B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
I am seventeen years old and I am a Catholic for life.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
- Status
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
You are not alone. I made my First Communion and was Confirmed before Vatican II and I still have my “little Missal” from when I made my first Communion and my “big” Missal from when I was Confirmed. Both - before 1965.
I did not grow up with Eastern Catholics. I read with great interest about our Eastern Bretheren but it is not part of my experience. Our Eastern brethren established a community in New Orleans shortly before Katrina but I don’t know it’s current status.
I grew up in New Orleans. I was an altar boy before Vatican II and I was an altar boy until 1968 during the change.
I will say this…my cathedral parish of some twenty-some odd years is orthodox. I would not have driven 25 miles one way to attend Mass for the last 25 years if it were not so.
All y’all young folk?..I admire your zeal. Your goals are my goals.
Bottom line? My rubrics are rusty. My Latin is not. At 57 I could still serve the Mass of my youth. Introibo ad altare Dei. Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.
C
CWBetts
Guest
I dislike the lable “Traditionalist” It causes division. To be honest I don’t know where I fall. I personally believe many (though not all) of the documents at Vatican II actually restored the spirit of the early Church. For example, the Mass in the vernacular. Too many who adhere unwaveringly to the Latin Mass forget why the Mass was originally in Latin: it was the language of the faithful. The church got too lost in (non-sacred) tradition, and Vatican II helped set it aright. That being said, I consider myself conservative. I abstain from meat on fridays. I confess frequently. I love the Blessed Mother. I am in no way a Cafeteria Catholic.
Just my two cents
Just my two cents
P
patrick457
Guest
What actually led me to become a “Traditionalist” (I define “Traditionalism” quite differently than the usual interpretation though) a few years ago is the study of an oft-neglected portion of Church history: namely, the various liturgical rites and uses in both the Eastern and Western Church. They are very much like hidden gems; when I found out about them I was eager to learn more and to dig more deeper. And here I am now.
E
elts1956
Guest
Hello. I am a bit confused. I once asked a forum adms. or mod. what it meant to be a TRADITIONAL Catholic and was told that on this forum it meant one who clings to the TLM Mass in place of preferring the NO.
My interpretation is a bit different. While I consider myself in communion with Rome in all the basic ways of believing doctrine and dogma. the encyclicals of the Popes before and after Vatican II, I have not been able to attend a TLM mass in over 45 years.
My attendance at Mass began to be spotty in 1995 when I became ill. I don’t know why I didn’t attend Mass, or receive the Sacraments for a long period of time. It just seemed to happen. All the spirituality seemed to drain out of me and I began looking for MY faith although I continued to consider myself Catholic. I could never have joined another Church and I knew that in my heart and soul. Then this past Spring I logged on to Catholic Forums and found myself AMONG Catholics again. My husband and his family are not Catholic, but if my faith had been stronger, I wouldn’t have neglected my Church for so long. Anyway, I began to be INTERESTED in my Church again. Those doggone Early Church Fathers, the History of the Church, Pope Paul II, all came alive for me once more. IT’S ALL THEIR FAULT!!! Now I no longer HAVE to go to Church on Sundays and Holy Days, I WANT to go. I no longer HAVE to go to confession, I WANT go. No longer is receiving the Holy Eucharist an automatic act. I want to visit HIM. I want HIM to be with me and guide me. Is this a MIRACLE? For me it is. A Miracle at the right time and place. He hadn’t forgotten me.
My interpretation is a bit different. While I consider myself in communion with Rome in all the basic ways of believing doctrine and dogma. the encyclicals of the Popes before and after Vatican II, I have not been able to attend a TLM mass in over 45 years.
