Misconceptions about Traditional Catholics

[JReducation]

It has a narrow definition, but it applies to many things. In that sense, it’s not very useful to criticize individual things as being “modernistic”, since there’s always a more specific term that can be used than that. (For example, the statement “the Catholic Church can believe that abortion is a sin, but we live in a civil society where religion isn’t shoved down your throat” is modernistic, but more specifically the error here is secularist antinomialism, so it’s much more useful to discuss it in that context.)

But, I don’t think “modernism” is overall a useless term. I for one don’t really want to have to write “those who believe that modern man due to the advancement of the sciences now knows things that the Catholic Church has erroneously decreed to be false” when all of that is finely summarized by “modernists”. For example, when one talks about all of the reasons why the New Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible is offensive to our faith and misleading for the faithful, he can neatly branch all of the problems together to say that the translation was crafted with a modernistic approach, but then outline all of the individual problems, such as the gender neutral language which subtly deteriorates the prophecies of Christ’s manhood.

Even in your example, it makes much more sense for someone to say that gender neutral language is offensive to our faith (which it’s not), but if the person wants to hold this, he can do so. To say that the translation is done by Modernists or that the translation follows Modernists principals does not tell me what you find wrong with it.

I’m not interested in the term. I’m interested in what is observable and measurable. If you were my student in one of my courses and you defined something as modernist, but did not give me observable and measurable language, I would have to fail you. Because I no idea how you define Modernist. If you tell me a, b, and c are wrong because, I can give you a grade for that. I can say that you get credit for a and c, but not for b. That’s the issue when teaching theology be it to seminarians or lay people, it’s the same problem. Labels don’t help too much.

This is the problem that right and left have. Both use too many labels and not enough concrete language. At the end of the day, one needs concrete language to understand what the other person is say. Abstract language can lend itself to all kinds of misconceptions.

 

[Cojuanco]

Since you don’t say what traditions you are talking about, it is a bit hard to answer.

Some people may resent older traditions; some may misunderstand them; others may simply not care one way or the other, and yet still others may simply not like them. It is dangerous to attempt to distill people’s reactions to one or two categories without a lot of research with each individual.

And as to traditions (which I am assuming you addressed with a lower case “t” for a reason), new traditions may well be forming as we speak.

One of the older traditions that seems to be thoroughly out of favor is Mother of Perpetual Help devotion. I can’t recall seeing it since somewhere in the very early 1960’s.

However, a new tradition seems to have developed (or perhaps it is an old one revived) and that is 24/7/363 24 hour adoration. That has been going on in my parish for over 15 years; and there are other parishes which have perpetual adoration; and others which have adoration once or more per week.

So also the spread of the LOTH among the laity (in spite of some, self-styled traditionalists trying to insist that the laity had no business or right to do so).

So while we can sit and bemoan the loss of old traditions, or their fading into only a very small minority of the active Catholic population, all is not abysmal.

Mother of Perpetual Help devotions are very much alive wherever there is a significant Filipino community, pretty much.

 

[Butaperson]

Not quite. He lived in the Roman Levant so he would’ve spoken Syriac and a bit of Greek perhaps (and Hebrew for Temple).

Any who, the argument about not using Latin because Christ didn’t speak it and prayer is understood in any language is such a silly argument. What I like to do is fill in the missing necessary premises for arguments like that and show people their implicit assumptions .
1 Christ didn’t speak Latin
2 Christ understands all languages
3 I am a worshipper who does not speak Latin
4 If worshipper does not understand than a vernacular should be used because intelligibility to the worshipper is the most important part of prayer.​

C: Use vernacular

Why people say #1 I don’t know, Jesus didn’t speak English, French, Arabic or Slavonic either.

I think people say #1 because they assume that the reason for using Latin is because Jesus spoke it. So I guess their argument is really a counterargument xD

I personally prefer the Latin mass, but I don’t think English takes away from anything. The reason to use Latin, I’ve heard, is just because it’s the lingua franca of the Roman Rite. So it doesn’t matter if you’re attending a Roman mass in America or Mexico or Switzerland, it’s all in the same language.

