SSPX View of the New Mass

[numealinesimpet]

I can’t tell if you’re being serious,

I find these fine points of language interesting and diverting. My comments are lighthearted, but not faceicious {how do you spell that?}. Yet there is a real issue with some of the translations of e.g. the Lord’s Prayer in languages other than English.

but (1) “thee/thou” is the informal, not formal, address, while “you” is the formal address – a common misconception, but definitely a misconception;

That was historically true, but no longer the case outside of Shakespeare etc, wouldn’t you agree?

(2) languages with such a distinction, like Spanish, have always used the informal/intimate form (e.g., tu) to address God;

No, in French, ‘vous’ is used both for God & Our Lady: the Hail Mary begins “Je vous salut, Marie…” etc. After Vatican II, the ‘tu’ form was adopted – but the ‘trads’ have continued the older form. In the 70s a half-hearted attempt was made in English to update the Our Father, hail Mary etc, but I don’t think it caught on anywhere. The French were more thorough. Also, I think, the Germans.

and (3) Latin does not contain any such distinction,

As i said, it was not a natural part of the Latin language, but it was introduced for addressing Julius Caesar (if my memory is accurate – certainly the later emperors) and began a trend that has been working its way slowly through Europe for the next 2000 years.

so claiming that it is vital to retain in English smacks of blind antiquarianism.

I certainly wouldn’t personally make any such claim. I know some prayers by rote that have “Thou” & some that have “You” & am not fussed. But if I spoke French I would object to ‘tu’.

 

[numealinesimpet]

*Edited to add: and to the extent such a distinction evolved in mediaeval Latin, nevertheless the informal form tu/te has always been used for God, as you’ll notice for instance in your Missale (“Te igitur, clementissime Pater . . . .”).

The Roman Canon was written long before the Mediaeval period, and I do not think ‘tu’ had an informal connotation in Latin at that time. In fact, it is in very beautiful prosodic Latin that shows the language was still in full living force when it was written. But later parts of the Liturgy do show the ‘Plural of Respect’: at one point the acolyte says, ‘Benedícite, Pater Reverénde’ (Plural, not the singular ‘bénedic’). By the time the “Plural of Respect” was well entrenched, the derivatives of Latin – Spanish, French, Italian, etc – had replaced colloquial Latin as a normal medium of speech.

 

[MarkThompson]

That was historically true, but no longer the case outside of Shakespeare etc, wouldn’t you agree?

No, of course not. Thee/thou is the informal form. Sounding “old-timey” does not make it more formal. The Quakers still address each other with thee and thou to emphasize the intimacy and egalitarianism of their “society of friends.”

More importantly, if thee and thou were understood as being the informal address at the time that, say, the Douay Rheims was written, then why would you want to read them as being extra-formal? As a misimpression deriving from the archaic nature of the words, your new understanding of their role would be the worst kind of novelty – novelty caused by failing to understand the past.

No, in French, ‘vous’ is used both for God & Our Lady: the Hail Mary begins “Je vous salut, Marie…” etc. After Vatican II, the ‘tu’ form was adopted – but the ‘trads’ have continued the older form. In the 70s a half-hearted attempt was made in English to update the Our Father, hail Mary etc, but I don’t think it caught on anywhere.

Then I stand corrected on the French. In Spanish, though, tu has always been used – and has always been understood as being the intimate form of address. Maybe the “reformers” were simply trying to make an idiosyncratic French usage correspond with “catholic” (universal) practice? You know, so that you could go anywhere in the world and the prayers would be the same, at least in grammatical form and implication even if in the vernacular?

As i said, it was not a natural part of the Latin language, but it was introduced for addressing Julius Caesar (if my memory is accurate – certainly the later emperors) and began a trend that has been working its way slowly through Europe for the next 2000 years.

Julius Caesar was not an emperor, and if memory serves the distinction did not arise until the fifth or sixth century or so. Even then, it was the informal address (tu) which has always and forever been used for God in Latin. Like I say, check your Missale!

 

[JReducation]

I can’t tell if you’re being serious, but (1) “thee/thou” is the informal, not formal, address, while “you” is the formal address – a common misconception, but definitely a misconception; (2) languages with such a distinction, like Spanish, have always used the informal/intimate form (e.g., tu) to address God; and (3) Latin does not contain any such distinction,* so claiming that it is vital to retain in English smacks of blind antiquarianism.

*Edited to add: and to the extent such a distinction evolved in mediaeval Latin, nevertheless the informal form tu/te has always been used for God, as you’ll notice for instance in your Missale (“Te igitur, clementissime Pater . . . .”).

