Praying in Latin

[RogerDeCourcy]

What about these passages?

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 14:9[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 14:19[/BIBLEDRB]

Just a note: These quotes come up blank in my browser.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Didn’t st Francis of Assisi, one of the poorest of the poor, who insisted to die naked on the floor for poverty’s sake and who gave away everything he had and even others had to the poor, say that he could not spare enough gold for the altar. We practice poverty towards ourselves but we give the best of the best we have for God and to adorn his house. Read the Old Testament and the very specific meticulous instructions God gave regarding the building of his holy temple. That tells you how God himself desires to be worshipped. God instructed this when people were still starving, there were still poor people. Rememember what Jesus said about the woman with the very expensive oil she poured on his feet to anoint Him. And remember who opposed? The objection from the one who betrayed Christ was that instead of that expensive item being used for a holy purpose it could have been sold for the poor. For this reason, Archbishop Fulton Sheen said that Judas was the patron saint of social justice.

Almighty God has given everything to us and in return He deserves nothing less than the absolute best we have within our ability to give to Him.

That’s it! It’s a peculiar form of meanness to be stingy in the worship of God when you are a religion

 

[Melchior_1]

Didn’t st Francis of Assisi, one of the poorest of the poor, who insisted to die naked on the floor for poverty’s sake and who gave away everything he had and even others had to the poor, say that he could not spare enough gold for the altar.

Considering how poor the Franciscans were (and are), I think he was likely speaking metaphorically. It makes no sense for him to literally give everything away, encourage his followers and others to live as he did, and proceed to then advocate having ostentatious buildings.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Through the Crucifix, tabernacle, and candles.

Is that enough? Don’t some Protestant denominations have these things? e.g. google.co.uk/search?q=lutheran+church+interior
google.co.uk/search?q=anglican+church+interior

Not been in too many, myself.

I do wonder at the mentality that wants bare churches or to do the minimum. In diocesan churches, it veers too close to the first Reformation for my liking. Or it could just be an archtectural fad, | suppose. People think they’re being very original and then you get a collection of pictures of modern churches together and you see the ‘family resemblance’. A bit like trendy teenagers of 30 years ago; it’s startling how similar everyone looks.

 

[Baelor]

Is that enough? Don’t some Protestant denominations have these things?

Schismatic Catholic Churches in traditionalist circles also have everything that you mentioned as “Catholic,” but are not Catholic. So…

Furthermore, there is no requirement that the building be distinct from each of the other Protestant denominations, of which there are many thousand. Nor is there is a requirement to set us apart for the sake of setting us apart, so the premise of your argument is problematic.

I do wonder at the mentality that wants bare churches or to do the minimum.

Those are not the same thing at all.

In diocesan churches, it veers too close to the first Reformation for my liking. Or it could just be an archtectural fad, | suppose. People think they’re being very original and then you get a collection of pictures of modern churches together and you see the ‘family resemblance’. A bit like trendy teenagers of 30 years ago; it’s startling how similar everyone looks.

I am glad that you have no authority whatsoever.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Schismatic Catholic Churches in traditionalist circles also have everything that you mentioned as “Catholic,” but are not Catholic. So…

Furthermore, there is no requirement that the building be distinct from each of the other Protestant denominations, of which there are many thousand. Nor is there is a requirement to set us apart for the sake of setting us apart, so the premise of your argument is problematic.

Indeed, there is no requirement that a Catholic Church look like a traditional Catholic Church. But it’s reassuring if it does. Nor indeed, do I have a position of authority to enforce such a thing.

Still, I think the question helps clarify some of the tumultuous changes of the past decades.

Q: “What’s Catholic about it?” and the corollary “Could it be confused with a Protestant one?”

e.g. a mass, a church, a hymn, book, leaflet etc.

Like, if you’re singing Amazing Grace, with drums and bass, in a bare church, one is entitled to ask “Why?”.

2000 years and this is what’s needed now for our sanctification?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Just a note: These quotes come up blank in my browser.