Another reason I like Latin better is because of the historical context. Jesus may not have spoken Latin, but Christianity was originally spread and maintained by the Roman empire, and so some of the earliest forms of Christianity were all based in Latin. After that, as Christianity spread through Europe, Latin remained a universal language for academics and religious texts no matter how other languages shifted and changed. So when you read a religious text in Latin, it’s like a little chunk of time, almost two thousand years ago, way back to the first mainstream Christians, that was plopped down into the 21st century world. Stepping into a tridentine mass is like stepping back in time, and I’ve found that just the historical context of Latin alone, and especially its uses in religion, help me to step so far back beyond seccularism and the athiestic movements of today and feel the truth and the beauty and the age of my faith.

Just my two cents, hehe. I think that using English doesn’t make the mass any less - I’m a huge history geek, and I’m sure many people who don’t share my feelings do benefit from being able to understand by ear. But I love Latin, and I feel like it does hold so much more importance than people think.

 

[JReducation]

Just a slight correction. The earliest language of Christianity, after Hebrew was Greek, not Latin. We find Luke, John and Paul using Greek, not Latin.

Latin became the language of Western Christianity because it was based in Rome. It is associated with Catholicism more than any other language used in the Church, because the Latin Church encompassed much more territory than the other 22 Catholic Churches. Greek never became the language of Europe. Latin did. That’s the historical connection between Latin and Catholicism. It’s not because the apostolic community used Latin. That is most unlikely. Given the fact that no part of the New Testament was originally written in Latin, we can safely assume that the apostles, the evangelists and the people for whom they wrote were did not use Latin as much as was the case by about 100 CE.

 

[pianistclare]

Just a slight correction. The earliest language of Christianity, after Hebrew was Greek, not Latin. We find Luke, John and Paul using Greek, not Latin.

Latin became the language of Western Christianity because it was based in Rome. It is associated with Catholicism more than any other language used in the Church, because the Latin Church encompassed much more territory than the other 22 Catholic Churches. Greek never became the language of Europe. Latin did. That’s the historical connection between Latin and Catholicism. It’s not because the apostolic community used Latin. That is most unlikely. Given the fact that no part of the New Testament was originally written in Latin, we can safely assume that the apostles, the evangelists and the people for whom they wrote were did not use Latin as much as was the case by about 100 CE.

That’s what a priest taught us as well. And, another priest posed this question to the congregation one Sunday: How many languages did Jesus speak? The answer he agreed with (being fresh from seminary, LOL) was 3: Hebrew in the Temple, Greek in the marketplace, and at least a working knowledge of Latin since he conversed with Pontius Pilate. In the last 3 years we have completed 4 semesters of Koine Greek. Fascinating language. But yeah, if a person reads the New Testament in Greek, then it becomes clear why scholars get all worked up about translations. Makes a HUGE difference.
Me? I like the Mass in English and also attend a Mass in Spanish every week. I do love Latin hymns though…wish more people were not so intimidated by singing them, but that’s a whole 'nother kettle of fish. LOL
Thanks for the clarification JR.
Peace

 

[Butaperson]

Just a slight correction. The earliest language of Christianity, after Hebrew was Greek, not Latin. We find Luke, John and Paul using Greek, not Latin.

Latin became the language of Western Christianity because it was based in Rome. It is associated with Catholicism more than any other language used in the Church, because the Latin Church encompassed much more territory than the other 22 Catholic Churches. Greek never became the language of Europe. Latin did. That’s the historical connection between Latin and Catholicism. It’s not because the apostolic community used Latin. That is most unlikely. Given the fact that no part of the New Testament was originally written in Latin, we can safely assume that the apostles, the evangelists and the people for whom they wrote were did not use Latin as much as was the case by about 100 CE.

