Having your own missal: a 35-year tradition?

[Te_Deum]

I suppose that’s true. If you really want to get down to it, though, you don’t really* have* to participate at all; you can just sit there like a rock. However, the issue is about participating, not what you* have* to do.

Well actually, you have to participate. At least at Easter . I just think you’re approaching this the wrong way. It is not necessary to know the Latin to actively participate at the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

Of course it’s better to know what Ordinary of Mass. Which is one of the great benefits of missals. But you do not have to.

I agree. It was always the job of the priest to explain the verbal and non-verbal parts of the Mass for those who didn’t understand it. From Session 22 of Trent:

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

DOCTRINE

Being the sixth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the seventeenth day of September, MDLXII.

The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein–to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the holy Catholic Church; and may, all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares; and decrees what follows, to be preached to the faithful, on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a true and singular sacrifice.

…

CHAPTER VIII.

On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue; the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people.

Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained; and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord’s days and festivals.

 

[Warrenton]

. Don’t you think that actually knowing what it is that one is praying has some benefit to those in attendance? Or should we enter the 21st century droning like robots to words that we parrot in prayers that we don’t understand?

It is more complex than this. If it were otherwise, Protestantism would not be in the state of crisis it is today. Protestants have ostensibly understood what they have been saying in church since the 1500s. If one does not believe what one is saying, then the level of understanding is of secondary importance.

Islam offers an interesting comparison. Probably tens of millions of Muslims have little more than a rudimentary understanding of Arabic, yet have a strong faith. They believe the tenets of their faith, and have a concrete understanding of what is necessary to live in accordance with their faith.

Another analogy might be technology. Millions of people know how to use a telephone, but the majority have little or no understanding of how one actually works, even an analog phone. The case is the same with automobiles. The use of a thing is the important part for most people.

One would be hard pressed to prove that 19th century Catholics were less able to use their religion than today’s Catholics.

 

[ProVobis]

It is more complex than this. If it were otherwise, Protestantism would not be in the state of crisis it is today. Protestants have ostensibly understood what they have been saying in church since the 1500s. If one does not believe what one is saying, then the level of understanding is of secondary importance.

Islam offers an interesting comparison. Probably tens of millions of Muslims have little more than a rudimentary understanding of Arabic, yet have a strong faith. They believe the tenets of their faith, and have a concrete understanding of what is necessary to live in accordance with their faith.

Another analogy might be technology. Millions of people know how to use a telephone, but the majority have little or no understanding of how one actually works, even an analog phone. The case is the same with automobiles. **The use of a thing is the important part for most people. **

One would be hard pressed to prove that 19th century Catholics were less able to use their religion than today’s Catholics.

Precisely. You hit the nail on the head.

Most lawyers and judges probably don’t think about the meanings of the Latin terms they use (quid pro quo, pro bono, corpus habeas, affidavit, or even et cetera) but they know each means only one thing, they know when to use them, the judge understands, and no translations needed. If anything, a translation might confuse.

Certainly all Catholics should know and recognize the words “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” and know that it means only thing, that a consecration is taking place, without a translation.

(In fact, many in the 60’s started doubting the validity of the Mass when it went into the vernacular. See Omlor’s writing on this.)

 

[Warrenton]

(In fact, many in the 60’s started doubting the validity of the Mass when it went into the vernacular. See Omlor’s writing on this.)

Thanks for the reference! I’ll look it up.

Cheers!

 

[ProVobis]

It is more complex than this. If it were otherwise, Protestantism would not be in the state of crisis it is today. Protestants have ostensibly understood what they have been saying in church since the 1500s. If one does not believe what one is saying, then the level of understanding is of secondary importance.

I thought it was Omlor who mentioned this but I seem to recall one of the critics of the vernacular pointed out that at the Hoc est enim Corpus Meum the hoc (because it’s neuter and singular) could only refer to the Corpus (body) as opposed to panem, “bread,” which would have used hic as the pointer. The English “this” as in “This is my body” can easily be construed as the “bread” which then would make the Protestant heretical belief of consubstantiation much easier to justify. Catholic belief is that transubstantiation occurs, meaning that “this” is not the bread but Christ’s body at the point of consecration, which the Latin makes very clear.