J
JReducation
Guest
Franciscans celebrate the OF in Latin, but we don’t chant. We use hymns. Francis of Assisi did not allow chant. You should be able to find a Franciscan mass in Latin using the OF.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree with you. There should be more of them. They shouldn’t have to go through all the costs of dumbing it down to one’s vernacular and and retranslations if all people are going to do is to criticize the translations.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree with you. There should be more of the Latin OF. Not everyone needs a dumbed-down version in their vernacular. The Latin Rite means Latin liturgy.
W
white_sheep
Guest
Yes, definitely. I was trying to make a point about this specific situation, not a generalized one. There are other factors for other situations to be considered.Be very careful. That’s not the official teaching in Evangelium Vitae. The teaching is that one may not support a pro-abortion politician, if there is a choice between one who is and one who is not.
The other part of this is that when you have two pro-abortion politicians, you must support that one who shows the greater restraint.
There is no teaching that says that voting for a pro-abortion politician is a sin. If that were the case and you only had two pro-abortion politicians to choose from, you would be sinning no matter which way you vote.
To vote for someone, one must choose the greater good. To choose the lesser good is sinful. The Church can tell us how to vote, but not whom to vote for. That is illegal The Church is bound to comply with legitimate law and disregard ilegitimate law.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
However, whether or not it is sinful to support a pro-abortion politician when a pro-life politician is available is plainly obvious. It’s not like having a preference for green m&ms over red m&ms.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m going to disagree on the dumbed-down version.
Latin liturgy simply means the liturgy of the Latin Church. It’s not the language. When we say the Chaldean liturgy, it’s the liturgy of the Chaldean Church. The Maronite liturgy for example is celebrated in Lebonese and in the vernacular. Some of the other Eastern rites are too. The Byzantine Rite, which is used by many Churches, because it’s the dominant Eastern rite, is celebrated in many languages. The name does not reflect the language in which the rite is celebrated.
In the Latin Church we have several rites: The dominant rite is the Latin Rite. We also have the Mozarabic rite from Spain, the Ambrosian rite from Milan, Italy, named after St. Ambrose, the Bragan rite from Portugal, and the order liturgies of the Dominican, Carmelite, and Carthusian orders. These rites are rites of the Latin Church, but they do not have to use the Latin language nor are they the Latin Rite promulgated at Trent. They predate the Latin Rite.
Then there are forms of the dominant Latin Rite. We now have the OF and EF. However, we have always had certain forms that were particular to certain religious families: Augustinian, Franciscan, Trinitarian, Jesuit, Salesian and Passionists. These use the standard Latin Rite, but they have some customs that are particular to these communities. They have their own liturgical calendar, which implies their own readins, propers and editions of the Eucharistic Prayer or Canon. For example, the Roman-Franciscan missal, in the old Canon, has a different list of saints from the one that you find in the Roman Missal. The Roman-Franciscan missal cut out many of the saints found in the Roman Canon in order to add Franciscan saints. Otherwise, it would be too long. The same happens with the calendar. You have to edit it or you don’t have enough days in the year. So you replace certain feasts of the Roman Church with feasts of your order. These are not properly rites. They are forms of the Latin Rite. This means that the form can be celebrated by any priest.
If you watch EWTN, when Fr. Wade and Fr. Mitch celebrate mass, they use the Franciscan form. Neither are Franciscan. But the place of worship is Franciscan. Every priest who celebrates there, must use our form, our missal, our readings and our prayers and proper, either in the vernacular or Latin. They are exactly the same. These are not going to be changed with the new missal. The changes will be to those elements in common with the whole Latin Church, not to elements that are common to the particular religious order… Those cannot be touched except by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, not by the bishops.
When we celebrate the EF, it’s the same thing. We do not use the old calendar. We follow the Seraphic Ordo. When there is a Franciscan memorial, feast or solemnity, the day that is in the traditional calender is suppressed and replaced by the Franciscan day. Sometimes it’s hard to do, because there is no equivalent in the 1962 missal.
