Praying in Latin

[una_fides]

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.

What you are referring to is a cultural identity. People identify with their Catholic faith in their culture. I agree that the Catholicism in the US is lacking in many ways, most significantly Catholics are lacking that clear sense of Catholic identity, and one of the key factors in producing a shared identity is language. It is a means to connect people together. The Latin language does this. If every Roman liturgy retained at least the standard parts in Latin, then Roman Catholics everywhere would have this great shared sense of Catholic identity.

 

[una_fides]

Your argument is just non sequitur. There is no correlation about the focus of prayer and where the priest faces.

I’m sorry you didn’t follow my reasoning, but that doesn’t mean that my conclusion does not clearly follow from the logic. Let me restate to hopefully help clear this up for you:
Your claim:

• in the early Church the priest faced the people and this somehow corresponds to the priest facing the people today in the liturgy.
  I explained:
• In the early Church, the people were not the focus and any facing of the people was incidental rather than by intent
• In the present day Novus Ordo, the people are the focus (hence the term versus populum)
  THEREFORE:
• the worship in the early Church when the priest faced the people was different from versus populum worship today in the typical Novus Ordo (where the people are the focus and where everyone also does not face in the same direction: East).

 

[una_fides]

The fact is in the early Church they never were organized the same way we are today. … 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. … 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 … today there is a standard set of commemorations during the Great Entrance. … It wasn’t scripted … It just happened and eventually the practice spread until it became the norm.

What you are referring to as per your example is called organic development. Not abuse. They are entirely different. Abuse is when someone is told they may not do something, and they instead do it anyway. In the early Church there were local customs and variations in the liturgy that were not forbidden. This changed however because of the grave abuses that were taking place in the Church during the protestant revolt. Vatican II reaffirmed the forbidding of any liturgical innovations and the Church today refers to these innovations as being reprobate practices and are grave sins against the authority of the Church:
"Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 22, repeated in documents like Sacram Liturgiam; Tres Abhinc Annos; CIC 841, 846; and many other laws and regulations). Deviations from the Order are illicit, and when done intentionally they’re a grave offense both against the Church and the faithful who have a right to an authentic liturgy (Inaestimabile Donum, CSDW, April 3, 1980).
canticanova.com/articles/liturgy/art9bq1.htm
And btw, while people didn’t get roused about organic developments in the liturgy, which were not forbidden, they most certainly did get up in arms regarding changes to wordings of prayers. I’ve read various things about this in history especially in the eastern Churches. The faithful have certainly gotten into an uproar in the past to the point of rioting and calling for their bishop to be replaced! It’s called the zeal of the saints. Look how Christ reacted to the abuses he saw in the temple, which he said was to be a house of prayer and worship!

 

[clem456]

I’m sorry you didn’t follow my reasoning, but that doesn’t mean that my conclusion does not clearly follow from the logic. Let me restate to hopefully help clear this up for you:
Your claim:

• in the early Church the priest faced the people and this somehow corresponds to the priest facing the people today in the liturgy.
  I explained:
• In the early Church, the people were not the focus and any facing of the people was incidental rather than by intent
  **- In the present day Novus Ordo, the people are the focus **(hence the term versus populum

)

This is not so. Where do you get this idea from?

 

[clem456]

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.

It must truly be a gift, this ability you have to discern the quality of faith held by others, based on their dress and how they chew the host, and what they are thinking while chewing.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

Take and eat.

 

[una_fides]

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.

Sources? I’ve never heard that version of history before. Perhaps it’s something new. Check out these:
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html (history of CITH: was actually expressly forbidden many centuries before the 1200s!).
communion-in-the-hand.org/index.html (this website has tons of relevant information on the practice.)
It’s also important to note that in the early Church when CITH was done the communicant actually brought his whole opened hand up to his mouth to receive and would eat it out of his own hand.

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.

That is both a false and troublesome claim. It is clearly false because if you read the document coming from Trent on the liturgy you’ll find that it clearly mentions that local liturgies of at least 200 years of usage or more are to be continued to be permitted and along with that obviously are all the Eastern Liturgies. Your statement is troublesome and concerns me because it is demonstrating a manifest sign of mistrust and animosity towards Rome. I don’t know where these feelings or ideas are coming from, but they are certainly dangerous and can lead to schism.

