Latin returning to Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
BillyT92679:
The thing is, the Church, the Institutional Visible Society Hierarchically Structured Bride of Christ, CANNOT be in error or wrong. It is spotless. It is our Holy Mother and we are to submit to her and to the Vicar of Christ with full assent of will.
Individuals within the Church can be, and sometimes are, wrong or in error.
Papal Infallability is limited of course, but we are still to give assents of the will to all Papal pronouncements and documents.
Click to expand...
And it is true that individuals make up the institutional church is it not? Are you going to tell me that the institutional church has never made errors at all? History would not in any way shape or form support that argument.

That belief is the very reason all the problems that came about did so. People confuse the physical institutional church with the mystical body of the church. They confuse the physical with the spiritual. They are not the same thing. Connected yes, but not the same.

I think what is really ment is that errors will not prevail in the end. It doesn’t mean that the church won’t make mistakes. It means that those mistakes, man made mistakes, will not last forever and will be corrected
 
Wow…what a thread!

Let’s just pause here and savor the great ideas flying back and forth…

It seems in many ways that the same old arguments are being tossed about…Did Vatican II help or hurt? Would a return to Latin aid in a return to orthodoxy? Many of these are good questions and the answers are not easy.

The one point that I believe should be made is that the question of Vatican II and whether it was successful or not probably cannot be answered for many more years. I think what we should recognize is that the Church is MUCH stronger and more orthodox now than it was 20 years ago. Many like to comment on how belief in the Real Presence is lower and liturgical abuse is more rampant when compared to 1960. And yet certainly liturgical abuse has lessened since 1985. And devotion to the Blessed Sacrament has increased dramatically.

It is worth pondering just how many good men have become bishops, archbishops and cardinals in the last 20 years. These are men who are taking the example of Pope John Paul II and the Truth of Vatican II and making the Church what it ought to be.

Let’s keep in mind that as direction is concerned our Church is moving sharply upward toward orthodoxy and Truth.
 
40.png
Ham1:
Wow…what a thread!

Let’s just pause here and savor the great ideas flying back and forth…

It seems in many ways that the same old arguments are being tossed about…Did Vatican II help or hurt? Would a return to Latin aid in a return to orthodoxy? Many of these are good questions and the answers are not easy.

The one point that I believe should be made is that the question of Vatican II and whether it was successful or not probably cannot be answered for many more years. I think what we should recognize is that the Church is MUCH stronger and more orthodox now than it was 20 years ago. Many like to comment on how belief in the Real Presence is lower and liturgical abuse is more rampant when compared to 1960. And yet certainly liturgical abuse has lessened since 1985. And devotion to the Blessed Sacrament has increased dramatically.

It is worth pondering just how many good men have become bishops, archbishops and cardinals in the last 20 years. These are men who are taking the example of Pope John Paul II and the Truth of Vatican II and making the Church what it ought to be.

Let’s keep in mind that as direction is concerned our Church is moving sharply upward toward orthodoxy and Truth.
Click to expand...
I agree with you in priciple, and I think in many ways it can be linked to my earlier post… After the assasination attempt, Pope John Paull II, DID start leaning in a much more orthodox way than before. Could the miracle of the Blessed Virgin saving his life been the event that started to swing the Church back towards orthodoxy? Correcting the errors that had crept in so to speak? Could be, it still has a long way to go, but I think your post is on target. 👍
 
Joe Gloor:
I missed that debate, but I question the scientific nature of this determination.
Click to expand...
How dare you, sir! Do you think I got my doctorate from a gumball machine? How dare you question the scientific nature of a debate on an internet message board. 🤓

Just wait til the Australian gets wind of this. He’ll come set you straight will all sorts of facts and figures and impressive phrases like “per annum.” Throw another wallabee on the barby, mate. 😉
 
40.png
Ham1:
Wow…what a thread!

Let’s just pause here and savor the great ideas flying back and forth…

It seems in many ways that the same old arguments are being tossed about…Did Vatican II help or hurt? Would a return to Latin aid in a return to orthodoxy? Many of these are good questions and the answers are not easy.

