God doesn't speak Latin

[Dauphin]

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.

Stop calling it a skirt.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

And the Holy See permitted the expansion of the vernacular, and it wasn’t 1500 years, it was more like 1100-1200, and the Pope as a Cardinal admitted that we could have the TLM in the vernacular and there is nothing WRONG with wanting the Mass in the vernacular (any Mass, including the Extraordinary Form).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Stop calling it a skirt.

Um, excuse me, that’s a common usage: “the skirts of his robes,” etc. There is nothing disrespectul intended by that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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?

No, I’d prefer a reasonable medium, that’s what I’d prefer.

 

[DustinsDad]

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.

I don’t think that was Caesar’s argument.

He was simply trying to communicate in the three tongues that most of the passersby would understand.

I think this, on the otherhand, was the argument Caesar was making.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Tantum_ergo]

JKirk;

The biggest thing I got from your most recent thread was a simple ‘tit for tat’.

Your basic understanding and rationale for posting ‘against’ the extraordinary form and for your proposed ‘changes’ to it seem to be,

“Traditionalists” (your quotes) have ‘attacked’ us, so I will attack them.

“Traditionalists” (your quotes) have questioned what we do, so I’m going to question what they do.

I’m trying to be as careful and respectful here as I can be so PLEASE do not think this is said in any way other than love. . .

Honestly, this is the kind of behavior I would expect from a young child who is upset at a perceived ‘insult’ from another child.

“You question me so I’ll throw it right back at you. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.”

It almost seems as if it’s not that YOU PERSONALLY have any real problems with the extraordinary Mass, but rather that you are simply ‘picking on it’ because of the perception that “traditionalists” (your quotes) have picked on ‘your’ Mass.

Is this correct? You want to ‘play by the same rules’ --but these rules are something you personally find offensive when YOUR preference is questioned? And you want to then offend OTHERS? I simply do not understand this.

 

[Dauphin]

No, I was not able. I have been hoping to catch a replay.

Here:

download.rbn.com/ewtn/download/latin830.mp3

(readings and homily)

 

[Walking_Home]

But while I was looking, I did find this, where Cardinal Ratzinger alludes to the fact that we could have the TLM in the vernacular:

latinmassjax.org/augustnewsletter.htm

---

This part from your link is quite interesting. The response from Pope Benedict then Card.-- to Doctor Barth.

Very honored Doctor Barth!

Heartfelt thanks for your letter of April 6th, the response to which I only now find the time to make.

You ask that I involve myself in the wider authorization of the old Roman Rite. You yourself already know that for my part, such a request does not fall on deaf ears; indeed, my involvement in this wish has, as it happens, become generally known.

"However, whether the Holy See “will once again worldwide and without limit authorize” the old rite as you wish it and have heard through rumor may happen, cannot be simply said or entirely confirmed.

One must always reckon with the fact that too many Catholics have been inoculated for years with an aversion to the traditional liturgy, which they disdainfully call “pre-conciliar” and likewise with considerable opposition on the part of many bishops against a general reauthorization [of the old rite].

Commentary: Here Cardinal Ratzinger states a problem or hindrance with granting a widespread and unlimited authorization of the use of the Traditional Latin Mass: too many laity have an aversion to this Mass and many bishops are opposed. Ratzinger deliberately uses the word “inoculated”, implying that the action of sowing hatred for the TLM is both deliberate and systemic. He does not say by whom this has been done, but simple

research indicates it starts with the Roman Curia itself and spreads by means of national bishops’ conferences

right down to the parish level. Likewise, “inoculated” indicates that the Catholic laity and bishops willingly

stood up and accepted the poisonous disinformation worldwide. This is the penalty we have imposed on ourselves for not taking responsibility to learn our Faith and our holy Tradition, and for not taking the time to learn and understand the history of our Sacred Liturgy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

“Did you listen to yesterday’s homily?”

Yes, I did. I thought it was quite good, but there was ONE rather disingenous little bit: the part where the homilist stated that the Holy Spirit had lead the Church beyond the use of the iconostasis and NOW she delineated or drew a veil across the Sacred Mysteries through the use of Latin. Illogical. One can easily argue that the Holy Spirit has, over time, as He has before, lead the Church “beyond” the use of Latin. I wouldn’t make that argument, but it’s logical given what he said.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry;2724308:

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.

I’m not sure about the reference to Corinth. Is it trying to discredit the Greek? Too bad. Greek was spoken in Antioch, Jerusalem (a article in Biblical Archaeology a few years back was showing how the number of inscriptions indicate it was spoken more than previous thought in Palestine) and Alexadria.

Actually the argument for Latin speakers in Corinth can be better made than for Rome. Corinth had been refounded as a Roman colony,

As for Rome, JMJ coder and I discussed that on another thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2589087#post2589087

There are many posts there that show that yes, the idea that the Roman Church spoke Latin at the time is anachronism. They spoke Greek.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

This part from your link is quite interesting. The response from Pope Benedict then Card.-- to Doctor Barth.

Very honored Doctor Barth!

Heartfelt thanks for your letter of April 6th, the response to which I only now find the time to make.

You ask that I involve myself in the wider authorization of the old Roman Rite. You yourself already know that for my part, such a request does not fall on deaf ears; indeed, my involvement in this wish has, as it happens, become generally known.