 

[una_fides]

clem456:
)

This is not so. Where do you get this idea from?
The pope.

 

[ConstantineTG]

What you are referring to is a cultural identity. People identify with their Catholic faith in their culture. I agree that the Catholicism in the US is lacking in many ways, most significantly Catholics are lacking that clear sense of Catholic identity, and one of the key factors in producing a shared identity is language. It is a means to connect people together. The Latin language does this. If every Roman liturgy retained at least the standard parts in Latin, then Roman Catholics everywhere would have this great shared sense of Catholic identity.

Again, Latin has nothing to do with it. I don’t know how a foreign language can help foster a greater sense of identity within a culture. The strength of Catholicism is the culture, not the language. Well, unless of course that language is the local language.

I’m sorry you didn’t follow my reasoning, but that doesn’t mean that my conclusion does not clearly follow from the logic. Let me restate to hopefully help clear this up for you:
Your claim:

• in the early Church the priest faced the people and this somehow corresponds to the priest facing the people today in the liturgy.

I never claimed that the priest intentionally faced the people. I said that the Liturgy in the early Church has the table in the middle of the room where people gathered, therefore it depends where you are you can be facing the priest or the priest can be facing away from you. There was no concerted effort to have the priest face in a specific direction.

I explained:

• In the early Church, the people were not the focus and any facing of the people was incidental rather than by intent
• In the present day Novus Ordo, the people are the focus (hence the term versus populum)

And I said you are wrong. For the second time, where the priest faces has no bearing on who or what the focus of prayer is. Also, the focus of prayer in the Pauline Mass is God, regardless what some people claim.

THEREFORE:

• the worship in the early Church when the priest faced the people was different from versus populum worship today in the typical Novus Ordo (where the people are the focus and where everyone also does not face in the same direction: East).

There is no difference. The focus at any point was never the people and where the priest faced has no bearing on whom the prayers were offered up to.

What you are referring to as per your example is called organic development. Not abuse. They are entirely different. Abuse is when someone is told they may not do something, and they instead do it anyway. In the early Church there were local customs and variations in the liturgy that were not forbidden. This changed however because of the grave abuses that were taking place in the Church during the protestant revolt. Vatican II reaffirmed the forbidding of any liturgical innovations and the Church today refers to these innovations as being reprobate practices and are grave sins against the authority of the Church:

My main point was that the early Church never had the same exact Liturgy that we have today. So to claim that as if a certain way of doing the Liturgy is the same way it was always been done is a false claim.

 

[una_fides]

It must truly be a gift, this ability you have to discern the quality of faith held by others, based on their dress and how they chew the host, and what they are thinking while chewing.

You were just waiting to drop that line on me weren’t you. You should work for a political campaign. You have some great spin skills tying to emotional appeals. If you notice I was referring to people who take no thought at what they are doing. My comments were not saying that all those people have a “causal faith” or however you tried to spin the web. I was saying that it is what it looks like. There were no judgments being made on an individual level. But since we are on the subject, please tell me if you are attending a serious event, such as perhaps going before a judge in court, how would you dress? Or perhaps in meeting the president of the United States at a formal event, how would you dress? At Mass you are going to meet almighty God in the most sacred event we can experience on earth. How do you dress? On the other hand, if you go to the beach to go swimming and get a sun tan, how do you dress? The point is that–generally speaking–people take the mass much more casually–whether they realize it or not–as depicted by their dress and demeanor at Mass. Prior to the liturgical innovations of priests trying to make the mass a more comfortable and enjoyable show, the general means of dress to attend the holy sacrifice of the Mass was always “Sunday’s best.”
–Disclaimer for those inclined to try to judge others as being “judgmental”:
That statement is not a judgment on individual people today who do not know or understand or who were not brought up that way or never experienced or for those who have never heard of such a thing. It’s just pointing out an obvious more causal approach to the sacred and the general feelings that such an approach can ingrain and facilitate.

 

[Baelor]

The point is that–generally speaking–people take the mass much more casually–whether they realize it or not–as depicted by their dress and demeanor at Mass.

