liturgy, we would have had for 40 years what we have now–an ‘ordinary’ form (with some Latin and some vernacular) and an ‘extraordinary’ form --the Latin Mass.

What we have ‘now’ as of Sept 14th is a very clear step to what we ‘should have had’ in 1970 until today. And what we hope to receive, with the ICEL coming up, which will hopefully continue the strides already made in SOME parishes to institute the documents of Vatican II to have the ‘ordinary’ Mass include Latin with the vernacular, will hopefully restore the ‘ordinary’ Mass to its glory as now the extraordinary Mass has been restored to its glory.

Deo gratias!
Click to expand...
yes, the circumstances of introducing the vernacular is what led to the free for all that has, it seems, had to be painfully rectified.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying we can only use these three languages. However, I consider anything attached to the cross to be utterly sacred.
 
You know, I think it is a terrible shame that it appears that many people feel ‘threatened’ by the use of Latin, in any way.

So they not only want to jettison any vestige of it in the Mass itself --“nobody understands a language they don’t speak as their native tongue or on a regular basis ordering coffee, etc.”, they want to render it at best as something which ‘used’ to be a part of Mass but thankfully has been swept away by the enlightened ones so that now we can ‘see’ everything, ‘understand’ everything, and celebrate all together now; at WORST as something which had been foisted onto the poor people for centuries, WRONGLY, and the whole sad debacle of those unintelligible mumbo jumbo Masses which denied millions the opportunity to ‘participate’ with God should be brought up daily, to warn us of WHAT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN if this hideous ‘Latin’ Mass returns. No more ‘freedom’ or understanding’ --all the ‘abuses’ that existed prior to Vatican II brought back.

"Fussiness’. “Ornate display”. “Choreography”.

Such uncharitable and neo-Puritan charges based solely on a dislike of what is seen as ‘new’. . .or worse yet, what is seen as 'not what I think should be done/said/worn".
 
Dauphin said:
I’m not saying we can only use these three languages. However, I consider anything attached to the cross to be utterly sacred.
Click to expand...
I do, too. The sign itself IS sacred. But Latin? Latin was used to write grafitii on the walls of restrooms by the Romans! No language known to man is INHERENTLY, ONTOLLOGICALLY sacred (ie, of itself). We use them for sacred things, certainly.
 
Arent you all forgetting something though?

Regardless of the language Christ spoke; regardless of the languages on the signboard of the Cross; regardless of the earliest days of the Church; and everything else- Latin has been used in the Liturgy of the Latin Rite nearly 1500 years. It is a long-standing tradition, and that alone is enough justification for its use.
 
Point here --while I specifically reference some of your words, JKirk, as being ‘uncharitable’ I am not saying that YOU are uncharitable. I wanted to make that clear–I am not attacking you by any means, but I still think (opinion) that those words and phrases are in themselves uncharitable, though they were not ‘meant’ to be presented as such.
 
anthony022071 said:
Isa Almisry;2724308:
He did not set the Creed in Latin.

He didn’t set the creed in Greek for that matter. He didn’t set a creed at all.
Click to expand...
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).

There were Latin translations of scripture from before the time of Jerome’s translation.

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.

The Greeks may have been ignorant of Latin,but the Latins were not ignorant of Greek.

The Creed seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to the Fathers, who wrote it in Greek.

Yes, the Itala was ad hoc translations that show a Greek version was at its basis. There is no tradition I am aware that held Jerome’s translation as inspired. Indeed, I was shocked to find out that Jerome wasn’t even beatified nor canonized until Trent. Even the Jews thought (until the Christians proved too skillful with it) the LXX inspired, and indeed the Dead Sea Scrolls and other fragments that predate the Church agree with the LXX against the Masoretic text. Jerome was the one who abandoned the LXX as the Church’s (and the NT’s) text, the full fruit of which was the Judaizing Protestants.

Yes, the Latins couldn’t get by without Greek.
Click to expand...
 
Tantum_ergo said:
You know, I think it is a terrible shame that it appears that many people feel ‘threatened’ by the use of Latin, in any way.

