SOS To PCED

[Freshman88]

It is a strange idea that a priest should read an english translation of the introit before mass so he’ll know what he’s saying when the latin comes around. It seems very novel to me.

I don’t think it can be considered novel at all. How many priests could actually speak Latin in the 1950s? I’m sure many of them had studied Latin, that they could read Latin, translate Latin and perhaps even understood much of it’s grammar. Yet how many could actually “speak” Latin? I believe that discipline was lost well before Vatican II.

Beyond that, I don’t understand why you would consider it strange to read the introit in English, understand it, and the proceed to read it in Latin. Afterall, the speaker would still know what he is saying by virtue of the translation he read earlier.

Another point that I think needs to be raised is the fact that the official language of the NO is Latin. As far as I know, we don’t have tests to decide whether or not the new mass should be said in Latin or not.

 

[Timothysis]

I don’t think it can be considered novel at all. How many priests could actually speak Latin in the 1950s? I’m sure many of them had studied Latin, that they could read Latin, translate Latin and perhaps even understood much of it’s grammar. Yet how many could actually “speak” Latin? I believe that discipline was lost well before Vatican II.

Beyond that, I don’t understand why you would consider it strange to read the introit in English, understand it, and the proceed to read it in Latin. Afterall, the speaker would still know what he is saying by virtue of the translation he read earlier.

Another point that I think needs to be raised is the fact that the official language of the NO is Latin. As far as I know, we don’t have tests to decide whether or not the new mass should be said in Latin or not.

I guess that I’ll direct you to Monsignor here at St. Agnes who says the indult Mass on Sundays. He said one time that, because he went to public school, he had to spend an extra year before graduating from seminary because he was behind in his latin studies. He is certainly most fluent in latin.

I also know that the Irish priests who were here before Monsignor certainly knew their latin.

I still think it very strange that people would be ok with a priest saying the latin Mass who was not conversant in latin. And since most of the mass is silent, how would anyone know if he were saying wrong???

 

[Timothysis]

The way you had it spelled, you wouldn’t be pronouncing it correctly.

Just to clear things up, I was going from rusty memory and was too lazy to look it up.

But it still brings up the point of how you can pronounce things correctly when you don’t even know what it is you’re saying.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Just to clear things up, I was going from rusty memory and was too lazy to look it up.

But it still brings up the point of how you can pronounce things correctly when you don’t even know what it is you’re saying.

Pronunciation is the easy part, and according to the real authority, that is all that is necessary to pray the TLM. No unfair tests or ‘bad faith’ from people who should be ‘good shepherds’.

I can ‘read’ several languages, pronouncing them correctly (Latin, German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Japanese if the roman alphabet is used etc.) according to my foreign friends, but that doesn’t mean I have the slightest clue as to what I am saying. Fortunately for the good priests (and unfortunately for these disobedient rebel bishops who are doing the Church and her faithful an injustice) the pronunciation is what matters. I think ‘Roma locuta est’, whatever that means…

 

[ethelzguy]

Pronunciation is the easy part, and according to the real authority, that is all that is necessary to pray the TLM. No unfair tests or ‘bad faith’ from people who should be ‘good shepherds’.

I can ‘read’ several languages, pronouncing them correctly (Latin, German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Japanese if the roman alphabet is used etc.) according to my foreign friends, but that doesn’t mean I have the slightest clue as to what I am saying. Fortunately for the good priests (and unfortunately for these disobedient rebel bishops who are doing the Church and her faithful an injustice) the pronunciation is what matters. I think ‘Roma locuta est’, whatever that means…

As long as you can read it, it doesn’t matter if you know what you’re saying? WOW

 

[Timothysis]

As long as you can read it, it doesn’t matter if you know what you’re saying? WOW

I’m glad to see that I"m not the only who finds this amazing. It reminds me of the saying…

“You cannot mean what you say if you cannot say what you mean.”

 

[SenorSalsa]

As long as you can read it, it doesn’t matter if you know what you’re saying? WOW

are you of the belief that a priest wouldnt know what he’s saying if starts reading “Pater Noster” or “Credo…” just becuase he may not be able to say this word in latin means that word in english, the prayers are by in large the same, so he would know what the different parts are roughly saying

 

[Freshman88]

I guess that I’ll direct you to Monsignor here at St. Agnes who says the indult Mass on Sundays. He said one time that, because he went to public school, he had to spend an extra year before graduating from seminary because he was behind in his latin studies. He is certainly most fluent in latin.

