P
ProVobis
Guest
Just like the Tower of Babel?
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
Please provide some evidence of this.
In any case the gift of tongues was no longer in effect after the death of the last Apostle.
And we’re talking about the language of common and universal worship within Rites, by the way, not vernacular used to convert.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Exactly. “[T]he multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue.” Acts 2:6 (DRB).
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Right. Here is what UNIVERSAL means according to Webster.comThat’s right. It’s like when people argue about the “four marks of the Church” and the vital importance of being universal, and then they get perplexed and frustrated when you mention the other parts of our universal church. The very existence of the Eastern Catholic churches is such an utter demolition of the repeated claim that “when we all spoke Latin, the liturgy was universal,” that they’d really rather not discuss it. (“We must be truly universal! But please stop mentioning the Eastern rites in my presence; go to the Eastern forum for that.”) When you get reactions like that, you know people are starting to get frightened by something.
1: including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society
2a : present or occurring everywhere b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions
3a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind) b : comprehensively broad and versatile
4a : affirming or denying something of all members of a class or of all values of a variable b : denoting every member of a class
5: adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements (as of use, shape, or size)
According to definition #1, distributively without limit or exception. So limiting to one language actually is against the definition of universal. Also, available equitably to all members of a society, which means it should be available to both who prefers Latin and those who doesn’t.
Definition #5 says adjustable to meed varied requirements. Such as language?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Like I said, there was never an evidence of a unified language in the Church. Sure, each sui juris Church has their own official language, but that is because in the beginning each sui juris Church only occupies a territory within the boundaries of their language and culture. There was no Roman/Latin Church in Greece,and no Greek Church in Rome.
You guys ask why I keep bringing Eastern Catholicism into the discussion. Because the Byzantine Rite is the best example of universality. The Byzantine Rite is used in over half the sui juris Churches in the Catholic Church. Same Rite, same Liturgy across different cultures and languages. And it was done from the beginning. Language was never a barrier in Church unity because we are united in Jesus Christ, not in Latin.
M
malphono
Guest
For one, some people have a false notion that the East is all-vernacular-all-the-time, which is simply not true. As I mentioned in another thread recently, while the arguments and debates about liturgical language vs vernacular in the East and Orient may be somewhat different than those in the Roman Church, they exist nonetheless. Let no one try to say or imply otherwise. It is not, and never has been, all-vernacular-all-the time. Not by a longshot.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
But fact is, they never used Latin. Thats the thing, the contention by the pro-Latin crowd is that its a unifying factor. But Latin has never, ever been used in the East. Greek is their vernacular at the time of the founding of the Church. If you listen to some of the arguments here, its as if the entire Church spoke only Latin for 1600 years or so. That was never the case, because each Eastern Church spoke their own language. Regardless if they translated it further into another language or not, fact is they never spoke in Latin to begin with. They spoke in their own language which was their vernacular at the founding of their sui juris Church.
L
Layman
Guest
And is what the church has traditionally taught any different to what it teaches right here, right now?
There’s nothing narrow-minded about wanting Latin, universally, in the Roman Catholic Mass. It helps preserve the faith across time and space and maintains unity.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Nothing really, but it just shows where my stance is in all thse CITH/Latin/standing bruhaha thats been going on. I’m not going to be against anything the Church allows, regardless if I practice it or not. If the Church allows it, then I will support it. A good example are these Catholic Charistmatic movements. I don’t think I can ever be convinced to join a group there but the Vatican allows it, why should I speak anything against them? I’m free not to join them anyway.
Your two sentences contradict. Because your second sentence says Latin helps preserve the faith across time and space. But the faith has been preserved in other languages outside the Roman Church and for an ever far longer time than the Roman Church has existed. So obviously the first sentence is not a true statement in relation to the secon sentence. And that is my contention. While I respect the place of Latin in our Church, I do not regard Latin to be that be-all, end-all type of language. Its not. Greek has preserved our faith as much as Latin has. That is why I always bring up the Eastern Churches, because they never used Latin and they have preserved the faith. Therefore Latin is not essential to preserving the faith because it has been done in other languages. That is my point.
P
ProVobis
Guest
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
That is why you need to speak in the language of others who are not your brother
L
Layman
Guest
Speak in whatever language you like, but leave the Roman Catholic Rite alone. Only parts of it are didactic towards the congregation and they are not central to the rite.That is why you need to speak in the language of others who are not your brother
O
Ockham
Guest
Don’t some of the Eastern rites reject things like papal infallibility?That’s right. It’s like when people argue about the “four marks of the Church” and the vital importance of being universal, and then they get perplexed and frustrated when you mention the other parts of our universal church. The very existence of the Eastern Catholic churches is such an utter demolition of the repeated claim that “when we all spoke Latin, the liturgy was universal,” that they’d really rather not discuss it. (“We must be truly universal! But please stop mentioning the Eastern rites in my presence; go to the Eastern forum for that.”
L
Layman
Guest
You are one of the few continuing the ‘CITH/Latin/standing bruhaha’ in this traditional Roman Catholic sub-forum. There is no CITH, standing in the old rite. There’re plenty of beautiful Latin prayers, 'though.
The forum for the rites you often reference is here. By faith I should have said Roman Catholicism and by extension, the faith, but given where we’re posting, I’d hoped …
If what has happened to Roman Catholicism in the past 70 years had happened in another religion, we would see it as a clear sign of degeneration. Dropping a sacred language, stripping sanctuaries, letting women into the sanctuary, gutting religious texts, mundane hymns … etc …
V
Vixit
Guest
Copernicus, Marie Curie, Chopin, JPII- Poles have much to be proud of.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Eastern Catholics don’t. Only the Eastern Orthodox do. Eastern Catholics only become Catholics when they accept Catholic doctrine. The difference isnt’ really big betwen Catholicism and Orthodoxy, so if they don’t accept Papal Infallibility why do they even want to be Catholics?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Doesn’t matter. I conform to what the Church teaches today. If the Church were to ban CITH tomorrow, I’d conform to that. But until then, I’d embrace it because our Church allows it.
Our faith is one and the same. To suggest that Roman Catholic faith is different from Eastern Catholic faith is, I dunno, head-scratching to say the least.
The Church has gone through many changes in the past. When the Tridentine Mass was standardized, how do you think those others with different rites of Mass feel?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Do you speak for the Church? Those who have authority in the Church allow for the vernacular. I follow them for their authority.
P
ProVobis
Guest
If I could do that, I would certainly apply for a job at the United Nations.
Think I’ll stick with the Latin. There were quite a lot of gray Latin-Spanish missalettes being used at the last EF I attended.
O
Ockham
Guest
"Notice:
This forum is intended for discussion of Traditional Roman Catholic liturgy, practices, and spirituality. It is not intended for discussion of Eastern Catholic liturgy, practices, and spirituality (or for arguing for the presumed superiority of Eastern Catholicism to Traditional Roman Catholicism). Those wishing to discuss Eastern Catholicism must do so in the Eastern Catholicism forum, and not in this forum. Anyone violating this directive will be banned from the Traditional Catholicism forum and will be subject to the possibility of having his account permanently closed.
Please note further that this directive is not open for debate. Any use of this thread for arguments against this directive will be subject to the same discipline outlined above."
Jo Benedict, Moderator
- Status