Pope to Reintroduce Latin into the Novus Ordo and Move the "Sign of Peace"

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal

So, you only agree with him when he says something that you like?

Isn’t this tit for tat for all of us ?

We only like what we read, when it fits our opinion?

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal

Isn’t this tit for tat for all of us ?

We only like what we read, when it fits our opinion?

Jim

Go back and read her earlier comments regarding Cardinal Arinze where she says that it wearies her every time he is quoted. Neither you nor she have been able to post something authoritative that substantiates your particular reading of the issue of the language of Latin. Why?

The reason being is that while allowances have been made, as Cardinal Arinze pointed out, for the use of the vernacular, Latin remains the language of the Liturgy. The fact that even Benedict has said so seems to not convince any of you of that. Furthermore, the same Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy also makes that claim as well regarding the issue of Latin.

Regarding your reading of the Constitution, there are some flaws concerning language. Cardinal Arinze accurately points out that:

The developments were so fast that many clerics, religious and lay faithful today are not aware that the Second Vatican Council did not simply introduce the vernacular for all parts of the liturgy.

That came later in the form of adaptations. However, as the case with indults, these can be rescinded, in the same manner that Pope Benedict did regarding the allowance of the EMHCs to purify sacred vessels. That is not to say that they should be rescinded, only that they can.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal;

Go back and read her earlier comments regarding Cardinal Arinze where she says that she cringes every time he is quoted.

I didn’t see Joysong state this. She did say she’s getting weary, seeing you post Cardinal Arnize over and over again.

Neither you nor she have been able to post something authoritative that substantiates your particular reading of the issue of the language of Latin. Why?

Well thats your opinion.

The reason being is that while allowances have been made, as Cardinal Arinze pointed out, for the use of the vernacular, Latin remains the language of the Liturgy. The fact that even Benedict has said so seems to not convince any of you of that. Furthermore, the same Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy also makes that claim as well regarding the issue of Latin.

But none of this excludes use of the vernacular.

Hope this helps.

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;

I didn’t see Joysong state this. She did say she’s getting weary, seeing you post Cardinal Arnize over and over again.

Well thats your opinion.

But none of this excludes use of the vernacular.

Hope this helps.

Jim

Actually, if you re-read my posts, I have never said anything about exlcuding the use of the vernacular. Nor has Pope Benedict, for that matter.

Furthermore, while allowances are made for the use of the vernacular, Latin remains the default language, something that neither you nor Joysong seem to recognize.

 

[estesbob]

To be honest I am agnostic on all of this/ I really don’t care what language the Mass is in as long as the end result I get to receive the Body & Blood of Jesus Christ… I don’t care if he is put in my hand or put on my tongue and I don’t care if it is a Priest or a layperson who puts it there.

I am somewhat amused by the attitude that the TLM was somehow perfect and not subject to liturgical abuse. I can recall Msgr. Spurlock throwing the hand cloth back at me after I gave it to him the wrong way -I can recall how all of us Teens would flock to a certain Church on Sunday morning because the Priest got you in and out in 30 minutes. And of course if the priest was omitting something in the EP who would know as it was in Latin and said inaudibly.

The Church has far deeper problems facing of it ,none of which are going to be solved by this endless bickering over style when we should be worrying about substance
.

 

[BSHoop96]

The look to which you refer is probably what I call the typical American Teen Face. Go to a family reunion and you will see the same face.

That’s it!!! You’re good at this.

 

[BSHoop96]

I should not reveal my age at close to 70 [mama said ], but believe me I have a great deal more experience than you young-uns who can only read about it in hindsight. It was as we all said. I would never want to go back to that – ever! – now that I have experienced the vernacular.

Joysong…That brings these time-honored sayings to mind which I’m sure you remember: “The grass is **not **always greener on the other side” …AND; “Be careful what you pray for…you just might get it.”

 

[Dauphin]

To be honest I am agnostic on all of this/ I really don’t care what language the Mass is in as long as the end result I get to receive the Body & Blood of Jesus Christ… I don’t care if he is put in my hand or put on my tongue and I don’t care if it is a Priest or a layperson who puts it there.