Yes, that’s more or less what I meant. Because Latin became the language of Europe, it has an exceptionally deep history to it. I never intended to say that Jesus or any of the apostles spoke Latin, I know they probably did not. But the wide spread of Christianity was majorly due to the expansion of the Roman empire after the Romans accepted and endorsed Christianity, so we do owe a good bit to the Latin speakers xD
If we were to say the mass in Greek or Hebrew, though - no doubt that would be even more delightful, stretching the historical connections all the way back to when Christ walked among us :extrahappy:
Although Greek was closer to the birth of Christ, Latin was there through the majority of Catholic history, and I just think it’s so cool that after all those hundreds of years we still speak and use it today in some of our churches.
That’s all xD

I know, of course, that’s not the reason we use Latin. Like I said, I was taught that we use Latin in the Roman Rite simply because it is the lingua franca that connects the Roman Catholic churches together (feel free to correct me here, I never did quite get that confirmed). But just for me personally, I adore the history of the language

 

[JReducation]

I know, of course, that’s not the reason we use Latin. Like I said, I was taught that we use Latin in the Roman Rite simply because it is the lingua franca that connects the Roman Catholic churches together (feel free to correct me here, I never did quite get that confirmed). But just for me personally, I adore the history of the language

Very often people don’t know what is meant by the Roman Catholic Churches. The Roman Catholic Churches are the dioceses that make up the Latin Church. Each diocese is an independent local Church. But at that time when the Latin Church was in its infancy, all of the Latin Catholic dioceses were within the Roman Empire, unlike today. The Americas, Asia, Afria and Oceania are former colonies of Europe, which was once most of the Roman Empire. That’s how we end up in the Church of Rome, without being in Rome. Latin was the language, not only of the Church, but also of many governments for a very long time.

Today, some Catholics are hung up on Latin. This was not always the case. In many places, the local languages emerged and the Church kept Latin because she “international”. Notice the quotation marks. That was not a term that they knew back then; but it was their reality. The Latin Church crossed many boundaries and borders. In an age where there was no technology, a common language was very practical. Gradually, it became part of the Western Catholic culture.

Unfortunately, today, there are some traditionalists who want to shove Latin down our throats, because it’s holier than any other language or because it’s the language of the Church. I deliberately use the word shove, because this is their approach and it does not fly with the modern man. Modern man is too democratic, for better or for worse. You can shove things down his throat. Even Trads know this. If they were not democratic, they would quietly assent to their bishops and their pope, something that they do not do well.

In communities where there is no attempt to shove it down people’s throats, but where Latin is used because it’s practical and because people understand that the Latin Church is a cultural Church with its own art, music, history, law, worldview, theater, technology, and political system, then it makes sense to folks that it also has a language of its own and they accept it and even like using it.

I teach a CCD glass to grade 6. All of my grade 6 students know the OF and the EF in Latin by the end of the year, as well as their common daily prayers. Why is that? It’s because we teach them Catholic culture. We teach them that Catholic culture is as much a part of their heritage as is the Irish, Korean, Haitian, Puerto Rican, and French culture. The kids get very excited about it and they get their parents excited. When a stranger walks into a classroom, it never fails that one of my kids runs for a prayer card so that the stranger can join us in prayer. The first thing out of the kid’s mouth is, “We pray in Latin.”

However, they also study Christology with me. Guess what language they use to read the bible? If you said, Greek and Hebrew, you got it right. They have a bible in English, Greek and Hebrew. As we go along, I teach them key passages in the bible in their original languages. Then I teach it to them in English.

In that same community, we celebrate the EF in Latin whenever we need to celebrate mass for a multilingual community. No one has a problem, because the parishioners have been taught real Catholic culture and they see us (the brothers) living it.

We don’t use the EF on a daily basis. We do use the breviary in Latin, but it’s the new breviary, not the 1962 edition, because the Franciscan edition of the 1962 breviary was banned by Pope Benedict. It’s either the Roman breviary of 1962 or the current Franciscan breviary of 1970 in Latin.

We focus on Catholic culture and all things Catholic from the time of the Apostles to 2013, not stops at 1963.

My point is that when a culture is taught and presented, people will go along with a sense of respect and even ownership. If it’s enforced, you’ll get resistance.

 

[pianistclare]

Wow!
:clapping:

Wish you taught here!

 

[shawnbm]

Wow!
:clapping:

Wish you taught here!

I second that and will think about how I can do this with my CCD class if seventh graders getting ready for confirmation next year. I don’t know Classical Greek or Hebrew (only a few words or phrases), but could teach many prayers in Latin. I think it’s a worthy endeavor.

