V
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
Someone did an Aramaic-English translation on this.
Aramaic to English translation of the Our Father Moral Theology
Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need
Hawvlân lachma d’sûnkanân jaomâna.
Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Let’s hope the non-ordained are not trying to celebrate ANY Mass!
A
Aran_Houlihan
Guest
agree and put a end to the happy clappy mass that turning three mass into a show pieces almost like a like comedy act rather than the holy sacrifices of the mass
O
otjm
Guest
a few of the priests who have been ordained in the last 10 years celebrate the EF, but any number of priests who celebrate it were ordained long ago, However, the bottom line is that the vast majority of parishes are OF parishes, and that is not changing to any significant degree.
O
otjm
Guest
From whence comes the Aramaic version? As far as I know, the extent copies of the New Testament are in Greek. Perhaps from the Maronite Rite?
O
otjm
Guest
The Baltimore Catechism undoubtedly had a part in training the children of immigrants; but immigration also had a significant part in the growth of the Church. and those immigrants had large families, who in turn, as they became adults and married, had large families.
O
otjm
Guest
Blanket judgmentalism my foot. There were studies done in the 1950’s showing that the majority of people attending Sunday Mass did not have missals, and precious few people were conversant in Latin, as Latin was rarely taught as a spoken language.
O
otjm
Guest
Reverence is as reverence does. One can be reverent in something as simple as saying the Rosary, or lack reverence, or, going further, be irreverent. The same goes for saying the Mass in either form. And I will willingly grant that there may be precious few EF Masses lacking in reverence; it is also my experience in numerous parishes in 5 western states that the OF is being celebrated with more reverence than say, 30 years ago.
Solemnity has more to do with the complexity of the ceremony. Thus a Low Mass EF is less solemn than a High Mass EF, which in turn is less solemn than a Solemn High Mass (to which the name gives a clue). And it could be debated as to whether the OF or a Low Mass EF were more solemn, as the OF has the possiblity of chant and incense and the Low Mass EF does not. Certainly the rubrics of the EF are more complex, but a good deal of that is not observable to someone in the pew.
Solemnity has more to do with the complexity of the ceremony. Thus a Low Mass EF is less solemn than a High Mass EF, which in turn is less solemn than a Solemn High Mass (to which the name gives a clue). And it could be debated as to whether the OF or a Low Mass EF were more solemn, as the OF has the possiblity of chant and incense and the Low Mass EF does not. Certainly the rubrics of the EF are more complex, but a good deal of that is not observable to someone in the pew.
E
Entwhistler
Guest
Hmmm. Well, I attend the Latin Mass and I when I am in the pews I rarely use a missal. Nor am I conversant in Latin. However, I know what is going on because I go to the Latin Mass every Sunday and I have been taught what happens during Mass. I think that the problem back then as it is now is that there was a lack of catechesis. Yet, even if the people in the pews were daydreaming was that the fault of the rite? The Church had gone a long time with the Latin Mass as the primary way of worship with Latin becoming less and less of a common language. And the Church didn’t change it until 1960. If it was the Latin Mass that was making people daydream, then the Church would have gotten rid of it long ago. No, I will put my money with a lack of catechesis and, to a certain extent, the Modernization (as in the heresy) of the world.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I can’t say I’ve ever attended an irreverent Mass. What is that exactly? I just assume that whatever the liturgical committees drum up, music, etc., it has the approval of the bishop and in my book that’s good enough.
At one parish for a few weeks the congregation picked up and recited the “Through Him” together with the priest. My guess is that they thought this was most reverent. Well, the bishop was not impressed and put an immediate stop to it. So I’m not going around from parish to parish and try to find the most reverent Mass because quite frankly I don’t know what that is.
At one parish for a few weeks the congregation picked up and recited the “Through Him” together with the priest. My guess is that they thought this was most reverent. Well, the bishop was not impressed and put an immediate stop to it. So I’m not going around from parish to parish and try to find the most reverent Mass because quite frankly I don’t know what that is.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t know. But if it’s in Aramaic, the nuances would be closer to what Christ actually spoke, no?
