F
FAB
Guest
Doctrine is not considered infallible and the cannon is changed.
Reaction from Priests/Deacons/Parish officials about Latin Mass
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
Deacon, Doctrine IS infallible. Perhaps you meant "Discipline’ instead.
And that Canon still stands.
What Trent said that anyone who states that the Mass is to be said in the vernacular ONLY is anethema. Note the emphasis on ONLY.
This is not a prohibition on the saying of the Mass in the vernacular, but a rejection of those who claim that the Mass can ONLY be said in the vernacular.
Do you and roadsend can see the difference?
The Church still holds (as does any Catholic I ever encountered) that the Mass may legitimately be said in Latin. As you well know, it’s normative in Latin.
If someone proclaims that the Mass would invalid if said in Latin, or that the Church does not have the authority to promulgate the Mass in Latin, then they are anethema. That is a doctrinal decree from Trent.
Being an Eccumenical Council, this would also apply to the other sui juris Churchs. No one can proclaim that the Chaldeans could not say the Mass in Aramaic, nor the Byzantines from saying the Divine Liturgy in Old Slovonic.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Where has this canon been abrogated or changed?
For over 400 years this was interpreted as no vernacular as being the norm. True, there were some provincial exceptions to this but for the most part in the West, the entire Mass was to be said in the Latin. The reasons for this were, according to the document as mentioned before, doctrinal. Mass is still to be explained to the people; this is not just a discipline. A one-size-fits-all translation doesn’t seem to work very well in explaining the Mass; in fact it can, with its ambiguous language, easily add to the confusion and distort the whole concept of sacrifice, transubstantiation, etc.
B
Brendan
Guest
Pope Adrian II authorized SS Cyril and Methodius to promulgate both the Scriptures and the Liturgy in Slovonic.
So it is clearly within the power of the Papacy to authorize (or deny) vernacular liturgies.
But JR is correct, one Pope cannot bind another in things like this.
As I pointed out, Trent would prevent a Pope from declaring that ONLY vernacular Masses can be said, but it does not bind a Pope in ALLOWING vernacular Masses to be said (even if a previous Pope, through the excercise of Rubrics) had banned them.
Likewise, if a future Pope decides to return to an exclusively Latin Liturgy, the fact that previous Popes have allowed vernacular liturgies would not bind a future pope in any way.
In fact, even Vat II would not bind a Pope from returning to to a Latin only liturgy, as S.C. requires that an vernacular translations recieve a recogntion, with a Pope is never obligated to provide.
P
ProVobis
Guest
There were several in the East, that is true, and none of them were proved to be detrimental to the faith. We’'ll have to assume that the Pope or the Vatican is expert enough to know which vernaculars will work or not and for whom they would work. For anyone to permit something he knows little about doesn’t make sense, especially when it seems to go against the recommendations of a doctrinal council.
This is true. However, he would have to be very skilled with all the nuances of languages to make this work effectively. And there are no guarantees that even his experts can provide a workable translation. This is now evidenced by the fact that the Vatican has finally recognized that the 60’s translation of the English did not work to make the Mass better understandable.
Maybe. Don’t take this the wrong way but this is only one, perhaps biased, interpretation of the Latin.
As a presumed expert in the Latin philosophy, Horace once stated,
Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus interpres. As a true translator, you will take care not to translate word for word.
One has only to look at the Reformers as to know what Trent meant (or didn’t mean) with its canons. The Reformers did their own translations of the liturgy, interpreted the Bible in many different ways, and began their own denominations. The Church didn’t want to go there so better to stay with the existing language as much as possible.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Or maybe you mean “Dogma.” I wish Br JR would speak to us about Dogma/Doctrine/Teaching and which are subject to change or considered infallible or whatever.
I’d also like to know if there is some list someplace that says what is Dogma outside of the Nicene Creed and the Assumption of Mary. Then maybe we’ll know better what we are talking about.
