No need for consecrated wine?

[ProVobis]

Oh by the way - Thanks for acknowledging, by your remark about the Kyrie, that Latin isn’t the original language of the Roman rite - the vernacular at that time, Koine (common) Greek is.

The Latin Mass not only has Greek (Kyrie) but Hebrew (Sabaoth) as well. The English has pretty much displaced these three sacred languages of the cross, save for the Hosanna, but pretty pompous if you ask me.

 

[Aramis]

That’s what traditionalists complain about.

Most who claim the title complain about the new mass, and how it’s “not as good”… you claim to be the exception, but couch your arguments so they come across the same.

The US is poor at respecting clergy. Perhaps our freedom of religion is (comparatively) good, but our respect of the clergy is nil compared to poorer countries.

And yet, many poor countries have active persecution of priests, and people turning in their priests for hints of anti-government sentiment…

And governments where a priest preaching Catholic Social Teaching is a target for persecution because he’s “anti-government”.

Any Catholic has a right to complain to his bishop, sure. But I think that right is abused. My friend’s grandma wrote a letter to His Excellency because he began to offer EF masses and he made a homily that it was not age, but health, that dispensed one from mass, and she thought “that’s not allowed.”

She’s an example of that older generation’s ignorance. It’s definitely her right to complain, and the bishop needs to know just how ignorant of the rules his people are.

The infirmity issue was made clear in my religious education. But the fasting restrictions DO mention age, and many confuse them.

Yes, the Church does need more thinking men and women.

Part of the problem is ignorant-but-intelligent people “thinking for themselves” without a good grounding in the Church’s teaching. It’s lead to the Utrecht Union, the Mariavites, and a dozen other schisms. It’s also lead to the “spirit of Vatican II” abuses, because some priests have abdicated their duty to defend the mass from well meaning but ill-taught laity.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Most who claim the title complain about the new mass, and how it’s “not as good”… you claim to be the exception, but couch your arguments so they come across the same.

And yet, many poor countries have active persecution of priests, and people turning in their priests for hints of anti-government sentiment…

And governments where a priest preaching Catholic Social Teaching is a target for persecution because he’s “anti-government”.

She’s an example of that older generation’s ignorance. It’s definitely her right to complain, and the bishop needs to know just how ignorant of the rules his people are.

The infirmity issue was made clear in my religious education. But the fasting restrictions DO mention age, and many confuse them.

Part of the problem is ignorant-but-intelligent people “thinking for themselves” without a good grounding in the Church’s teaching. It’s lead to the Utrecht Union, the Mariavites, and a dozen other schisms. It’s also lead to the “spirit of Vatican II” abuses, because some priests have abdicated their duty to defend the mass from well meaning but ill-taught laity.

That’s right. I sure do “couch” my arguments. Wanna know why? Because people on this forum have very sharp tongues, and if I don’t cover every speck of myself, they’ll find some tiny morsel to latch on to, and destroy me for it without giving my argument a second’s worth of thought. I learned that at about post 2. However, the way I “couch” my arguments isn’t really at odds with my true beliefs. And yes, I fully intend my arguments to basically come across the same way. I just take a different, more rational approach, one that is within the confines of the rules of this forum, one that appeals to a broader audience, which is good on many levels. I don’t come here with a doctrine to preach, but I do have opinions that I would like to share. Just because I generally agree with the documents of Vatican II (and I really do) doesn’t mean I agree with the fruits, or, rather, weeds of it. I think the whole problem, the entire disconnect, lies in the fact that Vatican II called for a mass revision, but a whole 'nother group dealt with the actual execution of that decree. That’s… a gargantuan, gaping canyon of a mistake, just begging to be filled with something, in my opinion, and I hope we’ve learned from it.

Yeah, that’s quite unfortunate. But I still stand by my position that those people are generally quite devoted to the well-being of their parish priests and their churches, obviously limited to what they can muster, and to a level not commonly seen in the US anymore.

Yeah, she’s unfortunate too. I can keep the rules straight. By no means am I bragging on the basis of intelligence, but I think if people put a bit of effort forth, they would be much better off in life in general.