That’s probably why Maronites favor their consecrations over others. I’m guessing though.
That’s probably why Maronites favor their consecrations over others. I’m guessing though.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, the question is, how did it get into Aramaic, since essentially according to the translation to English, it seems focused (to put it politely) on the Eucharist. Which is not to say that it is not correct, but presumably what is in the NT is what Christ said; and if it is from a subsequent source, it is possible that it was enhanced by the writer to do so. I am not arguing one way or the other; just hesitant to say that it is what the Gospel writers wrote. And it has been way too long since I have read Greek. Maybe someone knows what the Greek said in the NT.
So yes, the nuances could be close (or right on) to what Christ said; or if it was post NT, it could be the enhancement of the writer, as I don’t recall that we have any of the NT in Aramaic. Interesting, at least.
So yes, the nuances could be close (or right on) to what Christ said; or if it was post NT, it could be the enhancement of the writer, as I don’t recall that we have any of the NT in Aramaic. Interesting, at least.
O
otjm
Guest
From the bottom to the top of your comment: Modernism has absolutely nothing to do with the matter. That was a heresy, of which Alfred Loisy and George Tyrrell were accused and had to do with scripture scholarship rather than liturgy. The word keeps popping up by people who have kn concept of what Pius X was talking about.
The EF did not make people daydream. Little emphasis was made on active participation in the Mass, which was why that was such a point made by the bishops of the world in Vatican 2. As far as why it went on as it did for centuries is likely due at least in significant part because the Church was not addressing the issue - it was far more concerned over other matters. It is like asking why the Church did not address the issues which were outlined in Rerum Novarum; the answer is because it had not come up. That does not make issues of Capital and Labor any less important or relevant at the time it was written.
Daydreaming was not the fault of the rite; it was the fault of the language, which the people did not understand as most were not trained in Latin. And when individual missals finally were available, there was no massive move to get [people to buy them (they were relatively expensive at the time).
The bishops of the world - voting 2,147 to 4 in favor of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, made a specific point in that document that they wanted the laity to participate more in the liturgy, and not just by having responses; it was why there was such a push to get the Mass into the vernacular. There were more things the bishops wanted, but this is what pertains to your post. It was far more than just catechesis; they wanted the people to understand the prayers and readings which were made during the Mass, not just know what part of the Mass might be going on at any specific time.
The EF did not make people daydream. Little emphasis was made on active participation in the Mass, which was why that was such a point made by the bishops of the world in Vatican 2. As far as why it went on as it did for centuries is likely due at least in significant part because the Church was not addressing the issue - it was far more concerned over other matters. It is like asking why the Church did not address the issues which were outlined in Rerum Novarum; the answer is because it had not come up. That does not make issues of Capital and Labor any less important or relevant at the time it was written.
Daydreaming was not the fault of the rite; it was the fault of the language, which the people did not understand as most were not trained in Latin. And when individual missals finally were available, there was no massive move to get [people to buy them (they were relatively expensive at the time).
The bishops of the world - voting 2,147 to 4 in favor of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, made a specific point in that document that they wanted the laity to participate more in the liturgy, and not just by having responses; it was why there was such a push to get the Mass into the vernacular. There were more things the bishops wanted, but this is what pertains to your post. It was far more than just catechesis; they wanted the people to understand the prayers and readings which were made during the Mass, not just know what part of the Mass might be going on at any specific time.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The ICEL was formed I believe in response to Veterum Sapientia, which effectively banned the vernacular in the liturgy. They were most influential in actually getting allowance for the vernacular. But the conservative bishops (according to “The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber,”) still got their “Latin should be retained in the liturgy” clause in there, among other things like Gregorian chant and the pipe organ, so both sides got something and voted in favor of SC. Just a historical point.
S
stpurl
Guest
And that is supposed to prove, as tweedlealice stated, that the people just prayed rosaries and were 'ignorant of the message of the Church"? Balderdash.