 

[JReducation]

I have the kids for two years. In grade 6 they learn Catholic Culture. In grade 7 they study Christology. But we do Christology from the bible. They don’t read the bible sequentially. They read it thematically.

For example, this year the grade 7 kids studied the Messianic prophecies all the way until Christmas. The last thing that they studied was what Mary’s reality said about Jesus. For that, we use Scripture. They learn the Immaculate Conception, Immaculate Procession, hypostatic union and virgin birth together. They pull it all together to make a statement about the entrance of the Logos into human history.

Next, they will begin to study what Jesus says about himself against what the OT says about him. We look at the covenants of the OT and then at Jesus’ claims that the covenant is fulfilled, that he is the Kingdom of God, that no one goes to the Father but through him and so forth.

We look at the miracles of the OT and the miracles of the NT and how both sets of miracles tell us something about who Jesus is. But you can’t understand the NT miracles unless you look at the OT miracles.

During Lent we go into the prophecies on the Suffering Servant and the passion narratives. The question on the table is whether or not the man crucified in Jerusalem is the one of whom the prophets spoke when they said that none of his bones would be broken. If he is, then who is he? We know that his historical name is Yeshua bar Yosef. But who is Yeshua bar Yosef?

This is going to be revealed to the kids after Easter when we cover the literature of Glory in the NT and the book of Kings in the OT. Finally, the covenant with Moses and the covenant with Peter to understand how Jesus projects himself into the world through his people. So that when God tells Pharaoh, “Let my people go.” He’s speaking to sin and death saying, “Let my people go.” But the people must still travel through the desert and the Church will lead them.

That’s the end of the two year program that I do. It’s very simple, but the kids like it and I think that it offers them a little bit of grounding in Catholicism without bullying them with rules and memorizations of things that they don’t understand.

At some point, they will think back on everything they learned in the early grades about sacraments, morals and dogma and then think about Catholic culture. At some point, some will say, “I get it.” Others will say, “I don’t understand it all, but then again I don’t understand the Constitution of the United States either and I have no desire to leave the country.” In other words, “I can let go and let others deal with it. I just have to do what is before me today.”

 

[MikeDunphy]

You beat me to it Sirach2!!!

EP- sorry to say, but your posts in this thread just prove that the reason many “traditional Catholics” feel that they are marginalized, is because you marginalize yourselves. Everything this in your signature you want to “save” is a discipline, not a dogma. Maybe if you and others like you could see that your way is not the only one, and stop judging and disparaging others who see things differently, yet are still in line with the Church, there might not be so many misconceptions about so called “traditional Catholics.”

Can a practice be worth preserving even if it is not a dogma?

EphelDuath listed several things that many of us believe have value.

The first couple in the list are even named in the Vatican II documents as having particular value, and none are named as needing to be eliminated. We don’t believe that our way is the only way, but it is our way, inherited from those who preceded us in the faith, with a beauty and a wisdom that should not be lost.

 

[hoop0826]

Very often people don’t know what is meant by the Roman Catholic Churches. The Roman Catholic Churches are the dioceses that make up the Latin Church. Each diocese is an independent local Church. But at that time when the Latin Church was in its infancy, all of the Latin Catholic dioceses were within the Roman Empire, unlike today. The Americas, Asia, Afria and Oceania are former colonies of Europe, which was once most of the Roman Empire. That’s how we end up in the Church of Rome, without being in Rome. Latin was the language, not only of the Church, but also of many governments for a very long time.

Today, some Catholics are hung up on Latin. This was not always the case. In many places, the local languages emerged and the Church kept Latin because she “international”. Notice the quotation marks. That was not a term that they knew back then; but it was their reality. The Latin Church crossed many boundaries and borders. In an age where there was no technology, a common language was very practical. Gradually, it became part of the Western Catholic culture.

Unfortunately, today, there are some traditionalists who want to shove Latin down our throats, because it’s holier than any other language or because it’s the language of the Church. I deliberately use the word shove, because this is their approach and it does not fly with the modern man. Modern man is too democratic, for better or for worse. You can shove things down his throat. Even Trads know this. If they were not democratic, they would quietly assent to their bishops and their pope, something that they do not do well.