I agree with the ignorant-but-intelligent comment. It’s not just ignorance. It’s ingrained, almost part-of-their-soul ignorance, ignorance like you wouldn’t believe. And these people aren’t stupid, by any means. Their intelligence is rather representative of the general population. Yep, the schismatics. Unfortunate. I agree with the comment about priests’ abdication of their duty to properly catechize, in many ways, the laity.

 

[ProVobis]

Just because I generally agree with the documents of Vatican II (and I really do) doesn’t mean I agree with the fruits, or, rather, weeds of it. I think the whole problem, the entire disconnect, lies in the fact that Vatican II called for a mass revision, but a whole 'nother group dealt with the actual execution of that decree. That’s… a gargantuan, gaping canyon of a mistake, just begging to be filled with something, in my opinion, and I hope we’ve learned from it.

I think it’s a fair point. Even the Pope (when he was a Cardinal) called the revision a “banal…fabrication,” not exactly a flattering term, though it wasn’t something he wanted to discard either.

 

[ProVobis]

I also know that many times it make mistakes. It did indeed teach at least to me and many other people that somehow Latin was divinely ordained as the best language for the mass. That was being dishonest.

Let’s put it this way. Would it be honest to translate Shakespeare into Chinese so the people in China could say they can read Shakespeare? Per your logic it would be a mistake if Shakespeare were not translated into every conceivable vernacular. IMO, of course. I think we all know here that unless you read it in Shakespearean English, you’re not reading Shakespeare; it really doesn’t matter if you understand it fully or not.

 

[paperwight66]

I think it’s a fair point. Even the Pope (when he was a Cardinal) called the revision a “banal…fabrication,” not exactly a flattering term, though it wasn’t something he wanted to discard either.

I thought he was talking about the first draft?

 

[Thomas_Redd]

I think it’s a fair point. Even the Pope (when he was a Cardinal) called the revision a “banal…fabrication,” not exactly a flattering term, though it wasn’t something he wanted to discard either.

Could you quote the chapter and verse where Pope Benedict said that the Nous Ordo was a “banal… fabrication?” Perhaps a link would be helpful. I find it strange that a theologian of Carl Ratzinger’s level would call the Novus Ordo that. There are so many misquotes out there in some people’s tirades against the reforms in the Church.

Thanks

 

[Corki]

I love the Catholic Church. I also know that many times it make mistakes. It did indeed teach at least to me and many other people that somehow Latin was divinely ordained as the best language for the mass. That was being dishonest.

You realize that the Church **still **teaches that Latin is the best language for Mass. I don’t know where you got the “divinely ordained” part, though.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

Let’s put it this way. Would it be honest to translate Shakespeare into Chinese so the people in China could say they can read Shakespeare? Per your logic it would be a mistake if Shakespeare were not translated into every conceivable vernacular. IMO, of course. I think we all know here that unless you read it in Shakespearean English, you’re not reading Shakespeare; it really doesn’t matter if you understand it fully or not.

Boy you lost me. Shakespheare besides being a heck of a story teller also wrote in poetic verse. This is an obvious downside of translating many epics like the Iliad or Aeneid. You simply can’t translate the meaning and feelings conveyed by the sounds of the words themselves. I believe that poetry is pretty much a universal. Attempts are made to translate that poetic sense, but so often it is forced. At least in my experience, I would perfer a prose translation rather than a forced poetic one for something like the Odessey.

That said, it should be noted that the liturgy is not poetry but is prose. It is much more easily translatable into other language.

By the way, I love Shakespeare. I think it would be a huge mistake if it was not accessible to as many people as possible in their own language.

Someone made a remark that many scholars believe that Latin is such a wonderful language it is superior to other languages in conveying meanings, etc. That is called language imperialism. This occurs when a language is imposed on another group of people with less power. The classic example of this is Arabic. The moslems believe that the Koran is written on tablets in heaven and is in the perfect language chosen by God, which is - you guessed it - Arabic (surprise, surprise). That is why in Egypt most people speak Arabic even though Coptic is the original language of Egypt. In English, we had a Latin/French vocabulary imposed on us when the Normans (French) conquered England in 1066. That is why when we are trying to order food in a restaruant we will order “pork” (Latin/French) and never “pig” (Anglo/Saxon). We would be really - really low class if we said “bring me some pig.”

