Pope: 2nd Vatican Council, work of Holy Spirit but some want to turn back the clock

[ProVobis]

The liturgy very much reflects the council and it’s documents, in the following years the liturgy was changed to in acordance with the discussions of the council.

Okay for the record, reforms of the liturgy began in 1948 if not before. (In that year Bugnini was hired to do just that.) In 1955 the most important week of the year, Holy Week, was completely revised and in 1962 the Canon was revised. Designs of the Mass as we know it were probably on the drawing board in the 50’s. If anything, when John XXIII fired Bugnini, he wished not to simplify the Mass any further. However, Paul VI rehired him to finish off his reforms. The council provided some guidelines but as it turns out those guidelines weren’t exactly followed to the letter.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, but it does not have to be done in Latin.

Sure, no more or less so than Shakespeare in Shakespearean English.

But Shakespeare chose his words and phrases carefully. Something someone in China wouldn’t be able to fully appreciate if he heard Shakespeare in Chinese.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Sure, no more or less so than Shakespeare in Shakespearean English.

But Shakespeare chose his words and phrases carefully. Something someone in China wouldn’t be able to fully appreciate if he heard Shakespeare in Chinese.

The difference being that no one needs to believe in, appreciate, or even understand Shakespeare to be saved.

 

[sennincatholic]

Sure, no more or less so than Shakespeare in Shakespearean English.

But Shakespeare chose his words and phrases carefully. Something someone in China wouldn’t be able to fully appreciate if he heard Shakespeare in Chinese.

The liturgy is all about worship :bowdown:,all about our response to God s love and in no way should it be compared with Shakespearan poetry or something like that so don’t make such an analogy.So if i can worship the Lord more comfortably in chinese why shouldnt i?Did the Lord ask us to pay reverence to Him in only one language?Is the bible you possess written in aramaic,the language Jesus preached the gospel?

 

[ProVobis]

So if i can worship the Lord more comfortably in chinese why shouldnt i?

Okay but you’re assuming that one language is as good as another to give proper worship as the Church requires. I say translations are deficient in many respects. For example, take the phrase PER IPSUM ET CUM IPSO ET IN IPSO. The English treats it like an ordinary PER EUM ET CUM EO ET IN EO. (Through Him and with Him and in Him.) The fact is that the Latin IPSUM and IPSO are INTENSIVE; the English is not. How can you say just because it’s more comfortable for you makes the worship any better? The English just can’t do many things Latin can. Or Chinese or vice versa either for that matter.

As the Italians say, traduttore, traditore.

 

[floresco]

As Catholic we put our trust in the person who is in the seat of Peter and the Magesteruim which in our belief has been lead by the Holy Spirit for over 2000 years, giving the church direction for each age.
The liturgy very much reflects the council and it’s documents, in the following years the liturgy was changed to in acordance with the discussions of the council. To think that some rough bishop or cardinal came up with the changes would be a misunderstanding of the workingd of the Church. With the 3rd revision of the missal, the question of the mass and it’s form should have been put to rest. As the Pope said, there are those refussing to listen to the Spirit, that includes the laity.

I certainly do trust the Pope and the Magisterium. I also have read the Council document on the liturgy. I can see for myself that current liturgical practice does not yet reflect the Council as well as it could and have also heard this from popes and bishops. This is why the Pope and Magisterium keep on giving us instruction and changes to the liturgy. I have seen no official document which suggests there is nothing further to do in this area.

I want the Council’s recommendations for the liturgy to be implemented. You seem to imply that this means I am refusing to listen to the Spirit. But the opposite is true. Like Pope Francis, I believe that we find the Spirit speaks to us through the Council.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From what I understand, Pope Francis said absolutely nothing about ‘turning back the clock’; that little phrase apparently came from somebody’s translation of what he said.

Sigh.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Okay but you’re assuming that one language is as good as another to give proper worship as the Church requires. I say translations are deficient in many respects. For example, take the phrase PER IPSUM ET CUM IPSO ET IN IPSO. The English treats it like an ordinary PER EUM ET CUM EO ET IN EO. (Through Him and with Him and in Him.) The fact is that the Latin IPSUM and IPSO are INTENSIVE; the English is not. How can you say just because it’s more comfortable for you makes the worship any better? The English just can’t do many things Latin can. Or Chinese or vice versa either for that matter.

As the Italians say, traduttore, traditore.

The mindset and the reverence that those participating in the Mass have is far more important to proper worship than the language being used. Should we go back to doing everything in Aramaic as it is the original language of Jesus?

 

[sennincatholic]

Okay but you’re assuming that one language is as good as another to give proper worship as the Church requires. I say translations are deficient in many respects. For example, take the phrase PER IPSUM ET CUM IPSO ET IN IPSO. The English treats it like an ordinary PER EUM ET CUM EO ET IN EO. (Through Him and with Him and in Him.) The fact is that the Latin IPSUM and IPSO are INTENSIVE; the English is not. How can you say just because it’s more comfortable for you makes the worship any better? The English just can’t do many things Latin can. Or Chinese or vice versa either for that matter.

As the Italians say, traduttore, traditore.

Ok then…all christians should be speaking aramaic and hebrew following your reasoning and not latin…

 

[sennincatholic]

The mindset and the reverence that those participating in the Mass have is far more important to proper worship than the language being used. Should we go back to doing everything in Aramaic as it is the original language of Jesus?

:thumbsup:this

 

[ProVobis]

Should we go back to doing everything in Aramaic as it is the original language of Jesus?