F
FAB
Guest
I stand corrected, but doctrine can be more fully defined, so with the cannon.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t know if banning all 500 or so vernacular translations would serve a pastoral purpose. But banning a particular vernacular, such as English, because it’s too ambiguous or it becomes realized a faithful translation just can’t be rendered or just too costly, certainly wouldn’t be in violation of Trent or Vatican II.
F
FAB
Guest
The revised English translation is reported to hold to the Latin. there will be complants because some of the wording is cumberson, but it also gives it a higher English and is more sacred.
F
Fide_Roma
Guest
YOu misunderstand the point: The BASIS of the Pauline mass is COUNTER to the ordinary magisterium. The SPECIFIC details of Vernacular, Loud, and Reduced to mre ancient rites are the Premises that savor of heresy and are favored by heretics.I think that we have to take this in context here. What Pope Pius is saying is that the mass had to be celebrated according to the norms. He did not say that those norms could not be changed by his successors.
When one tinkers with the norms, one opens the doors for heresy to creep in, because one opens the door to error.
In the case of the Pauline mass, it is not some incompetent person tinkering. It was the pope himself asking a committee to present him with a revised missal that he then approved. This was not contrary to what Pope Pius was saying.
People tend to confuse these statements, believing them to be binding on future popes. They were not. It’s important for us to remember that our popes of the last 70 years or so have been scholars. They are in a very good position to know the difference between what binds a pope and what does not. If they change something or tweak it here and there, it’s because they know that they have the freedom to do so.
Whether the tweaking produces the desired effect or not, that’s a whole other story. Popes are not fortune tellers. Like everyone else before them, they work with what they have before them and place the outcome in the hands of God.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Why? Because the VERNACULAR is how the Protestants were able to change the beliefs of whole regions: By changing the way people PRAY, they changed the way they BELIEVED and how they THOUGHT about what they believed. The use of Latin is theologically EXACT and safeguards against such stupidity.
The idea of Active participation being VOCAL participation also favors the heretics, because it indicates that the mass has no meaning unless WE have a part in it. It is man-centered, whereas quiet adoration of Christ, with the Focused intensity of the will is GOD-centered. Once again, favorable for the heretics.
The idea of reducing rites to antiquarian minimums is also favorable to heretics, because THAT IS WHAT THEY ALL CLAIMED TO DO. And this is EXPLICITLY the reason for the change in the ritual of the Roman Mass. Paul VI CONSULTED with heretics, protestants, in HOW to get a “better liturgy.”
That is a fact, not slander, not speculation, a cold, steely-eyed FACT.
Plus look at what Pope Pius VI said: POPE PIUS VI:
‘recalling it (the liturgy) to greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language or by uttering it in a loud voice’ as if the present order of the liturgy received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated” as “rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favourable to the charges of heretics”. — Auctorem Fidei [33].
THis is the Ordinary magisterium. Please explain to me How the Mass of Paul VI does NOT constitute an offense against the magisterium of the church. I will not go full bore and say that it DOES, just explain to me how it does not, because this is quite clear.
Also, POpes do not have the authority to alter the substance of the sacraments: They were instituted by Christ. If a “sacrament” no longer conveys what it is supposed to signify, it is invalid.
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t disagree with you. I just wanted to make sure that it was clearly understood what the Holy Father was addressing. We have a tendency to try to bind the current popes by citing previous popes. Very often, the person who does this is not understanding why the previous pope said something, who his target audience was, or even that a particular pronouncement commanded an assent of the will, not an assent of the faith, because it was not a revealed truth. It was a disciplinary statement.
At other times, people act deceptively, especially those who are at the extremes, either Traditionalist or Liberals. By that, I mean that they are using certain passages out of their historical context, because they want to get the less educated reader to lend support to their cause. Of course, the less educated reader will buy into it, because it sounds good and afterall, “A pope said it.”
