Praying in Latin

[ProVobis]

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

Fair point and I agree but we never had official translations of the old one, nor only one existing translation of the Bible either. Using vernacular as the norm presupposes that some committee has by consensus determined that one and only one version is to be used for some select Catholics. And does it really make a lot of difference in the long run whether 1920 English is used instead of 1970 English? 200 years from now, there will be many fewer native speakers speaking either. And who knows, the next Pope(s) may ban or obsolete certain vernaculars altogether. I’m sure some vernaculars have already fallen into disuse since 1970.

 

[Baelor]

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.

They are not because one is not necessarily assuming that God wants respect in the same way that the President or a judge wants respect. Again, you cannot assume that other people believe that God would WANT nice clothes at Mass.

More of an overall approach, which can also be on a subconscious level.

i.e., a mindset.

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.

That feeling may not lead to decreased faith.

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

The Latin Church has an official language: Latin. All of the Eastern rights are faithful to the Pope, who is the Bishop of Rome within the Latin Rite, of which the official language is Latin.

I am not speaking about the other rites; I change my statement to “the RCC” if that makes you feel better.

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

The fact remains that Latin is the language of the Church; much philosophy and theology has been written over the course of 2000 years in that language, all Church documents are published in Latin, and the Church desires its faithful to learn Latin.

I fail to see your point.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m sure some vernaculars have already fallen into disuse since 1970.

Great! We can now use them for Mass

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I am not speaking about the other rites; I change my statement to “the RCC” if that makes you feel better.

When you refer to the Universal Church, as you did, you refer to all of the Churches (not rites) in the Catholic Communion. This was your usage, not anyone else’s inference.

I fail to see your point.

Understandably

 

[ProVobis]

Great! We can now use them for Mass

Good luck with COBOL or ByzCathCantor’s tongue BASIC.

 

[Baelor]

When you refer to the Universal Church, as you did, you refer to all of the Churches (not rites) in the Catholic Communion. This was your usage, not anyone else’s inference.

A statement that I corrected in response to your legitimate remark. May we move on?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

A statement that I corrected in response to your legitimate remark. May we move on?

Not without some further injury, but by all means, continue …

 

[una_fides]

Perhaps a more befitting alternative:

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

I disagree that it’s “more befitting” since you were criticizing the Baltimore Catechism’s wording, which I demonstrated came from sacred Scripture. It’s also a fatal fallacy to chose to listen to one verse and ignore another. Both must be true. Bishops therefore are rulers of the Church and serving others is part of their job as well as defending their flock against the ravenous wolves, boldly proclaiming the truth, and disciplining amd correcting errant members.

 

[una_fides]

There are the bishops and monastics.

Do you perhaps any citations from what they said about Latin? And let’s hypothetically say you were to find a couple (though no citations have been provided at any time yet in our 30+ pages of discussion), would they have anywhere near the same weight as the magisterial teaching of a papal encyclical or apostolic constitution? Even if you could find 50 bishops or 100, the pope has jurisdiction over them all and his decisions are authoritatively final.

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.

Sounds like you are trying to speculate here. There is plenty of evidence. I’m surprised you’ve never came across it. Have you studied Church history? I would do some digging and produce several references to people becoming enraged at liturgical abuses but I see no point because I strongly suspect that you will just dismiss them like you have the papal teachings which do not agree with your preconceived notions.

 

[clem456]

This is an excellent point. The numbers really do speak for themselves, especially when compared to other religions who did not experience this same falling out. If it was just the culture or other variables unrelated to the substantial changes that took place, then one would expect to see the same drop offs in protestant and other non-Catholic religions.

If you could just calrify…you believe that using the vernacular in the Mass is responsible for Catholics fleeing the faith, and other sorts of evils. Is that correct?
If so,you are aware that the generation that grew up in the 50’s and 60’s led the charge out the door? We had Latin mass here until about '67.