This is in essence what the major concern was with the new translation which is being imposed on us in a few weeks. Take for instance the words of consecration. Whatever, people’s feeling may be about the old one, it did use the correct english word for the Jesus’s drinking vessal, “Cup.” That is the older Anglo/Saxon derived word for a drinking vessal. I understand that the new translation is using the English word “Chalice” with the rationale that "Chalice is the correct Latin word for “Calix” and “Chalice” is a more sacred rendition and is derived from “Calix.” Unfortunately, “Calix” is basically translated as a drinking vessal and not a “chalice,” which has a very specific meaning in English as a jeweled golden cup. This is really disconcerting because it will now bring up images of Jesus at the Last Supper with a golden cup in his hand. Moreover there is that great scene in* Indiania Jones and the Last **Crusade *where Indiana is given the choice by a Knight Templar to pick the Holy Grail out of a large group of jeweled chalices. He is told to chose wisely. Indiana wisely picked out the simplest earthern cup. Hundreds of millions of people have seem that movie and like me will forever say, “well in this choice of words at least the Chruch did not chose wisely.”

My point is that language Imperalism is real and does great damage if we are not aware of it.

Finally, someone mentioned about the three language on the sign over the cross. I always understood that to mean that Jesus was the King for all humanity since the languages represented all of mankind (more or less). I never understood it to mean that somehow some languages were more sacred than others.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

You realize that the Church **still **teaches that Latin is the best language for Mass. I don’t know where you got the “divinely ordained” part, though.

Show were the Church teaches that? I beleive you may have misinterpreted the Church’s concern that Latin not be lost.

 

[TheMc]

Show were the Church teaches that? I beleive you may have misinterpreted the Church’s concern that Latin not be lost.

SC is quite clear about the matter:
36. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

 

[Aramis]

You realize that the Church **still **teaches that Latin is the best language for Mass.

No, it doesn’t. It says that Latin is the language of the Roman Rite. The Church, through pope Benedict, has stated categorically that the translations must match the Latin edition, because that’s the official edition which may be translated. The whole stink over the ICEL is because the ICEL was (1) a bad translation and (2) was a translation of the 1st Typical Edition, not the currently-in-use-in-Latin 3rd.

Even the Pope doesn’t say mass in Latin as an exclusive use.

No longer does it demand latin versions of the Eastern Rite liturgies be written. And it has never required (nor even suggested) that Latin be used in the Eastern Rite Churches - most of whom have always used the vernacular. And are very much considered in every way equal to the Roman Mass.

 

[SMHW]

I wonder if the problem is the word *best *in connection with the use of Latin. That word can have different meanings to different people.

It cannot be a theologically superior language for Catholicism in general since there is no single language for the Catholic Church.

It might be the *best *language to preserve the culture and history of the *Latin *rite. But I think *preferred *might be the word of choice, not best. *Best *(as a superlative of good) tends to have a moral connotation to people. This is not a moral issue.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

SC is quite clear about the matter:
36. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Thanks for agreeing with me that the Church says that Latin should be preserved, not that it is a superior language.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

No, it doesn’t. It says that Latin is the language of the Roman Rite. The Church, through pope Benedict, has stated categorically that the translations must match the Latin edition, because that’s the official edition which may be translated. The whole stink over the ICEL is because the ICEL was (1) a bad translation and (2) was a translation of the 1st Typical Edition, not the currently-in-use-in-Latin 3rd.

Even the Pope doesn’t say mass in Latin as an exclusive use.

No longer does it demand latin versions of the Eastern Rite liturgies be written. And it has never required (nor even suggested) that Latin be used in the Eastern Rite Churches - most of whom have always used the vernacular. And are very much considered in every way equal to the Roman Mass.