My attendance at Mass began to be spotty in 1995 when I became ill. I don’t know why I didn’t attend Mass, or receive the Sacraments for a long period of time. It just seemed to happen. All the spirituality seemed to drain out of me and I began looking for MY faith although I continued to consider myself Catholic. I could never have joined another Church and I knew that in my heart and soul. Then this past Spring I logged on to Catholic Forums and found myself AMONG Catholics again. My husband and his family are not Catholic, but if my faith had been stronger, I wouldn’t have neglected my Church for so long. Anyway, I began to be INTERESTED in my Church again. Those doggone Early Church Fathers, the History of the Church, Pope Paul II, all came alive for me once more. IT’S ALL THEIR FAULT!!! Now I no longer HAVE to go to Church on Sundays and Holy Days, I WANT to go. I no longer HAVE to go to confession, I WANT go. No longer is receiving the Holy Eucharist an automatic act. I want to visit HIM. I want HIM to be with me and guide me. Is this a MIRACLE? For me it is. A Miracle at the right time and place. He hadn’t forgotten me.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Latin is a dead language. It should not make a return to the Mass because the Mass should be in the vernacular…thats why it was changed to Latin from Greek in the first place.
P
patrick457
Guest
The thing is, the Latin used in the Church (Ecclesiastical Latin) was not exactly the same as the Latin used in the streets (‘vulgar’ Latin), given that the Latin of the Roman Canon, of the collects and of prefaces of the Mass, were remote from the idiom of the common people. It was a strongly stylized language that an average Christian in Rome of late antiquity would have understood with difficulty, especially considering that the level of education was very low by the standards of today (very much like how a modern-day English speaker would barely understand the English of, say, Chaucer or Shakespeare without proper training). Moreover the development of the use of Latin would have made the liturgy more accessible to native Latin speakers, such the people of Milan or Rome, but not necessarily to those whose mother tongue was Gothic, Celtic, Iberian or Punic.
This difference became more and more pronounced as time went on; street Latin evolved into the Romance languages, while Ecclesiastical Latin stayed put, hallowed by years of use.
Koine Greek was more popular in Rome than was Latin. Rome capitalized on this common language known around the civilized world. The change to Latin was not actually done in Rome, but in North Africa (famous as the home of orators in the ancient Roman world), where converts who were in the majority happened to speak Latin rather than Greek. Around the second half of the 3rd century the flow of immigration from the East to Rome had diminished. This demographic change involved a large increase of the native Latin speakers in the life of the Church at Rome. This notwithstanding Greek continued to be used in the Roman liturgy, at least at a certain level, until the second half of the 4th century. The passage from Greek to Latin in the Roman liturgy came gradually and was completed under the pontificate of Pope St. Damasus I (366-384). From that time onward the liturgy was celebrated in Latin, with the exception of a few reminders of the more ancient use, as the Kyrie Eleison in the Ordo and the readings in Greek in the papal Masses.
Plus, you should tell that to the eastern Church, since both Koine and Byzantine Greek and Church Slavonic are all dead, they should better officially just scrap them all and recite their liturgies in Dimotiki or other modern-day Slavic languages.
C
CWBetts
Guest
The Mass should be in the vernacular, which was decided by Vatican II. Benedict XVI has said Latin is allowed but should not be required. My question is, why don’t “Traditionalists” accept this? Isn’t the rejection of the “New Mass” rejection of Rome?
P
patrick457
Guest
1.) Is there any document from VII that backs up your claim? (I always ask for citations; I think they’re very important
)2.) I don’t reject the Forma Ordinaria. Not all who identify themselves as Traditionalists reject it or Vatican II (with some beyond-the-pale nutcases being the exception). What makes you think I’ll reject it? The Mass that I go to is an EF one.
E
elts1956
Guest
I become very discouraged when I realize what has been lost in the Mass for so many years. Then I remember, “We are not there to be entertained”. In other words I think it is our spiritual disposition which draws the Mass into our hearts whether it is the TLM or the NO. Luckily I have been allowed to attend a NO Mass for many years that does not blatently abuse the liturgy. In fact, the priest is very conservative and says the Mass with reverence.