I am somewhat amused by the attitude that the TLM was somehow perfect and not subject to liturgical abuse. I can recall Msgr. Spurlock throwing the hand cloth back at me after I gave it to him the wrong way -I can recall how all of us Teens would flock to a certain Church on Sunday morning because the Priest got you in and out in 30 minutes. And of course if the priest was omitting something in the EP who would know as it was in Latin and said inaudibly.

The Church has far deeper problems facing of it ,none of which are going to be solved by this endless bickering over style when we should be worrying about substance
.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. The liturgy is the centre of our faith. If the liturgy powerfully reflects the Catholic faith, with humble, doctrinally rich prayers, the faith of those attending will be transformed. The external can never be removed from the internal - both are essential; an outward disposition or action can profoundly affect the disposition of the soul.

Proper worship given to God is simply the most important thing in the world. For this reason, liturgy is the most important issue facing the Church, and poor liturgy is the worst problem. Save the liturgy, save the world.

 

[estesbob]

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. The liturgy is the centre of our faith. If the liturgy powerfully reflects the Catholic faith, with humble, doctrinally rich prayers, the faith of those attending will be transformed. The external can never be removed from the internal - both are essential; an outward disposition or action can profoundly affect the disposition of the soul.

Proper worship given to God is simply the most important thing in the world. For this reason, liturgy is the most important issue facing the Church, and poor liturgy is the worst problem. Save the liturgy, save the world.

Sorry-I dont buy it. The idea that if we go back to the TLM all will be well is specious.It is offering a simplisitc solution to a complex problem

 

[Julianna]

I have read this thread and the “insets” backwards and forewards. What I am getting is a “We would “like” the faithful to start learning Latin.” Rather than “You ARE going to learn it.”

The quote below from an inset:
The best experts in liturgy, classics, patrology, theology, spirituality, music and literature are needed so that translations beautiful on the lips of holy Mother Church can be worked out

I would like to know “where” all these experts are going to come from to teach the faithful? I found this best explains my red herring in that “someone” “somewhere” is going to have to start the ball rolling.

To simply read off of a “ticket”…how in the world can I focus on the Mass if I am at the same time learning another language…sounds like on the job training. Latin is a language as I recall that you had to be in “honors classes” in high school to take, because it was the “hardest” to learn. Multi-tasking at Mass doesn’t sound appealing nevermind reverent.

I remember the Kyrie…as a kid…(after about 1969 that was gone)…but gen X and the millieum generation are clueless. Actually it came back to me when Mister Mister came out with song. I had to explain it to my kids who went to Catholic school.

I understand that only “parts” of the Mass will be in Latin…I get that…the parts I can barely recall…and I never had a clue as to what they meant…it was just something you said. Once it was read it in English…I understood it…it wasn’t just something you said 3 times for the heck of it.

It may be a diocese thing…but I don’t recall saying the Our Father in Latin…nor do I recall any of my catechists from 1965-1973 ever going over it.

I guess that those of you are embracing the comeback…great for you. You are in the minority. The US Catholics, I believe will meet this with great resistance…and the end result will be there will be a parish or two in each Diocese that offers the Mass in latin…just as it does now. That is fair.

 

[Julianna]

Sorry-I dont buy it. The idea that if we go back to the TLM all will be well is specious.It is offering a simplisitc solution to a complex problem

thanks Bob…

 

[japhy]

Actually the experience of Joysong and myself, was more of the norm. Its one of the reasons, Pope John XXIII called the Vatican II council, in addition to the fact that there was a great divide between the clergy of the Church and the people.

See, brotherhrolf (for example) would disagree with you about what the norm was.

And can you please provide a reference for this statement about Pope John XXIII’s convocation of the Council? The three documents I know of where Pope John talked about the council were Consilium (announcing its date) and Humanae Salutis (convoking the council) and this one (the opening speech).

Latin only help keep the people from full participation in the Mass, as Vatican II called for. Sitting in the pew, reading along in your missal, words you don’t really know, is not full participation.