In communities where there is no attempt to shove it down people’s throats, but where Latin is used because it’s practical and because people understand that the Latin Church is a cultural Church with its own art, music, history, law, worldview, theater, technology, and political system, then it makes sense to folks that it also has a language of its own and they accept it and even like using it.

I teach a CCD glass to grade 6. All of my grade 6 students know the OF and the EF in Latin by the end of the year, as well as their common daily prayers. Why is that? It’s because we teach them Catholic culture. We teach them that Catholic culture is as much a part of their heritage as is the Irish, Korean, Haitian, Puerto Rican, and French culture. The kids get very excited about it and they get their parents excited. When a stranger walks into a classroom, it never fails that one of my kids runs for a prayer card so that the stranger can join us in prayer. The first thing out of the kid’s mouth is, “We pray in Latin.”

However, they also study Christology with me. Guess what language they use to read the bible? If you said, Greek and Hebrew, you got it right. They have a bible in English, Greek and Hebrew. As we go along, I teach them key passages in the bible in their original languages. Then I teach it to them in English.

In that same community, we celebrate the EF in Latin whenever we need to celebrate mass for a multilingual community. No one has a problem, because the parishioners have been taught real Catholic culture and they see us (the brothers) living it.

We don’t use the EF on a daily basis. We do use the breviary in Latin, but it’s the new breviary, not the 1962 edition, because the Franciscan edition of the 1962 breviary was banned by Pope Benedict. It’s either the Roman breviary of 1962 or the current Franciscan breviary of 1970 in Latin.

We focus on Catholic culture and all things Catholic from the time of the Apostles to 2013, not stops at 1963.

My point is that when a culture is taught and presented, people will go along with a sense of respect and even ownership. If it’s enforced, you’ll get resistance.

Brother I’d thought that I would bring in some references from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church which sheds light on definition of the Church, it says (and I have inserted the bold and italics for the sake of this thread)

“833 The phrase "particular church,” which is the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession.313 These particular Churches" are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists."314

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity."315* ***“For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.”/***I]316 Indeed, "from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her."317

I am thinking that the Latin language could be symbolic throughout the Church of this communion with the Church of Rome i.e the pope’s diocese. But these days, the pope isn’t recognized as much as the bishop as his diocese in Rome as he is a world figure, though traditionally the pope is the Bishop of Rome.*

 

[JReducation]

I am thinking that the Latin language could be symbolic throughout the Church of this communion with the Church of Rome i.e the pope’s diocese. But these days, the pope isn’t recognized as much as the bishop as his diocese in Rome as he is a world figure, though traditionally the pope is the Bishop of Rome.

Thanks for the citations. The problem with using the Latin language as a symbol of communion with the Church of Rome is complex.

First of all, there are 22 Catholic Churches who languages are other than Latin.

Secondly, these 22 Churches have agreed to remain in communion with the Church of Rome as long as the Latin Church stays out of their life. They want nothing to do with us. That means that they don’t want our language either and we must respect that. Afterall, they were founded by the Apostles as well.

Third, the Roman Church is no longer geographically contained in what was once the Roman Empire, nor the rest of Europe. In fact, it is growing in the southern hemisphere more than it is in Europe. With the exception of South America, the other cultures are not formally Latin cultures. South America is in a different position, because the majority of South Americans are of European descent. That’s not the case for Africa where the is a very large Roman Catholic Church. They need flexibility. To impose one language on them is not fair. To use their language and Latin is feasible and fair.

I think that one of the problems that we have on these blogs. forums and websites is that most of them are dominated by descendants of Europeans. It would be interesting to see what Asian and African Catholics have to say about some of these topics.

 

[shawnbm]

Brother makes a cogent point in the above post. As he says, why not the native tongue if the given culture AND Latin? Peace

 

[EphelDuath]

There seems to be some misconception about traditionalist Catholics, that we want to preserve Latin in the liturgy because of some bizarre fetish for the language, “Latin supremacism”, or some other thing like that. In actuality we fight for Latin because the Church has told us to.

The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruptions of true doctrine.

