SSPX talks draw near an end. It does not look good

[Warrenton]

What has that to do with the needs of African and Asian peoples today?
We were speaking of patterns of language - not of diet.

You asked if Africans and Asians need to learn Latin.

I said “Yes, Africans and Asians need to learn Latin.”

It is the language of the Church. The best services are all in Latin. Other, far more different people have learned Latin in the past.

The most complete expressions of Catholic faith are in Latin. Plus, once they become Catholic, the entire corpus of Catholic culture is their culture, too.

There is no reason that Africans and Asians cannot learn Latin, other than an unwillingness of Westerners to teach them. But that is a poor excuse.

I don’t want to drift too much farther afield, so last word goes to you.

Cheers!

 

[catharina]

You asked if Africans and Asians need to learn Latin.

I said “Yes, Africans and Asians need to learn Latin.”

It is the language of the Church. The best services are all in Latin. Other, far more different people have learned Latin in the past.

The most complete expressions of Catholic faith are in Latin. Plus, once they become Catholic, the entire corpus of Catholic culture is their culture, too.

There is no reason that Africans and Asians cannot learn Latin, other than an unwillingness of Westerners to teach them. But that is a poor excuse.

I don’t want to drift too much farther afield, so last word goes to you.

Cheers!

It’s remarkable that you feel so free to misquote people.
From Post # 56, I asked:

**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. **

Yet you say that I asked if such a need exists.
No. I didn’t. To be FULLY Catholic? No such need exists.

 

[pnewton]

Yet you say that I asked if such a need exists.
No. I didn’t. To be FULLY Catholic? No such need exists.

I think we may be get perilously close to saying that one person is a better Catholic, or more of a Catholic, because they speak Latin. That would be a slippery position.

 

[catharina]

I think we may be get perilously close to saying that one person is a better Catholic, or more of a Catholic, because they speak Latin. That would be a slippery position.

It seems that some folks imagine that to be the case already!

 

[Warrenton]

I think we may be get perilously close to saying that one person is a better Catholic, or more of a Catholic, because they speak Latin. That would be a slippery position.

That position would also be ridiculous. The Borgia popes spoke perfect Latin, and were felt to be bad Catholics. Piers the Plowman spoke a little Latin, and was the Catholic Everyman.

The question is should Catholics learn Latin. The answer is yes, for the same reason they should read the Bible, pray the rosary or any other of a number of things: because it is helpful for their understanding of the faith, and because it enables them to participate and understand the faith more fully.

This is related to the nature of the discussions between SSPX and Rome. From what one can see, this aspect of the discussions is not the primary sticking point, because Rome does not totally disagree with the SSPX’s contention.

 

[Warrenton]

It seems that some folks imagine that to be the case already!

Are you talking about better Catholics, or Catholics "in full?’’ If the latter, since you perceive such a gulf of meaning between “ought to,” “should” and “need to,” perhaps it would be helpful if you clarified the sense in which you use “full Catholic” or “fully Catholic.”

SSPX takes the position that certain developments arising out of Vatican II led to “less fully Catholic” Catholics. Most famously, SSPX has critisized the suppression of the offertory prayers and the traditional canon, which made the propitiatory nature of the mass explicit. From what has been reported, as well as recent developments from Summum Pontificorum to the new translations of the mass, SSPX has found at least a partly receptive ear.

Is a Catholic who believes the mass to be a propitiation and a sacrifice “more fully Catholic” than one who believes it is a commemoration and an adhesion to the liturgy of the Word? It’s hard to say in general, and I would not have posed the question that way because there is no right answer: If I say “yes,” then someone could object that the non-believing Catholic sins less; if I say “no” that has the effect of removing the aspect of belief from the term “fully Catholic,” which if it means anything, surely must signify the Catholicity of the person’s convictions?

I think Rome takes the position that full Catholicism entails holding to Catholic beliefs more or less in toto, at least implicitly. That is why the talks with SSPX will likely continue.

 

[pnewton]

The question is should Catholics learn Latin. The answer is yes, for the same reason they should read the Bible, pray the rosary or any other of a number of things: because it is helpful for their understanding of the faith, and because it enables them to participate and understand the faith more fully.

I totally agree that it is helpful, as is also a basic understanding of Greek and Hebrew.

 

[catharina]

Are you talking about better Catholics, or Catholics "in full?’’ If the latter, since you perceive such a gulf of meaning between “ought to,” “should” and “need to,” perhaps it would be helpful if you clarified the sense in which you use “full Catholic” or “fully Catholic.”

SSPX takes the position that certain developments arising out of Vatican II led to “less fully Catholic” Catholics. Most famously, SSPX has critisized the suppression of the offertory prayers and the traditional canon, which made the propitiatory nature of the mass explicit. From what has been reported, as well as recent developments from Summum Pontificorum to the new translations of the mass, SSPX has found at least a partly receptive ear.