We should except that we don’t have His exact words, although the Maronites do give the consecration in Syriac. In any case the Church did the best they could (given no Gutenberg) in the early centuries by Christianizing the language and grammar of Cicero, whose moral code the earlier Church followed. And also with commissioning Jerome to find out the truth. Now we’re only distancing ourselves with each translation. For example, what exactly does “THIS” refer to in the consecration? Do you ever question it? I did and so did some writers in the 60’s when they were questioning the entire English translation of the Canon. And you and others claim that the modern translations and mindset help promote the proper understanding of the Mass? I don’t think there is any evidence of that but that won’t keep them from trying to defend and promote translations.

 

[ProVobis]

From what I understand, Pope Francis said absolutely nothing about ‘turning back the clock’; that little phrase apparently came from somebody’s translation of what he said.

Cardinal Arinze had a perfect name for some of these translators. Iconoclasts.

IMO Babelism is alive and well.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

We should except that we don’t have His exact words, although the Maronites do give the consecration in Syriac. In any case the Church did the best they could in the early centuries by Christianizing the language and grammar of Cicero, whose moral code the earlier Church followed. Now we’re only distancing ourselves with each translation. For example, what exactly does “THIS” refer to in the consecration? Do you ever question it? I did and so did some writers in the 60’s when they were questioning the entire English translation of the Canon. And you and others claim that the modern translations and mindset help promote the proper understanding of the Mass? I don’t think there is any evidence of that but that won’t keep them from trying to defend and promote translations.

How does the whole mass being in a language that people do not understand promote understanding of the mass?

We are called to evangelize and spread the Gospel and that means meeting people where they are. We are not called to be an exclusive club.

I don’t need to agonize over the meaning of every word in a translation. I have a hierarchy and a magisterium to rely on for that.

 

[GangGreen]

Ok then…all christians should be speaking aramaic and hebrew following your reasoning and not latin…

The Church has operated using Latin as its language for 1500+ years. Many great works, hymns, and prayers were composed in Latin and not in other languages. The only Hebrew used in the Mass has typically been words like Amen, Alleluia, etc. Also, Jesus would have not used Aramaic in worship. He would have used the language reserved for worship which was Hebrew. Jews would have had to learn that language. In the same way, the Church used Latin (and still does) for worship and it was expected that Catholics would learn it.

Also, I’m not sure why people always think that going back to the beginning is more pure than the other 1500+ years of Church history.

How does the whole mass being in a language that people do not understand promote understanding of the mass?

It forces you to learn Latin and what is going on in the Mass rather than just showing up and going through the motions, no? I wonder how many people who show up to Mass every Sunday truly know why every part of the Mass is done the way it is?

 

[ProVobis]

Also, I’m not sure why people always think that going back to the beginning is more pure than the other 1500+ years of Church history.

Archaelogists have found that even in the first century Latin was used in the Mass. St. Paul, after all, did find a “substantial” number of Christians when he arrived in Rome, according to a PBS documentary. And as we all know Christianity completely subsumed the Roman Empire by the 2nd or 3rd century. By then Church Latin would not have been the vernacular. There were already formations of the Romance languages (Spanish, Italian, French) under way.

 

[FAB]

Okay for the record, reforms of the liturgy began in 1948 if not before. (In that year Bugnini was hired to do just that.) In 1955 the most important week of the year, Holy Week, was completely revised and in 1962 the Canon was revised. Designs of the Mass as we know it were probably on the drawing board in the 50’s. If anything, when John XXIII fired Bugnini, he wished not to simplify the Mass any further. However, Paul VI rehired him to finish off his reforms. The council provided some guidelines but as it turns out those guidelines weren’t exactly followed to the letter.

For then record, much of what is in the Second Vatican documents was started and was being discussed over a 100 year time span before the council. the Holy Spirit working in the Church. the Council was the culmination of the process.
Still my point. When there are more important issues in the world and the Church and the fact that the form and language of the mass is very much settled, it’s time to move on.

DcnFAB

 

[FAB]

Sure, no more or less so than Shakespeare in Shakespearean English.

But Shakespeare chose his words and phrases carefully. Something someone in China wouldn’t be able to fully appreciate if he heard Shakespeare in Chinese.

Shakespreare has been translated to most languages, He wrote in the venacular of the day so his plays were understood. If he were writing today the style would be very much different.

Since I am certain you read the bible, your augument would be that the only true way it can be understood is if it was only published and read in it’s original Greek. Seem a bit hard to spead the word in that case.

DcnFAB

 

[FAB]

I certainly do trust the Pope and the Magisterium. I also have read the Council document on the liturgy. I can see for myself that current liturgical practice does not yet reflect the Council as well as it could and have also heard this from popes and bishops. This is why the Pope and Magisterium keep on giving us instruction and changes to the liturgy. I have seen no official document which suggests there is nothing further to do in this area.

I want the Council’s recommendations for the liturgy to be implemented. You seem to imply that this means I am refusing to listen to the Spirit. But the opposite is true. Like Pope Francis, I believe that we find the Spirit speaks to us through the Council.

Part of the way we have to look at the council’s documents is that there were meant to be fleshed out. That is the work of the Magestarium. That is what we have been and are witnessing.

DcnFAB

 

[ProVobis]

When there are more important issues in the world and the Church and the fact that the form and language of the mass is very much settled, it’s time to move on.

Settled, shmettled. As though major wars have never been started by misinterpretations and mistranslations? If we were all on the same wavelength, literally, the problems of the world would be minimal.

 

[ProVobis]

Since I am certain you read the bible, your augument would be that the only true way it can be understood is if it was only published and read in it’s original Greek. Seem a bit hard to spead the word in that case.

Actually I read a side-by-side Greek-Latin-English. I don’t know of any original copies of the Greek. I don’t understand the Bible in its 200 different English translations and I doubt anyone fully does. But I do find the Tower of Babel most fascinating.