I’m just so amazed that peasants, serfs, illiterate people including children, etc., managed to be Catholic throughout history and somehow were able to understand the Ave, the Pater Noster, the Credo, the Gloria, the Sanctus, etc. Have you ever seen what not just Catholic students (who in U.S. history were acknowledged to have superior education to the majority of public school students) but plain average non-Catholic students 50 and 100 years ago actually studied and knew, compared to what is taught to students today?
How many times does it have to be said that one need not speak Latin in order to appreciate the Mass? The average person attending a ‘vernacular Mass’ has approximately a 6th grade vocabulary. The average person in the U.S. reads at most 2 books a year from the public library. The average person in the U.S. is amazingly ignorant of everything from history to geography, literature to logic. But somehow all these people magically ‘get the message of the Church’ when going to an ‘average Mass’ where they hear a rather small portion of Sacred Scripture, where in some parishes the most they hear at the consecration is the short prayer II (itself often ad-libbed or overshadowed by music or ‘let’s come around the altar’), and yet somehow their understanding is so much greater than the average person of the 1950s at a Latin Mass? Give me a break. I suppose that my mother’s generation, and to a small extent mine, never learned anything at all about the Church. Never had demonstrated or shown to us what the Mass meant. What the words meant. Never had our own families talk to us, give us help, etc. I guess we were all just ignorant women mumbling our beads. WE were never taught the Mass was a Sacrifice. WE were never taught of the beauty of Scripture, the history of the Church, the glories of the saints, the importance of things like the cardinal virtues, the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit, the 6 (now 5) precepts of the church, the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, etc. Nope, we and our parents, grandparents, great grandparents, going back for hundreds and hundreds of years, just sat in a church, said rote prayers we didn’t understand, and totally missed out on everything the Church ever said, did, and taught, all because WE heard Masses in Latin. Oh the horror.
I’m just so amazed that peasants, serfs, illiterate people including children, etc., managed to be Catholic throughout history and somehow were able to understand the Ave, the Pater Noster, the Credo, the Gloria, the Sanctus, etc. Have you ever seen what not just Catholic students (who in U.S. history were acknowledged to have superior education to the majority of public school students) but plain average non-Catholic students 50 and 100 years ago actually studied and knew, compared to what is taught to students today?
How many times does it have to be said that one need not speak Latin in order to appreciate the Mass? The average person attending a ‘vernacular Mass’ has approximately a 6th grade vocabulary. The average person in the U.S. reads at most 2 books a year from the public library. The average person in the U.S. is amazingly ignorant of everything from history to geography, literature to logic. But somehow all these people magically ‘get the message of the Church’ when going to an ‘average Mass’ where they hear a rather small portion of Sacred Scripture, where in some parishes the most they hear at the consecration is the short prayer II (itself often ad-libbed or overshadowed by music or ‘let’s come around the altar’), and yet somehow their understanding is so much greater than the average person of the 1950s at a Latin Mass? Give me a break. I suppose that my mother’s generation, and to a small extent mine, never learned anything at all about the Church. Never had demonstrated or shown to us what the Mass meant. What the words meant. Never had our own families talk to us, give us help, etc. I guess we were all just ignorant women mumbling our beads. WE were never taught the Mass was a Sacrifice. WE were never taught of the beauty of Scripture, the history of the Church, the glories of the saints, the importance of things like the cardinal virtues, the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit, the 6 (now 5) precepts of the church, the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, etc. Nope, we and our parents, grandparents, great grandparents, going back for hundreds and hundreds of years, just sat in a church, said rote prayers we didn’t understand, and totally missed out on everything the Church ever said, did, and taught, all because WE heard Masses in Latin. Oh the horror.
E
Entwhistler
Guest
Oh, I was talking about Modernism in general. That heresy had plenty to do with the lack of faith of the people in the pews. I’m not saying it had anything to do with the Council (although I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. But that’s another conversation).
But as to the language, I will give you that language had some small part in the “daydreaming” of Catholics in the pews. However, it has by no means the main reason the Council met. The new missal that came out of the Vatican as a result of the Council still had much in Latin. It also had the Latin on one side and the English on the other. It wasn’t until the 70s that the missal used until the recent changes to the liturgy was put out by the Vatican. I’m sure you already know this but even Vatican II said that “Latin should have pride of place in the liturgy.” Actually, if the missal of 1965 was the missal that we use today, I don’t know if we would have the full-on Latin Mass today.
