B
Baelor
Guest
Are you saying that only one thing can unite Catholics? If not, then what relevance does that have?
- Status
J
Jaysuitical
Guest
The cascades of abuses of the past half century primarily issued from the idea that now the Church & the rites of the Church were the property of the laity, where the clerical spirit had made them a sort of property of the clergy. Despite the pope’s directive that liturgical variations were to cease by a certain date, a couple of years before Paul VI issued the Novus Ordo, the anarchical habits of do-what-you-want and you-are-the-Church-so-the-hierarchy-can’t-tell-you had already sunk deep into the habits.
It’s a combination of laziness and narcissism in contemporary culture which make people think it some great burden to learn what prayers are being said at what moment; or to believe that memorizing them in a different language is beyond the capacity of any person of average intelligence – especially where the internet is easily available.
It’s a combination of laziness and narcissism in contemporary culture which make people think it some great burden to learn what prayers are being said at what moment; or to believe that memorizing them in a different language is beyond the capacity of any person of average intelligence – especially where the internet is easily available.
O
otjm
Guest
Oh… So now, the bishops of the world, who voted to have vernacular use in the Mass, are lazy and narssisistic, and products of contemporary culture (and I guess they are even now known as laity).
Not what I was taught when I was schooled by Jesuits.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, but look at all the royalties collected by the translators? Lots of job creation there.
U
universityprof
Guest
I would say that the Church should deemphasize celebrating Mass in the Latin. It actually has minimal relevance to our Lord Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact, during Christ’s time on earrh, it’s a historical fact that Latin was the least used laguage in the region of occupied Rome. It was rare to speak Latin during the time of Christ and in particular in the lands occupied by Rome. It just simply did not happen. During the time of Jesus, most Jewish peasants spoke Hebrew (not very good, though). Jesus would have spoke Hebrew which as history would tell us was later transcribed in Aramaic. The Latin verision of the Mass is largely a construction of the Catholic Church. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it’s important for Catholics to have some proper historical context here. I have had Catholics wrongly say that Christ spoke latin. What we know of that era just does not flesh that out from historical scholarship. Peace!
C
Cat
Guest
When my husband and I started investigating Catholicism back in 2002, one of the truths that took me a long time to accept was that we are Christians because of our triune baptism, not because of a “decision” that we make or because of something we “do.”
I grew up and spent several decades believing and teaching that people become Christians when they invite Jesus to come into their heart to be their personal Lord and Savior. In other words, you DO something. It’s up to us.
When I began to wrap my mind around the truth of Catholic dogma–that we are Christians because of our baptism, I was overwhelmed with joy and excitement. I recognized my unity with Christians all over the world throughout human time. I knew that Mass was celebrated 24/7 throughout the world and has been since Christ ascended into heaven, and that I am one with all those Christians in the past, present, and future, because we are all baptized into One Spirit and One Church.
I learned about the Orthodox Christians, and that they, too, are truly Christians because of their baptism. So when they celebrate Mass, I am One with them, too, at the most basic level of Christianity.
Even all the Protestant Christians are Christians and have the hope of heaven not because they said the Sinner’s Prayer, or because they went forward to the altar during “Just As I Am,” but because they are baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Although the unity with Protestants is imperfect, it’s still there, not because of something they do or don’t do, but because of what GOD does through their baptism.
Our unity has nothing to do with celebrating the Mass in a uniform way around the world. We are Christians because of our baptism, and we are all ONE, and we need to stop thinking of ourselves as “divided” because some of us speak Latin in the Mass and some of us don’t. That’s not division, that’s personal preference, and it is allowed by Holy Mother Church.
Sure, go ahead and insert the various Latin prayers and responses into the OF Mass, since this is what the Church apparently expects and many of the parishes have been recalcitrant in omitting this.
But it will still be the OF Mass–there is still a lot of room for variation in the music, the homilies, the “feel” of the Mass. There will still be cultures in which the people rush forward in a group to receive Jesus rather than lining up and waiting patiently. There will still be priests who, during their homilies, step away from the ambo and pace back and forth in the nave down at the same level as the people. The OF Mass will never be scripted and choreographed the way the EF Mass is scripted and choreographed, and so there will never be “unison” in the OF Mass the way there is in the EF Mass, and that’s OK, according to the Church, OUR Church, our ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We are One in Christ no matter what our Masses look like. We need to recognize this and stop creating divisions among ourselves because of different human traditions and practices.
I grew up and spent several decades believing and teaching that people become Christians when they invite Jesus to come into their heart to be their personal Lord and Savior. In other words, you DO something. It’s up to us.
When I began to wrap my mind around the truth of Catholic dogma–that we are Christians because of our baptism, I was overwhelmed with joy and excitement. I recognized my unity with Christians all over the world throughout human time. I knew that Mass was celebrated 24/7 throughout the world and has been since Christ ascended into heaven, and that I am one with all those Christians in the past, present, and future, because we are all baptized into One Spirit and One Church.
I learned about the Orthodox Christians, and that they, too, are truly Christians because of their baptism. So when they celebrate Mass, I am One with them, too, at the most basic level of Christianity.
Even all the Protestant Christians are Christians and have the hope of heaven not because they said the Sinner’s Prayer, or because they went forward to the altar during “Just As I Am,” but because they are baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Although the unity with Protestants is imperfect, it’s still there, not because of something they do or don’t do, but because of what GOD does through their baptism.