Here you go:

1 Corinthians 14:9 (Douay Rheims)
9 So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue plain speech, how shall it be known what is said? For you shall be speaking into the air.

1 Corinthians 14:19 (Douay Rheims)
19 But in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also; than ten thousand words in a tongue.

 

[NorthTexan88]

Do you have to know Latin to pray in Latin?
I pray the Ave Maria and Pater Noster in Latin because I know them, but can I pray the Angelus an other things in Latin even if I don’t understand it in Latin…sry if that’s confusing! Lol

 

[ProVobis]

Just a note: These quotes come up blank in my browser.

On mine too. Until you referenced them. Strange.

 

[una_fides]

Considering how poor the Franciscans were (and are), I think he was likely speaking metaphorically. It makes no sense for him to literally give everything away, encourage his followers and others to live as he did, and proceed to then advocate having ostentatious buildings.

It makes perfect sense actually why he would want to build up the house of the Lord and give the best to God. This has been the Church’s tradition and dates back to the OT. Did you read my post earlier? It explains his thinking. Have you read the book of Revelation concerning the beauty of heaven? That’s what the liturgy is supposed to be like. It’s a model of heaven. This is how popes and saints throughout history describe it.

 

[una_fides]

Schismatic Catholic Churches in traditionalist circles also have everything that you mentioned as “Catholic,” but are not Catholic. So…

Actually they are still Catholic. In fact, they are much more Catholic than most of the priests that, though they have not been formally separated from the Church, they are heretics and schismatics through their denial of Church teachings and their refusal to enforce its laws. They refuse to submit to the pope–which is the definition of schism. They refuse to enforce canon law concerning forbidding distribution of Communion to those in manifest public mortal sin, such as pro abort politicians. They change the Church’s liturgy in disobedience to the pope and Church law. They support evils of contraception and in some cases even abortion, in defiance of infallible Church teaching. In reality there are so many priests at churches you think are “normal” who are actually in schism. They are the priests who support the bare walls, the modern music, and one liturgical innovation after another.

 

[Denise1957]

Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict, prays the Rosary in Latin (youtube) 2011:

youtube.com/watch?v=thinlrfjOF0

 

[Denise1957]

It makes perfect sense actually why he would want to build up the house of the Lord and give the best to God. This has been the Church’s tradition and dates back to the OT. Did you read my post earlier? It explains his thinking. Have you read the book of Revelation concerning the beauty of heaven? That’s what the liturgy is supposed to be like. It’s a model of heaven. This is how popes and saints throughout history describe it.

St. John Mary Vianney did something similar. After he was ordained, and went to the parish to which he was assigned, he was distressed at the condition of the Church. It was bare and lacked anything of beauty. Of course, it was just after the French Revolution, but still…

Then he went into the priest’s quarters, and saw that it was furnished in a very comfortable manner, which displeased him. The first thing he did was to get rid of the velvet couch, and then proceded to simplify the furnishings.

One of the happiest days of his life was when some time later a package arrived from a wealthy benefactress in the parish. He shouted for joy when he opened the package, for it contained beautiful things for the church and the altar. For John Mary Vianney, he prefered to live a simple life of personal poverty, but he also felt very strongly that for the Church and altar, nothing was too good for God.

 

[Baelor]

Actually they are still Catholic.

Schism incurs an automatic excommunication. The point is that people who are not in communion with the Magisterium and who teach incorrect things may still possess signs of “Catholicity” according to the needlessly narrow definition given by Roger.

Furthermore, the need for these signs has still not been established.

In fact, they are much more Catholic than most of the priests that, though they have not been formally separated from the Church, they are heretics and schismatics through their denial of Church teachings and their refusal to enforce its laws.

That is clearly not the case. I restricted in my post the discussion to those in schism, and now you state that they are less Catholic than liberal schismatics. Rephrased, you are saying that schismatics are less Catholic than schismatics. That is absurd.

They are the priests who support the bare walls, the modern music, and one liturgical innovation after another.