Is a Catholic who believes the mass to be a propitiation and a sacrifice “more fully Catholic” than one who believes it is a commemoration and an adhesion to the liturgy of the Word? It’s hard to say in general, and I would not have posed the question that way because there is no right answer: If I say “yes,” then someone could object that the non-believing Catholic sins less; if I say “no” that has the effect of removing the aspect of belief from the term “fully Catholic,” which if it means anything, surely must signify the Catholicity of the person’s convictions?

I think Rome takes the position that full Catholicism entails holding to Catholic beliefs more or less in toto, at least implicitly. That is why the talks with SSPX will likely continue.

Do you deliberately use the wrong posts in your quotes?
Or is it just a bad habit?

I am always with Rome.
sspx misunderstandings are beyond my level of care.
Can’t wait 'til sspx chooses humble obedience.
That sentiment defines my care and concern re sspx.

Jesus told us to LEARN one thing from Him:

(Matt 11:28-29)
28 “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, 16 and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.”

Figured THIS thread would have a word from Rome!
Nope. More of the same from sspx.

 

[catharina]

I totally agree that it is helpful, as is also a basic understanding of Greek and Hebrew.

My father was fluent in both Latin and Greek.
He favored our upbringing with a push toward languages.
It proved very helpful to me and my seven sibs - esp our Latin.

 

[pnewton]

My father was fluent in both Latin and Greek.
He favored our upbringing with a push toward languages.
It proved very helpful to me and my seven sibs - esp our Latin.

I know little Hebrew, but quite a bit of Greek. I also only know a few words from Mass in Latin. I guess if we were to think of life-time in economic terms, we all only have so much to spend. Obviously the more time we spend on Christ, the greater our sanctity, whether the time be spent in academic pursuits like language, works of service, or time in Holy Scripture. Not all people are the same and some are more edified by one area and another receives greater benefit in another. Personally, I would think time in Scripture and time in Adoration is a better use than language studies. Likewise, I think time of service to others is time well spent.

I think thus it is important to move beyond the relatively narrow question of whether Latin it edified to the more practical question of whether the Church should put all the faithful in the same mold. When it comes the the Sacraments, this is understandable. There are also some well-known devotions that build us up, like the Rosary and Adoration, that are universal. At this time, the study of Latin is not in the universal category. I see the wisdom of this, but more to the point, I accept that the Holy Spirit is at work guiding the Church and it is really not for me to question.

 

[catharina]

I know little Hebrew, but quite a bit of Greek. I also only know a few words from Mass in Latin. I guess if we were to think of life-time in economic terms, we all only have so much to spend. Obviously the more time we spend on Christ, the greater our sanctity, whether the time be spent in academic pursuits like language, works of service, or time in Holy Scripture. Not all people are the same and some are more edified by one area and another receives greater benefit in another. Personally, I would think time in Scripture and time in Adoration is a better use than language studies. Likewise, I think time of service to others is time well spent.

I think thus it is important to move beyond the relatively narrow question of whether Latin it edified to the more practical question of whether the Church should put all the faithful in the same mold. When it comes the the Sacraments, this is understandable. There are also some well-known devotions that build us up, like the Rosary and Adoration, that are universal. At this time, the study of Latin is not in the universal category. I see the wisdom of this, but more to the point, I accept that the Holy Spirit is at work guiding the Church and it is really not for me to question.

Absolutely beautiful - and I thank you.

For the record, I loved the use of Latin.
I love praying in Latin and singing in Latin,
both Gregorian Chant and polyphany.

However, I love the Church far more than I love Latin.

Also, for the record, as each of my parents lay dying,
I quietly sang “Panis Angelicus” in their presence.
It soothed them and it soothed me.

 

[Warrenton]

Do you deliberately use the wrong posts in your quotes?
Or is it just a bad habit?

 

[Warrenton]

I totally agree that it is helpful, as is also a basic understanding of Greek and Hebrew.

 

[catharina]

Christ told us lots of things, indeed, there are four books about what He told us, commonly (I think) referred to as the Gospels, which include paying taxes, using our talents, feeding the poor, visiting the imprisoned, and - lest we forget - saying the mass and believing in Him. And, we also must be one in belief.
Cheers!

Repeating:
Only once did Jesus tell us “LEARN FROM ME…” so play
with whatever you fancy - but you can’t change that fact.

 

[Warrenton]

Repeating:
Only once did Jesus tell us “LEARN FROM ME…” so play
with whatever you fancy - but you can’t change that fact.

Really, I don’t know why you say such a thing.

However, perhaps we just read the passage differently. Christ has just taught the apostles that all things comes from the Father through Him. Expanding that, He says to learn from Him. He is telling us we can trust Him because he is humble of heart, and because the yoke is easy. What we are to learn is the sum of what he chooses to teach us, namely, the Gospel, not simply that the burden is light.

Who knows, maybe the passage is more clear in Latin!

Just think, though, this is exactly the kind of discussion the SSPX and Rome have, day in day out. How can they not make progress?

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Sorry this is not accurate. The East have developed their own traditions, customs and disciplines. They are distinct from Rome and Rome has nothing to do with the Eastern expression of faith. In fact, anything that is perceived to have come from Rome is called a Latinization and several popes have called for the removal of those and a return to true Eastern faith.

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.

