Hostility towards Latin

  • Thread starter Thread starter bmccpy78
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is this what it takes to “prove” that only Latin can be truly universal, Ockham? Your previous thread amounted to “Not counting all the centuries-old counterexamples, can anyone tell me since when have people received Communion in the hand? Seriously now, I’m declaring all the examples you’re thinking of to be off topic.” Is this thread supposed to become, “Latin is the universal language of the Church, and only one universal language of prayer can satisfy the four marks of the Church. Wait, what’s that, the Eastern Churches have never used Latin? Well, they’re heretics who deny papal supremacy. Oh, now you’re telling me they’re not, that they’re just as much a part of the Catholic Church as you and I? Er, um, . . . Silence!!! Begone!!!”

Generally, when someone tries to shut a person up preemptively, it’s because they’re scared of what the person might say. What are you so frightened of here, Ockham? Are you really that threatened by the existence of totally faithful, liturgically conservative Catholics with an Apostolic origin whose liturgy is not and has never been in Latin?
 
Jews have Hebrew School
Greeks have Greek School

Why can’t Catholics teach their people Latin and Liturgy?

One parish does and they blossomed from a parish of 300 to over 3,000 people:

cantius.org/go/classes/
 
ConstantineTG said:
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?
Click to expand...
Actually, when it was standardized, those with over 200 (or 300, I don’t remember exactly) years’ proven history in their Rite were allowed to keep it. Such as the Carthusians or Dominicans.
 
Acolythus_sum said:
Actually, when it was standardized, those with over 200 (or 300, I don’t remember exactly) years’ proven history in their Rite were allowed to keep it. Such as the Carthusians or Dominicans.
Click to expand...
Right. But fact is, there were those that were, um whats the word they used? Abandoned?
 
HCC said:
Jews have Hebrew School
Greeks have Greek School

Why can’t Catholics teach their people Latin and Liturgy?

One parish does and they blossomed from a parish of 300 to over 3,000 people:

cantius.org/go/classes/
Click to expand...
Because like we’ve mentioned many times in this thread, Catholicism isn’t just the Latin Church only.
 
Acolythus_sum said:
Actually, when it was standardized, those with over 200 (or 300, I don’t remember exactly) years’ proven history in their Rite were allowed to keep it. Such as the Carthusians or Dominicans.
Click to expand...
Yes, the standard was a minimum of 200 years of continuous use.

I’ve seen in this forum that the bolded part is sometimes conveniently ignored in order to press various arguments against the EF. One main purpose of the “200 year rule” was to protect those rites (both the regional and proprietary ones) that were legitimate and untainted. Many of the regional rites that were suppressed by Trent were what I often call “upstart” usages which had sprung up like weeds in the wake of (or in some cases shortly before) the Reformation.

Another point that is often conveniently overlooked is that a good many regional rites had, for a variety of reasons which really have no bearing in the end), fallen out of use on their own by the time of Trent. In those cases, the “200 year rule” served to ensure that they could not be revived on a whim.
 
ProVobis said:
Ask and ye shall receive. Hope this helps.

rickmk.com/Mass/masstext.html
Click to expand...
Dear ProVobis,

Thank you for this helpful link!!!

I personally would like to see each parish offer a Latin Mass for its members. While I can’t speak the language I would be happy to learn. I am also in favor of offering the English Mass for all of those not interested in Latin. A bit of both worlds wouldn’t hurt.
 
When the Tridentine Mass was standardized, how do you think those others with different rites of Mass feel?
Click to expand...
How do you think those who converted to Catholicism and the Latin Mass in the 50’s felt when Latin was slowly being removed from the Mass? No concern for them?

It seems as if even non-Catholics were pleading with the Pope to keep the Latin Mass alive after he appeared to suppress the TLM (see Agatha Christie Indult.)
 
HCC said:
Jews have Hebrew School
Greeks have Greek School

Why can’t Catholics teach their people Latin and Liturgy?
Click to expand...
This is precisely what Cardinal Arinze stated in 2006.
"…It is a remarkable phenomenon that many religions of the world, or major branches of them, hold on to a language as dear to them. We cannot think of the Jewish religion without Hebrew. Islam holds Arabic as sacred to the Qur’an. Classical Hinduism considers Sanskrit its official language. Buddhism has its sacred texts in Pali.
Click to expand...
“It would be superficial to dismiss this tendency as esoteric, or strange, or outmoded, old or medieval. That would be to ignore a fine element of human psychology. In religious matters, people tend to hold on to what they received from the beginning, how their earliest predecessors articulated their religion and prayed. Words and formulae used by earlier generations are dear to those who today inherit from them. While a religion is of course not identified with a language, how it understands itself can have an affective link with a particular linguistic expression in its classical period of growth…”
Click to expand...
 