E
elts1956
Guest
Awww Betts. I LOVE the Latin, but then I love the sound of language/s. I was raised with the Latin Rite. Et introibo et altari Dei. I go unto the altar of God. Brotherhoff, you will have to translate the rest. “The God of my joy and my youth”??? I am too lazy to go fetch my Missle with the Latin on one side and English on the other.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam! To God who is the joy of my youth! Indeed! CWBetts, if you read the documents of Vatican II, Mass in the vernacular was an option not required. Mass in the vernacular was forced upon us in the pews back in the late 60s. It wasn’t an option. In fact, the only time I have heard the NO in Latin is on EWTN.Awww Betts. I LOVE the Latin, but then I love the sound of language/s. I was raised with the Latin Rite. Et introibo et altari Dei. I go unto the altar of God. Brotherhoff, you will have to translate the rest. “The God of my joy and my youth”??? I am too lazy to go fetch my Missle with the Latin on one side and English on the other.
We didn’t reject Rome. We submitted to the Magesterium. It would have been inconceivable back in 1969 for any Catholic to protest like today. It simply wasn’t done. What you are seeing today is all of us who kept our mouths shut and “voted” with our feet (as I did. I drive 25 miles one way to attend a reverent NO parish) 40 years ago finally expressing our feelings.
I am overjoyed that there are an awful lot of young people who have “believed without seeing”. I live in a town without a Catholic church. If I wanted to worship like a Protestant, I could go right down the street. I am not a Protestant. I drive 25 miles and attend a reverent Cathedral parish where I regularly hear chant and sacred motets in Latin. I have already offered my services to Father as either a member of the schola or as an acolyte.
In short, I was a teenager between 1965 -1969. Not all of my generation embraced the guitars, etc. I’ve already been contacted by my Catholic boy’s high school alumni association regarding our 40th anniversary next year. Frank was my good friend in high school and was one of the ones that was responsible for us singing Simon and Garfunkle at our class’s 100th and final graduation ceremony in 1969. Frank still plays guitar for his parish and I sing Latin in a cathedral choir.
What you are seeing CWBetts is that we who kept our mouths shut years ago have learned from those that didn’t.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Reverential and vernacular are not mutually exclusive
P
patrick457
Guest
I’m going to answer my own question here. From Sacrosanctum Concilium 36:1.) Is there any document from VII that backs up your claim? (I always ask for citations; I think they’re very important
36. §1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
(§1. Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.)
§2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the Liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
(§2. Cum tamen, sive in Missa, sive in Sacramentorum administratione, sive in aliis Liturgiae partibus, haud raro linguae vernaculae usurpatio valde utilis apud populum exsistere possit, amplior locus ipsi tribui valeat, imprimis autem in lectionibus et admonitionibus, in nonnullis orationibus et cantibus, iuxta normas quae de hac re in sequentibus capitibus singillatim statuuntur.)
§3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22. §2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
(§3. Huiusmodi normis servatis, est competentis auctoritatis ecclesiasticae territorialis, de qua in art. 22 § 2, etiam, si casus ferat, consilio habito cum Episcopis finitimarum regionum eiusdem linguae, de usu et modo linguae vernaculae statuere, actis ab Apostolica Sede probatis seu confirmatis.)
§4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the Liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
(§4. Conversio textus latini in linguam vernaculam in Liturgia adhibenda, a competenti auctoritate ecclesiastica territoriali, de qua supra, approbari debet.)
The 1983 Canon Law itself allows for a celebration of the Mass in Latin:
Can. 928: The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.
(Can. 928 — Eucharistica celebratio peragatur lingua latina aut alia lingua, dummodo textus liturgici legitime approbati fuerint.)
Finally, from Optatam Totius (Decree on Priestly Training):
13. Before beginning specifically ecclesiastical subjects, seminarians should be equipped with that humanistic and scientific training which young men in their own countries are wont to have as a foundation for higher studies. Moreover they are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church. The study of the liturgical language proper to each rite should be considered necessary; a suitable knowledge of the languages of the Bible and of Tradition should be greatly encouraged.