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 1947, Sec. 60

… the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws."5 She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7

…

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.

There can be no doubt as to the formative and educational value either of the language of the Romans or of great literature generally. It is a most effective training for the pliant minds of youth. It exercises, matures and perfects the principal faculties of mind and spirit. It sharpens the wits and gives keenness of judgment. It helps the young mind to grasp things accurately and develop a true sense of values. It is also a means for teaching highly intelligent thought and speech.

It will be quite clear from these considerations why the Roman Pontiffs have so often extolled the excellence and importance of Latin, and why they have prescribed its study and use by the secular and regular clergy, forecasting the dangers that would result from its neglect.

And We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons – the same as those which prompted Our Predecessors and provincial synods 13 – are fully determined to restore this language to its position of honor, and to do all We can to promote its study and use. The employment of Latin has recently been contested in many quarters, and many are asking what the mind of the Apostolic See is in this matter. We have therefore decided to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored.

Veterum Sapientia, Pope Bl. John XXIII, 1962
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html#sthash.oaWTifau.dpuf

Sacrosanctum Concilium 36. 1. ‘Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.’

The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned; for the Latin Church it is the most abundant source of Christian civilization and the richest treasury of piety…. We must not hold in low esteem these traditions of your fathers, which were your glory for centuries.

We cannot permit something that could be the cause of your own downfall, that could be the source of serious loss to you, and that surely would afflict the Church of God with sickness and sadness…. The same Church gives you the mandate to safeguard the traditional dignity, beauty, and gravity of the choral office in both its language [Latin] and its chant…. Obey the commands that a great love for your own ancient observances itself suggests….

Pope Paul VI, Sacrificium Laudis, August 15, 1966

Nevertheless, there are also those people who, having been educated on the basis of the old liturgy in Latin, experience the lack of this “one language,” which in all the world was an expression of the unity of the Church and through its dignified character elicited a profound sense of the Eucharistic Mystery. It is therefore necessary to show not only understanding but also full respect towards these sentiments and desires. As far as possible these sentiments and desires are to be accommodated, as is moreover provided for in the new dispositions. The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself.

Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae,
February 24, 1980, sec. 10

That’s why we’re relatively irked when people tell us “oh Latin doesn’t matter, you should care about something useful” and call us dinosaurs or irrelevant nostaglia-ists. I wonder if Popes Bl. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or Francis would think any of those things

 

[ignatius777]

There seems to be some misconception about traditionalist Catholics, that we want to preserve Latin in the liturgy because of some bizarre fetish for the language, “Latin supremacism”, or some other thing like that. In actuality we fight for Latin because the Church has told us to.

But Mass in the vernacular is approved by the church. I have come across many latin rite observers and they have strange ideas.

That’s why we’re relatively irked when people tell us “oh Latin doesn’t matter, you should care about something useful” and call us dinosaurs or irrelevant nostaglia-ists. I wonder if Popes Bl. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or Francis would think any of those things

 

[MikeDunphy]

Brother makes a cogent point in the above post. As he says, why not the native tongue if the given culture AND Latin? Peace

That’s exactly what Sacrosanctum Concilium and Inter Oecumenici called for.

 

[JReducation]

There seems to be some misconception about traditionalist Catholics, that we want to preserve Latin in the liturgy because of some bizarre fetish for the language, “Latin supremacism”, or some other thing like that. In actuality we fight for Latin because the Church has told us to.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. That Church has not told us to fight for anything. The last thing in the world that the Church wants is to see her children fight amongst themselves.

The Church has directed, which is different from fight, us to preserve Latin. At the same time, the Church has also said that the vernacular can be used in liturgy. One can preserve something without a fight and without daily usage. It’s actually quite simple.

I’ll give you an example of how we do it in the Franciscan family. We have the LOTH and the mass in both Latin and vernacular. There are some houses where the mass is hybrid, Latin and local language. Other houses have a mass fully in Latin and others have it fully in their native language. Each house votes as to how they want to do it. Then it’s up to the superior of the house to decide.

