Multi-Culture Mass... Had a blast...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rebecca_Pslm91
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John XXIII hints otherwise. Your point is invalid.
that word itslef means you acknowledge he’s not saying it, but you are interpreting it according to what you want his statement to mean

again, what is being argued is the mandatory use of Latin, where there is no such decree. favorable use, yes. mandatory, no
 
that word itslef means you acknowledge he’s not saying it
Nothing of the kind. I’m merely pointing out what’s written in YOUR vernacular, if you can accept capitalization of the first word in sentences. My use of the word “hints” was purposely too weak a word. Even “says” would be too weak as it appears Pope John XXIII is actually defining the role of Latin in the Church. That means strong and binding to me. You, however, will continue to look for loopholes and exceptions. (Very typical in the 60’s, by the way.) You may find some in what I say or write but you won’t find too many in Veterum Sapientia, I’m afraid.
 
Nothing of the kind. I’m merely pointing out what’s written in YOUR vernacular, if you can accept capitalization of the first word in sentences. My use of the word “hints” was purposely too weak a word. Even “says” would be too weak as it appears Pope John XXIII is actually defining the role of Latin in the Church. That means strong and binding to me. You, however, will continue to look for loopholes and exceptions. You may find some in what I say or write but you won’t find too many in Veterum Sapientia, I’m afraid.
the fact that you in good conscience cannot bring yourself to outright claim that there is a directive to make Latin mandatory shows that deep within you, you understand what is being said. but you don’t want to make a statement that will contradict what you have been clamouring for

i’m not trying to understate the role of Latin in the Church. i just want you not to overstate it too. Latin is preferred, but not mandatory. if a Bishop chooses not to use Latin in Mass, its perfectly fine and it does not go against anything you or benedictgal have posted. its as simple as that
 
the fact that you in good conscience cannot bring yourself to outright claim that there is a directive to make Latin mandatory shows that deep within you, you understand what is being said. but you don’t want to make a statement that will contradict what you have been clamouring for

i’m not trying to understate the role of Latin in the Church. i just want you not to overstate it too. Latin is preferred, but not mandatory. if a Bishop chooses not to use Latin in Mass, its perfectly fine and it does not go against anything you or benedictgal have posted. its as simple as that
Choy, Latin is the language of the Church. The fact that you even seem to dispute what Blessed John XXIII states on it makes me think, with all due respect, that you seem to not want to accept that. By your very posts, you are understating the role of Latin in the Church. Evidently, the Fathers o the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist did not, as they wrote this as one of their findings:
Certain responses ask for the use of Latin, particularly at international celebrations, to express the unity and catholicity of the rite of the Mother Church of Rome. In this case, it is desirable that Christians everywhere know how to pray and chant some basic texts of the Latin liturgy, such as the Gloria, Credo and the Our Father.
What the OP relayed was, in fact, an international celebration, exactly the kind that Pope Benedict was addressing in Sacramentum Caritatis. What part of the portion that I quoted from Sacramentum Caritatis do you not understand? Do you not see that Pope Benedict, every time he celebrates a Mass with multiple languages, is leading by example? As Peter goes so does the Church.
 
Wow, it amazes me that so much has come from this post. It was just a post to show how different ethnic groups celebrate Mass. It was beautiful, and no one can take that away. BTW the dancing, it wasnt some crazy dancing, it was at the end of Mass, it was more of a celebration.

As Catholics, and as Christians, who are we to judge…
 
Choy, Latin is the language of the Church. The fact that you even seem to dispute what Blessed John XXIII states on it makes me think, with all due respect, that you seem to not want to accept that. By your very posts, you are understating the role of Latin in the Church. Evidently, the Fathers o the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist did not, as they wrote this as one of their findings:

What the OP relayed was, in fact, an international celebration, exactly the kind that Pope Benedict was addressing in Sacramentum Caritatis. What part of the portion that I quoted from Sacramentum Caritatis do you not understand? Do you not see that Pope Benedict, every time he celebrates a Mass with multiple languages, is leading by example? As Peter goes so does the Church.
first, i never have disputed the place of Latin in the Church
second, i have never disputed what it is in the Church documents that are written about Latin
third, i only dispute what you and a few others are interpreting of those documents to make it something that its not

i don’t know how many more times i have to say the same thing again. yes, Latin is held in high regard, yes Latin is preferred. no, its not mandatory today
 
Wow, it amazes me that so much has come from this post. It was just a post to show how different ethnic groups celebrate Mass. It was beautiful, and no one can take that away. BTW the dancing, it wasnt some crazy dancing, it was at the end of Mass, it was more of a celebration.
On the subject of dancing, you may not like what Cardinal Arinze says about it:

youtube.com/watch?v=9rJFdmmqj_s
 
Wow, it amazes me that so much has come from this post. It was just a post to show how different ethnic groups celebrate Mass. It was beautiful, and no one can take that away. BTW the dancing, it wasnt some crazy dancing, it was at the end of Mass, it was more of a celebration.

