My Opinion

[Freshman88]

irrelevant how it was approved, as long as it was approved in a legitimate way.

No, quite relevant. That it was done by means of an indult is quite revealing.

Latin is the language of the Roman Rite, new and old missal alike.

A distaste for Latin is a distaste for the language of the Church.

 

[Richie_Nelson]

No, quite relevant. That it was done by means of an indult is quite revealing.

Latin is the language of the Roman Rite, new and old missal alike.

A distaste for Latin is a distaste for the language of the Church.

Why do “traditionalists” always make an issue that something allowed by indult is baaaaad? Doesn’t “indult” mean “permission”?

What does it “reveal” ???

thanks, Richie

 

[Freshman88]

Why do “traditionalists” always make an issue that something allowed by indult is baaaaad? Doesn’t “indult” mean “permission”?

What does it “reveal” ???

thanks, Richie

It suggests that it is an exception, rather than the norm.

 

[dang71]

as i mull over this thread, here are some thoughts that come to mind:

1. holy latin language
   the bible was mostly written in hebrew and greek and was later translated into latin. why latin? the church was/is headquartered in rome, and when the roman empire accepted Catholicism as the official religion, latin was the most prevalent language in the largest geographical area. when the emporer accepted Catholicism, maybe he used some political power to get the church to use latin, or maybe latin was accepted by the church fathers as the official language to reach the broadest range of people. maybe someone here could cite some historical document that gives a particular reason, but i tend to doubt anyone chose latin because it was known to be a “holy language” at the time. it is more feasible that latin was chosen for practical (or even political) reasons than anything else.
2. latin only masses
   Jesus spoke hebrew and aramaic. Jesus spoke His first mass in either hebrew or aramaic. it is very likely that Jesus didn’t use any latin in His mass. it is also very likely that most of the first generations of Christians used varied languages for their masses (hebrew in jerusalem, for instance).
3. latin derivatives
   all the romance languages are (at least partial) derivatives of latin. i remember my english teacher expounding on the virtues of knowing the latin root words to better understand our current language. if latin is truly a “holy language”, then by association (arguably), so should all the derivatives of latin be holy. the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, so to speak.

i can understand the nostalgia for the perception of the way things were. there is the belief in the traditionalist circles that many of the problems in the church stem from the reforms of V2 (or by carrying them too far), and that by returning to the old way of things we can get back to the purity they believe existed then. i would venture to say that there were just as many abuses back then as there are today. maybe not of exactly the same kind/nature, but humans are fallen creatures and are just as susceptible to the traps of the devil whatever type of valid Catholic mass they attend. returning to the old ways will not stop the evil one, he will just capitalize on some other weakness, just like he always does.

 

[Freshman88]

as i mull over this thread, here are some thoughts that come to mind:

1. holy latin language’

Latin can said to be “Holy” because the Church has choosen it as her language. There is nothing holy about the language per se, except the fact the Church has it as Her own.

1. latin only masses

We have not been given Aramaic, we have been given Latin. We must respect the Tradition of our Rite.

1. latin derivatives

Again, you misunderstand why Latin is said to be Holy. French, Spanish, Romanian, Itallian and others, have not been choosen by the Church. Yet these languages may be used beacsue of special permission granted through an indult.

i can understand the nostalgia for the perception of the way things were. there is the belief in the traditionalist circles that many of the problems in the church stem from the reforms of V2 (or by carrying them too far), and that by returning to the old way of things we can get back to the purity they believe existed then. i would venture to say that there were just as many abuses back then as there are today. maybe not of exactly the same kind/nature, but humans are fallen creatures and are just as susceptible to the traps of the devil whatever type of valid Catholic mass they attend. returning to the old ways will not stop the evil one, he will just capitalize on some other weakness, just like he always does.

Vatican II was called because the Church was already in poor shape. No one wants to go back to pre-Vatican II days - even the SSPX will say this.

The love of tradition is a love for what has been handed down to us, it is a desire to learn from the liturgy. We see the Liturgy as a transmitter of the faith. The Liturgy is there to teach us, those traditions which are discarded are indeed discarded lessons, history and wisdom.

We do not see the Church as defining the Liturgy, but the Liturgy as that which defines, sustains, and fulfills the Church. Violence to the traditions of the Liturgy is violence to one of our most sacred deposits of faith. In fact Liturgy is as much a deposit of faith as is Scripture and Holy Tradition.

This is how I see the Traditions of the Liturgy - not mere customs, but real lessons, breathing living faith of the apostles and the saints throughout the ages, who have all put their own mark on the mass and who have passed it along.