That’s a far cry from being able to speak and converse in Latin.

I also know that the Irish priests who were here before Monsignor certainly knew their latin.

Again, being able to read and write Latin is much different from speaking and being able to converse in Latin. I would assume that only a few thousand (perhaps hundread?) scholars can actually hold a conversation in Latin. I know my Latin professor couldn’t “speak” Latin, and he’s be studying Latin for several decades.

I still think it very strange that people would be ok with a priest saying the latin Mass who was not conversant in latin. And since most of the mass is silent, how would anyone know if he were saying wrong???

I’m okay with any priest who knows what he is saying. It does not take a great amount of studying to learn the mass in Latin. You wouldn’t even have to learn the grammar. A simple example would be laudo and laudamus from the verb “laudare” (to praise). Now if I were talking to my prof he would demand that I could identify the particular conjugation i.e. 1st person, sing, present, ind, act vs 1st person, pl, present, ind, act.

Knowing how to identify a verb makes sense for translating and reading in Latin, but for the purpose of reciting mass, it would be as simple as “I praise” “we praise”. Effectively they both mean the same thing. that is to say that the 1st person, sing, prsnt, ind, act of laudare is indeed “I praise”. But why is it necessary to know all that grammar, when the missal provides the translation for him?

Given enough study of just the text of the mass, one would be able understand everything they are saying. That’s all that’s necessary.

Even look to the youth of today. How many of us truly understand English grammar? I only began to understand grammar after studying Latin, yet the only language I can speak is English.

Some are almost making it sound like you need to have a minor in classics before you can say the mass.

Also I do not think that the priests of previous generations were studying Latin for just the mass. Pope John XXIII of the Second Vatican council points that out in Sapientia Veterum where he laments the loss of Latin among the clergy (and this is pre vat-II). The proficiency in Latin was required not just so one could easily say the mass, but for all the other texts that the Church/Civilization has in Latin.

 

[nannygirl]

Just to clear things up, I was going from rusty memory and was too lazy to look it up.

But it still brings up the point of how you can pronounce things correctly when you don’t even know what it is you’re saying.

What makes you think people don’t know what the priest is saying? When you use a Latin/English missal every day, you know exactly what they are saying.

 

[Timothysis]

What makes you think people don’t know what the priest is saying? When you use a Latin/English missal every day, you know exactly what they are saying.

Not when you can’t hear a word of it.

 

[Timothysis]

How many of us truly understand English grammar? I only began to understand grammar after studying Latin, yet the only language I can speak is English.

Odd that we can post comments on this forum without knowing English grammar.:whacky:

 

[nannygirl]

Not when you can’t hear a word of it.

That’s just it. You don’t need to hear it. All one has to do is look at the priest to know exactly where they are in the Mass. There are particular body movements (bowing, kneeling, etc.), the incense, the bells and the recited parts of it that tell you where you are. It’s very easy to follow. After awhile you learn what the Latin means. I enjoy learning a new language. It’s an added bonus.

 

[Timothysis]

That’s just it. You don’t need to hear it. All one has to do is look at the priest to know exactly where they are in the Mass. There are particular body movements (bowing, kneeling, etc.), the incense, the bells and the recited parts of it that tell you where you are. It’s very easy to follow. After awhile you learn what the Latin means. I enjoy learning a new language. It’s an added bonus.

How do you even know he is pronouncing things correctly?!?!?! The whole argument here is that it isn’t necessary for a priest to be fluent in latin to say the latin mass, just that he “knows how to pronounce the words.” If he’s not pronouncing the words correctly, then he isn’t “saying” mass correctly, and if you can’t hear him, how in the world are you ever going to know?!?!?!?!?

This is insanity!!!:whacky:

 

[CassiusLonginus]

This is insanity!!!

Agreed…

This is getting way off topic. This is ridiculous! Latin is simple to pronounce. It takes about 10 minutes, it’s really simple, it’s no big deal etc.