As Catholics, and as Christians, who are we to judge…
Rebecca, the big concern that I have with what you reported was that as well-meaning as what you experienced was, it was, in my opinion, misdirected. The Mass needs to remain the Holy Sacrifice. Cultural diversity can take place outside the confines of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but, it’s not about showing our differences. If you have witnessed the Papal Masses, either on TV or in person, you will note that while the Liturgy of the Word certainly is proclaimed in a variety of languages, inclusive of the General Intercessions, when it comes to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, everything is in Latin. Latin is what unifies the Church during the Mass.

A lot of times, folks try to do well-meaning and well-intentioned things during the Mass. Even bishops can fall under that. However, just because one means well and has has the best of intentions, that does not necessarily mean that these are the correct actions to take.

As far as dancing is concerned, that probably should not have happened, unless, it was after the deacon chanted the dismissal.
 
Just look at the hostile reactions that are in this thread about Latin. Latin is the language of the Church, and yet, there are those in this thread who seem to have issues with its use.
The hostility in this thread began when posters began attacking the Mass that the OP found so spirituality rewarding. The hostility was pointed at those who dare commit the eternal fire condemning mortal sin of not using Latin in a Mass.
As I have stated repeatedly, there is nothing that would have precluded the folks organizing the particular Mass reported by the OP in such a way where different languages could have been used for the proclamation of the readings, inclusive of the psalm, and the general intercessions. For the Liturgy of the Eucharist, then the switch is made to Latin. What is so or offensive about following that model? It comes directly from Sacramentum Caritatis.
What may have precluded them from doing so is that if it was in Latin then perhaps very few would have attended.
 
Rebecca, the big concern that I have with what you reported was that as well-meaning as what you experienced was, it was, in my opinion, misdirected.
While its nice of you to be concerned, the person the Holy Father has placed in charge of the liturgy for that archdiocese is the archbishop. It is his responsibility and his authority to apply liturgucal documents. While you may have your personal opinions its up to the archbishop to decide.
Latin is what unifies the Church during the Mass.
No. Its our faith and the Eucharist that unfies the Church during Mass.
A lot of times, folks try to do well-meaning and well-intentioned things during the Mass. Even bishops can fall under that. However, just because one means well and has has the best of intentions, that does not necessarily mean that these are the correct actions to take.
Once again, its nice that you have your own thoughts on how to implement the liturgical documents in someone else’s diocese but that responsibility and authority falls to the archbishop in question.
 
The hostility in this thread began when posters began attacking the Mass that the OP found so spirituality rewarding. The hostility was pointed at those who dare commit the eternal fire condemning mortal sin of not using Latin in a Mass.

What may have precluded them from doing so is that if it was in Latin then perhaps very few would have attended.
With all due respect, Father, I seriously doubt that having Latin in the Mass would have resulted in very few people assisting at the Holy Sacrifice. What about those folks who assist at Papal Masses where Latin is used? When I was asked to plan the White Mass for the Healthcare professionals, we had the readings in English and Spanish, but, we chanted the parts of the Mass for the Liturgy of the Eucharist in Latin. Mind you, this was before Sacramentum Caritatis came out. Furthermore, when we had a bilingual Mass at our parish, our parochial vicar recited the Eucharistic prayer, including the acclamations, in Latin. People were not leaving in droves during either Mass simply because Latin was used. In fact, at the White Mass, the faithful were chanting the Masss parts. Incidentally, from time to time, one of the hospital chaplains will lead us in chanting the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei in Latin. The faithful manage to sing along.

I was not attacking the OP; what I was stating was that Latin should be used during multi-lingual liturgies. The Holy Father made a strong case for that in Sacramentum Caritatis. The Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist also made the same remarks, and, these were bishops from around the world. A couple of hundred Synod Fathers can’t exactly all be wrong.

Yes, the Eucharist is the central unifier during the Mass. I know that. However, Latin plays a rather unique role in all of this. Latin unifies us because we are all using the same language to address the Lord in the Mass. It gives us a common voice. At the Mass, we should not be celebrating cultural diversification. We should be united in the Church’s highest and greatest prayer. When we start making the Mass about ourselves and our cultural diversity, then, we have missed the point as to why we are there in the first place.
 