In these discussions, it is always very important to remember that 100 popes may have said something prior to this one; however, they did not have the authority to bind this one, nor was it their intention to do so. It is also important to avoid the sin of arrogance. I have often seen many posts where the poster says things in such a way that it is very clear that he or she considers that he or she has a better understanding of something that was said in the past than does the pope. It’s almost as if the poster is trying to teach catechism, Canon Law and ecclesiology to the current pope all in one post. That’s pretty arrogant. I’m not about to compare my meager knowledge to that of Joseph Ratzinger. I have to be humble enough to admit that the man is a scholar, a good priest and a faithful Catholic. Therefore, he may know something that I don’t know.
I would warn readers to remember that the Vatican is not American and they don’t think like Americans. My experience when I was a student in Rome is that the Vatican actually feels very uncomfortable with the American’s idea of democracy. What am I talking about?
Well, we have a tendency to demand, “Where is that document? Where can I read it? Why haven’t we seen it?” I remember having this conversation with a cardinal. It was a casual conversation over a Cappuccino. The cardinal was an American, so he understood our way of thinking. He said, “Brother, when you get home tell people that this is the Vatican, not the US Congress. In this country, there is no such thing as the ‘Freedom of Information Act’.” That was many years ago. I still had hair.
But it’s true. The Vatican still relies heavily on trust and word of mouth. They may write a letter to a bishop, religious superior or layperson who asks a question. They don’t make it a habit to post the answer where the world can see it. It is up to the person who received the answer to share it, hence word of mouth.We may think that it’s not a very effective way of communicating or that there are better ways and more technology. However, the Vatican is not too concerned with one group of people. The Vatican thinks in global terms. American Catholics are an insignificant number compared to South Americans and Africans. I often wonder if American Catholics, right and left, find this frustrating. We’re used to being heard, because we are rich, powerful and the world’s stability depends on us being happy. We’re finding that we don’t have that kind of influence in the Church. The Church does not love us any less or any more than the smallest and poorest nation in the world. Out of pride, frustration or both, we tend to run off and try to create our own little American Magisterium, to the left or to the right. This is to be avoided.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TimothyH
Guest
This has been my (limited) experience with Cistercians.It’s not as easy on the inside as it may look from the outside. Today, if you tell certain religious orders that you want them to push the priesthood, you’ll be shot on the spot.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I asked if the priests are to be addressed as Father and was told that I was to address all as Brother, that men enter that particular monastery to be brother’s first, priests second.
Another Cistercian Brother, 99 years old at the time I spoke with him, told me that he saw an article in a magazine titled, The Life of a Monk and said, “That’s for me!” At some point after entering the abbot told him that he was to be a priest. He told the abbot, “But I don’t want to be a priest. I want to be a brother!” Guess what? He’s a priest.
But the point is, he had to be told that he was to become a priest.
Anecdotal? Maybe. But the two conversations did stick in my mind and I remember thinking that I would find it difficult to live there knowing that some were priests and some were not, and not treating, or somehow thiniking of the priests differently.
-Tim-.
J
JReducation
Guest
Pope Paul was not bound by his predecessors. He was the supreme liturgist of the Church. Therefore, he had the right to change the structure of the mass. No pope can change the sacrament. Pope Paul did not do this. But any pope can change the form. Pope Paul was not the first to do so, nor will he be the last to do so. Even the EF is not the same as that which was decreed by Pope Pius V. It is Pope John XXIII’s edition of it. Pope Pius V tweaked a form of the mass that had been developed by the Franciscans. They used one of many forms of the mass that were available in 1209 when the order was founded.
If we go back through history, we see that the form of the mass has always been subject to the discretion of the popes and even the major religious superiors. In the Benedictine tradition, the Abbots have the freedom to change the form of the mass as long as they keep the essence intact. You find different form of the mass as you move from one abbey to another.
The claim that this particular form is an open door to heresy is unfounded, because it preserves the essence that has always been there. If the argument is that it is audible and that it is the language of the people, that’s not a credible argument. The East has always had mass in the language of the people and always audible. To say that such a condition fosters heresy is wrong. This condition does not exist only in the West.