Why do people feel the need to blame the Church and it’s leaders (yes, you are) for the myriad shortcomings of it’s people and the various corruptions of their cultures? You either trust the Church or you do not. If Latin and all the other external trappings are such necessary magic bullets (yes a sort of crazy new age vampiristic idolatry!) to keep good Ctholics good, then maybe we wouldn’t have the French Revolution or the two world wars started by people like little Adolf, who according to history grew up chanting good Latin verses in his church choir, growing up in that hazy sepia-toned traditional Catholic atmosphere of the early 20th century. And all this well before our favorite Traditional pinata and punching bag, Vatican 2, ever happened. How can that be possible, that evil existed before V2, when all good Catholics knew Latin and all was well with the world?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I disagree that it’s “more befitting” since you were criticizing the Baltimore Catechism’s wording

Presumptive

It’s also a fatal fallacy to chose to listen to one verse and ignore another. Both must be true.

True, but it is equally fallacious to focus on only one side of the coin as well.

 

[ProVobis]

If Latin and all the other external trappings are such necessary magic bullets (yes a sort of crazy new age vampiristic idolatry!) to keep good Ctholics good, then maybe we wouldn’t have the French Revolution or the two world wars started by people like little Adolf, who according to history grew up chanting good Latin verses in his church choir, growing up in that hazy sepia-toned traditional Catholic atmosphere of the early 20th century.

Maybe but you probably saw more “people of opposite sides of the war” going to Mass together then you have today where Anglophones won’t go to a Spanish Mass or Hispanics to an English Mass. Latin may or may not be magic, but it’s at least nationally neutral.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you perhaps any citations from what they said about Latin? And let’s hypothetically say you were to find a couple (though no citations have been provided at any time yet in our 30+ pages of discussion), would they have anywhere near the same weight as the magisterial teaching of a papal encyclical or apostolic constitution? Even if you could find 50 bishops or 100, the pope has jurisdiction over them all and his decisions are authoritatively final.

So you are saying the likes of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Nicholas of Myra are nothing compared to say Pope Honorius I, because they weren’t Popes?

As for citations, the fact that the Fathers didn’t devote any time on it shows how important it is.

Sounds like you are trying to speculate here. There is plenty of evidence. I’m surprised you’ve never came across it. Have you studied Church history? I would do some digging and produce several references to people becoming enraged at liturgical abuses but I see no point because I strongly suspect that you will just dismiss them like you have the papal teachings which do not agree with your preconceived notions.

I have a bunch of Church history books that I have read and am reading. Maybe you should read those books and maybe you will see the truth

 

[una_fides]

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.

No personal bias here. I was merely repeating things you had said. You said you are an “Orthodox Catholic Christian” and that you are skeptical as to the intentions of popes at the Council of Trent, and that you think that the Novus Ordo in the US is “bland,” and yet you were also vehemently defending Vatican II innovations. I simply pointed out that when trying to piece together your theological outlook, these inconsistencies seemed quite odd to say the least. Please read your own posts: here, here, here, here and here.

The problem here is you interpret too much on where the priest faces and then make a conclusion just by the externals.

Actually I was just repeating what the pope taught about ad orientem worship vs versus populum. Again for someone who identifies himself as an eastern Catholic or Orthodox Catholic Christian I find it puzzling why you would be defending the priest facing the people. Can you imagine how the Orthodox Christians would react if one day you they tore down the iconostasis and threw it away and moved a table altar down in front of the people and had the priest face them and in the process also changed all the prayers around systematically removing their deepest theological content. A little disturbed possibly? I’d hope so at least.

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

Every one. Do you read them? Perhaps you could cite something you said rather than just say this, which is really a non-answer to be honest.

 

[una_fides]

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.

As I stated, the Church describes these liturgical abuses today as shameful and depraved (webster defines as “marked by corruption or evil”). That’s pretty strong wording. Paul VI referred the the liturgical abuses that took place after Vatican II as “the smoke of satan.” These priests are committing grave sins as they make God present on the altar. Someone needs to speak up! The Church has said that the faithful are entitled to the Church’s liturgy and has explained that the liturgy belongs to the Church not the priest! No one has the right to tinker with the prayers of the one divine institution founded by Christ for the salvation of souls. Imagine the dishonor that these sacrilegious acts cause our Lord as he is made present. He was already crucified, and these acts are like driving nails into the palms of his hands while at the same time making him present in a most vulnerable and giving way that our Lord nonetheless does. Out of love and respect and reverence for our Lord, we have a duty and obligation to speak out against liturgical abuse. We are talking about an outright rebellion against the authority and laws of the Church by the priest and as a result the faithful suffer and lose their faith! I have seen this happen first hand. If this is not something to get upset and make a fuss about then what is!?