Latin is what unifies the Church during the Mass.
I thought the Eucharist does this, hence why it is also referred to as Communion. We become united as one body and one Church through the consummative act of receiving the Body of our Lord. Something like that transcends languages and truly unifies the Church as we then join those throughout the world and in Heaven as one Body.

Latin vs Vernacular? I’ll take the Eucharist, the Body of our Lord which unifies us all in all Rites within the Catholic Church, regardless of the language used.
 
I thought the Eucharist does this, hence why it is also referred to as Communion. We become united as one body and one Church through the consummative act of receiving the Body of our Lord. Something like that transcends languages and truly unifies the Church as we then join those throughout the world and in Heaven as one Body.

Latin vs Vernacular? I’ll take the Eucharist, the Body of our Lord which unifies us all in all Rites within the Catholic Church, regardless of the language used.
Again, please read my previous post. I already said that the Eucharist unites us.
 
Why the disdain for the official language of the Church? So, so typical of the 60’s. :mad:
Let’s see; in 1969 I was three years old. Are you calling me a hippie? By the way, I have no “disdain” for the official language of the Church, either. But I do have a resistance against those who would try to impose on the multitudes the liturgy in a language that most do not have a preference for. I happen to like the readings in my native language; I like the beauty of the psalms when I can understand their meaning; and I like to hear the words of Our Lord through his priest where it can imprint upon my heart and mind. Do you have a disdain for that???
I suggested the Catholic Church as well. You need to read the book by Dr Thomas Woods:
I already have Dr. Woods book, thank you. I haven’t read it in a few years but I do not remember the subject of latin being a separate chapter in the book. I checked the index to see what he said about it and do you know what? “Latin” is not even listed in the index. It seems that the chapters relate to the Church’s role in the institutions that created Western Civilization, not a cultural ingredient such as latin. If you can point me to a particular page I will be most appreciative. It would certainly pain me to see your argument fall flat.
 
This is from Father John Dietzen’s column, Question Corner. It hasn’t been posted online yet, but since all of Father Dietzen’s other columns are online, I’m sure this column will be, too. It just came out last week.

The column is about Canon Law. The quote that I am posting is preceded by a description of the history of Canon Law.

*"I should warn anyone who is considering buying it, however, that while it is generally easy to read, the code is far from simple to apply correctly. It compacts into 1,752 brief canons the legal experience of hundreds of years, and like any tightly-written legal documents is highly complex.

Canons interrelate broadly with each other. Innocent-sounding phrases that one might easily pass over can be crucial for a right understanding and interpretation of the law. There is a reason why men and women spend years of study and training to properly apply the code in the daily life of Catholic people.

Canon law is not in itself a document to teach Catholic dogmas. Nevertheless it must obviously be based on Catholic doctrine. One reason canon law needs occasional revision, therefore, is that Catholic doctrine itself develops over the years.

The Code of Canon Law can be enlightening and interesting reading (if one enjoys that sort of thing). Just be aware of the limitations. A careful, serious reading of canon law does not make one a canon lawyer any more than a reading of the Internal Revenue Code makes one an expert on income tax."*

end of quote.

I have often said on these forums that it is not a good thing for laymen who are untrained to read and interpret the documents and give an impression that they are just as well-qualified to read them as the priests and bishops and indeed, are qualified to challenge a priest or bishop.

My dear bishop is a Canon Lawyer with a doctoral degree in Canon Law. He knows and understands the various documents of the Catholic Church. With all due respect to the members of CAF who take an interest in church documents and claim to understand them perfectly, I prefer to follow my bishop, who is not only called and ordained by the Lord Jesus to lead His Church here on earth, but is also thoroughly educated in the documents, and has had decades of experience leading real-life Catholics and parishes.

I personally think this is where the amateur canon enthusiasts are lacking. They may have mastered the legal aspects of the documents. But there is a human factor that they are not experienced and knowledgeable about and have not mastered. This is the same “human factor” that allowed Jesus to know when it was appropriate to break various traditional Sabbath rules and when the rules must be kept. E.g., Jesus broke Jewish law to heal people. But He kept many other Jewish laws and in fact, told us that He didn’t come to abolish the Law, but fulfil it.

This “human factor” is probably something in the various documents that even the most devoted laystudent is not aware of or cognizant of, and this “something” allows the bishops to set aside the rules for the sake of a higher good. I think this “something” is a charism from the Holy Spirit, a “priestly instinct,” or a “father’s love” or a “shepherding gift” that helps a priest or bishop to know what is the best way to lead his flock.