As you can see, it goes way beyond the use of the Latin language. It’s quite complicated if you’re a priest or religious. You have to know the liturgy well or you’ll end up celebrating the worng mass or the wrong Divine Office or reading the wrong Gospel and preaching the wrong homily.
Then, as you move across the different rites within the Latin Church, that’s a whole other set of rules and rubrics that you have to know.
The language is the least of our worries. You can learn the language. If you follow the books, you’re saying the same thing in all the languages. It’s being on the right page that’s the greatest of our worries. Well . . . ok it’s not a worry. It’s just something that you have to stay on top of.
With the new missal coming out, that may require three hands and 15 fingers, since the missals of the religious orders that have their own may or may not be printed with the changes. I guess that’s a little harder for the publishers, because they need the religious to tell them what they can change and what they need to keep. We’re hoping that they will be done by this Advent. Let’s see.
The last time we had a change, it took us two-years to get the right books. I think the Breviary took four-years. For four years we were using Christian Prayer, until we finally got our own Breviary with the revised Roman parts.
Now we have an added challenge for those who celebrate the EF. The calendars of the particular religious orders that have their own, have new saints on them that must be observed. But these are not in the old EF calendar, because the old EF calendar has not been revised in more than 40-years. Saints like Pio, Maximilian Kolbe, Bl. Mother Teresa and Bl. John XXIII, which are in our current calendar are not in the old calendar. There are other religious saints and blesseds, but I can’t remember all their names.
We’ll see what happens. It’s going to be a while before we feel comfortable with it. But it will happen, if we’re patient.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
Timothy17
Guest
The Latins ceased to exist as a people a long, long time ago ; furthermore, I have never read or heard anyone refer to the Church as the Latin Church, except on these forums, mostly by yourself. This shift in emphasis for the purpose of… what exaclty is the purpose ? It’s strange, but I digress to my ignorance of such things of the learn’d.
Catholicity implies the Apostolic rule of same today, yesterday and everywhere. It implies unity in spite of diversity, especially unity in doctrine. The doctrinal unity has the powerful effect of producing and maintaing unity in liturgy. As we know, liturgy was broadly united across Christendom for a thousand years without enforcement. It had an organic character to it. It varied, but not in essense. It was always in Latin, and the few times novelties of excessive vernacular, changing prayers from silent to audible, etc., happened, this was met with resistance and quashed by local Bishops or Synods. The reason was the effects such tinkering had on the laity : restlessness, anx, uneasiness and other disturbances.
The Protestant Reformation made a point of attacking and perverting the liturgy. The Protestants correctly realized the truth of lex orandi ; lex credendi, and determined to suppress prayers and change them to suit their fancy. Within a short time altar-smashing and iconoclasm resulted. (As an aside, Exorcists say one sign of demonic influence, obession or possession is a irrational hatred for holy images and statues, and consequently an aversion of them.) As a consequence of this mischief, it then became necessary to protect the liturgy, and codify it to defend it from abuse or perversion, and tinkering with the liturgy, especially its prayers, became a definite sign or indicator of change in belief, implicit or explicit.
The greatest tradgedy for we English Catholics was perhaps the destruction and subsequent loss of the Sarum Rite (or Sarum Use) during the Protestant Reformation of England. It was patently beautiful, pious and most clearly expressed in its prayers the deepest of Catholic truths and beliefs. No wonder the devil designed to destroy it through the likes of such murderous perverts as Cromwell and Cranmer.
*Excerpt from the Sarum Use :
Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation, which I, an unworthy sinner, offer in honour of thee, of the blessed Virgin and all the saints, for my sins and offences, and for the salvation of the living, and the rest of all the faithful dead. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Let this new sacrifice be acceptable to the omnipotent God.