Sorry, this is again wrong. The Pope who is the Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Pontiff. But his authority that extends towards other Churches does not include the entire Roman Church, just the Pope. And as Supreme Pontiff he ensures that each Church who developed a distinct identity throughout time should maintain such identity through their own organic development. No one in the entire Roman Church save for the Pope has any say in any Eastern Church.

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.

Latin is the culture. Mind you that the Roman empire divided into two in her later days. The East and the West. This is where you got the Eastern Churches and the Western Church. The West was Latin, the East was Greek. Both are Roman.

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.

98% to be exact. But population doesn’t determine which Church is more important. Its by circumstance of history that the East weren’t able to expand. They eventually became sandwiched by the Roman Church in the West, and an advancing Islam in the East. They did spread northward towards Russia.

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.

The Roman Church started with Greek but eventually shifted to Latin. Latin is the language in Rome, Greek in the East where Greece and Turkey are now today.

 

[ConstantineTG]

yeah, people seem to talk about Spanish atrocities in the new world, and how the marvelous Aztec culture was destroyed.

Sure they were advanced, but still primitive in nature. They sacrificed people on an altar, usually people of other tribes.

The Spanish, with the help of the Virgin Mary brought civilization to that region. Religion saved that area.

Thats one way to look at it positively. The Philippines was Christianized by the Spanish Inquisition. If not for that, we definitely would have been Muslim today as they were advancing northward from Sabah, Malaysia by the time Magellan got to the islands.

 

[Church_Militant]

From my limited interactions with people, I find that many if not all are not averse to the TLM or EF itself, just to the Latin. Many would embrace the Traditional Mass if it were in the vernacular.

Well, from all I’ve read so far it looks like that’s pretty much what we’ll be getting this coming Advent and I have no problems with that.

 

[JReducation]

Well, from all I’ve read so far it looks like that’s pretty much what we’ll be getting this coming Advent and I have no problems with that.

The new missal will certainly have tighter rules on formality, but they are more about the use of language.

There is no dogma that says that it cannot happen. It’s just that it’s not Pope Benedict’s intention. I can’t say that I know this man, but I can say that I was exposed to this man for five years while I was a student in Rome studying theology. In fact, he tuaght a mini-course that I attended. The one thing that I found by being in the same environment with him was the he uses words very deliberately.

When he traded in TLM for Extraordinary Form and Novus Ordo for Ordinary Form, it was not casual comment. It was very deliberate. In theology that which is extraordinary is not the norm, even if it’s done by most people, it remains the exception. The norm is the Novus Ordo, which he deliberately referred to as the Ordinary Form.

Many believe that the Holy Father is trying to get us back to the TLM until the NO disappears. If you have been around this man, even though I did not work with him, but I lived in the same city and traveled in the same academic circles where he was very influential and we students just hung on to every word that came from his pen. You learn quickly that he is a gentleman. He is shy. He pulls away from debates and confrontations. He hates them. He is a genius. And he uses language very deliberately. When he is obscure, it’s because he wants to be obscure. When he is concrete, it’s because that’s what he wants done or assented to.

What is going to happen this Advent is that we will see the beginning of a reorganizaton of the Latin Rite in the Ordinary Form so that it will be more formal, while maintaining the options that come with it.

What we can look for is a mass that looks more like what we see on EWTN. I read it and read the new General Instructions and I had to laugh. They could have been written by the General Minister of the Franciscans. They follow the Franciscan form to the letter.

Does this surprise anyone? It shouldn’t. Pope Benedict is close friends with Augustine and Bonaventure. I believe that’s the direction where the Reform of the Reform is going. It was also very telling, because at the Conference of Italian bishops, to which he belongs, because he’s the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as well, he rattled the Italian bishops concerning liturgy. For over 15 minutes he told them how they had to go back and reread the life and spirit of Francis of Assisi and his brothers, then learn from Francis how to obey the Pontiff, without questioning. He insisted that they needed to become more Franciscan. Most of these bishops are secular priests or belong to other religious families that are not Franciscan.

My point is that he likes this Franciscan spirit of the liturgy. It’s no surprise that the new Roman Missal looks very similar to the Franciscan Missal in wording and in formality, while preserving many options that were introduced in the liturgical reform. There are gong to be less options, but certainly more than there are in the EF.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Digitonomy]

When he traded in TLM for Extraordinary Form and Novus Ordo for Ordinary Form, it was not casual comment. It was very deliberate. In theology that which is extraordinary is not the norm, even if it’s done by most people, it remains the exception. The norm is the Novus Ordo, which he deliberately referred to as the Ordinary Form.

I agree with your general point, but just so no one misinterprets your statement, Benedict did not declare in Summorum Pontificum and its accompanying letter that the TLM must henceforth be called the Extraordinary Form, and the NO the Ordinary Form. Rather, he used a number of different descriptive terms and phrases like the “ancient usage” or the “new rite.” He was likely very deliberate in describing the two forms in the terms that he did, but he didn’t “trade in” for new names as some might infer from your statement. Others christened these two forms with two of his more frequently used descriptions in those documents.