You make a good point. For example, Spanish has always had “usted” for the formal you. However, “usted” appears nowhere in the Spanish language bible or the Spanish language liturgy. It’s always the familiar “tu”. It has little to do with the Latin. It has to do with Jewish culture. In Jewish culture, God was never referred to in the formal. The prime example for how to pray is the Book of Psalms and the canticles in the New Testament. In their original languages, they refer to God using informal language. Jesus’ own prayer uses the Aramaic equivalent of “Dad” or “Pop”. Notice that I call it an equivalent. We cannot translate the actual word, because it does not exist in mordern languages, not even in modern Hebrew. I know, because I’m Jewish. We use the modern word, “Abba”, which takes the place of the English word, “Dad.” But it’s not quite the same, because it’s much more affectionate. I communicates emotion as well, which “dad” does not quite have. When you’re angry at your father, you do not use “Abba”, whereas in English you would use “DAD!!!”

I believe that we often get too hung up on words and fail to pay enough attention to the meaning with which it’s being used. Among the mendicants there has been a recent move to recover the title Friar, which is really bad English for Frater. The reason for this recovery is that Catholics today often use the title Brother in a very condescending way. Many Catholics refuse to refer to an ordained Friar as Brother. In their mind, Brother is a class of persons who are beneath priests. Nothing was further from the minds of the founders of religious life. Frater was used because all the members of the community, ordained or not, were equal in dignity, authority, vocation, duties and rights. They constituted a real family.

Because language and usage does change, it becomes necessary to find wording that conveys the original message and feeling that was intended. Linguistics is a very tricky area.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

It has little to do with the Latin. It has to do with Jewish culture. In Jewish culture, God was never referred to in the formal. The prime example for how to pray is the Book of Psalms and the canticles in the New Testament. In their original languages, they refer to God using informal language.

Thanks, that’s interesting.

Jesus’ own prayer uses the Aramaic equivalent of “Dad” or “Pop”. Notice that I call it an equivalent. We cannot translate the actual word, because it does not exist in mordern languages, not even in modern Hebrew. I know, because I’m Jewish. We use the modern word, “Abba”, which takes the place of the English word, “Dad.” But it’s not quite the same, because it’s much more affectionate. I communicates emotion as well, which “dad” does not quite have. When you’re angry at your father, you do not use “Abba”, whereas in English you would use “DAD!!!”

More like “Daddy!” or “Poppa!” then, maybe?

I believe that we often get too hung up on words and fail to pay enough attention to the meaning with which it’s being used.

Exactly. I find it humorous that some people like to insist on “thee” and “thou” because they believe them to be more formal (and think that Vatican II stripped the formality from our liturgical language, etc., etc., the usual story), when in fact it’s precisely the opposite, and has always, been, even in Latin.

 

[numealinesimpet]

No, of course not. Thee/thou is the informal form. Sounding “old-timey” does not make it more formal. The Quakers still address each other with thee and thou to emphasize the intimacy and egalitarianism of their “society of friends.”

An interesting point. Did the Quakers adopt this, I wonder, because it was really an ‘intimate’ form, or was it simply that they found it in the English bible and wished to be Biblical? I’m not sure that ‘thou’ ever did develop the ‘intimate’ connotation of the French ‘tu’. But it’s interesting that Scottish Gaelic, more open to French influence than Irish, does use the plural pronoun for politeness/formality, unlike Irish.

More importantly, if thee and thou were understood as being the informal address at the time that, say, the Douay Rheims was written, then why would you want to read them as being extra-formal? As a misimpression deriving from the archaic nature of the words, your new understanding of their role would be the worst kind of novelty – novelty caused by failing to understand the past.

It’s a natural development of language, of which there are thousands of examples in all languages. For example, why does ‘telescopic’ mean ‘folding up’ instead of ‘seeing far away?’ Words can acquire a life of their own.

Then I stand corrected on the French. In Spanish, though, tu has always been used – and has always been understood as being the intimate form of address. Maybe the “reformers” were simply trying to make an idiosyncratic French usage correspond with “catholic” (universal) practice? You know, so that you could go anywhere in the world and the prayers would be the same, at least in grammatical form and implication even if in the vernacular?

Do you mean the ‘reformers’ of 1960 – 1970? You will notice a generalised downgrading of respect, from the abolition of the Communion Rail to the use in English of small letters for ‘the mass’ and ‘the eucharist’ instead of the Capital Letters of respect. It was all part of a trend.