That is a fallacious statement; there is a logical step missing. You first need to assert that other persons believe the same way you do about dress and Mass, i.e. that there is a need to dress up. Applying that argument to an individual who takes Mass seriously but believes that we should “come as we are” is invalid. That is not to say that that mentality is correct, but rather that your argument requires an unproven statement to function.

Note also that your attempt to claim that their mindset is irrelevant also fails because you have not established that dressing casually causes one not to take Mass as seriously.

On the subject of Latin, there is no question that it is valuable: it offers a universal language with grammar and vocabulary that has developed organically (although artificially; those familiar with Latin should be able to see how this is not a paradox) over
centuries. The Church is universal; having a universal language facilitates this. It also permits and easy and continuous connection with the past, since we can “communicate” with them knowing their language.

 

[una_fides]

Again, Latin has nothing to do with it. I don’t know how a foreign language can help foster a greater sense of identity within a culture. The strength of Catholicism is the culture, not the language. Well, unless of course that language is the local language.

Perhaps there is some insights that can be attained by listening at the feet of the vicars of Christ?

There was no concerted effort to have the priest face in a specific direction.

He faced east along with the people.

And I said you are wrong. For the second time, where the priest faces has no bearing on who or what the focus of prayer is. Also, the focus of prayer in the Pauline Mass is God, regardless what some people claim.

So strange… You defend the Novus Ordo with such ferocity and yet are skeptical of popes and Trent as conspiring against the east? Regardless of your possible intentions or motivations here, have you read Spirit of the Liturgy by Pope Benedict? I just cited it a couple posts ago. While the prayers are obviously directed to God, they are being made towards the people and consequently the people become the focus of the priest, and the priest becomes the focus of the people. It forms a “self-enclosed circle” as the pope put it.

There is no difference.

Now that’s a non sequitur! You’re saying that the priest intentionally offered all the prayers of the Mass towards the people in the early Church? Because that is what happens today.

 

[una_fides]

My main point was that the early Church never had the same exact Liturgy that we have today. So to claim that as if a certain way of doing the Liturgy is the same way it was always been done is a false claim.

A false claim that no one is asserting. The various liturgies came into being through a process of organic development. Not rebellion, innovation, and liturgical abuse. Nor through the suppression of distinctly Catholic aspects of the liturgy and the replacing with prayers from false religions.

 

[una_fides]

Note also that your attempt to claim that their mindset is irrelevant also fails because you have not established that dressing casually causes one not to take Mass as seriously.

I didn’t think you needed to prove common sense, but I figured my examples of going to visit a judge or the president of the United States vs going to the beach were sufficient. I also was not making a statement concerning an actual mindset per say. More of an overall approach, which can also be on a subconscious level. It’s also possible that someone has no knowledge of such standards, as I pointed out. There have been many uniform studies however that clearly demonstrate the effect that dress has on behavior. When you wear flip flops and shorts, you have a different feeling to you then you do when you dress up in a suit and tie. In addition, this is also to say nothing of the immodest dress so frequently worn at Mass as well, but I think we are digressing from the topic of the thread and if we want to continue should start a new one on Mass attire.

On the subject of Latin, there is no question that it is valuable: it offers a universal language … The Church is universal … It also permits and easy and continuous connection with the past, since we can “communicate” with them knowing their language.

spot on

 

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

Perhaps a more befitting alternative:

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 10:42-45[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Church is universal; having a universal language facilitates this. It also permits and easy and continuous connection with the past, since we can “communicate” with them knowing their language.

Yet again, this point is made, ignoring that the Universal Church is greater than the Latin Church alone.

Further, lest we forget that language was never a barrier for the action of the Holy Spirit, we are reminded by the Pentecost account:

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2:1-4[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[jeannetherese]

“Again, Latin has nothing to do with it. I don’t know how a foreign language can help foster a greater sense of identity within a culture. The strength of Catholicism is the culture, not the language. Well, unless of course that language is the local language.”