Nicene Creed
Offertory & Prayers
…
We humbly beseech thee, O Almighty God, to command these things to be borne by the hands of thy holy angel to the altar above in the presence of thy Divine Majesty, that as many of us (here rising, let him kiss the altar on the right of the sacrifice, saying) as shall receive from this participation of the altar the holy body and blood of thy Son, (Here let him sign himself on the face, saying) may be filled with grace and heavenly benediction. Through the same our Lord Christ. Amen.
*Nicene Creed
Offertory & Prayers
Code:
[After numerous crossings and incensings, the service proceeds.]
These things finished, let the priest go to the right side of the altar, and wash his hands, saying:
Cleanse me, O Lord, from all iniquity of my body and soul, that clean I may be able to fulfil the holy work of the Lord.
Then let him return, and standing before the altar with inclined head and body, with joined hands, let him say:
Let us be accepted, O Lord, in the spirit of humility, and in a contrite mind, and so let our sacrifice be in thy sight that it may be received by thee this day, and may please thee, O Lord, my God.
And raising himself let him hiss the altar on the right of the sacrifice, and giving a benediction on the other side of the sacrifice; afterwards let him sign himself, saying: In the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. Then let the priest turn to the people, and with a loud voice say:
Pray, brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and likewise yours may be acceptable to our Lord God.
The response of the clergy privately: May the grace of the Holy Spirit illuminate thy heart and thy lips, and the Lord accept worthily this sacrifice of praise from thy hands for our sins and offences.We humbly beseech thee, O Almighty God, to command these things to be borne by the hands of thy holy angel to the altar above in the presence of thy Divine Majesty, that as many of us (here rising, let him kiss the altar on the right of the sacrifice, saying) as shall receive from this participation of the altar the holy body and blood of thy Son, (Here let him sign himself on the face, saying) may be filled with grace and heavenly benediction. Through the same our Lord Christ. Amen.
The vanity of vernacular is the reality and laws of the vernacular itself. Everyone assumes that local vernacular means my tongue, and this not being an honest reflection, it therefore does not mean what people think it means. As demographics shift and change and the vernacular itself changes then the liturgy must, consequently, follow suite. You see a constant chasing of the people. Guests, newcomers and immigrants are by default excluded from the liturgical life of the local community, and forced to seek out their own and be seperate. There are some underlying dangerous assumptions in the vernacular rule, assumptions that will become utterly hypocritical the moment the law of vernacular no longer serves the individual’s fancies.
The Latins, afterall, no longer exist.
Pax Christi,
Tim
T
Timothy17
Guest
Please note that this most unfortunate typo is of the Anglican website’s original, found here, though considering the historical context I am using it in, this little typo (it should read, “kiss,” of course) is not a little ironic.
Pax Christi,
Tim
J
JReducation
Guest
Do you know that there are 23 sui iuris Churches that make up the Catholic Church?
Do you understand that the Latin Church often called the Roman Catholic Church is one of 23?
The Roman Catholic Church or Latin Church is the largest of the 23.
The Roman Church enjoys the Primacy, meaning that the Pontiff must always be the Bishop of Rome. Even if you elect a Chaldean as pope, he becomes the Bishop of Rome, because Rome is the see of Peter.
Within those 23 Catholic Churches, which are all united under one Pontiff, there are many rites.
In the Latin Church or Roman Catholic Church we have the Latin Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Dominican Rite, Carthusian Rite, Carmelite Rite, and the Bragan Rite.
There are also the eastern rites that are used by the 22 Oriental Catholic Churches. Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean. The Byzantine is the most commonly used.
There is a difference between sui iuris Catholic Churches, of which the Latin Church or the Church of Rome is the largest and where the See of Peter is and rites. Rites are the way that the sacraments are celebrated. Churches are the poeple of God gathered under one Apostolic head, usually called a Patriarch. In the Latin Church, the pope has always been its Patriarch. Pope Benedict has dropped that title from his many titles. But I’m not sure why.
If you look carefully a the CCC, you will find references to the Latin Church, which we usually call the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches, which we incorrectly call the Byzantine Rite. All of them, excepting the Orthdox, are in full communion with each other and the pope is the head, but they retain their own identity, culture. liturgy, customs, languages, music, art, vestments and even canon laws.