Julius Caesar was not an emperor,

Actually he was, though he did not adopt the title. They killed him to stop him becoming a king. “Emperor” (“Imperátor”) of course, originally simply meant “Commander-in-Chief”.

and if memory serves the distinction did not arise until the fifth or sixth century or so.

But the last Roman Emperor lived in the 5th Century. I still think it was Julius Caesar who was first addressed in the plural.

Even then, it was the informal address (tu) which has always and forever been used for God in Latin.

The singular, not necessarily informal.

Like I say, check your Missale!

… which seems to have originated in the First Century in part - the words of consecration seem to be a separate tradition, independent of the Gospels.

 

[ProVobis]

I find these fine points of language interesting and diverting. My comments are lighthearted, but not faceicious {how do you spell that?}. Yet there is a real issue with some of the translations of e.g. the Lord’s Prayer in languages other than English.

I apologize for starting this argument. Each language seems to have its own rules and uses of the second person if a pronoun is used at all. The Polish oftentimes circumvents the second person problem with a third person “pan” or “pani” so as try to avoid confrontation. (At least that’s what my mother taught me.)

I know that on these fora, the use of the word “you” can be seen as confrontational at times. It’s unfortunate we use the same word in addressing God in the English liturgy.

 

[numealinesimpet]

You make a good point. For example, Spanish has always had “usted” for the formal you. However, “usted” appears nowhere in the Spanish language bible or the Spanish language liturgy. It’s always the familiar “tu”. It has little to do with the Latin. It has to do with Jewish culture. In Jewish culture, God was never referred to in the formal.

Does Classical Hebrew have a ‘formal’ “You”?

The prime example for how to pray is the Book of Psalms

A special case, as the psalmist, on one level, is Christ addressing His Father, and on another, the Bride addressing her Spouse – Christ.

and the canticles in the New Testament. In their original languages, they refer to God using informal language.

Was that distinction made at this point? I’m not sure.

Jesus’ own prayer uses the Aramaic equivalent of “Dad” or “Pop”.

Well He could say say that, couldn’t He?

Because language and usage does change, it becomes necessary to find wording that conveys the original message and feeling that was intended. Linguistics is a very tricky area.

A good reason for keeping the Latin…

 

[numealinesimpet]

I apologize for starting this argument.

Actually, it’s you started this one, newt!:bounce:

… and it’s way past my proper bedtime, so (as we say around here) Good Night to ye all!

 

[ProVobis]

A good reason for keeping the Latin…

Agreed!!!

 

[JReducation]

Does Classical Hebrew have a ‘formal’ “You”?

If you mean Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Aramaic, the answer to the first is yes and not the the second.

Ancient Hebrew was a very formal language. But formal use of pronouns were reserved only for Royalty and High Priests. They were never used for God. You have to remember that the Jews belonged to different traditions: Elohist, Jahwist, etc. The use of pronouns depended on the tradition to which they belonged. The more imminent vision of God (J Tradition) gave birth to a very familiar language between man and God. The more transcendent vision of God (E Tradition) gave birth to a more formal language between man and God.

A special case, as the psalmist, on one level, is Christ addressing His Father, and on another, the Bride addressing her Spouse – Christ.

But the writers of the psalms belonged to the J Tradition. The writiings foreshadow Christ. However, they foreshadow Christ in very anthropomorphic language.

Was that distinction made at this point? I’m not sure. Well He could say say that, couldn’t He?

There are two key points here. First, we do not know how the Johanine authors knew this, since allegedly the Apostles fell asleep. We can only assume that they received this information through tradition. Second, the tradition that was handed down by the Johanine writers was one of familiarity with God, which is consistent with Johanine theology. Observe that the Johanine writings go out of their way to tell us that there was a “beloved” disciple. In other words, Christ was cabable of and allowed for intimate relationship. Intimate relationships imply familiarity and simplicity in speech. In addition, the Johanine authors go out of their way to remind us that God is love. Again, they present us with an image of God who is very accessible. This image encourages familiarity and discourages the formality that was normally found between subjects and monarchs or people and high priests.

A good reason for keeping the Latin…

There are many good reasons for keeping Latin around. But this is not one of them. Ask any Catholic who comes from a non European culture and language. I was a missionary in the Amazon. The European languages, even Latin, are not comprehensible to these language groups. Language comes with a cultural baggage. In teaching the faith to people who are not native speakers of European languages, it makes no difference whether you use Latin, English, Spanish or Russian. There are many words and expressions in these languages that are completely lost on a Hispanic whose first language is Quechua, a Chinese man whose first language is Mandarin or a South African whose first language is Zulu.