But as to the language, I will give you that language had some small part in the “daydreaming” of Catholics in the pews. However, it has by no means the main reason the Council met. The new missal that came out of the Vatican as a result of the Council still had much in Latin. It also had the Latin on one side and the English on the other. It wasn’t until the 70s that the missal used until the recent changes to the liturgy was put out by the Vatican. I’m sure you already know this but even Vatican II said that “Latin should have pride of place in the liturgy.” Actually, if the missal of 1965 was the missal that we use today, I don’t know if we would have the full-on Latin Mass today.
O
otjm
Guest
True. Fast forward, post Vatican 2, and the bishops are expecting a release of vernacular, and the Curia sits on it. That did not sit well with the bishops (as they had gone a number of rounds with the Curia on a number of issues - not just liturgy - during Vatican 2) and they raised hob. All of a sudden, the release notes were rescinded and the vernacular was released.
And we can all agree it needed some cleaning up, which came a good deal later.
And we can all agree it needed some cleaning up, which came a good deal later.
O
otjm
Guest
I was talking about Modernism in general too - that is why I went back to what Modernism was about. Without reference to you, the word gets bandied about with alacrity by those who generally know little or nothing about liturgical history, not a whole lot about theology (referencing at a minimum upper division theology classes) and gets applied to anyone who says something they don’t like.
You are welcome to stray out to the outer reaches and try to comb through the Council for any Modernist thought and theology. I have been trusting the Holy Spirit to guide the Church before Vatican 2 was even an imagination in Cardinal Roncalli’s mind, and I see no evidence that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church during or since them. As has been noted elsewhere, there was an element within the bishops which wanted no changes to be made, led by Cardinal Ottaviani, and that was soundly defeated through the preparation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Many wish to make no comments indicating “politics” in regards to the workings of the Church, but the phrase “log rolling” aptly comes to mind. Comments have been made in the past in these forums that the Council was hardly closed when changes started to be made; the comments show a lack of any history of the workings of the Council. Latin still is the language of the Roman rite and will likely continue to be the official language of documents when they are released, likely until the Second Coming. But the use of Latin in the OF is close to, if not a good definition of, de minimis and likely to remain the same.
You are welcome to stray out to the outer reaches and try to comb through the Council for any Modernist thought and theology. I have been trusting the Holy Spirit to guide the Church before Vatican 2 was even an imagination in Cardinal Roncalli’s mind, and I see no evidence that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church during or since them. As has been noted elsewhere, there was an element within the bishops which wanted no changes to be made, led by Cardinal Ottaviani, and that was soundly defeated through the preparation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Many wish to make no comments indicating “politics” in regards to the workings of the Church, but the phrase “log rolling” aptly comes to mind. Comments have been made in the past in these forums that the Council was hardly closed when changes started to be made; the comments show a lack of any history of the workings of the Council. Latin still is the language of the Roman rite and will likely continue to be the official language of documents when they are released, likely until the Second Coming. But the use of Latin in the OF is close to, if not a good definition of, de minimis and likely to remain the same.
E
Entwhistler
Guest
I agree that, as far as I can see, the OF won’t be changed in any substantive way in the near future. I can see the Kyrie, the Agnus Dei and maybe the Gloria sung in Latin but not much else (to be honest, the Kyrie and Agnus Dei are sung in many churches in Latin already). I have nothing against the OF per se. I have been to a few OF Masses which were beautiful and reverently done. It is possible and is probably what the Council Fathers envisioned. Unfortunately, we have less-than-stellar Masses being said in many, if not most churches IMHO. But, I will be the first to say that it is not the fault of the “rite”. I think it is the fault of the implementation of the rite. I have read Sacrosanctum Concilium and I can say that the current “form” of the OF is not as close to the original meaning as it could be.
All this to say that, even though Vatican II was divinely inspired, it was a little messy.
All this to say that, even though Vatican II was divinely inspired, it was a little messy.
- Status