I have been reading the discussion concerning Latin and the quoted argument gave me pause.
I wonder if the Church would consider Latin to be part of its culture? If so, then that would seem to suggest that this language contribute to the strength of the Church.
The definitions of culture which are familiar to me do include language as a component. I’m including an online definition below.

"culture
Integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behaviour that is both a result of and integral to the human capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations. Culture thus consists of language, ideas, beliefs, customs, taboos, codes, institutions, tools, techniques, works of art, rituals, ceremonies, and symbols. It has played a crucial role in human evolution, allowing human beings to adapt the environment to their own purposes rather than depend solely on natural selection to achieve adaptive success. Every human society has its own particular culture, or sociocultural system. Variation among cultures is attributable to such factors as differing physical habitats and resources; the range of possibilities inherent in areas such as language, ritual, and social organization; and historical phenomena such as the development of links with other cultures. An individual’s attitudes, values, ideals, and beliefs are greatly influenced by the culture (or cultures) in which he or she lives. Culture change takes place as a result of ecological, socioeconomic, political, religious, or other fundamental factors affecting a society. See also culture contact; sociocultural evolution.

For more information on culture, visit Britannica.com. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc."

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

If a vernacular mass was the goal, why not just use the existing translations of the old one, and say them?

Instead, we had an iconoclasm right acrosss the board, including dropping Prime from the the Office and a revision of the Rite of Exorcism! And the Book Of Blessings. Like, they weren’t working before?

All I can infer is that a revolutionary spirit infected the Church. Everything had to be changed. Why? Because the old ways were bad/wrong/fuddy duddy; an annoying reminder of a more penitential time.

Wouldn’t mind so much if it had acheived the stated goals but if parish congregations are dwindling and grey-haired and the number of masses is dropping, it might be time to reform the Reform. At least give the Tridentine Mass a fair outing, instead of being said once a month in the boondocks by the Latin Mass Society.

Lotta work to do and it looks like the World is going to try the Faithful in the near future, just to boost your enthusiasm

 

[ConstantineTG]

Perhaps there is some insights that can be attained by listening at the feet of the vicars of Christ?

There are the bishops and monastics.

He faced east along with the people.

He, maybe. The people, probably not. There is no evidence there, or probably people of the time doesn’t care as much as people today. Again, perhaps the concept of facing East has not come yet at the time. When it is a time of persecution and people just meet it whatever house was available and save, I don’t think where they faced mattered much.

So strange… You defend the Novus Ordo with such ferocity and yet are skeptical of popes and Trent as conspiring against the east?

When you read my posts I suggest trying to remove your bias against me. I don’t know where you get such accusations. If you wish for us to carry a good conversation here you take my word for what it is as it is.

Regardless of your possible intentions or motivations here, have you read Spirit of the Liturgy by Pope Benedict? I just cited it a couple posts ago. While the prayers are obviously directed to God, they are being made towards the people and consequently the people become the focus of the priest, and the priest becomes the focus of the people. It forms a “self-enclosed circle” as the pope put it.

The problem here is you interpret too much on where the priest faces and then make a conclusion just by the externals. Not a good thing to do when doing something that is spiritual.

Now that’s a non sequitur! You’re saying that the priest intentionally offered all the prayers of the Mass towards the people in the early Church? Because that is what happens today.

Do you ever read all of what I post? How many times do I have to repeat this?

A false claim that no one is asserting. The various liturgies came into being through a process of organic development. Not rebellion, innovation, and liturgical abuse. Nor through the suppression of distinctly Catholic aspects of the liturgy and the replacing with prayers from false religions.

There was no such thing as abuses back then because no one made a fuss if Bishop A from Town B did his Liturgy slightly different from Bishop C or City D. Unlike today where people go onto the internet and make a big deal of everything. Though I agree there are a lot of bad abuses today, sometimes it is just obnoxious how a lot of people have become self-proclaimed Liturgical gestapo.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Yes but the Church also prescribes certain prayers and has definitely promulgated the Mass for the Latin Rite in Latin, both EF and OF. If you want to be creative and speak to God in Sanskrit while you’re meditating or you wish to follow Henry VIII’s formulas (for the Our Father, etc.), that’s entirely up to you, but you shouldn’t impose these on all Catholics.