Those things are not inherently related.

 

[Melchior_1]

It makes perfect sense actually why he would want to build up the house of the Lord and give the best to God. This has been the Church’s tradition and dates back to the OT. Did you read my post earlier? It explains his thinking. Have you read the book of Revelation concerning the beauty of heaven? That’s what the liturgy is supposed to be like. It’s a model of heaven. This is how popes and saints throughout history describe it.

Have you read the book of Revelation, where it talks about people having seven horns misc etc? In the book of Numbers some lived for 273673 years? Again, some of these things are metaphorical and symbolic.

Some place on here OraLabora has posted several pictures from Benedictine Abbys, a lot of which are plain, The Church does have a tradition of plain churches. I would say that the Franciscans founding a church with all the bells and whistles run counter to their charism, and the idea of being “trapped” by material possessions and the external, and using a singular quote from their founder to try and justify them having superfancy church buildings is misleading at best.

Brother JR would probably be the best person to settle this, probably.

 

[Melchior_1]

For John Mary Vianney, he prefered to live a simple life of personal poverty, but he also felt very strongly that for the Church and altar, nothing was too good for God.

Franciscans have collective poverty, huge difference between that and personal poverty.

 

[Melchior_1]

I went ahead and did some searching. Here’s some info on this matter from Brother JR.

In truth, we have always avoided them. Right now, there is a movement among all of the male orders to stay away from all parishes. Those friars who are in parishes are being reshuffled to poor parishes and away from middle class parishes and great cathedrals.

Even though the Church owns them and they are built in praise of God, the Dominican and Franciscan charism is simplicity in all things, even in buildings.

Here’s another post from Brother JR. Note the consistency here, where Brother says; *When the means were available, the bells and whistles were used. However, when the means were not available, for whatever reason, the lay faithful and the religious in these communities were so grounded in the mystery of the Incarnation, as we see it at the creche that they didn’t miss the bells and whistles. They disciplined their spiritual lives to focus on the Incarnation. *

There’s also this here, posted by Jason. Later on he explains;* I believe that is Bishop Diego. As the story goes, Dominic and the Bishop set out on a journey to preach and combat heresy, but the Bishop had his retinue with him and was dressed in all of his finery, as was the custom of the time. Our Holy Father Dominic encouraged him to leave all of that behind so that they might live the Gospel in more apparent sincerity, which would serve as an aid in converting those they were going to preach to. To his credit, the Bishop recognized the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as well as the truth of Dominic’s words, and embraced the idea.

Following that, Bishop Diego was one of the first to grant Dominic his protection and support. *

In the same thread I said:

For any mendicant, the goal is austerity. In all actions and all things, we seek to bring things “back to the basics”, to bring ourselves to the manger. Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, humbling Himself to be born among animals, shepherds, and hay. He was born into the world in nothing. We seek to emulate Christ in this fashion, by bringing ourselves to the manger.

Stripping things down to the essentials allows us to come closer to the child Jesus, to become as He was when He entered our temporal world. As a result of this, we gain detachment from the temporal realm and less desire to have things of the flesh.

Dominicans apply this differently than other mendicants, as the Order does need to have some possessions. Back in the day, that would be books, paper, pens, more books, writings, a side of books, a Suma or four, books, and also a few books. Nowadays there would still be books, and a Priory likely has a computer with the Internet to assist with research. Individuals can use technology like Kindles to aid research as well, so instead of throwing a small library of books in a car it’s all on a neat handheld reading device. The poverty is individual, not collective. This is still quite fraternal, as not only does the Order work together to use the collective items, but the collective also holds the individuals accountable.

To apply this to the laity, it would mean to “keep it simple”, and strip things down (spiritually and physically) to the essentials. If you have things that are getting in the way, remove them. If you can’t be a Magi, then be a Shepherd. Both went humbled themselves before the Child Jesus in the manger, one with high class gifts, the other with their mere presence. What a few traditionalists here have taken issue with is that I have said on a few occasions that the externals within Mass can cause people to lose sight of the goal, getting hung up on the Form. The Form is a means to the end, which is why most Dominicans can objectively look at the OF and EF (and their own Rite) and say “meh”. Mass is Mass, and at the end of the day if you get too attached to the externals of the Form, the time may be near where you need to re-think why you’re there, and try to get back to the manger.