The point is that these disobedient (dare I use the ‘s’ word, since they are trying to exert their own authority over the Pope’s?) bishops are simply a product of post-concilliar times and have a particular dislike or apathy for the TLM, and are making it as hard as possible for priests who have the faculties and ability to pray this Mass to do so. This is all to the detriment of souls who feel they would be better off in attending the TLM instead of the NO.

And people accuse Lefebvre of pride and disobedience!?!?!

 

[I_Believe]

Agreed…

This is getting way off topic. This is ridiculous! Latin is simple to pronounce. It takes about 10 minutes, it’s really simple, it’s no big deal etc.

**The point is that these disobedient (dare I use the ‘s’ word, since they are trying to exert their own authority over the Pope’s?) bishops are simply a product of post-concilliar times and have a particular dislike or apathy for the TLM, and are making it as hard as possible for priests who have the faculties and ability to pray this Mass to do so. This is all to the detriment of souls who feel they would be better off in attending the TLM instead of the NO.

And people accuse Lefebvre of pride and disobedience!?!?! **

They will never answer when I bring it up. And I have many times. Perhaps they will reply to your mention of this obvious concern.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

I_believe,

I am confident that somebody will have an intelligent response that addresses the sincerely and frequently asked question of why rebellious bishops aren’t instantly labeled schismatics (also having automatically incurred the penalty of excommunication) when in their pride and disobedience they defy the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio and/or any number of other statements/writings.

After all, everybody knows, even if they are unwilling to publically admit, that certain dispicable rogue bishops purposefully establish practices in their dioceses that are expressly against the will of both the previous pope and the current one, thus setting up parallel, schismatic churches that are solely under the authority of each bishop, and not that of the supreme pontiff.

Or maybe he just doesn’t have time to write that many “Ecclesia Dei”-style condemnations for all the bishops who may deserve them.

 

[ethelzguy]

And people accuse Lefebvre of pride and disobedience!?!?!

Not rushing out to put TLMs in every parish immediately is a far cry from a single individual defying a direct individual order from the Holy Father.

puh-leeeze…

 

[cothrige]

Not rushing out to put TLMs in every parish immediately is a far cry from a single individual defying a direct individual order from the Holy Father.

puh-leeeze…

I guess it is much easier to post when you don’t bother to read the thread, or feel obliged to discuss the same topic.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Not rushing out to put TLMs in every parish immediately is a far cry from a single individual defying a direct individual order from the Holy Father.

puh-leeeze…

ethelzguy,

It’s not a matter of “not rushing out” to provide it that makes a problem. The problem begins when one attempts to exert power over that of the pope. Purposefully blocking the TLM in the way described in this thread (latin grammar/vocab tests, when all that is required is pronunciation) is a petty, disobedient move.

Question: In blocking the free use of the TLM in this manner, would you consider this ‘disobedience’ of a local ordinary to the supreme pontiff when he has already clearly spelled out the requirements?

I would.

 

[universalindult]

The problem begins when one attempts to exert power over that of the pope. Purposefully blocking the TLM in the way described in this thread (latin grammar/vocab tests, when all that is required is pronunciation) is a petty, disobedient move.

Question: In blocking the free use of the TLM in this manner, would you consider this ‘disobedience’ of a local ordinary to the supreme pontiff when he has already clearly spelled out the requirements?

I would.

A related question: Do priests owe “obedience” to a bishop in this regard, when the bishop is so pernicious in his disobedience to the Pope?

As someone posted on the original thread,

…in law, every priest, once ordained, has a fundamental right to celebrate in Latin, whether using the 1962 Missal or the 1970 Missal. This is enshrined in Canon 928 and also in the universal ecclesiastical law, for Latin is the proper liturgical language, the lingua sacra, of the Latin individual Church. A Latin bishop can no more forbid a priest from celebrating in Latin than can a Coptic bishop forbid one of his priests from using Coptic instead of Arabic.

If priests have inadequate training in Latin, the fault lies with their bishops and their seminaries. Rome has made that abundantly clear.

Most priests before the Council did not have a great facility in Latin. Recent decisions from the P.C.E.D. suggest that they need only know (a) how to pronounce the words and (b) what is the general meaning of each prayer in the Ordinary (which they can memorise). As long as they know enough to form the requisite intent for each prayer, and can deliver the words well enough, that is adequate.