So they not only want to jettison any vestige of it in the Mass itself --“nobody understands a language they don’t speak as their native tongue or on a regular basis ordering coffee, etc.”, they want to render it at best as something which ‘used’ to be a part of Mass but thankfully has been swept away by the enlightened ones so that now we can ‘see’ everything, ‘understand’ everything, and celebrate all together now; at WORST as something which had been foisted onto the poor people for centuries, WRONGLY, and the whole sad debacle of those unintelligible mumbo jumbo Masses which denied millions the opportunity to ‘participate’ with God should be brought up daily, to warn us of WHAT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN if this hideous ‘Latin’ Mass returns. No more ‘freedom’ or understanding’ --all the ‘abuses’ that existed prior to Vatican II brought back.

"Fussiness’. “Ornate display”. “Choreography”.

Such uncharitable and neo-Puritan charges based solely on a dislike of what is seen as ‘new’. . .or worse yet, what is seen as 'not what I think should be done/said/worn".
Click to expand...
Why is it uncharitable when WE say it, but “traditionalists” are permitted to dump all over the Pauline Rite?

And I think you’re overstating for effect. No one has said that the Church was inherently lacking before the council. But Pius XII warned us not to be afraid of everything “new.” The idea of the vernacular isn’t even that (“new,” I mean). The switch to Latin was a switch to the vernacular in the first place.

Finally, “not what I think should be done/said/worn,” is something we hear CONSTANTLY from “traditionalists.” We’re just playing by the same rules. Besides, the things mentioned that are “fussy” and overly “choreographed” are NOT integral parts OF the TLM. There is no rubric that says the altar servers, deacons, subdeacons, etc. have to pick up the priests skirts or move like a military drill formation. Those are NOT integral.
 
Sheesh you’ll are fast. This thread has averaged a post every 2 and a half minutes.

Since that was thoroughly useless, I’ll shut up and wander off.
 
Arent you all forgetting something though?
Click to expand...
Regardless of the language Christ spoke; regardless of the languages on the signboard of the Cross; regardless of the earliest days of the Church; and everything else- Latin has been used in the Liturgy of the Latin Rite nearly 1500 years. It is a long-standing tradition, and that alone is enough justification for its use.
Click to expand...
Well worth repeating. . .thank you, Caesar.

While this has been an interesting thread–um, mods, have we answered the question?

God ‘speaks’ Latin–and every other language in that He ‘created’ us and we ‘created’ language.

We cannot try to limit Almighty God.
 
Dauphin said:
Yes. Its value would certainly be diminished (although the sacrifice would obviously be unaffected). Did you listen to yesterday’s homily?
Click to expand...
No, I was not able. I have been hoping to catch a replay.
It’s akin to an Eastern Catholic asking: “If we tear out the iconostasis, will the divine liturgy be any less?”
Click to expand...
Actually, no it’s not. I specifically said that all the other accoutrements would be included. It would be akin to a uniate asking if the DL was in English. And no, it’s not different (I’ve been to it in Greek, Slavonic in the Old Country and new, and to English here, and it’s not).
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Why is it uncharitable when WE say it, but “traditionalists” are permitted to dump all over the Pauline Rite?

And I think you’re overstating for effect. No one has said that the Church was inherently lacking before the council. But Pius XII warned us not to be afraid of everything “new.” The idea of the vernacular isn’t even that (“new,” I mean). The switch to Latin was a switch to the vernacular in the first place.

Finally, “not what I think should be done/said/worn,” is something we hear CONSTANTLY from “traditionalists.” We’re just playing by the same rules. Besides, the things mentioned that are “fussy” and overly “choreographed” are NOT integral parts OF the TLM. There is no rubric that says the altar servers, deacons, subdeacons, etc. have to pick up the priests skirts or move like a military drill formation. Those are NOT integral.
Click to expand...
I dont know about you, but on more then one occaision I’ve seen Novus Ordo priests trip over their albs when walking. As for the servers, would you prefer that they lounge around with their arms at their sides, looking bored and useless?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top