B
- Status
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
Taken as part of a wider trend of dumbing down and hollowing out, it is. Note that we didn’t just make a translation into English; we made a new Mass. And then versus-populum, CITH, dropped the old catechism, childish hymns etc.
Such changes make it hard for sober men to take religion seriously; if it can change so much and become so world-oriented, so childish, so feel-good, why bother getting up on a Sunday? You’re being told you’re as good as saved, by sign and by what is said and, crucially, not said e.g. the distinct possibility that you wil go to Hell.
Now, this had already been done by Protestants and it hadn’t helped them, as we can see.
It’s only when you get to the last few slices of the loaf you realise you’re running out of bread.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Not the language so much as the alphabet, and the formal use of the language. That said, since there were (and still are) many dialects among Slavic languages, common use words and constructs were sought, evolving into a Church usage “common” language. It is more akin to Esperanto in that regard - a Slavic “interlingua”.
U
una_fides
Guest
Excellent quote. Where did you find it exactly?
U
una_fides
Guest
Great quote. Here is some more from that address to from the Cardinal:
“We should do our best to appreciate the language which the Church uses in her liturgy and to join our hearts and voices to them, according as each liturgical rite may indicate. [In context, he is referring to praying in the official language of each particular Church, which for the Latin Rite Church is obviously Latin.] All of us cannot be Latin speakers, but the lay faithful can at least learn the simpler responses in Latin.
…**
Language** … is one of most important elements that need attention for good and faith-filled liturgical celebrations.”
[emphasis and inserted comment mine]
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
So I guess Slavs were dumb they needed Slavonic to be Christianized?
Like I said, in the East the Liturgy was translated from Greek to Slavonic to Ukrainian to English (for the immigrants to North America and Australia). We even have Spanish for those in South America (our current Patriarch used to be Bishop in Argentina).
M
malphono
Guest
Or even a Slavic sibling to “ecclesiastical Latin” …
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
Well, I’ve no idea. I’m talking about the Roman Catholic Church.So I guess Slavs were dumb they needed Slavonic to be Christianized?
Like I said, in the East the Liturgy was translated from Greek to Slavonic to Ukrainian to English (for the immigrants to North America and Australia). We even have Spanish for those in South America (our current Patriarch used to be Bishop in Argentina).
Now, the key thing wth Latin is that it was already well-integrated into our Church’s liturgy, a church of many millions. Conversion was not the aim of the iconoclasts. But there was a sense that people had become so lazy and stupid since WWII that they wouldn’t trouble to read the translation in the missal or learn the simple prayers and respones. There was a fear they might apostasise in the heat of the Sexual Revolution. The desire was to involve the spectators (the laity) in the liturgical action, as being more democratic. That doing it in the local language would involve them more and thus they would not drift away. Something like that.
I don’t know if anyone thought it through: orienting the Mass towards to the congregation and what that might do it its mystical aspect.
O
OraLabora
Guest
In case you missed this in your history lessons:
(Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908)
Whether one faces the congregation or not has nothing to do with its mystical aspect. There are places where versus populum (towards the people), and ad orientem (towards the east) are the same direction. St. Peter’s in Rome, of course comes to mind, a place where Mass has been celebrated towards the people for centuries.
So I would say, yes I suspect it has been thought through.
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
This is “The exception touted as the rule” argument, a common ploy here on Catholic Answers. Pick and mix from the past as apologia for a revolution.
Glagolitic? Really? St. Peter’s Basilica, you say?
monkallover.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/ad-orientem-papal-altar-in-st-peters.html
The mass has turned more towards the congregation in more ways that one, at your local church. Dropping Latin is one way. Versus populum is another. And unvested laity as lectors, EMHCS getting more and more prominent, folky hymns etc. etc.
I bet I could create a really … interesting … mass if the only criterion for inclusion was that it had to have been done at some point, somwhere, in history. Why, even Polka masses might be sanctified by that criterion, in time!