In my own house, I allow the LOTH in Latin, using the current Roman-Franciscan breviary. The daily mass is in English. On special occasions, we have mass in the Extraordinary Form. Whenever we need a bilingual mass, the canon is in Latin, while the readings are in multiple languages as are the prayers of the faithful.

What we never use is Gregorian Chant, because St. Clare banned it. For us, Gregorian Chant is a relatively new form of music for which we received an indult. But we choose not to make use of the indult. As you can see, we make use of Latin and the local languages without a fight of any kind.

It’s simply not an important subject to us, because it’s very simple to deal with. More important right now is how to comply with Pope Francis’ call to a simpler life and a life of greater service to the poor and to peace.

I agree that Latin should be preserved; but disagree that it is something that should give rise to a fight and much less something to be irked about because someone else does not feel enthusiasm for it. It is much more important to be irked when someone does not feel enthusiasm for the voiceless.

 

[EphelDuath]

I agree that Latin should be preserved; but disagree that it is something that should give rise to a fight and much less something to be irked about because someone else does not feel enthusiasm for it. It is much more important to be irked when someone does not feel enthusiasm for the voiceless.

I don’t know with what attitude you held when you wrote “It is much more important to be irked when someone does not feel enthusiasm for the voiceless”, but I will assume good intent on your part. Yes, you are correct, that Latin is not as important as corporal works of mercy. That being said, corporal works of mercy do not replace our spiritual heritage, which the Church has implored us to keep. There are far too many anti-traditionalists that snidely assume that they are mutually exclusive: either you are obsessed with traditions,* or* you help the poor. This isn’t the case. The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate had, until their recent controversy, a thriving outreach to the poor, while simultaneously developing the '61 Breviarium Romanum as an iPhone app and celebrating the EF of Holy Mass.

Really there is no logical reason that this dichotomy exists at all. My parish respectfully implored our priest not to remove the altar rails at our church. That had absolutely no bearing on how much we feed the hungry, aid the ailing, shelter the homeless, and educate the uneducated.

That aside.

I do very much agree that “The last thing in the world that the Church wants is to see her children fight amongst themselves.” Unfortunately this has occurred anyway. The Church has told us to preserve Latin, and many who have obeyed have suffered for it. A tiny schismatic minority of extremists are constantly brought up as evidence that it’s the traditionalist side that’s problematic, while meanwhile anti-traditionalists do things like this and are seemingly getting away with it: ilfoglio.it/soloqui/18390

 

[ignatius777]

I don’t know with what attitude you held when you wrote “It is much more important to be irked when someone does not feel enthusiasm for the voiceless”, but I will assume good intent on your part. Yes, you are correct, that Latin is not as important as corporal works of mercy. That being said, corporal works of mercy do not replace our spiritual heritage, which the Church has implored us to keep. There are far too many anti-traditionalists that snidely assume that they are mutually exclusive: either you are obsessed with traditions,* or* you help the poor. This isn’t the case. The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate had, until their recent controversy, a thriving outreach to the poor, while simultaneously developing the '61 Breviarium Romanum as an iPhone app and celebrating the EF of Holy Mass.

Really there is no logical reason that this dichotomy exists at all. My parish respectfully implored our priest not to remove the altar rails at our church. That had absolutely no bearing on how much we feed the hungry, aid the ailing, shelter the homeless, and educate the uneducated.

That aside.

I do very much agree that “The last thing in the world that the Church wants is to see her children fight amongst themselves.” Unfortunately this has occurred anyway. The Church has told us to preserve Latin, and many who have obeyed have suffered for it. A tiny schismatic minority of extremists are constantly brought up as evidence that it’s the traditionalist side that’s problematic, while meanwhile anti-traditionalists do things like this and are seemingly getting away with it: ilfoglio.it/soloqui/18390

I have a situation I would like to share with you and get feedback from you about my response to it and I want your honest feedback. It has to do with people who normally go to a latin rite church but they went one week to a vernacular mass and during the mass the priest was unable to distribute communion so an extraordinary minster of the Eucharist(EM) took his place so only a permanent deacon and EMs were distributing communion. They refused to receive communion that day because there was no priest distributing communion. In my mind they rejected God for rules and dogma. DO you believe that is too harsh of me?