(13. Antequam sacrorum alumni studia proprie ecclesiastica aggrediantur, ea humanistica et scientifica institutione ornentur, qua iuvenes in sua cuiusque natione superiora studia inire valeant; ac praeterea eam linguae latinae cognitionem acquirant, qua tot scientiarum fontes et Ecclesiae documenta intelligere atque adhibere possint. Studium linguae liturgicae unicuique ritui propriae necessarium habeatur, cognitio vero congrua linguarum Sacrae Scripturae et Traditionis valde foveatur.)
However, just how many priests today actually know Latin? Just how many have been taught the language while in training?
P
patrick457
Guest
If I might add, some extracts from a very helpful article by Cardinal Arinze:
**5. Did Vatican II discourage Latin? **
Some people think, or have the perception, that the Second Vatican Council discouraged the use of Latin in the liturgy. This is not the case.
Just before he opened the Council, Blessed Pope John Paul XXIII in 1962 issued an Apostolic Constitution, to insist on the use of Latin in the Church. The Second Vatican Council, although it admitted some introduction of the vernacular, insisted on the place of Latin: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36). The Council also required that seminarians “should acquire a command of Latin which will enable them to understand and use the source material of so many sciences and the documents of the Church as well” (Optatam Totius, 13). The Code of Canon Law published in 1983 enacts that “the eucharistic celebration: is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved” (Canon 928).
Those, therefore, who want to give the impression that the Church has put Latin away from her liturgy are mistaken. A manifestation of people’s acceptance of Latin liturgy well celebrated was had at world level in April, 2005, when millions followed the burial rites of Pope John Paul II and then, two weeks later, the inauguration Mass of Pope Benedict XVI over the television.
It is remarkable that young people welcome the Mass celebrated sometimes in Latin. Problems are not lacking. So, too, there are misunderstandings and wrong approaches on the part of some priests on the use of Latin. But to get the matter in better focus, it is necessary first to examine the use of the vernacular in the liturgy of the Roman Rite today.
And another extract:
Most rites have an original language which also gives each rite its historical identity. The Roman Rite has Latin as its official language. The typical editions of its liturgical books are to this day issued in Latin.
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.
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.
**5. Did Vatican II discourage Latin? **
Some people think, or have the perception, that the Second Vatican Council discouraged the use of Latin in the liturgy. This is not the case.
Just before he opened the Council, Blessed Pope John Paul XXIII in 1962 issued an Apostolic Constitution, to insist on the use of Latin in the Church. The Second Vatican Council, although it admitted some introduction of the vernacular, insisted on the place of Latin: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36). The Council also required that seminarians “should acquire a command of Latin which will enable them to understand and use the source material of so many sciences and the documents of the Church as well” (Optatam Totius, 13). The Code of Canon Law published in 1983 enacts that “the eucharistic celebration: is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved” (Canon 928).
Those, therefore, who want to give the impression that the Church has put Latin away from her liturgy are mistaken. A manifestation of people’s acceptance of Latin liturgy well celebrated was had at world level in April, 2005, when millions followed the burial rites of Pope John Paul II and then, two weeks later, the inauguration Mass of Pope Benedict XVI over the television.
It is remarkable that young people welcome the Mass celebrated sometimes in Latin. Problems are not lacking. So, too, there are misunderstandings and wrong approaches on the part of some priests on the use of Latin. But to get the matter in better focus, it is necessary first to examine the use of the vernacular in the liturgy of the Roman Rite today.
And another extract:
Most rites have an original language which also gives each rite its historical identity. The Roman Rite has Latin as its official language. The typical editions of its liturgical books are to this day issued in Latin.
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.
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.
P
patrick457
Guest
Yes, they aren’t.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Patrick is a shining example of our Catholic youth who have embraced traditional Catholicism.