Those who are not priests do not have this charism, and to try to act as a priest without it may have negative consequences for the Church.

I think that a priest can use this “shepherding” charism to appoint laypeople to advise him in regards to music, liturgy, etc. When he does this, these people are protected from abusing the documents by the priest’s or bishop’s charism, and they will make wise decisions that the rest of us in the Church may safely abide by.

But when laypeople appoint themselves to read and interpret the documents, I fear that they are no longer protected, and that in their zeal to apply documents to real-life Church situations, these self-appointed liturgists may blunder.

I’m thinking that there were very good reasons why the archbishop chose to allow a “multi-cultural Mass,” even though it is not the norm. There may be racial tensions in his city, or powerful gangs who are in a power struggle with the Church for the control of various ethnic groups, or even terrorist threats. The archbishop may have been told by the Holy Spirit that this unique Mass without Latin would ease those tensions and help restore the confidence of Christians in Jesus and in their Church.

I am confident that the Lord Jesus has given me these wise men, His apostles, to lead me and the Church into righteousness, and that by following them, even if they appear to go against the “rules” of the Church, as long as they are not leading into obvious sin, I will be blameless. OTOH, I fear that Catholics who choose to disregard or undermine the work of the bishops are walking on very thin ice indeed.

Please keep an eye out online for Father Dietzen’s excellent column. I just googled his name. His website is jjdietzen@aol.com if anyone cares to contact him.
 
With all due respect, Father, I seriously doubt that having Latin in the Mass would have resulted in very few people assisting at the Holy Sacrifice. What about those folks who assist at Papal Masses where Latin is used?
Attending a Papal Mass is a completely different matter and you know it. Even people who don’t go to Mass regularly on Sundays would show up for a Papal Mass. Papal Masses are part liturgy and part tourist attraction.
When I was asked to plan the White Mass for the Healthcare professionals, we had the readings in English and Spanish, but, we chanted the parts of the Mass for the Liturgy of the Eucharist in Latin. Mind you, this was before Sacramentum Caritatis came out.
White Masses are, once again, a different issue. White, Red, Blue Masses are all “events” which become a social scene of their own.
Furthermore, when we had a bilingual Mass at our parish, our parochial vicar recited the Eucharistic prayer, including the acclamations, in Latin. People were not leaving in droves during either Mass simply because Latin was used.
Once again, apples and oranges. Parish Mass vs. asking people to come from all over. This debate began once Benedict gave permission for wider use of the EF. Latin enthusiasts claimed people would attend the EF in droves. There was an initial curiosity factor and now the EF Masses are back to being extremely limited in their draw.
I was not attacking the OP; what I was stating was that Latin should be used during multi-lingual liturgies. The Holy Father made a strong case for that in Sacramentum Caritatis. The Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist also made the same remarks, and, these were bishops from around the world. A couple of hundred Synod Fathers can’t exactly all be wrong.
Well, yes, a couple of hundred Synod Father could technically all be wrong. However, the tone of this thread was quickly changed from one of giving thanks for a beautiful and moving Mass to one of “how dare they not use latin!”
Yes, the Eucharist is the central unifier during the Mass. I know that. However, Latin plays a rather unique role in all of this. Latin unifies us because we are all using the same language to address the Lord in the Mass. It gives us a common voice.
It gives a common voice in the sense that now everyone is limited in knowing what’s going on…
At the Mass, we should not be celebrating cultural diversification. We should be united in the Church’s highest and greatest prayer. When we start making the Mass about ourselves and our cultural diversity, then, we have missed the point as to why we are there in the first place.
This is nonsense. We have Masses for a variety of human endeavors. Having a Mass in which we give thanks that so many different cultures are brought together in one Church, one faith, and one baptism through one Lord is not a celebration of us.
We have Red Masses for the legal profession, White for Healthcare, Blue for Police. We have Masses for a good crop, etc. There’s plenty of Masses said for groups of people.
 
The hostility was pointed at those who dare commit the eternal fire condemning mortal sin of not using Latin in a Mass.
What then was the point of including it in the Vatican 2 documents? What about Veterum Sapientia? What about Canon 249?

Should we continue to ignore or to mock what the Church says and then just use sarcasm and cynicism and self-serving excuses whenever the issue comes up? :mad:
 
The hostility was pointed at those who dare commit the eternal fire condemning mortal sin of not using Latin in a Mass.
With due respect…

What then was the point of including it in the Vatican 2 documents? What about Veterum Sapientia? What about Canon 249?

Should we continue to ignore or to mock what the Church says and then just use sarcasm and cynicism and self-serving excuses whenever the issue comes up? :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top