M
M-Dent
Guest
Again, the language in itself is nothing but language. Jesus said the same with tradition. Did he not?
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
How about “convenient faith”?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I think you missed my reply to ProVobis. Roman Catholicism in other parts of the world are incultured to their culture, not to the Latin culture. That is why Catholicism is strong in those areas. If you go to Mexico or even the parishes dominated by Mexicans in the US, you will see this. Catholicism isn’t just something they do on Sundays, it is their life. I know, I am born and raised Roman Catholic and have been Roman Catholic for 33 years. One thing that attracted me to the Byzantine Rite is this strong fusion of life and faith. I honestly feel Roman Catholicism in North America to be dry and bland. This is after experiencing over 30 years of Roman Catholicism as a Filipino in the Philippines. Latin language and Latin culture has nothing to do with it.
Your argument is just non sequitur. There is no correlation about the focus of prayer and where the priest faces. The fact is in the early Church they never were organized the same way we are today. Let us not pretend that the way Liturgy was done was the same exact way thoughout time. You’d be surprised that how Liturgy developed was through the introduction of things by different people at different times of history. Today it is what many would refer to as abuses, because it was never in the rubrics. But back then it wasn’t something people get roused about. I guess because there was no internet back then to complain?
For example back then the Great Entrance in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy was done only by deacons and in silence. At some point some people started approaching the deacons as they processed toward the altar with the bread and wine asking to remember them in their prayers. That is why today there is a standard set of commemorations during the Great Entrance. It wasn’t scripted or something a Pope or Patriarch thought of to include. It just happened and eventually the practice spread until it became the norm.So back the among the non-standard things that were done was that the table was in the middle of the room. It wasn’t that the priest is trying to face the people, but he was just in the middle of the room. So people would be all around him. The idea isn’t to face the people or to face away from them, just to be in the center of it all.
There is no debate here. Communion in the hand was pretty much a universal practice from the time of St. John Chrysostom (around 400AD). In the East, the Liturgical Spoon only came into use around the 800s and didn’t become standard in all Liturgies until around the 1200s.
This is not from “one general mention”. As I said, the Byzantines have a very good record of the historical development of our Liturgy. To be quite honest I don’t get why there seems to be a dearth of sources about the Liturgical development in the Latin Church. For a tradition that loves documentation so much, I do not know why finding conclusive writings about the First Millennium is hard. I don’t know, the conspiracy theorist inside me says that Trent didn’t want any record of any other Liturgy to give people ideas so it was suppressed. But in any case, that wasn’t the case in the Byzantine Churches. We have clear evidence, and we’re not pretending it never existed. The way our clergy receives Communion today is the same way the laity received Communion back then (our clergy process around the Holy Table and receives in the hand one by one, goes back to their place, says a prayer, before receiving. The process again and receives from the cup one by one).
I am reading traditional history, that is no revisionist. There is no trying to hide stuff here and pretend things that they do not want to happen did not happen.
M
M-Dent
Guest
This thread has to be a record setting event?
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’m not sure I understand this point. Wasn’t it a major event when God said (in an English translation) “I am Who/That I am”? Perhaps it was a mental message but nevertheless it was recorded in some language and it’s a major part of Scripture.
M
M-Dent
Guest
What exact langauge was it the Father spoke in?
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Does “casual faith” mean “convenient faith”? And what do both entail?How about “convenient faith”?
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
Which is no excuse, whatsoever, from dropping Latin entirely in those areas where it was embedded. Once again, the exception is touted as the rule.
A.B.L: Anything But Latin.
Which countries were evangelised through the vernacular Mass and which through the Latin mass?
Once again, the exception is touted as the rule. Ad-orientem means facing Liturgical East, which is usually where the tabernacle is. It symbolises facing the rising sun, which is Christ.
Turning towards the congregation drops that symbolism. Why? The fear that the laity might apostasise if they can’t see the entire operation, as far as I can gather. There is no need to do it in 99.999% of Churches, and yet it swept through the Roman Church.
The St. Peter’s Basilica example is like the St. Cyril of Jerusalem quote: a slender branch on which to base a mountain of propaganda for a troubling practice.
When one finds out that our modern mass closely resembles Cranmer’s Mass, the jig is up.
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
Also: Ad-orientem shows that the priest is making an offering to God on behalf of the congregation. He is the head of the congregation; their priest.
Versus-populum looks more like a performance directed at the congregation.
Versus-populum looks more like a performance directed at the congregation.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Meanwhile, the EF certainly has more…“flashy” elements, apparently which is a “selling point” on that specific Form. We have people who want more incense, more garments, more statues, huge choirs.
Does that mean these are inherently bad?
D
drafdog
Guest
I know that by the time a thread has arrived at this length no one reads more than a few postings. So I am aware that this will be lost in the chaff, and just as well.
As this is posted on the “Traditional” forum one is tempted to conclude that people come here to find out about traditional belief and practice. This is not really the case; they are more likely to be trying to be Latinists.
But to be traditional in praying, which is probably why someone would consider praying in Latin, one should at least consider really being traditional. That is to say that in matters of liturgy, one should opt for the liturgy closest to the original practice of the church. This would mean going back to the earliest versions of the liturgy which are not Latin but koine Greek. If you want to be traditional in worship, go to the Byzantine rite church. Avoid the modernist latins.
The next point is the practice of private prayer. For this many people are going back to the old monastic hours of prayer and using the latin version rather than a modern translation into their native tongue. Again, this is not traditional in the true sense. Since the liturgy of the hours is based on the psalms, the correct way to be traditional is to learn Hebrew and pray the psalms in the language in which they were written.