No, CW, reverential and vernacular are not exclusive. I have driven 25 miles for the last 25 years to be a member of my beloved cathedral parish where reverence, the vernacular, and a whole lot of chant and sacred motets co-exist peacefully. I’ve seen my downtown parish expand from 200 registered parishoners in 1983 to 2000 families today. Such is the power of reverence. And mine is not the only “traditional” parish in the diocese
No, CW, reverential and vernacular are not exclusive. I have driven 25 miles for the last 25 years to be a member of my beloved cathedral parish where reverence, the vernacular, and a whole lot of chant and sacred motets co-exist peacefully. I’ve seen my downtown parish expand from 200 registered parishoners in 1983 to 2000 families today. Such is the power of reverence. And mine is not the only “traditional” parish in the diocese
S
SoldierofTruth
Guest
I agree with brotherolf. We didn’t have a choice, we were told what we were supposed to do, so we did it.
I was told in Catechism that Latin was a universal language for a universal church, which was Roman Catholic.
I found something interesting in The Catholic Source Book, Newly Revised, Fourth Edition by Rev. Peter Klein:
“A Selected Chronology of Changes in the Mass:”
1922: Assembly permitted to make responses
1953: Modification of the Eucharistic fast
1953: Permission for afternoon and evening Mass
1956: Revision of the rites of Holy Week
1964: Use of the common spoken language approved
1965: Last gospel and “Leonine” prayers after Mass eliminated
1967: Purple allowed instead of black in Masses for the dead
1968: Three additional Eucharistic prayers authorized
1969: Instruction on Masses in the home
1970: New Order of Mass replacing sixteenth-century Tridentine Mass and including:
- Clear structure of Word and Sacrament
- New Lectionary
- Reinstated prayers of the faithful
- Mark and Luke added to Matthew for gospel readings
- Three-year Sunday and two-year daily cycles of readings
- Three readings instead of two on Sunday
- Responsorial psalms
1973: Special guidelines for Masses with children
1974: New Roman Missal (Sacramentary); the first in 400 years
1977: Communion in the hand allowed
1978: Permission given for lay Eucharistic ministers
1991: Lectionary for Masses with Children approved
1998: Use of a revised English Lectionary begun in Advent"
We had tremendous changes in the '60’s and the '70’s. In my opinion, the Church lost a whole generation; mine. I personally don’t know anybody from my age group who belongs to any organized religion. In my opinion, it’s better to have a religion than none at all!
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Indeed. I dropped out for several years in the 70s because I did not like what had happened to HMC. And I give thanks and praise to Almighty God for directing my footsteps to an orthodox reverential cathedral parish in 1983. There were so many of us who were happy with the pre-VII HMC. And the changes were just rammed down our throats. People today do not have a frame of reference. They have no idea of how utterly shocking the change was.
What is even more sad is the number of people of our parent’s generation who quit going to Mass. That doesn’t get discussed. I saw my mother and our neighbors in the block get marginalized in the 70s. They went from attending the 10 am main parish Mass to the 8 am to avoid the guitars and “Sons of God”. When the 8 am started with the music, they went to the vigil Mass on Saturday and thank God that was never violated with guitars.
E
elts1956
Guest
You are right about that. But I have heard there is a lack of reverence in “some” Parishes that have only the NO Mass. Some of the really “far out” stuff that passes for Mass. Whereas when I was "young/er, having only the Latin rite Mass, there were fewer distractions, unless it was the kid kneeling next to you goofing off. BUT if that happened, the sister kneeling behind you taught you what true reverence is. At least we were taught there is such a mode as being reverential. In the days after Vat. II when the whole world went topsy turvy, I am of the “theory” it is lack of catechesis for Catholics who show irreverance at Mass rather than the Mass itself, at least for the majority of NO Masses. I haven’t been to a TLM Mass for 45 years, but if it were offered on Sunday as an option in my Parish, I would go.
- Status