Check out these two linksl
Count how many times the term Latin Church appears here.
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=Latin+Church&s=SS
Check out this one and count how often the term Eastern Church appears and read the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic. The Eastern Catholics are Churches, in full communion withe the Pontiff.
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=Eastern+Church&s=SS
Now look at the relatonship between the Eastern and the Latin Churches.
These passages are speaking about Confirmation in the Eastern and Latin Churches. Like this, there are many differences in liturgical hisotry and sacramental practices, but they are the same mass and the same sacraments.
**1291 A custom of the Roman Church facilitated the development of the Western practice: a double anointing with sacred chrism after Baptism. The first anointing of the neophyte on coming out of the baptismal bath was performed by the priest; it was completed by a second anointing on the forehead of the newly baptized by the bishop.102 The first anointing with sacred chrism, by the priest, has remained attached to the baptismal rite; it signifies the participation of the one baptized in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices of Christ. If Baptism is conferred on an adult, there is only one post-baptismal anointing, that of Confirmation.
1292 The practice of the Eastern Churches gives greater emphasis to the unity of Christian initiation. That of the Latin Church more clearly expresses the communion of the new Christian with the bishop as guarantor and servant of the unity, catholicity and apostolicity of his Church, and hence the connection with the apostolic origins of Christ’s Church. **
As you can see, I did not fabricate the term Latin Church. It has always existed since the first century. It is the Church of the former Roman Empire (now Western Europe). That’s how it got its name, the Latin Church or the Roman Church.
No, there was never a single liturgy or liturgical form or liturgical rite. There have always been many.
In the Latin Church the Latin Rite is the dominant rite, but not the only one as I pointed out above. I hope this helps clear up any confusion and I’m sorry if I confused you.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
Timothy17
Guest
Yes, I read that in the Catechism, that these other rites or Churches are in communion with Rome, though distinct from her in their ritual or ceremony, which are, nonetheless, authentic expressions of the Deposit of Faith, as determined by Rome.
I understand the Roman Catholic Church is the determinate and supreme Church, the “Mother of all Churches,” who alone determines their catholicity. The Church of Rome is the one with which all others must agree, and that this Church is now being called the Latin Church, whereas Latin is not even the important or relevant characteristic today, and even when it was, it was scarce heard to be called the Latin Church, esp. by Catholic Christians. The proper name today, “Roman Catholic Church,” in my opinion, emphasizes its primacy of place, and I think it is scandalous to even imply that it is “but one of many” or that it shares anything like an equality of status with the others. That cannot be so, as it is all others that must be in agreement with her.
Again, Latin is the language of the long-gone Latins, a people that - orginally - surrounded the area of Roma and were not necessarily Roman, much like English is no longer entirely synonymous with England. It would be misleading to call all Churches in the English-speaking world, “English Churches,” for various reasons, not least the offense to the important determinate, their catholicity.
Enormously larger. I heard the Roman Catholic Church constitutes something like 97% of all the faithful, the other 22 making up the remainder ; furthermore, Latin is hardly an assurance for recognizing this Church. You may well walk by 22 local Roman Catholic Churches and miss it altogether if your are looking for anything peculiarly “Latin” about this Church.
I did not say you did, and my apologies if that was even implied. What I said is that you over-exagerate it and use it quite possibly to the detriment of the normative and proper name of Roman Catholic or Roman Catholic Church.
I would argue with that. The Roman Church, especially historically and even in antiquity, would have specifically meant the Church of Rome, i.e., the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome, headed by St. Peter himself, then by his Successor(s), the Bishop of Rome, with its Rite being in Latin (with some Greek). Deviations from this understanding would be evident of not a little erroneous understanding of the nature of the Catholic Church.