That is utter balderdash. Full participation was possible 100 years ago, and Pope Pius X called for it. He desired that the people would join in the chant of the Mass. This was reiterated by Pope Pius XI, and encouraged even moreso by Pope Pius XII. You are gravely mistaken if you think people can’t participate fully, consciously, and actively in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Vatican II called for catechesis, which has been sorely lacking. Read the documents again, Jim. Latin is not an obstacle to participation. That is simply untrue.

From what I have observed, many young Catholics today, who are embracing the TLM, do so more as a novelty, something that makes them uniquely and different, rather than growing in the spiritual development that the Mass and traditions of the Church provide.

More anecdotal evidence which I have to accept as the norm? What exactly have you observed? Who have you talked to? What questions have you asked?

On the blogs I read, “nostalgia” and “sentimentalism” and “being different” aren’t the reasons most people (esp. the young people) are giving for embracing the Extraordinary Form. Rather, their spiritual well-being and growth, their growing in holiness, and their admiration for the Church’s long tradition.

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. The TLM, can be very spiritually enriching, for those who understand it, but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

Why can’t people come to understand it, then? All that’s lacking (for some people) is catechesis. Why won’t people bother to catechize the faithful?

 

[BSHoop96]

Furthermore, as I repeated earlier, no one here is denigrating the OF. While there are some who would twist our words to indicate otherwise, what many of us (including the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) have been saying is that too many people have followed the alleged Spirit of Vatican II than bothered to read what the post-conciliar documents actually said. This has led to a whole host of problems. .

I don’t believe anyone on here is against correcting the abuses in the OF. I, for one, totally agree. After that is done we will still have the OF. I think the Pope wants it cleaned up and done as it was intended to be done. That doesn’t mean he will remove it altogether.

 

[japhy]

No one is saying that Vatican II did away with Latin in the Mass. However, if you read the entire document on the Constitutions of the Sacred Liturgy, it makes clear that the changes are for bringing full participation of the people into the Mass. As it happened, fuller participation by both the people and clergy, was better received in the vernacular than in Latin, and so the use of Latin dropped off as time went on.

No, Vatican II didn’t do away with Latin. But the Consilium whose task was to implement Vatican II’s document on the liturgy did do away with Latin. They failed to complete their task, then, because Latin and chant fell out of use, despite the document’s insistence that they remain and be given pride of place.

 

[Dauphin]

Sorry-I dont buy it. The idea that if we go back to the TLM all will be well is specious.It is offering a simplisitc solution to a complex problem

I don’t believe I said that everything will all of a sudden be perfect. However, a Traditional Latin Mass celebrated properly in every parish as the Pope envisions, would certainly go a long way to improving things.

If you don’t believe that way the highest prayer of the Church is conducted is important, what is? The law of prayer is the law of belief. Prayer is the centre of faith.There’s quite simply nothing more important to the Church than its liturgy, and good liturgy will serve as the basis for a renewal of authentic Catholic faith.

 

[BSHoop96]

I’m only sharing these experiences, because I feel disoriented in some of these discussions. My experience has not been one of negatives either in the pre-Vatican liturgy or the OF. I’m just wondering if I’ve missed something.

JR, I would say you have been where you’re supposed to be. And I think the lesson is that one can be there no matter which form they prefer.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t believe anyone on here is against correcting the abuses in the OF. I, for one, totally agree. After that is done we will still have the OF. I think the Pope wants it cleaned up and done as it was intended to be done. That doesn’t mean he will remove it altogether.

Actually, that is something that all of us said. Read this quote from Msgr. Guido Marini, the Holy Father’s Master of Ceremonies:

«As for the motu proprio cited, considering this with serene attention and without ideological views, together with the letter presenting it addressed by the pope to the bishops of the whole world, a precise, twofold intention emerges. First of all, there is the intention of making it easier to reach “a reconciliation in the bosom of the Church”; and in this sense, as has been said, the motu proprio is a beautiful act of love for the unity of the Church. In the second place – and this fact must not be forgotten – its aim is that of fostering a mutual enrichment between the two forms of the Roman rite: in such a way, for example, that in the celebration according to the missal of Paul VI (the ordinary form of the Roman rite) "will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.»

Here, Msgr. Marini speaks about the Motu Propio and how this will help to mutually enrich the OF and the EF. Notice that no one is talking about removing one form and replacing it with another.

