Not your "normal" Traditional Catholic

[japhy]

Some days I jsut can’t let well enough alone.

I disagree that “vouchsafed” is just another way of saying that Christ “humbled” himself.

A better (or more apparent) translation of the Latin is “deigned”, as in “grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath deigned to become a partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ”. It has the sense of “condescension”, not in a derogatory manner, but showing the humility of the Son to basically “stoop to our level” in assuming a human nature.

 

[LilyM]

A better (or more apparent) translation of the Latin is “deigned”, as in “grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath deigned to become a partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ”. It has the sense of “condescension”, not in a derogatory manner, but showing the humility of the Son to basically “stoop to our level” in assuming a human nature.

‘Deign’ also carries somewhat of a negative sense to it, though not nearly as much so as ‘condescend’.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

But the problem isn’t just that most people won’t look it up. They problem is that they will either just assume the meaning (as I did, wrongly as it turns out) from the context, or worse still assume the word doesn’t really mean anything significant because no-one bothered to translate it in a way which was readily comprehensible. There’s no flag there pointing out that the particular word has any significance.

Whereas if you find a word that is precise AND clearly expresses the concept so that it doesn’t NEED either to be looked up or to have its meaning guessed at (which is what I feel ‘humbled’ achieves as opposed to ‘vouchsafed’) AND its significance won’t be overlooked or ignored, then everyone wins.

Hi LilyM,

I agree with your statement.

 

[Silver_Thread]

Okay I’ve read what people are saying I just want to give kind of a general reply at this point:
First, I dont mean this to attack people’s theology so please don’t take it as that. I rather mean to call into question the claims that the Tradional Mass is from the 16th cent.

That being said, Second, Yes, the Mass that came from Trent can be viewed as a reform of the Mass, oh wait thats what happened at Vatican Two as well. Like at Trent Vatican Two responded to the needs to the people and helped the Mass speak to people where they are. Now I undestand fully that not everyone is at the same place which is why I’m so glad the “old” Mass is still around for all ya’ll. However, my underlying question is why are the reforms of Trent okay but the reforms of Vatican Two bad?

Third (or Two B) People have been saying that Trent just took and ran with the Mass of the 7th Century and thats why its just a reform…kind of. What historically was going on at the time of Trent was that each place had its own kind of Mass and the Church knew it needed a standard. It looked to what was the oldest Mass it had, the Roman Mass of Gregory. Soooo yes it goes back that far but NOT for the universal Church. For everyone other than the Romans Trent was a “new” Mass in the same way Vatican Two was a “new” Mass.

That being said, Fourth,The Mass that came out of Gregory the Great is not the oldest Mass we now have. The earliest Traditions of the Church are what I’ve already spoken of. Vatican Two was an effort to break away from old, noble Roman traditions and make the Church and the Mass truely universal.

Fifth and most importantly, Mass has always been about meeting people where they are. About bringing them to a place where they can see God. Jesus did not fall for the trappings of this world, Paul and the Early Fathers and Saints cared more about the gathering and the bringing God and people together than about the language and words and clothes used and worn. If Trent and that Mass speak to you thats wonderful but please understand that the Tradition it upholds is not the Latin or the vestments or even the prayers but rather the coming together of the people of God to share the Holy Meal and the Praise God.

Please though keep talking, I rather like hearing what people have to say

Wow! You have certainly represented well yourself and myself in your thoughts about the Mass, VII and Trent as I saw it 50 years ago! The only trouble we have is that documents from those who ran the show back then have spoken and we find that the VII council was indeed hi-jacked by modernists who wanted to make the Catholic Mass inviting to protestants! Why not simply translate the latin in to English? Because what was taken out was offensive to protestants! What happened to “Sacrifice”? Now we have a “meal”.!
For the most part, we in the pews are still blinded by the truth of what really happened and will continue following blindly until we are drawn into that holy grail of all modernists…A One World Church! Those of us who work to preserve “THE Traditional Latin Mass” will be waiting for ya with open arms…

 

[porthos11]

Wow! You have certainly represented well yourself and myself in your thoughts about the Mass, VII and Trent as I saw it 50 years ago! The only trouble we have is that documents from those who ran the show back then have spoken and we find that the VII council was indeed hi-jacked by modernists who wanted to make the Catholic Mass inviting to protestants! Why not simply translate the latin in to English? Because what was taken out was offensive to protestants! What happened to “Sacrifice”? Now we have a “meal”.!
For the most part, we in the pews are still blinded by the truth of what really happened and will continue following blindly until we are drawn into that holy grail of all modernists…A One World Church! Those of us who work to preserve “THE Traditional Latin Mass” will be waiting for ya with open arms…

Nearly eight year old thread.