This statement exagerates the differences in the Rites. Even the ancient and disused Sarum Rite, which was noted for its uniqueness, and unfortunately destroyed by the Protestant Reformation was, nonetheless, largely similar to the Tridentine Rite formulated following the Council of Trent. I believe you are over-emphasizing beyond reason the differences at the expense of the more obvious unity. I believe a quick comparison of the Mass as sacrilegiously edited by the heretic Luther, and its resultant product, compared to the same perverse work carried out by Cranmer and his rotten ilk, Luther’s contemporary and co-religionist (loosely defined) might be revealing. The former was busy editing the Mass as known to the German peoples ; the latter, the English peoples. It would follow from your assertion that we should find more difference and diversity than unity in the originals. It would follow they had to select one of a great divers many of potential rites amongst the people, declare that one normative for all, and then proceed to edit it and draft their revision. I doubt you will find this.
Furthermore, for your statement to be an accurate reflection of reality, than the normative Canons of the Council of Trent that were interpreted and enacted by order of Pope St. Pius V’s Bull, Quo Primum, would have resulted in drastic changes in ceremonial and prayers across large and divers areas. It would follow that there would be reports and talk of this transformation of so many divers and unique Rites suddenly being brought into conformity and harmony with the one codified and ordered by H.H Pope St. Pius V. I have never read any such report or anything like that happening following the Bull, because, I assert, the various divers rites were only ornamentally different rites extant in the Catholic world at that time and were still, nonetheless, already overwhelmingly similar. Now you might talk about the rites in use by monks or friars or other particular religious groupings and organizations, but that is outside the context of the Holy Mass as being discussed in my post ; that is, the one the common laity were frequently exposed to and knew. Nor would a few almost fetish rites isolated to very small communities across Christendom be a fair example, as such would not be the norm but the obvious exception.
Pax Christi,
Tim
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I’d call that coincidence rather than direct effect. Those who choose to learn another language, especialle one that is not in common usage anymore, is always the brainy type. More people would learn a new language out of necessity, such as a job requirement or romance (dating someone who speaks that other language). You don’t become a call center agent catering to Latin speaking people or date someone who natively speaks Latin.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Mind you that while you will get many people on this forum to agree with more Latin, a greater majority of practicing Catholics would prefer to have the entire Liturgy in the vernacular. It is also the will of the Church to bring the Liturgy to the people in their own native tongue as evidenced by the recognitio of dozens, maybe hundreds, of vernacular. And I do put forward the recognitio to state that this is with the approval and blessing of the Church and not something people did as an abuse.
Also, Latin will not safeguard from abuses. I say have stricter rubrics.
C
ChadS
Guest
I’d suggest it’s more than a coincidence. Yes people that study Latin in high school are more likely brainy, however modern English probably owes a lot more to the Norman French with its Latin roots and cognates than to the languages spoken by the Angles, Saxons or Jutes.
I suspect that if William the Conqueror hadn’t been successful at Hastings in 1066 our language would be a whole lot different now. Many of the words we speak and read everyday wouldn’t have become part of our vocabulary. So, I think learning Latin can help a student figure out those roots and maybe help decipher an obscure English word with a confusing defintion by knowing it’s antecedent in Latin.
ChadS
T
Timothy17
Guest
I took Latin in high school owing to my love for history, and specifically of the Roman Empire. I went for the secondary context of the life and culture of the Romans, and the Latin speaking world. To my surprise, I began to enjoy this class because it opened up for me my own language, English, owing to so many words borrowed and roots taken from that language, now used in English. So I have trouble believing that even a rudimentary understanding of Latin wouldn’t consequently improve SAT scores. For entirely secular reasons (I was not Catholic, and this was public school) I promoted Latin and its study. It makes perfect sense to me that Latin would improve test scores in a broad variety of subjects.
Pax Christi,
Tim
T
Timothy17
Guest
Why do you think that is ?
Is that the appropriate credential for determining the use, however ? What I mean to ask is, what is the correct determination for what language should be used in the Mass. Your assumption here is preference of the laity.
That is by far the strongest argument in favour of the vernacular use : that the Church promotes it.