Aramis

By your remarks on the liturgy, you seem to have a good understanding of the Catholicity of the Church. This seems to be a by product of you being a practicing Ruthenian Rite Catholic. My father came from eastern Slovakia which is next to Ruthenia. I remember when I was young going to a Ruthenian rite mass at the Shrine of our Lady of Consolation in Carey, Ohio. This may have been the first time I received communion under both species. My father seemed very much at home. My Grandmother was eastern rite catholic but my father was raised Roman rite by his uncle when my grandparents seperated. Our relatives were both Roman and eastern rite. So I was raised to understand that the Catholic Church is very diverse by its nature and no one part is greater than the other.

What is the relationship between Ruthenian Rite Catholics and Slovak Eastern Rite Catholics. There seems there is some connection but I never understood it.

How is your understanding of the Church and the discussion on this thread on receiving under both species impacted by you being a practicing Ruthenian Rite Catholic?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Let’s put it this way. Would it be honest to translate Shakespeare into Chinese so the people in China could say they can read Shakespeare? Per your logic it would be a mistake if Shakespeare were not translated into every conceivable vernacular. IMO, of course. I think we all know here that unless you read it in Shakespearean English, you’re not reading Shakespeare; it really doesn’t matter if you understand it fully or not.

Except that Shakespeare wrote his pieces originally in his “version” of English. The Mass was not originally in Latin. Latin in fact is already a translation. So this is a bad analogy.

 

[ProVobis]

Except that Shakespeare wrote his pieces originally in his “version” of English. The Mass was not originally in Latin. Latin in fact is already a translation. So this is a bad analogy.

Maybe but it seems like Shakespeare did some translations of his own, witness Julius Ceasar alone.

Besides, there is evidence codified Latin was used in the liturgy as early as the first century. I don’t think all Christianized Romans particularly embraced Greek mythology, theology and culture, but that’s another matter.

However, more importantly, Latin did NOT suppress Greek but it spread Christianity, law, and civilization in the West. And Greek was preserved. So all such comparisons to today’s state of affairs is nonsense. Reread Veterum Sapientia.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

Maybe but it seems like Shakespeare did some translations of his own, witness Julius Ceasar alone.

Besides, there is evidence codified Latin was used in the liturgy as early as the first century. I don’t think all Christianized Romans particularly embraced Greek mythology, theology and culture, but that’s another matter.

However, more importantly, Latin did NOT suppress Greek but it spread Christianity, law, and civilization in the West. And Greek was preserved. So all such comparisons to today’s state of affairs is nonsense. Reread Veterum Sapientia.

I understand that there is evidence in Pompei that possible quotes of the mass were found on walls not in Koine Greek but in Latin. That would again bear evidence that mass was in the vernacular of the people. Pompei was the Palm Springs of Rome where the rich and famous went. Latin would have been their native tongue. Koine Greek was the vernacular language of the lower class.

 

[ProVobis]

I understand that there is evidence in Pompei that possible quotes of the mass were found on walls not in Koine Greek but in Latin. That would again bear evidence that mass was in the vernacular of the people. Pompei was the Palm Springs of Rome where the rich and famous went. Latin would have been their native tongue. Koine Greek was the vernacular language of the lower class.

That is correct. So what’s wrong with continuing to use the same language today which was the “vernacular” during the time of Christ? Why must it be discouraged or suppressed completely from Catholic worship? Why are today’s Catholics (like the Reformers) annoyed with it and give all kinds of excuses why it shouldn’t be used?

Modern tongues, especially the Romance languages, are more or less morphed from a vulgarized form of Latin (Vulgar Latin), very prevalent during the third century. As far as English goes, half of it is barbaric and half of it is morphed from Latin and French and many nuances have been lost. Interestingly enough, it seems that Slavic (I’m just going from the Polish) tongues today contain more of the Latin nuances, (word endings different, word order not important, etc.) even though they are not direct descendants of Latin.

On the other hand, Classic Latin, codified by Cicero et al and Christianized by the Church, has been for the most part, like koine Greek, preserved in its integrity.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

That is correct. So what’s wrong with continuing to use the same language today which was the “vernacular” during the time of Christ? Why must it be discouraged or suppressed completely from Catholic worship? Why are today’s Catholics (like the Reformers) annoyed with it and give all kinds of excuses why it shouldn’t be used?