Summing up, then, we advise that you learn koine Greek and Hebrew for traditional communal and private prayer. But that’s a red herring. The language doesn’t really matter. God doesn’t speak Latin, or Greek or Hebrew any better than he speaks English, so the exercise is pointless. After all, the definition of prayer from my old Baltimore catechism was “the lifting up of our minds and hearts to God.” The last time I looked, my heart doesn’t have a language, so my best prayer would be wordless in any case.
My best advice is to pray fervently in whatever language you speak most fluently and learn to pray (wordlessly) from the heart.
Reb Levi
As this is posted on the “Traditional” forum one is tempted to conclude that people come here to find out about traditional belief and practice. This is not really the case; they are more likely to be trying to be Latinists.
But to be traditional in praying, which is probably why someone would consider praying in Latin, one should at least consider really being traditional. That is to say that in matters of liturgy, one should opt for the liturgy closest to the original practice of the church. This would mean going back to the earliest versions of the liturgy which are not Latin but koine Greek. If you want to be traditional in worship, go to the Byzantine rite church. Avoid the modernist latins.
The next point is the practice of private prayer. For this many people are going back to the old monastic hours of prayer and using the latin version rather than a modern translation into their native tongue. Again, this is not traditional in the true sense. Since the liturgy of the hours is based on the psalms, the correct way to be traditional is to learn Hebrew and pray the psalms in the language in which they were written.
Summing up, then, we advise that you learn koine Greek and Hebrew for traditional communal and private prayer. But that’s a red herring. The language doesn’t really matter. God doesn’t speak Latin, or Greek or Hebrew any better than he speaks English, so the exercise is pointless. After all, the definition of prayer from my old Baltimore catechism was “the lifting up of our minds and hearts to God.” The last time I looked, my heart doesn’t have a language, so my best prayer would be wordless in any case.
My best advice is to pray fervently in whatever language you speak most fluently and learn to pray (wordlessly) from the heart.
Reb Levi
P
ProVobis
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, the EF is full of visuals, which can be easily drawn for prayerbooks that can be used by 5-yr olds to explain the Mass. I know because I still have my old prayerbook that shows many of these details. And, as they used to say, one picture is worth a thousand words.
P
ProVobis
Guest
(אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, ʾehyeh ʾašer ʾehyeh ʔehˈje ʔaˈʃer ʔehˈje])
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Interesting that the bishops are referred to as rulers. That said, does anyone really believe that the bishops of the Vatican II era were “perfectly united”?
D
drafdog
Guest
I have no idea what Pro Vobis is talking about. Somehow the poster has strayed from discussing praying in Latin to the official language of ecclesiatic communication. Since prayer is not addressed to the church but to God, the official language of intra-organizational communication is irrelevant.
Reb Levi
Reb Levi
U
una_fides
Guest
Actually, that wasn’t what I said. You are trying to draw connections from my statement that were not said, implied, or intended. I never used the words “casual faith.” What I was saying that having causal music at mass produces a more casual liturgy such as pertaining to the priest’s demeanor and his overall approach as more of a dialogue with people rather than the offering of the Church’s most sacred and revered prayers. This causal approach to the liturgy then results in a more to quote myself “causal approach to the faith” by the faithful.
Though I never used the words “casual faith” like you accused me of, I would be happy to answer your question. A “causal faith” would generally consist of such things as people coming to mass in shorts and flip flops, walking up and then sticking out their hands to casually receive their God and then pop him into their mouth and chew as if it were common food without really giving much thought to it, having a social hour in the sanctuary both immediately before and after the mass… I could go on but hopefully you get the point.
I don’t want to divert this thread into a discussion on CITH or any of these other issues, but the point is that the liturgy is the *most holy and sacred *set of prayers this side of heaven. We are present at the foot of Calvary and our Lord is becoming fully present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. If you read the Old Testament, you get an idea of the great awe that we are to have before the Almighty. He is the same God of the Old Testament as the New, and the book of Revelation also describes this clear sense of the sacred in the worship described as fitting for God. For 2000 years, this is how God was worshiped in the Catholic Churches, in a very sacred and reverent way. Just listening to Gregorian Chant–the music that the Church says is best suited for the sacred liturgy and which she used for so many centuries–moves and elevates one’s soul and clearly communicates the sacred nature of what is taking place.
U
una_fides
Guest
The Baltimore Catechism was using the biblical wording referring to the bishops:
Acts 20:28-31 Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departure ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, keeping in memory that for three years I ceased not with tears to admonish every one of you, night and day.
U
una_fides
Guest
Actually that is not being traditional. The word traditional comes from the Latin *trado, tradere *which means to hand on what one has received. To be traditional means to follow the practices you received from your fathers as they had been handed down and developed organically throughout the centuries. It is anti-Traditional and is actually Protestant to disavow 2000 years of *tradition *in the name of trying to return to an original practice. Protestants do this because of an underlying defect in their understanding in that they think that the Church’s liturgy and practice is somehow seriously wrong and has to be “fixed.” That is not traditional; that is revisionist! The Church is a living organism, like a tree. It grows and develops organically. We cling to our traditions because it is a means of preserving truth and living out the faith as it has been handed to us faithfully by the saints before us and authoritatively explained and protected by the Church’s magisterium–which also, in case you didn’t read it in this thread, unwaveringly defends and promotes the use of the Latin language.
U
una_fides
Guest
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have received.”
- St Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.- Status