That isn’t to say that Dominicans can’t celebrate high Masses and the like, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with high Masses in resplendent Churches and mass choirs and the like. But, again, it can’t be at the expense of humbling yourself before the Child Jesus, swaddled in blankets in the arms of our Immaculate Mother.

All of this is to say that mendicants aren’t opposed to using all the bell whistles, but;

1. They can’t own anything, including property.
2. Wherever they are cannot distract from the primary charism, and all efforts should be done to maintain the primary charism. Huge resplendent churches might do that, and incredible vestments are likely out of the question as well.
3. Mendicant orders do tend to shy away from huge buildings of splendor.

 

[minion]

Due to this thread, I listened to some prayers in Latin on youtube. They really are beautiful

I’m not really good with linguistics, but I will endeavor to learn the rosary in Latin, at least. Maybe when I’m more educated in my faith, I’ll gain the courage to attend a Latin mass.

Thanks!

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

I think a big mistake is being made here. People are confusing personal ascetisism with minimalism in worship.

The proposition is: ‘Saint X embraced poverty so he also would approve of bare churches’.

A previous poster mentioned the story of Jesus and the expensive ointment used to anoint him, which Judas wanted sold and the money given to the poor. In pre-Christian times the Jews were ordered by God to worship him in a sumptuous way. Has the Resurrection stopped this?

This priest puts it quite well:

dwightlongenecker.com/content/pages/articles/liturgyNew.asp

Here we’re brought back to a central question that has confused Catholics for 40 years: What is liturgy? The question leads us to ask, “What is the Church?” and “What are the sacraments?” If the sacraments are mere symbols – things at the service of religious people gathered together to plan good deeds – then the church building, the vestments, the music, and the liturgy should be practical. Thus, utilitarian concerns should reign: the vestments, architecture, and furniture should be bare, useful, and inexpensive. The liturgy should be folksy, down to earth, and plain.

If, however, the Church is the mystical Body of Christ, while the sacraments are the supernatural presence of His saving grace in our midst, and the liturgy points to the marriage feast of the Lamb, then when we attend Mass we are entering the very throne room of the King. Like Jacob when he dreamed of the ladder into heaven, we are at the doorstep of glory itself.

If this is so, then the whole perspective shifts; we must bring the finest gifts to the King of kings. The liturgy, as befitting a throne room, must be ceremonial, splendid, and regal. The music must be fit for the King, and the vestments, too, must reflect the glory of the One we worship.

On my blog, a reader once commented that he didn’t think the humble fisherman Peter would be comfortable wearing a two-foot-high, jewel-encrusted mitre with an ornate gold-and-silver embroidered cope. My reply was that the pope is not trying to image Peter as he was on earth, but as he is now in heaven. A humble fisherman he may have been, but I doubt very much that Peter is standing now at the pearly gates wearing a fisherman’s smock and smelling of yesterday’s catch. Rather, he is wearing the white robes of Christ’s righteousness and his martyrdom. He is wearing robes so splendid that they make the pope’s rich vestments look like beggars’ rags.

This is why Pope Benedict is dressing up. Through fine liturgy, glorious music, and splendid vestments, he wants to remind us of our high and heavenly calling. We are a royal priesthood, adopted children of the King of kings and heirs of His promise. Through his new yet ancient style, Benedict wants to lift our hearts from this drab world of drudgery to the glory of our heavenly home.

 

[Melchior_1]

I think a big mistake is being made here. People are confusing personal ascetisism with minimalism in worship.

Meanwhile, I think another big mistake being made here is that people are confusing liturgical austerity and Gospel Poverty as “minimalism” and doing the least amount of effort.