The one point that I believe should be made is that the question of Vatican II and whether it was successful or not probably cannot be answered for many more years. I think what we should recognize is that the Church is MUCH stronger and more orthodox now than it was 20 years ago. Many like to comment on how belief in the Real Presence is lower and liturgical abuse is more rampant when compared to 1960. And yet certainly liturgical abuse has lessened since 1985. And devotion to the Blessed Sacrament has increased dramatically.

It is worth pondering just how many good men have become bishops, archbishops and cardinals in the last 20 years. These are men who are taking the example of Pope John Paul II and the Truth of Vatican II and making the Church what it ought to be.

Let’s keep in mind that as direction is concerned our Church is moving sharply upward toward orthodoxy and Truth.
Click to expand...
Speaking of scientific…Do you have any facts to back up these claims that the Church is MUCH stronger and more orthodox now than 20 years ago?

Or is this just rose-colored glasses wishful thinking or anecdotal evidence that skews your perceptions?

If so, “I’m the magical man from happy land, in a gumdrop house on lollipop laaaaaaaaane.” :rolleyes:
 
hey, Doc… either you have had one cup of java too many… or you pre-tested some happy pills before prescribing them to a patienthttp://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_1_110v.gifwho wound you up??
 
40.png
MrS:
hey, Doc… either you have had one cup of java too many… or you pre-tested some happy pills before prescribing them to a patienthttp://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_1_110v.gifwho wound you up??
Click to expand...
I am self wound, Mr. S. I never touch pills or coffee.

Though I do own a little burro named Pepé. :yup:
 
Dr. Bombay:
I am self wound, Mr. S. I never touch pills or coffee.

Though I do own a little burro named Pepé. :yup:
Click to expand...
yeh, when I get a burro under my saddle, I like a little Pepsi too
 
40.png
AJV:
I disagree that orthodoxy means a return to Latin. One can be perfectly orthodox without the Latin.

P.S. I actually like Latin
Click to expand...
But the whole premise is that Latin will help in a return to orthodoxy. Catholics should embrace their entire heritage and become more Catholic (in an adjective sense of the term).
 
40.png
arieh0310:
I don’t either. The Maronite rite uses Aramaic and/or Arabic, the Byzantines use Greek, the Latin rite should use Latin. It is a part of our heritage and tradition and has been encouraged by every pope since VII. It is more than asthetically pleasing, it is the language of our rite and should retain “pride of place” within the liturgy.
Click to expand...
👍
 
40.png
palmas85:
I don’t really think that the views of the people on this forum and the passion with which they take their religion is indicative of the average catholic. No, most peopel on this forum are highly motivated in the faith.

Since we have pretty much exhausted our options so to speak, I will ask you a question. Do you see the Church as a whole better now than pre Vatican II?
.
Is it’s condition better, are the Masses better and has the church as a whole done what was expected and gone the direction that it was intended too? Do the people have a “closer relationship” with God and are things running smoothly? Is moopre reverence shown in Mass thna in the woe be gotten Pre Vatican II days when apparently no one knew what was going on? And finally are more people going to mass these days?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do see the Church as a whole better now than pre Vatican II.
Yes, it’s condition is better, Masses are better and the Church as a whole done what was expected (as much as the ‘future’ can be expected) and gone the direction that it was intended to.
The people do have a “closer relationship” with God and things are running smoothly.
Reverence is difficult to measure, but yes, on the whole I would say there is more reverence than pre Vatican II days.
Are more people going to Mass these days?
Yes, more people are going to Mass these days than would be going these days if the Church hadn’t offered the new Mass.
 
40.png
palmas85:
And it is true that individuals make up the institutional church is it not? Are you going to tell me that the institutional church has never made errors at all? History would not in any way shape or form support that argument.

That belief is the very reason all the problems that came about did so. People confuse the physical institutional church with the mystical body of the church. They confuse the physical with the spiritual. They are not the same thing. Connected yes, but not the same.

I think what is really ment is that errors will not prevail in the end. It doesn’t mean that the church won’t make mistakes. It means that those mistakes, man made mistakes, will not last forever and will be corrected
Click to expand...
Yes I do… The Church IS Indefectible, and, just as you cannot separate the hypostatic union of Our Lord, separating him into Jesus and Christ, you cannot state that Holy Mother Church, as an institution, is defectible.
 