1000 years of treasure, dropped for sappy, copyrighted hymns and bland translations and 50 years of apologia for it. Is it the New Springtime, yet?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Exactamundo! In fact in the early Church the altar was in the center of the church, not on one side where the priest has his back towards everyone. So if the priest is in the center, there is something for everyone. If you want versus populum, be where the priest is facing. If you want ad orientem, stand behind the priest
But seriously, to act as if it was always ad orientem forever is a false sense of history.
P
ProVobis
Guest
What can one say? Apparently some vernaculars work better than others. Polish and Spanish-speaking people are mostly Catholics, while only a small percentage of English speakers are. And there are about 500 million Catholics in South America, I hear. Vatican II allowed the vernacular where it might show to be of “advantage” but I fail to see where an attendance drop in the U.S. from 70-80% in 1960 to 10-20% today shows any advantage of using English in the Catholic liturgy. Just saying.
M
malphono
Guest
G
gnosisofthomas
Guest
Technically, Gnosticism views the world as imperfect, not outright evil. This is a common misconception that really needs to be corrected. Gnostic scripture is full of world-affirming statements about God using matter in a positive way, including salvation.
Anyway, sorry to get off subject… I just saw that and had to chime in.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Exception? Or precedent for the evangelization of people where Latin has little or no meaning. The Church has grown far beyond the confines of Europe to places where Latin is of little relevance, is difficult for even educated locals to pronounce properly and isn’t even close to the local language.
Isn’t that exactly what I said? At St Peter’s versus populum and ad orientem are the same. Which was to refute your argument that somehow facing the people removed from the mysticism of the Mass. The mysticism, if that’s the term to use, comes from facing East, whether that means facing the people or not.
P
ProVobis
Guest
We had these kinds of churches in the early Church? I thought most of the Masses were in said in catacombs, probably towards the eastern wall.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The problem is you are attributing it to the language. Catholicism is deeply ingrained in Spanish cultures. I know, we are the product of Spanish Catholicism. The success or even the strength of Catholicism in such countries is credited not to the language but to the infusion of the culture into the faith. Even in the Philippines where Evangelicalism and Secularization is rapidly growing, our parishes are still full to the brim and you have parishes saying an average of 7 Masses each day. Despite a relative drop of number of Catholics to the total population, the rapid rise of the population means that the membership at Catholic parishes is roughly the same as it was 10-20 years ago.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Only if you were in Rome. But outside of Rome they could gather at houses in the countryside.
U
una_fides
Guest
But were the words used in the Divine Liturgy itself intentionally changed? Were the prayers “simplified” and were prayers clearly depicting the sacrifice of the Mass, consecration, sin, eternal salvation, and an eternal soul removed and were Jewish prayers and protestant friendly prayers inserted in their place? Before the anti-Latin and progressive crowd starts hurling attacks at me, I’m not in any way questioning the validity of the Novus Ordo. I’m just pointing out things that objectively took place and which these same people should freely and openly admit to if they believe these changes were somehow good, beneficial, and necessary.So I guess Slavs were dumb they needed Slavonic to be Christianized?
Like I said, in the East the Liturgy was translated from Greek to Slavonic to Ukrainian to English (for the immigrants to North America and Australia). We even have Spanish for those in South America (our current Patriarch used to be Bishop in Argentina).
But I suppose I’m getting a bit off topic, so to tie it all back in, the removal of Latin was not the only thing that took place, but those who pushed for the vernacular and exclusion of Latin were also pushing for the other changes to the Roman liturgy such as the removal of Gregorian Chant and practically any chant for that matter and replacing with simplistic protestant-friendly songs and hymns (Eastern Rites chant their entire liturgies), not to mention altar girls, Communion in the hand, the removal of altar rails (the western remnant of the iconostasis, dividing the people from the sacrifice taking place symbolically outside of time in heaven), destruction of statues and icons (pure iconoclam), the removal and burial of relics formerly inside of high altars (this took place at my home Church!!), among many other things. None of these things, btw, were envisioned by the Council and the documents actually say otherwise. By restoring Latin to its proper place in the Roman liturgy as the Council said it should be given, a sense of the sacred will be restored along with it.
U
una_fides
Guest
Um… It was… This is also very odd to hear coming from an eastern Catholic…
- Status