But neither does the vernacular make any such guarantee.
Pax Christi,
Tim
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Despite your disparagement of the term “Latin Catholic” or “Latin Church,” it would be useful to consider the usage of the Vatican, such as in the Code of Canon Law:
or the later Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches
While I’m not an expert, it is also my understanding that the phrase “Roman Catholic” is essentially a feature of English usage, as Catholics were perjoratively labeled “Roman” during the English Reformation, and that in other countries the preferred term is simply “Catholic.”
I would agree with you that it is more proper to speak of the Roman mass or liturgy than the Latin, to distinguish it from the other liturgies also found in the Latin church like the Mozarabic. Indeed, we see this in the title “Roman Missal.”
W
Warrenton
Guest
We need to be careful when considering the use of Latin/vernacular.
On the one hand, one could argue that the use of vernacular in the east impeded the dispersion of the faith, confining it to the ethnic groups who spoke the language. One could also argue it contributed to the fracturing of unity between the eastern churches.
On the other hand, one could point to Islam, which has insisted on a single language even more rigourously than the Roman Catholic Church ever did, and does so to this very day. Given its appeal to hundreds of millions of people, many of whom have little schooling, it is difficult to maintain that a sufficient amount of a foreign language cannot be imparted to the faithful to enable them to follow their services.
You need not argue the benefits of the vernacular, because I am not opposing them. I bring up the criticisms only to show that there are two sides to the coin, so to speak.
Far more beneficial, to my thinking, to discuss what we want to achieve, namely continuity, orthodoxy, and tradition, not to mention beauty and the appropriateness of high art to public worship, all of which Latin best serves.
We also want to make worship comprehensible, or “user friendly” as they say these days.
The obvious solution is the solution that is taking place at present, namely, that two rites are being celebrated throughout the Latin world. There is nothing at all wrong with that modus operandi, except that the Tridentine concept of uniformity must be suspended.
Ironic that of Trent, Vatican II chose to attempt to enforce most strongly that concept!
C
catharina
Guest
I took some years of Latin in HS too. In those days, all
students in Catholic HSs were required to take two yrs of Latin.
However, I learned to enjoy Latin and certainly recognize
its worth in ease of recognition for the Western languages.
Still it’s been obvious for decades that the Church is growing
in NON-Western countries. Should all Asians and Africans
need to learn the Latin language to be fully Catholic?
The Church says “no” and I agree with the Church.
W
Warrenton
Guest
It might be a matter of orthography, rather than a misprint. In Latin, h can be pronounced like a hard k (eg, “nihil” (nothing) is said nicheel, and the “k” sound is something like Loch in Scottish. At least that’s how I was taught.
W
Warrenton
Guest
The Church grew spectacularly in Africa and the Americas when all the sacraments were dispensed in Latin. Within 2 generations, Mexico had not only scholae that would blow away most choirs now, they had composers in the high polyphonic style.
We’re not talking “taste and see” here. They mastered the good stuff.
Within two lifetimes of eating each other.
Plus, Islam is growing apace, and everyone has to learn some Arabic to read the Koran. They don’t even get the divided missal.
If it is presented properly, as it was for centuries, people will want to learn Latin. Latin belongs to the culture of the convert in Asia and Africa just as much as it is ours.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I’m just speaking for most people who prefer to go to Mass in a language they natively understand. I can claim that the Church agrees with me because the Church allows for the vernacular. I don’t know why other people will claim otherwise when the Church is making efforts to keep the vernacular and even improve on it.
That is of course the answer to that question on what is the Church’s stand on the matter. If the Church is against the vernacular, they would have graudally phased out the older Missal instead of updating it. They could have just identified those badly translated and replaced it with Latin while everything else is in English. But that is not what the Church did.
That wasn’t my point. A lot of people claim the OF and the vernacular is prone to abuse. Well, the Latin isn’t bulletproof either. A swtich to Latin-only doesn’t guarantee abuse-proof Masses.
- Status