To show you how much baggage comes with language I’ll offer this example. In South America, there are still millions of Hispanics and Brazilians who will not speak Spanish or Portugese, because these languages are European. The European languages are often associated with conquest and the destruction of a civilization and culture. The well educated often refer to the destruction and virtual extinction of the indigenous people of North America, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. It hardens their opposition to the use of European languages in their daily lives. They feel so strongly about this that many countries in South America and Africa have had to change their constitutions to allow for the co-existence of two national languages: a European language and an indigenous language. South Africa has 11 official languages.

I don’t think that we will make a sale in countries where people have very negative and strong feelings about Europe and its culture. We have to remember that most Catholics in the USA, Canada and Australia are of European anscestry. This is not the case for Catholics in other countries. In South America, the more fervent Catholics are the Native Americans, not the white Spanish minority or the Mestizos. The Whites and Mestizos are as luekwarm as the average American, Canadian and European Catholic.

Despite the difference in language, liturgical music and religious art, they are the people who are preserving the Catholic faith in these countries. They are the ones who oppose abortion, birth control, same-sex marraige, and euthanasia. They are the ones who attend daily mass, venerate the Blessed Mother, pray the Rosary, have family prayer, hold beautiful processions with the Blessed Sacrament, have a great love for the Church, practice unquestioning obedience to ecclesial authority, love the saints and are very active in their own evangelization.

Again, while I see many good reasons to keep Latin, I would not push it on these people when there is no need to do so. They are as Catholic as you can be.

This is a little off-topic, but to show how Catholic they are I’ll share an experience I had. The national police in most of these countries is very corrupt. I was stopped by two troopers on my way to a mission station. They wanted money for an infraction that I had not committed, but they alleged that I had. Suddenly, out of no where, there appeared about ten Native Americans holding machetes. The leader said to the two officers, “Don’t touch the Friar.” The officers backed off right away. In the USA, several friars (including me) and lay people were arrested for protesting against abortion. Not a single Catholic rallied to our defense. This happens every day in the USA. The Catholics who rally to the defense of Latin never show up to defend the Church, her clergy and religious when law enforcement acts unjustly toward us. In the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia many Catholics are the first to join in the attack against clergy and religious.

We have much more to worry about than pronouns.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Not a single Catholic rallied to our defense. This happens every day in the USA. The Catholics who rally to the defense of Latin never show up to defend the Church, her clergy and religious when law enforcement acts unjustly toward us. In the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia many Catholics are the first to join in the attack against clergy and religious.

You are probably right about that. It seems as if more and more take their cues from the news media, both left and right. It wasn’t always like that.

Thomas E Woods has a chapter entitled “How the Monks Saved Civilization” in his book “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization,” a very high tribute to all brothers throughout the centuries. A must read for all Catholics.

 

[JReducation]

You are probably right about that. It seems as if more and more take their cues from the news media, both left and right. It wasn’t always like that.

Thomas E Woods has a chapter entitled “How the Monks Saved Civilization” in his book “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization,” a very high tribute to all brothers throughout the centuries. A must read for all Catholics.

You know how women often speak about their grey roots starting to show? This is where my Jewish roots start to show. My Jewish brothers and sisters obviously have to finish their journey to arrive at the New Covenant. When that will happen, only God knows. As far as I’m concerned, I’ll do like St. Edith Stein. I put trust that since he chose our people from among all others, he will not abandon them until they are safely home. How and when?

But I digress . . . the one area where my Jewish roots always show is in the area of fidelity to our people. From the time that you’re very young, a Jewish child is taught to love his Jewish family. Trust me, not every Jewish person is easy to like. Besides, there are different expressions of Judaism. They are not as clearly divided as the Christians are, but there are points of conflict between us.

However, if you take the most orthodox Jew, which would be the Hassidim or the most “liberal” Jew, which would be the Reconstructionist, the moment that a Gentile attacks, all the differences between Jews are forgotten. Jews step up to the plate in defense of their brothers and sisters. They organize, they lobby, they raise money, they rally support from non-Jews, and they do anything in their power to come to the aid of their fellow Jews. It makes no difference how faithful that one is to the traditions or how unfaithful the other one is. He’s a Jew. If he’s being persecuted for being a Jew, other Jews become his advocates and his protectors.

