Interestingreply. Why do you think the Council reccomended, no,required that Latin be retained?Well of course you can cite Vatican II and many documents, but that wasn’t really my concern. I’m asking all of you, here on this specific forum, what you really think. I know that my own heart is not conformed to the teaching of the Church on many issues, because I am still working through my arrogant atheist personality, trying to get rid of it with His help. Though I am not conformed, I try my best and hardest to do what the Church teaches, in the hope that my heart will be converted.
This isn’t about the ‘letter of the law’, but your internal mode. You can say “oh, I accept Vatican II Constitution X Paragraph Y Article Z with all my heart”, but that isn’t the point. I am trying to get more at the inner personal psychology of it.
For you, what IS the Mass? I’m not asking a question about Church law, norms, or popular opinion. I want each precious immortal soul’s opinion on “why Latin, why Vernacular, why this, why that”. I made this thread to find out more about people, and to dwell in unity with you by expressing deepest beliefs - without hiding them because we’re afraid we’ll look anti-Vatican II-ish.
I wouldn’t ask the question anywhere else simply because I find this sub-forum to be the most balanced. Were I to pose this question anywhere else, I do believe I’d get an anti-Latin slant/bias. I’ve had enough of that, so I decided to come here and get some real reasons for real things. Anyway, we have the Old Medic and a few others who post here, that can give reasons that might perhaps be contrary to our own!Knowing truth only comes by relation to the other - you cannot experience truth without having contacted the thing that is true. I can hardly go on imagining that traditionalists believe THIS, and liberals believe THAT - I must ask them all.
Dominican Motto: VERITAS, at all costs.
My friend, I am a traditionalist. Please don’t assume that another man’s question has a cognitive bias just because you have a cognitive bias. There seems to be a trend in this sub-forum: anything asked about trads, whether in charity or in hatred, is lambasted as a “bait”. Not everyone is out to troll you, my dear brother!
This is very much in accord with the truth. Please forgive me if I seemed to insinuate any sort of condescending attitude.
For my own part, I firmly believe every Catholic Church should have a gigantic, glorious high altar of majesty, with reredos extending into the shadows of the high ceilings. My dream for the Mass is an array of Latin propers, ordinaries, and antiphons ringing out, echoing across the whole world, carried on the winds by the humongous brass bells pounding out “Veni, Creator Spiritus”, and chiming joyfully at the Elevation. The Mass is our imperial entry into the New Jerusalem, into the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and should be as grand as possible.
Yes, but why? I’ve heard an English setting of the Sanctus that moved me very deeply. I’m not trying to question everything, but I want you to give better reasons for your conviction than emotional ones (granted, my reasons are pretty emotional…)!
I don’t believe it is, no. I also don’t believe Latin is required for fullest expression and beauty. We are the sons of God, and He hears the fullness of our rightly-ordered prayer in whatever language. Remember the tower of Babel? We spoke one, unified language as human beings (probably Latin), but we became proud so He cast us down and divided us. It seems reasonable to believe that when a man prays through the blessed Virgin in English, that blessed lady hears the same language as if a man were praying through her in Spanish or Korean. Heaven is beyond the mystery of language-barriers, of course.
You’ve asked why in your “heart of hearts” and you don’t want church documents, so… what exactly are you seeking?.
Yes, but why? I’ve heard an English setting of the Sanctus that moved me very deeply. I’m not trying to question everything, but I want you to give better reasons for your conviction than emotional ones (granted, my reasons are pretty emotional…
The Council required the Latin to be preserved in Latin rites, withouf defining what the word ‘preserve’ means
except that the faithful should be able to sing the Ordinary in Latin
and that clerics should retain Latin in the Divine Office.
Actually Polish is more beautiful and spiritual (witness the percentage of Catholics) but beauty is in the eyes/words of the beholder.
Maybe but there is some evidence (from the ruins of Pompeii) that Latin was used in liturgy in the first century. Of course Latin, slow in becoming accepted as the language of worship, was Christianized later. The word “oratio,” for example was the Roman word for “speech” but in time became the Christian word for “prayer.” “Gratias” was the Roman word for “thanks,favor” but “grace (of God)” later. As so on. I think we already distinguish Classical Latin from Ecclesiastical Latin, though.
Ma pan rację! Niech będzie pochwalony Jezus Chrystus…
Tradition being preserved, it is always better to respect our ancestors than to trash them.
I’m seeking the hearts of men. I like hearing the reasons people have for believing or not believing things. Sorry about that…
Catholics give up either their minds and heart to Christ through the Magisterium. Baptist an may be other protestants believe that there is no need to mediator between Him and any individual.I’m seeking the hearts of men. I like hearing the reasons people have for believing or not believing things. Sorry about that…
Amen, Truelight.
To be honest, I don’t care about the results in relation to one another. I wanted to see how many people vote “Yes”, and how many people vote “No” by themselves. Anyway, the poll isn’t directed to “traditionalists”, but to people on the traditional forum. Since lots of non-traditionalists come here to bash them, and lots of traditionalists stay here to defend themselves, it seems like a good mix.
What does this have to do with mediation? Are Catholics not allowed to think about what they’re taught? It’s nice to see why people believe what they do about Latin, vernacular, etc.
Interestingly, the same phenomenon plagues the Latin as well. As easy examples, consider how many of the Gloria Patri tones put the natural stress on the middle syllable, rather than the first, of “Gloria.” To my mind, it’s at least II, III, and VIII; and sure, you can put the stress on the first syllable if you try. Next, try to sing “Victimae paschali laudes, immolent Christiani” and put the stress in Christiani on the penult where it belongs (ChristiANi) instead of the antepenult with a secondary stress on the final syllable (ChrisTIani). Not so easy this time, is it.
Very true, and a lot of people who are ignorant of this think that “thee” and “thou” were more formal modes of address (because, of course, modern people must surely be more casual and informal than our upright ancestors, who would address the Deity only in the most reverential and deferential terms). All the same, the Latin does not contain any such distinction between the formal and intimate second-person addresses. If your language requires that a distinction be observed (e.g., French, Spanish) then so be it, but I am always surprised how many traditionalists are keen to import such a thing into modern English where it does not belong, despite its complete absence in the authoritative Latin.
Catholic are supposed to think according to the lines set by the Magisterium. They should be humble enough that they by themselves cannot find to proper answers related to supernatural things, and they believe that for that reason God gave us the Magisterium as compass.What does this have to do with mediation? Are Catholics not allowed to think about what they’re taught? It’s nice to see why people believe what they do about Latin, vernacular, etc.
I can see there’s no point to this thread. It’s all nit-picking.