Our unity has nothing to do with celebrating the Mass in a uniform way around the world. We are Christians because of our baptism, and we are all ONE, and we need to stop thinking of ourselves as “divided” because some of us speak Latin in the Mass and some of us don’t. That’s not division, that’s personal preference, and it is allowed by Holy Mother Church.
Sure, go ahead and insert the various Latin prayers and responses into the OF Mass, since this is what the Church apparently expects and many of the parishes have been recalcitrant in omitting this.
But it will still be the OF Mass–there is still a lot of room for variation in the music, the homilies, the “feel” of the Mass. There will still be cultures in which the people rush forward in a group to receive Jesus rather than lining up and waiting patiently. There will still be priests who, during their homilies, step away from the ambo and pace back and forth in the nave down at the same level as the people. The OF Mass will never be scripted and choreographed the way the EF Mass is scripted and choreographed, and so there will never be “unison” in the OF Mass the way there is in the EF Mass, and that’s OK, according to the Church, OUR Church, our ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We are One in Christ no matter what our Masses look like. We need to recognize this and stop creating divisions among ourselves because of different human traditions and practices.
P
ProVobis
Guest
What is true is that the Church Christianized the codified language of Cicero et al and used the language to successfully preserve its documents, liturgy, identity, and sacredness . I suppose it’s unimportant and perhaps irrelevant that Pilate wrote the inscription above the cross in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew (and who the heck would speak Latin in Judea when it was rare in all of the Roman empire anyway?
), but could Christianity have become as widespread as it was and is today had it not been for Ecclesiastical Latin? Or Greek or Church Slavonic, for that matter? And what exactly is so special about the 1950 period and since that Latin would not work in the liturgy anymore? Perhaps the Reformation was finally successful in convincing people that the Tower of Babel was nonsense, that everyone was entitled to his own interpretation of Christ’s message, that a Pope is just a figure, etc. It sure seems that way in today’s world. It took them over an hour to figure out that Pope Benedict was renouncing the Papacy and you’re saying the Church should de-emphasize Latin? What’s there to de-emphasize?
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Nobody besides sedevacantists say that anybody who opposes Latin are apostate.
The Church has authorized vernacular worship for pastoral reasons. So let nobody tell you that you are sinning in attending the OF.
That being said. To say that Latin has no unitive value is to contradict the opinions of the very people that authorized the OF.
Pope Bl. (soon to be St.!) John XIII, who convoked Vatican II:
"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. 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.” Source
Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Vatican II document which authorized the vernacular, says:
*“Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”
“… steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”
“In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office.”* Source
Pope Paul VI, who promulgated the “Novus Ordo”, says about Latin:
*“It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.” *Source
I also point to this:
So, in short, don’t tell me that “Our unity has nothing to do with celebrating the Mass in a uniform way around the world”. The Church has never taught that.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The “for you and for all” language was also allowed in various vernaculars. How did that work out? Lex orandi, lex credendi.
C
Cat
Guest
I thought my post made it clear that we should obey Holy Mother Church and incorporate the Latin into the OF that she asks us to use. If my post was not clear on this, I apologize.
What I’m concerned about is people who seem to think that all OF Masses in all countries should look and sound exactly alike. That is NOT what the Church teaches. The OF Mass has options, and the local authorities are free to choose from those options.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
No, but neither has the Church ever taught that Latin was not only not unitive, but divisive. The first option in the poll, therefore, except in a very specified context, is directly contradictory of the Church’s teachings on Latin.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Yes - that will work – thank you. I was in a hurry.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Was the Mass really always in Latin? I was under the impression that it was “originally” in Greek and that the change occurred in the late 4th century as Latin became the common language of the west–of course I could be mistaken. So why the change from Greek to Latin? Was it from a language that was dying to the common laguage of the day? This is not an argument pro or con simply an observation–it should be noted that it is still a change from one single language used for the liturgy to another single language used for the liturgy. I just want us to remember that Latin has not always been the language of the Church.
Peace of Christ,
Mark
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Possibly the protestant roots/background of most? The news media–from what I can see - has a vested interest in misreporting or twisting most things Catholic. They usually consult “reform” minded Catholics not those faithful to the magisterium.Now we’re back to a circular argument again. If this were true, why doesn’t the news media report it as both a sacrifice (at Calvary) and a meal? Certainly one would think they consult English Catholics (who understand the Mass so well
The peace of Christ,
Mark
P
ProVobis
Guest
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
I was speaking of the West where everything I read indicates that Greek was the primary language–though not the only language. This changed at some point and Latin became the primary language. You deny this change to place in the west?
Peace of Christ,
Mark
E
EphelDuath
Guest
In the West was a myriad of vernacular languages at the time; Greek was the most common in the Italian peninsula outside of Rome itself, yes, but there were various others in Gaul and Germania. In the Roman church it was consolidated to only Latin around the 4th century. Charlemagne adopted the Roman rite for the Frankish Empire in the 8th century, which displaced the various Gallican rites. That’s how Latin became the universal language of the Latin Church.
It’s really a vast oversimplification when people say that the Roman Church switched from Greek to Latin because that was the vernacular at the time.
P
ProVobis
Guest
F
FloridaJoan
Guest
I was raised with The TLM and believe that one could follow the Mass anywhere in the world when it is in Latin; seems unitive to me.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
My word yes but at times one would think that only Latin was used—there is almost no acknowledgment that any language but Latin was used. I was speaking in general terms – Greek was the language of currency in the empire at that time and it became the dominate language of the emerging Christianity. At times it seems like there is a faction who view Latin rather like those who accept only the KJV of the Bible. I apologize for speaking in generalities and vast over simplifications.
Peace of Christ,
Mark
- Status