"However, whether the Holy See “will once again worldwide and without limit authorize” the old rite as you wish it and have heard through rumor may happen, cannot be simply said or entirely confirmed.

One must always reckon with the fact that too many Catholics have been inoculated for years with an aversion to the traditional liturgy, which they disdainfully call “pre-conciliar” and likewise with considerable opposition on the part of many bishops against a general reauthorization [of the old rite].

Commentary: Here Cardinal Ratzinger states a problem or hindrance with granting a widespread and unlimited authorization of the use of the Traditional Latin Mass: too many laity have an aversion to this Mass and many bishops are opposed. Ratzinger deliberately uses the word “inoculated”, implying that the action of sowing hatred for the TLM is both deliberate and systemic. He does not say by whom this has been done, but simple

research indicates it starts with the Roman Curia itself and spreads by means of national bishops’ conferences

right down to the parish level. Likewise, “inoculated” indicates that the Catholic laity and bishops willingly

stood up and accepted the poisonous disinformation worldwide. This is the penalty we have imposed on ourselves for not taking responsibility to learn our Faith and our holy Tradition, and for not taking the time to learn and understand the history of our Sacred Liturgy.

I don’t have an aversion to the old Mass. I have an aversion to how it’s offered. Also, I quite agree with Cardinal Ratzinger (though what he feels as pope is what matters): The Church in the Latin Rite isn’t going to be able to have two rites. We’re going to have to have one. Anything else is simply going to cause greater divisions. And that will more than likely be the Extraordinary Rite. With the Cardinal, I envision it being offered in Latin and in the vernacular.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But has not Pope Benedict XVI already said that we will have an ordinary and an extraordinary form?

IOW, he has already said that the Mass that had existed prior to this new (now ordinary) form was not only valid, but had never ceased to BE valid.

It was right then; it is right now.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

So the Greeks were largely ignorant of Latin,while the Latins knew Greek. There were Latin translations of the scriptures from before Jerome’s translation. The church in Rome began with Peter’s arrival there in 42,preceding Paul’s arrival in Greece.
It would be foolish to suppose that members of the church in Rome,especially the Gentile converts who were native to Italy,did not speak Latin.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

With respect, JKirk, if you do NOT have an aversion to the Latin Mass, what exactly do mean when you say with “I have an aversion to the way it is offered?”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirk;

The biggest thing I got from your most recent thread was a simple ‘tit for tat’.

Your basic understanding and rationale for posting ‘against’ the extraordinary form and for your proposed ‘changes’ to it seem to be,

“Traditionalists” (your quotes) have ‘attacked’ us, so I will attack them.

“Traditionalists” (your quotes) have questioned what we do, so I’m going to question what they do.

I’m trying to be as careful and respectful here as I can be so PLEASE do not think this is said in any way other than love. . .

Honestly, this is the kind of behavior I would expect from a young child who is upset at a perceived ‘insult’ from another child.

“You question me so I’ll throw it right back at you. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.”

It almost seems as if it’s not that YOU PERSONALLY have any real problems with the extraordinary Mass, but rather that you are simply ‘picking on it’ because of the perception that “traditionalists” (your quotes) have picked on ‘your’ Mass.

Is this correct? You want to ‘play by the same rules’ --but these rules are something you personally find offensive when YOUR preference is questioned? And you want to then offend OTHERS? I simply do not understand this.

Nothing could be further from the truth and this is not a tit for tat.
There does seem, however, to be a singular feeling that the TLM OR how it is offered is above criticism while the the NO isn’t. I merely point out the irony and falacy of that. Perhaps if you point out what you object to, I can answer it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

You’re making the JW objections to crosses seem rational. Now THAT’s scary.

Since the sign was in three languages, the OTHER two of which have far better claim to be the/a language of God/the Lord/the Church etc., it fails utterly as an arugment for Latin’s special status.

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t have an aversion to the old Mass. I have an aversion to how it’s offered. Also, I quite agree with Cardinal Ratzinger (though what he feels as pope is what matters): The Church in the Latin Rite isn’t going to be able to have two rites. We’re going to have to have one. Anything else is simply going to cause greater divisions. And that will more than likely be the Extraordinary Rite. With the Cardinal, I envision it being offered in Latin and in the vernacular.

---

JKirkLVNV—how can one have an aversion to how it is offered and not have an aversion to the old Mass. The old Mass is what it is. I believe Pope Benedict then Card. covered the part about the Extraordinary form being a cause for division —when he brought up the fact that the Latin rite has from times pasts — other forms of liturgy side by side.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

With respect, JKirk, if you do NOT have an aversion to the Latin Mass, what exactly do mean when you say with “I have an aversion to the way it is offered?”

I mean it exactly as it sounds, as it is witten. I’ve outline what I think would be more idea. Did you read that? The changes I envision would not change the fundamental nature of the Mass. That’s what I mean when I differentiate between the Mass and how it’s offered. You objected when I spoke of “drill-team” precision and “fussiness.” That’s what I have an aversion to. We disagree, obviously, but I’ve offered no insult (nor will I) to the Extraordinary Form.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

The talk of missals gives me the image of two actors following a script in a love scene. Does that count as a marital act?

This is an excuse, not a reason. There is no reason whatsoever that someone should feel like a foreignor in his Church, and with his God and Lord. THAT’s the message of Pentacost.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

So they should repeat mantras, or settle for the Eucharist on the kiddie table?