Even in the West, this condition was never a universal condition. What the Holy Father said was that if anyone said that the mass could not be said sub-vocally and in Latin, he was in error. Even that bind held only until someone changed it, including the pope himself.
The truth is that he did allow the mass to be celebrated in the language of the people and to be interactive. St. Francis Xavier translated the missal into Japanese and it was approved by the Church. The Jesuit argument was that Catholicism had to separate from Europe or it would not survive. When the Franciscans and Dominicans went to the Amazon they used Quechua.
The General Chapter of the Franciscans of 1529 commanded the ordained friars to say the mass loudly so that everyone could respond. The decrees of a general chapter have to be approved by the pope.
What Pope Paul approved was not common in the Latin Church. This is true. But it was not foreign to Catholicism. We have to be very careful when we say that saying the mass aloud or in the language of the people is an open door for heresy, because this is not true. The mass has been said aloud and in the language of the people in many parts of the world and by several religious orders long before Vatican II. You may want to watch a special that EWTN has on Francis Xavier. They take up this point of how St. Francis Xavier translated the missal. and argued in favor of a less European liturgy and won. There is more in it than just this, but it mentions this.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
A Trappist monk will be preaching one of the retreats for the diocesan priests in our diocese. My diocesan friends have asked me if the monk is a priest, because his title is Brother. They were suprised to hear the he’s not a priest, but he goes around preaching to priests.
What I don’t understand is, why would you want to treat them differently? They are the sons of St. Bernard and St. Benedict. What else matters?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Too late. But we might want to remember we are probably the most spiritually-bereft country in the world and the most corrupted. What we need is a big fashion push for sackcloth and ashes.The Vatican thinks in global terms. American Catholics are an insignificant number compared to South Americans and Africans. I often wonder if American Catholics, right and left, find this frustrating. We’re used to being heard, because we are rich, powerful and the world’s stability depends on us being happy. We’re finding that we don’t have that kind of influence in the Church. The Church does not love us any less or any more than the smallest and poorest nation in the world. Out of pride, frustration or both, we tend to run off and try to create our own little American Magisterium, to the left or to the right. This is to be avoided.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t know if we’re the most spiritually bereft. However, after living in Europe and South America, I have to say that American Catholics are probably the least honest of the three. I don’t think we do it intentionally. Allow me to explain.
In Europe and South America, when people disagree with the Church, they simply leave. They leave her alone. They don’t bother or cause a rift. They’re very honest. They are not part of the Church, because they don’t buy into this or that, end of story.
In the USA, people tend to disagree with this or that, but they want to call themselves Catholic and then they want to tell the Church how to do business. Sometimes, we’re so arrogant that we want to teach the faith, theology and basic catechism to the pope, especially popes who are very holy men, very faithful men and very high profile intellectuals. We hold ourselves up as their intellectual equals.
I think that in the USA we do more harm to the unity of the Church than they do in other countries. Those people may disagree, but they don’t bother the Church.
Another thing that I noticed in Europe and South America is their demeanor in the presence of bishops, clergy and religious. Despite the rampant secularism in Europe, when they are in the presence of priests, bishops, brothers, sister or nuns, they treat them with great respect, even the person who claims that he’s an agnostic or atheist. Obviously, the Nazis, Fascists and Communists were brutal to them. However, they were equal opportunity abusers. They don’t count here.
While I was a student in Rome, I made a very good friend. He was an agnostic, like most people in Rome. When we arrived, the college was full, so they rented a few apartments for us in an apartment house up the street. The young man who worked at the front desk and I became good friends. He spoke very good English and I spoke very bad Italian when I first arrived.
