I used a mathematical analogy because a mathematical analogy was first used. And the mathematical system is (mostly) precise because it was first defined to be so (and modified when necessary to avoid ambiguity). The term transubstantiation is precise because it was defined to be so. Likewise, prosopon is in Catholic usage precise (and a synonym for ousia) because the Council of Chalcedon defined it to be so (and defined away the ambiguity it has).
And the audible prayers were more-or-less completely responded by the server, not the congregation. Why? Because the people were assumed not to know how to respond. So, they sat in their pews praying the Rosary instead of participating in the Mass.
Point is that the value of π is an irrational number and can’t be expressed exactly with Arabic numerals. Maybe 3.14159 (or C/d, which is actually a circular argument) is good for you to understand it, but it’s not the truth. Certainly not the source of the mathematical truth. Hostia is truth, victim or host isn’t, though it may be good enough for you to understand it but then you’re only understanding an approximation or idea of the truth. Hostia is precise and you have only to read the beautiful Veterum Sapientia by Pope John XXIII to appreciate the beauty of preserving the truth in a language which doesn’t change. And VS would be true even if the Church decided that today π was 3.14, because tomorrow it might not be. But π remains π.
This I would agree with you on. In today’s environment, however, because where people have now been conditioned to have everything microphoned in public settings, the inaudible prayers don’t seem to work. And people are eager to respond, whether by clapping, cheering, singing, or speaking in cadences. Nothing wrong per se, but the EF needs to become more audible, but not loud, past the first few rows in order to be accepted better. Technically some prayers can fit into the “low-tone” category if they’re quieter than the loudest prayers. Low, after all, is a relative expression.
In my parish, when we have had the EF the Priest wears a microphone so everyone can hear.
Leaving mathematical definitions aside (let’s not get side-tracked herePoint is that the value of π is an irrational number and can’t be expressed exactly with Arabic numerals. Maybe 3.14159 (or C/d, which is actually a circular argument) is good for you to understand it, but it’s not the truth. Certainly not the source of the mathematical truth. Hostia is truth, victim or host isn’t, though it may be good enough for you to understand it but then you’re only understanding an approximation or idea of the truth. Hostia is precise and you have only to read the beautiful Veterum Sapientia by Pope John XXIII to appreciate the beauty of preserving the truth in a language which doesn’t change. And VS would be true even if the Church decided that today π was 3.14, because tomorrow it might not be. But π remains π.
), the problem is that ‘hostia’ is not an English word (assuming English is the vernacular in question). Even if we left all doctrine and liturgy in Latin, if we just leave it at that and throw a Latin catechism or missal at someone and say, ‘here, this is the truth’, they’d respond, ‘that’s nice, but it’s gibberish to me’. Even those who learn the Latin language had to first learn it in reference to their native tongue.I have never come across that and wouldn’t expect to. Among TLMers the usual approach is to follow the instruction of Pope Saint Pius X:
So there is this expectation (or at least ideal) that the laity are following along with Missals and praying with the priest. This means that even inaudible parts would have a role in conveying doctrine.
Just so you know, that quote was grotesquely distorted by Lefebvre. Abp. Bugnini was writing specifically about changes to the Good Friday prayers, which formerly railed against “heretics” and the like. He was not talking about anything else in the liturgy, even though it’s often claimed that he basically said, “We must change the entire Catholic Mass to make it acceptable to Protestants.”
Thank you for that information. It is possible that the person I saw quoting it had gotten it from Abp. Lefebvre, but he didn’t say. It was without context. I do not like criticisms of the new Mass that are based on villifying Abp. Bugnini or attributing bad motives to its creators or proponents. I do, however, consider the text itself to be fair game. I really think its relative lack of clarity in conveying doctrine is a serious flaw.
Agreed, and I think there are plenty of flaws with the modern form of the Mass. Playing down the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice, as you’ve pointed out, is one example. On the other hand, in my estimation it does a somewhat better job of emphasizing the nature of the Mass as a sacrifice of thanksgiving. I think you can chalk this up to a shift of emphasis, rather than just an excision, and if I had to venture a theory (two, really), it’s (1) thanksgiving is happier and more palatable than propitiation, and, especially, (2) conceptually, propitiation can be done by the priest as a representative of a silent or absent people, but thanksgiving calls for a more active participation. We don’t communicate thanks by asking a third party, “Go tell so-and-so I’m grateful for what he did” – or at least that would be kind of weird.
Isn’t that basically what I said?
Nothing except maybe the prohibitive costs of maintaining several hundred vernacular texts of the EF, each of them having to be authenticated by the Vatican. English alone and its subtleties in meanings (amongst other things in culture) have changed over the last 40 years, forcing a newer translation of the English OF. These changes required many resources and certainly didn’t come free of charge. And the translations will always be controversial where the Latin texts are hardly criticized anymore. Just trying to being practical here as well as fall in line with the spirit of Veterum Sapientia, which, by the way is as close to being a definition without actually using the words, “We define…” IMO anyway.
I believed you said that the Eastern languages would be in violation. If it’s not what you said or implied, then I’ll take my comment back.Isn’t that basically what I said?
My Missal has the statement on its first page:
Since there are four ends that need to be met, it seems likely that shifting emphasis to one will take it away from the others. I question using “active role of the individual in the liturgy” as a criterion for assessing how well the Mass achieves its ends. From what I have seen the idea of activity comes from a misunderstanding of the Latin “actuosa” and is often mistaken.
If what the Church taught was the Latin was the only acceptable language to be used, then the Eastern Churches (which uses Eastern languages – either Greek or their vernacular) would be in violation of Church teaching.
Didn’t the hand missals still have a vernacular translation? There always has to be some reference to the vernacular (either as the official translated text itself or as an unofficial sidebar) because most people today don’t speak Latin fluently. That’s just a reality.
If the faithful have the impression that the priest alone offers adoration, thankgiving, reparation, and petition, while they stand there mutely in the hopes of grabbing onto the hem of his cassock when everything shakes out, rather than that their attentive presence stands as a positive act of affirmation of the ritual he offers on their behalf, as an act of the whole Church, that is not an appropriate emphasis highlighting the ends of the Mass. So while the faithful can be active in a real sense without ever uttering a word, it is important that the ritual be taken that way by the faithful. If a particular way of achieving the ritual does not elicit truly active interior participation by the people, then all the theoretical reasons in the world why ought to be the best way don’t change the need to address that problem.
Though most if not all have imprimaturs, none of the vernacular is official and none of them have been authenticized by the Vatican to my knowledge. Besides my few missals seem to differ in the translations. Vernacular to me is just a set of training wheels, not the real McCoy.