40.png
palmas85:
Every official document that comes out of Rome is in Latin. Whether you accept it or like it the OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH AND THE MASS IS LATIN. Yes the Mass that is celebrated every day, all over the world, the ones you go to are written in Latin, and can be celebrated in Latin at any time by any Priest anywhere. Don’t believe me? Ask your Priest. The mandated use of the vernacular only pertains to the readings and the homily Everything else can be done in Latin and often is. Sorry. :crying:

Check out a copy of the Daily Roman Missal. Oh in case you don’t know, that is the Missal of the normative rite, which also as you may not know is the Pauline Rite or the Novus Ordo Rite. Sorry to tell you but while the Traditional Mass may not be around everywhere. Latin in the Catholic Church is here to say.
Click to expand...
I have no quarrel with anything you have written here, and was well aware of it all, thanks. It misses the point,however.let us imagine that our much maligned Pope Benedict issues a decree tomoorow, saying that latin must be restored to its former position. Will this, in your view, have a positive effect on the status of Catholicism? How many would understand the Mass? Of course latin is here to stay,altough modern seminarians, lawyers and doctors do not study it anymore. It will exist in the same way as the Classical music composers, Old masters and great historical buildings exist.
 
Walking_Home said:
-------------------------

Maklavan,

Until “you” ask those 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, if they would appreciate the return of Latin to the Mass, do not put words into their mouths.

And how charitable of you to call those of us who would like to see the return of Latin to our Mass as being of “no consequence”,
“dissenting elements”, or belonging to the “Lefebvrist cult”.
Maklavan, your true nature is starting to show.
Click to expand...

dear friend. if the cap does not fit you, do not wear it. I have crossed swords with many latinists who are in the lefebvre camp, and many who hide behind the cloak of the latin mass society. Pleas amplify on the Q of my" true nature" as I am always looking for enlightment in this vale of tears.
 
Dr. Bombay:
Sorry. We’ve already determined on this board, after much debate, that Traditionalists comprise 10% of the worldwide Catholic population (which is actually 1.2 billion).
Click to expand...
Naturally, this was a scientific analysis with requisite cross-samplings and data? 10% ? That’s 120 million ! please! There is not a shred of evidence to support this gross exaggeration. Even 1% would be conceding a lot. Think about it. Those who support the Catholic Church in the 3rd world, in Africa Asia, South America would not even know what you mean by Traditionalism or latin for that matter.
 
Joe Gloor:
Are more people going to Mass these days?
Click to expand...
I do not have the statistics, but I thought the percentage was down “these days” than in days past. Assuming more people are going to Mass now, it could have as much to do with more effective modes of transportation as it does the vernacular.

We do have statistics that demonstrate a reduced belief in the Real Presence. Does that offset the supposed increase in warm bodies in the pews? Which is better?
 
40.png
maklavan:
I have no quarrel with anything you have written here, and was well aware of it all, thanks. It misses the point,however.let us imagine that our much maligned Pope Benedict issues a decree tomoorow, saying that latin must be restored to its former position. Will this, in your view, have a positive effect on the status of Catholicism? How many would understand the Mass? Of course latin is here to stay,altough modern seminarians, lawyers and doctors do not study it anymore. It will exist in the same way as the Classical music composers, Old masters and great historical buildings exist.
Click to expand...
My own personal opinion is that anyone who cared enough about the faith would find a way to. They did for a long, long ,long time and I think that they would still be able to do it some how…

Oc course there are those on this forum who would have you believe that before the breath of spring blew through the Church in 1965 no one knew what was going on anyway.

Would the return of Latin have a positive effect? It wouldn’t hurt, the readings and the homily would still be in the vernacular. So what exactly would everyone be missing out on and not understanding? The Holy Father and many in the Curia apparently believe that all Catholics should know the basic prayers in Latin anyway. There aren’t that many, and the eucharistic prayers in Latin are very easy. I don’t see the problem.

Of course, you would have to put forth a little effort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top