There is no reason that the NO cannot take these traditions and honour them. It is indeed an abuse of the freedoms granted by the new mass, to take that very freedom and use it as an excuse to discard holy Tradition.

 

[dang71]

The love of tradition is a love for what has been handed down to us, it is a desire to learn from the liturgy. We see the Liturgy as a transmitter of the faith. The Liturgy is there to teach us, those traditions which are discarded are indeed discarded lessons, history and wisdom.

yes, and our church has also handed down to us the NO mass. it is just as much the sacrifice of Jesus as the traditional mass, and just as much a transmitter of the faith as the traditional mass.

We do not see the Church as defining the Liturgy, but the Liturgy as that which defines, sustains, and fulfills the Church. Violence to the traditions of the Liturgy is violence to one of our most sacred deposits of faith. In fact Liturgy is as much a deposit of faith as is Scripture and Holy Tradition.

i see the Holy Spirit as guiding and defining the church. since the No is the ORDINARY Form, we can only (and must) assume it is the Holy Spirit guiding the church. i do not disagree there may be some things to learn in the traditional mass, but for me not being able to understand latin eliminates the possibility of my learning anything from it.

This is how I see the Traditions of the Liturgy - not mere customs, but real lessons, breathing living faith of the apostles and the saints throughout the ages, who have all put their own mark on the mass and who have passed it along.

this is really poetic and nice, but the lessons you discuss become inaccessible if a person cannot understand the language they are spoken in.

There is no reason that the NO cannot take these traditions and honour them. It is indeed an abuse of the freedoms granted by the new mass, to take that very freedom and use it as an excuse to discard holy Tradition.

first, i don’t see how the NO does not honor them. also, there is no reason not to open up the liturgy to the common person by allowing for the vernacular. as i have said before, it may be shakespeare in swahili for all that i understand of it, which makes transmitting the faith and traditions you discuss impossible.

 

[Freshman88]

There is a point I need to clarify. The NO has the capacity to be a transmitter of the faith, as much as the NO is faithful to the tradition of the liturgy. The NO varies a lot from parish to parish, diocese to dioces, nation to nation - some are more faithful to tradition while others favour practicallity rather than being faithful to tradition.

The NO simply has the capacity to be unfaithful to tradition because it allows greater freedom. One can be free to refuse traditional practices, a freedom that seems to be abused.

That you cannot learn from the EF because it is in Latin is none-sense. As long as one can read English, then they can follow the Latin. The Missal is setup so that English marches right along the Latin - I hear “Sancte”, turn my eyes to the English Side and see “Holy”. It is simple as that, and after going once or twice, one can easily follow the mass.

The mass can be said in the vernacular. Yet saying the mass in the vernacular is simply not being faithful to the liturgy, which is a Latin liturgy. When we favor practicalities over tradition, we are shaping the mass to ourselves instead of shaping ourselves towards the mass. The mass is meant to teach us, we are not meant to teach the mass.

 

[dang71]

last night, having some free time, i took it upon myself to compare both the english version of the NO and the english version of TLM. what i found was that the two masses were surprisingly similar in prayers and structure. based upon my 15 to 20 minute comparison, i will say that all claims of banality, vulgarity, disobedience, lack of tradition, etc. towards the NO are COMPLETELY without merit. i will strongly challenge anyone who makes these claims to take up the same excercise i did and perform an HONEST comparison of the two masses. if you compare them with an honest and open mind, it is my belief that you will come to the same conclusion that i did. my comparitive excercise last night cements my belief that the NO is, at the very least, absolutely equivalent to TLM, and anyone who claims otherwise is not being honest.

as to the argument that the freedoms in the NO allow for too much abuse, if a priest is going to be so stubborn as to change a mass to his liking, he will change whatever mass he is saying. it will not be important to this priest whether it is No or TLM. he has already taken it upon himself to be the arbiter of the faith and will not follow the rules whatever mass you give him, so this argument is also without merit.

so, the only argument left is over the use of latin. and to this argument, i will refer back to #3 in my original post that started this thread: if everyone is reading the vernacular translation, why not have the same mass but with the priest speaking in the vernacular? there is no legitimate reason to solely use latin, especially when there are quite competent translations.

i will repeat myself and say the i am not advocating eliminating the latin mass, but i am saying that it is not necessary for the traditionalists to put on their holier-than-thou cap and tell us NO people we are doing it wrong and we need to do things more like them. mass in the vernacular is, by far, the norm in our world today, and the traditionalists need to get over their pride at belonging to some special clique and realize that saying the mass in the vernacular is a wholly appropriate and legitimate practice.