Second, regarding what the Holy Father has been doing with the liturgy, especially in his own backyard, Msgr. Marini explains that:

There are “old things and new things” that belong to the treasury of the Church of all time, and must be considered as such. The wise man is able to find both of these in his treasury, without appealing to other criteria apart from those of the Gospel and the Church. Not all that is new is true, nor is all that is old. The truth spans old and new, and it is for this that we must strive, without prejudice. The Church lives according to the law of continuity in virtue of which it recognizes development rooted in tradition. What is most important is that everything work together so that the liturgical celebration truly is the celebration of the sacred mystery, of the crucified and risen Lord who becomes present in his Church, reenacting the mystery of salvation and calling us, in the logic of an authentic and active participation, to share to the full in his own life, which is a life given in love to the Father and to his brothers, a life of holiness.»

So, if the Holy Father calls for a return to Latin in the Mass, it’s not that he is turning the clock “backwards” as many of the folks who lived right in the middle of the early (and damagind days) of the Spirit of Vatican II would have us believe. What he is doing is bringing things back to their perspective and to the original intent of the Council, specifically the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy.

As to Julianna’s comments, did she not read where I noted that in this day and age, with the internet so widely used, we can now look at the Mass parts in Latin with their English translations side-by-side? I mean, how did we learn the Mass parts in our native tongue? By osmosis? No, our parents and CCD teachers taught them to us. We learned by reading. The same principle can certainly be applied to learning the prayers in Latin.

To those of you who say that you would never go back to using Latin in the Mass. That is your sad loss. To totally disregard the sacred treasure of the Church is to not understand its universality and to not want to share in something that our ancestors of the faith had.

 

[japhy]

I am utterly weary of seeing C. Arinze’s words on the same level as a papal encyclical. He is not the Pope. Until he becomes Pope, I prefer to listen to their teaching and follow it rather than a Cardinal’s, even though he may hold an office at CDW.

If Arinze’s words conflict with the Pope’s, please, let us know.

Paul VI’s general address of 11/26/69 inaugurated the final change from latin to the vernacular.

Yeah. His two addresses (from the 19th and 26th) show just how out-of-bounds the Consilium (whose task was to implement the Vatican II document on the liturgy) went. Instead of retaining Latin and giving pride of place to chant, they managed, in the space of less than 6 years, to get the Pope to admit that we’re losing Latin and chant from the liturgy!

You will not find a single bishop in the US who agrees with you and who intends to celebrate the mass in latin at this time in history.

Really? You’ve polled them, have you? I do know that several of the bishops in the US have been stubborn and produced obstacles to Summorum Pontificum. That’s real nice of them.

The OF is in the vernacular and is called OF for a reason.

Not necessarily. The OF, by nature, is not a vernacular Mass. It’s a Latin Mass. It is allowed in the vernacular (as long as the translation is approved). But to call the OF a vernacular Mass is wrong. I have the Missale Romanum upstairs to prove it.

It is the people’s mass and is celebrated in full vernacular in every public mass seen on TV with all the bishops present, such as their recent assembly in DC. I think I heard that 350 were there. No latin, none.

You are simply wrong about that… “full vernacular”! I hear Latin on EWTN all the time (or are those not “public” Masses?) and there was clearly, certainly Latin used at the Washington, DC and Yankees Stadium Masses.

There are parishes in this country that offer the OF in Latin.

 

[japhy]

The undeniable fact is that the full vernacular is NOT changed YET, and it may or may not be as a result of this study. We are not in error, nor are our bishops, nor are our priests. So why all this proselytising and chastising as if everyone is in the wrong?

Consider this thread preparation, catechesis, advance “warning”, if you will. Imagine if the change HAD already been decreed! Imagine the outcry you’d find here. Instead, we’re trying to discuss the matter civilly, and provide catechesis on the topic of Latin in the Mass. Dispelling rumors, in some cases.

 

[japhy]

The idea that if we go back to the TLM all will be well is specious. It is offering a simplisitc solution to a complex problem

That’s NOT AT ALL what Dauphin said. Not once in the post you quoted was that even mentioned.