Modern tongues, especially the Romance languages, are more or less morphed from a vulgarized form of Latin (Vulgar Latin), very prevalent during the third century. As far as English goes, half of it is barbaric and half of it is morphed from Latin and French and many nuances have been lost. Interestingly enough, it seems that Slavic (I’m just going from the Polish) tongues today contain more of the Latin nuances, (word endings different, word order not important, etc.) even though they are not direct descendants of Latin.

On the other hand, Classic Latin, codified by Cicero et al and Christianized by the Church, has been for the most part, like koine Greek, preserved in its integrity.

The only major languages in Europe that are descended from Latin are Spanish, Portaguese, French and Romanian. It should be noted that Latin like any languages has gone through many periods of changes. The language of the archaic period is far different from later latin of the 4th century. Much as Old English and Modern English are far different from each other.

English has many Latin/French elements in its vocabulary (from the 1066 AD invasion) but the structure is Germanic. The Germanic languages (German, English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, etc,) are a seperate language group that shares the same origin as Latin, but are equal to Latin in age.

Original Irish, Scottish, and Welsh are of the celtic language group and also are not descended from Latin.

The Slavic Languages (Russian, Polish, Slovak, Czech, Croatian, etc. are also related to Latin but they split off from each others a bit earlier.

All of these languages are members of the Indo-European language family, which is one of the largest on earth. Other members include Hindu, Armenian, Iranian, etc. The oldest language of this group is Sanskrit which is the mother tongue of many of the languages of India. Sankrit was used to write the Rig Veda, one of the world’s oldest religious writing. In a way Sanskrit is the closest thing we have to the a mother tongue to the most of the European languages.

Magyar (Hungarian), Estonian, and Finnish are a seperate language family and have no relation to the other European tongues. Basque is a language isolate and may be the one of the oldest languages on Earth and is related to no other language on earth.

Therefore:

1. Latin is not the mother tongue for most of the languages of Europe.
2. Most other European languages share equal antiquity with Latin. (except for the romance languages.)
3. English is not a vulgarized language. In fact one of its great features is that it essentially has two vocabularies, one Latin and one Germanic. While its gammar is very irregular it has such a great choice of words that it is recognized as a language in which it is easy to find a way to express an idea.
4. Latin was not an unchanging language either. We tend to think that it is because it is a “dead language”, that is, no one speaks it anymore.
5. No one is saying that people can’t worship in Latin, that’s fine. But as Louis G. Mayer (of MGM) once said “Include me out!” The issue is that Latin is being held up as a sacred language above others. That is just plain wrong. God made all languages equal and are equally capacity of speaking the sacred words of the divine liturgy.
6. I going to point out an interesting factoid. When there was such a great and legitimate clamour for returning the mass to the language of the people in the 16th century. The Church chose to ignore these pleas and insisted that mass remain in Latin. If you look at the countries that stayed with the Church, most were from Romance language speaking countries, that is, descended from Latin. The countries that left were to a large degree, Germanic (England, Denamrk, Sweden, Norway, A large part of Germany) or Celtic (Scotland and Wales). One could make a real point that insisting on the primary of Latin has great damage to the unity of the Chruch.
7. I am going to point out another factoid. The Church lost most of the Slavic people when St. Cyril and Methodius’ mission to the Slavs to was sabotaged by the Latinists (missionaries who insisted on the use of Latin). Even though two popes had approved evangeling the Slavs in their language and also approved saying the Roman Rite in the Slavic tongue. The Latinists went so far as to put St. Methodius, now the archbishop, in jail for almost three years, inspite of repeated orders by the pope to release him. When St. Methodius died, his priests were driven out of the area. They went to other Slavic areas, notably Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, et al. and evangelized using the Byzantine liturgy instead of the Roman rite, When the Eastern and Western Churches broke apart 200 years later most slavs went with Constantiople. One can only wonder how much unity the church has lost because of some leaders insistence on Latin.

Jesus says you will know something by its fruits. I see the fruits of an insistence on Latin as very bitter.