Do you speak for the Church? Those who have authority in the Church allow for the vernacular.
Click to expand...
Actually I see a lot of evidence to the contrary.
At the eve of the Second Vatican Council, Veterum Sapientia, a document with the highest authority, called for the restoration and reinvigoration of Latin studies throughout the Church.
Click to expand...
cornell-catholic-circle.blogspot.com/2005/11/consequences-of-veterum-sapientia.html

From the actual Veterum Sapientia:
…Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular…"7
Click to expand...
and again
…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.
Click to expand...
In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure … of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity…
Click to expand...
 
ConstantineTG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which is a non-argument. You embrace it because the Church allows it. i.e. You approve of it because its approved. We’re debating why it should be approved, or not, here.
ConstantineTG said:
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?
Click to expand...
I never suggested any such thing. Keeping Latin helps correct transmission of the faith by avoiding local modifications.
The fact that the Church ‘has gone through many changes in the past’ does not imply that the current ones are good.
Based on previous posters, it looks like the Mass was standardised at Trent to stop local experimentation of the kind we are now seeing returning once again.
 
MarkThompson said:
Is this what it takes to “prove” that only Latin can be truly universal, Ockham? Your previous thread amounted to “Not counting all the centuries-old counterexamples, can anyone tell me since when have people received Communion in the hand? Seriously now, I’m declaring all the examples you’re thinking of to be off topic.” Is this thread supposed to become, “Latin is the universal language of the Church, and only one universal language of prayer can satisfy the four marks of the Church. Wait, what’s that, the Eastern Churches have never used Latin? Well, they’re heretics who deny papal supremacy. Oh, now you’re telling me they’re not, that they’re just as much a part of the Catholic Church as you and I? Er, um, . . . Silence!!! Begone!!!”

Generally, when someone tries to shut a person up preemptively, it’s because they’re scared of what the person might say. What are you so frightened of here, Ockham? Are you really that threatened by the existence of totally faithful, liturgically conservative Catholics with an Apostolic origin whose liturgy is not and has never been in Latin?
Click to expand...
This Eastern Churches argument is very thin. It gets used as justification for any changes and customizations that have occurred or intended in the future. I believe there is a sticky on this forum dealing with this subject.
 
The Eastern Churches abide by a different set of rules. This thread seems to be clearly focused on the use of Latin in the post-conciliar Roman Church. Why don’t we confine our discussions to that?
 
Layman said:
Which is a non-argument. You embrace it because the Church allows it. i.e. You approve of it because its approved. We’re debating why it should be approved, or not, here.
Click to expand...
Why should it even be a debate? Who are you or I to say anything about it? What will result from our debate other than releasing a lot of hot air? We will change nothing. We should just be good Catholics and submit ourselves to the higher authority of the Church in humble obedience. The successor of St. Peter has the keys, not you, not I, not anyone on this forum (I highly doubt Pope Benedict is a member of this forum :D)

All the debate will bring is useless frustration, and a division in our faith. It becomes traditionalist vs. whatever you want to call guys like me. That is not how it should be. We are all Catholics. To be Catholic is to accept all teaching, fallible or infallible. Because we are called to be obedient to those whom God has given authority over us. I think it was Bro. JR who said that it is not a sin to follow the Church even if you do not agree with her.
Layman said:
I never suggested any such thing. Keeping Latin helps correct transmission of the faith by avoiding local modifications.
The fact that the Church ‘has gone through many changes in the past’ does not imply that the current ones are good.
Based on previous posters, it looks like the Mass was standardised at Trent to stop local experimentation of the kind we are now seeing returning once again.
Click to expand...
And my point is that the faith has been transmitted in other languages even before it was in Latin, and concurrently with Latin. To think that only Latin can safeguard the faith is false belief.

The Church has gone changes always to adapt to the needs of the present time. The changes of 400 years ago are for needs 400 years ago. The changes today are for today.
 
Acolythus_sum said:
The Eastern Churches abide by a different set of rules. This thread seems to be clearly focused on the use of Latin in the post-conciliar Roman Church. Why don’t we confine our discussions to that?
Click to expand...
There is a contention that only Latin can faithfully transmit the faith from one generation to the next. The Eastern Churches are a clear and best example to prove that theory wrong.
 
ConstantineTG said:
All the debate will bring is useless frustration, and a division in our faith. It becomes traditionalist vs. whatever you want to call guys like me. That is not how it should be.
Click to expand...
Given that advice it would make sense to not come into the Traditional forum, take up the contrary position and argue it ad nauseum.
 
Acolythus_sum said:
The Eastern Churches abide by a different set of rules. This thread seems to be clearly focused on the use of Latin in the post-conciliar Roman Church. Why don’t we confine our discussions to that?
Click to expand...
Exactly. They have their own set of rules and have their own “sacred” language or two, already praised by the Vatican. In the West, only Latin has stood out as the Church’s language.
 
ProVobis said:
…I was ashamed of my Polish heritage for a long time until the Church got a Polish Pope…
Click to expand...
Perhaps you just weren’t in touch enough with your Polish heritage to know better? How many other linguistic cultures today greet all Priests with: “Niech bedzie pochwalony Jesus Chrystus!” (Christ be praised!).

A little more formal than “Hi, Father Mike!”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top