 

[una_fides]

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?

Good point. The difference, however, is one is directed for the purpose of entertaining the people and the other is directed towards a more reverent worship of almighty God. The intention of the people who want the outward reverent gestures are on the inside desiring this in order to provide more fitting worship of almighty God. The other side openly talks about having the mass be more upbeat and “fun” and “entertaining” in order to attract more people and have them be “engaged” and leave “feeling good about themselves.” That same crowd is all about clapping after the music is “performed.” That’s not at all what the liturgy is about. It’s not at all about praising and recognizing our own human achievements. It’s about God.

 

[una_fides]

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:

Are you advocating speaking in tongues? St Augustine explained that the reason that this gift had ceased to be given by the Holy Spirit after the infant Church had spread was that it was no longer necessary since the Church was then able to speak all languages. And what a better way to solidify worship and the meaning of teachings than by having one static beautiful and universal tongue for the Church. As popes have said, this is most befitting for the Church.

 

[una_fides]

They are not because one is not necessarily assuming that God wants respect in the same way that the President or a judge wants respect. Again, you cannot assume that other people believe that God would WANT nice clothes at Mass.

What someone individually thinks is not the point. It’s about what God thinks and the way God actually desires to be worshiped. There is an objective reality based on Scripture, Church teaching, and tradition, and that is the message that we have an obligation to communicate.

That feeling may not lead to decreased faith.

We were talking about the phrase “casual faith,” which you yourself actually coined. I had said that it leads to a more casual approach to the faith. They have done studies in schools. When kids normally wear a formal uniform, they perform better and take their studies more seriously because they are dressed more seriously. See how these kids act, however, when you let them wear jeans and t-shirts. I know. I was one of those kids and I saw these things happen!
When you apply these principles to the faith and compare them with reality, it just makes sense that the saints were ones who took their faith very very seriously. They would rather die than commit even one venial sin and were willing to be martyred for the faith and many were. Compare this with someone who does not take the faith seriously. They vote for pro-aborts, they go to mass occasionally, they don’t bother to learn about the faith. I’m not saying this is everyone by any means. I’m just saying that you want to take the faith seriously, and your dress can have an impact on your approach. If the mass was done in a more formal and reverent way, the clothing would change and people wouldn’t feel right coming in cut off jeans and sandals.

 

[una_fides]

If you could just calrify…you believe that using the vernacular in the Mass is responsible for Catholics fleeing the faith, and other sorts of evils. Is that correct?

As I’ve already said, the use of Latin in the liturgy is one means of helping fix things, and the popes agree.

If Latin and all the other external trappings are such necessary magic bullets (yes a sort of crazy new age vampiristic idolatry!) to keep good Ctholics good…

You’re getting crazy here clem. Again more straw men. No one has ever said Latin is some form of magic cure all or that it somehow prevents one’s will from straying from the truth any more than the Eucharist does to people who receive and go out and apostatize and commit atrocities. The efficacy of the language also depends on the intent of the user. Latin has certain amazing spiritual benefits as a sacred language and when used for this purpose.

This has already been handled several times in this thread. I think that re-reading through the thread would be much more beneficial than repeating arguments against fabricated positions.

 

[una_fides]

True, but it is equally fallacious to focus on only one side of the coin as well.

I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I presented a clear explanation that incorporated the understandings of both passages. Both are true. To say that you can’t use the word “ruler” regarding a bishop without also referencing the bishops role as being a servant is a bit much don’t you think? Would you also say the same thing about every time you mention a bishop being a servant? I think we know what side of the “coin” you are looking at, but the question is whether you accept both completely in truth and without reservation.