I asked him why he was so nice to us, aside from the fact that we were paying rent. He said something that made me think. He said that they (the Romans) have a lot of respect for clergy and religious because of their genius. They also appreciate what the clergy and religious have done for the poor. It left me thinking. They have an ability to separate what they appreciate from what they don’t appreciate. They have big issues with contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, divorce, pre-marital sex, women’s ordination and a few other moral laws, just as Americans do. So they separate from the Church and they p(name removed by moderator)oint these issues as the reason for separating. At the same time, they acknowledge the contribution of the clergy and religious to their society.
In a recent talk to the Knights of Columbus, Archbishop Chaput spoke about those who do such things. He reminded his audience that we don’t own the Church.
He said, **“Renewal begins not in vilifying others, but in examining ourselves honestly, repenting of our own sins, and changing ourselves,”
Although sin and failure “need to be named,” he said, “when people deride their bishops and priests out of pride and resentment or some perverse desire for what they perceive as ‘power,’ they undermine the Church herself, and they set themselves against the God, whose vessel she is.”**
I believe that this is the area where we, American Catholics, need to work on. We often operate out of resentment and a desire to control. The Church cannot be controlled. Individuals cannot be controlled. People don’t change because we want them to change. Each person changes through self-examination and honest contrition. Each of us has to change rather than try to change the other person.
St. Francis always taught his brothers to change the world by their example, not their words. “Let your walking be your preaching.” St. Vincent de Paul told his Lazarists (today called the Vincentians) and the Daughters of Charity, “Let your charity, be your sermon.” Mother Teresa always said, “Love Jesus in every man. Take him everywhere you go and let him do the rest.”
If I look at Francis, Vincent and Mother Teresa, I can’t even begin to count the number of men and women whose lives they turned toward the Gospel without ever engaging in conflict.
We need to back off. Either we’re Catholics like Francis, Vincent and Teresa or we walk away like the Europeans and South Americans. To say that we’re Catholic and be in a constant state of conflict with the Church is not very Catholic at all. Great saints were often drawn into conflicts, but not against the legitimate authorities in the Church. They were drawn into conflicts against those who tried to overturn authority. That’s a big difference.
We must always seek to reach the perfection of charity in all things.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I was just speaking of America, not Catholics specifically.
So do you think this is preferable? Leaving the Church rather than staying in it?
Underestimating the sensus fidelium is endemic amongst the hierarchy and some Popes really needed to be taught something by someone, obviously. The Reformation would have been avoided if instead of “honestly” leaving the Church, they’d just stayed in and fought for what they knew was right. Europeans are the product of thousands of years of serfdom, which is why the last fiefdoms on earth are the Parishes of the RCC.
Where is the true hypocrisy? Is it in the one who says “I disagree with that” and stays in the Church because we truly believe that is Christ up there? Or is the hypocrisy in those who rose to power, claiming to be our shepherds but acting only in service to themselves?
Maybe we just know when we’ve been left to the wolves. I know that post Vat2, turning the Mass suddenly into something unrecognizable by the faithful was no act of good shepherds with the best interests of the faithful in mind. I know that when they said, “Like it or lump it” they suddenly found their naves half empty and new vocations severely curtailed.
Maybe we should send some missionaries over there to teach them how to be the noisy rabble the ecclesia is meant to be. To cause a rift, to demand more God in their Church. Power corrupts and complacency kills.
J
JReducation
Guest
I think there is a difference between asking for what we need and being antagonistic, rude and belligerent.
By the way, the story about Padre Pio and the bishop has been distorted. It didn’t happen exactly that way. Bishops have no authority over exempt religious. Padre Pio was an exempt religious.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
E
EzraJacob
Guest
Not to be rude, but if the “reformers” wouldn’t have left the Church, and won what they wanted, then the Church would look protestant.
And if you truly believe that is Christ up there, guiding the Church, never leaving the Church, why would you simply say you disagree and distrust thous he has Appointed to lead the Church, and work against them?
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I don’t know that many who disagree who are antagonistic, rude or belligerent. I think we are mostly hurt, abandoned and sick to death of paying to have that done to us. But I believe we are now very off-topic.
- Status