Now, Jews do argue about similar things as do the Gentiles: worship, language, customs, laws, traditions, identity, morals, etc. Don’t believe for a moment that all is well in Judaism. That’s not true. In fact, we are suffering the same problems that Gentiles are suffering. I’m speaking within the faith. But there is this sense of fidelity that is often lacking among Catholics.

All too often, Catholics are more faithful to observances than to their Church and the people who make up that Church. I experienced this several times in my life. When men like Archbishop Chaput, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Fr. Pavone or I spend three days in jail for protesting against an abortuary and the only people who show up to bail you out are the members of your community, you begin to wonder what are Catholics thinking. You get one million Catholics around the world leaving their parishes in search of a more reverent mass, but you can’t get one million Catholics to attend the March for Life. You can’t get ten Catholics to confront the civil authorities who penalize and prosecute those who defend the Church’s teaching on the sacredness of life. You can’t get the five million Catholics in the State of Florida to protest the newest legislation allowing same-sex couples to foster parent, knowing full well that this law is harmful to the child and to the foster-parents, because they will become attached to each other only to be separated, because same-sex adoptions are illegal in that state.

One has to raise the voice of conscience and ask, the question. Have Catholics forgotten that being Catholic encompasses our entire existence, not only how we worship? Have Catholics forgotten that we are related to each other? Does the term “family” hold any meaning in the mind of Catholics?

It would be great to have every Roman Catholic follow one form of the mass or use one language. But that’s not the case right now. However, what is the case right now is that we are still the same family or do our differences set us apart in different families, so that what happens to you, even in defense of the faith, has nothing to do with me?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

All too often, Catholics are more faithful to observances than to their Church and the people who make up that Church. I experienced this several times in my life. When men like Archbishop Chaput, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Fr. Pavone or I spend three days in jail for protesting against an abortuary and the only people who show up to bail you out are the members of your community, you begin to wonder what are Catholics thinking.

Perhaps a lot of this is a result of the Catholic Church having seemingly lost its moral leadership in the world. Maybe JFK, the first Catholic president, had something to do with it, maybe not. The news media used to report the Pope’s message in its fullest. Now the first sentence (or the second) will be whether further apologies for this or that are forthcoming. That’s it. The 60’s and 70’s brought about a lot of changes, and the declining interest in Latin, math, physical sciences *inter alia *was perhaps just a symptom of the more underlying problems in society.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Its also because we’ve been bombarded by anti-clergy messages for a long time. In the Philippines there is a battle brewing between the Church and the State over a Reproductive Health Bill that will introduce funding for ABCs for the poor and education in the use of them in public schools. In the past week a protester broke into the Cathedral and held up a sign that says “DAMASO”. It comes from Padre (Father) Damaso, a fictional Spanish friar from Jose Rizal’s novel Noli Me Tangere. Padre Damaso was the epitome of Spanish abuse and corruption, both by the government and the Church. The protester’s action has now triggered mudslinging against the Church in the Philippines and protester has become a poster boy for anti-Church people. Sadly, many Catholics take his side as well.

I brought this up in a number of threads but bring it up here again just to add to Bro. JR’s point about the lack of respect with the clergy. Rizal has sowed the seeds of clergy hatred in the Philippines and everytime a reason to disrespect the clergy is needed, Padre Damaso is brought up. Most Filipinos are still Catholics and are very devout. But the respect for clergy just isn’t there.

By the way, Noli Me Tangere is mandatory reading for all high school juniors in the country. Even in Catholic Schools.

 

[JReducation]

I really was not lobbying for respect for the clery and religiuos. I’m making another point. When we think of faith, we must be global thinkers. The focus on these threads seems to be on this or that point of the mass.

To contemplate about the holy mass is a good thing. To want to correct mistakes is also a good thing. But our love for the mass must be the penicle of Christian love. We come to the mass to meet Christ in his most gruesome and at the same time his most triumphant hour. It is at this moment, the moment of the passion, when all of humanity’s sinfulness and all of humanity’s innocence is embraced by Christ. It is his darkest moment and his most triumphant moment.

Unfortunately, the same passion is not expressed by those who argue about the mass. If man is to be what Christ is at Calvary, then man must embrace every dimention of humanity in its totality, its sinfulness and its innocense. This tanspires in our daily lives.

How can we say that we love God and look the other way when that which God loves most, humanity, is destroyed? Julian of Norwich once said that one proves one’s love for the Father by loving as the Son loved, because if we love the Father, we allow ourselves to become like the Son. This is the proof that the Spirit is truly in our hearts and not our personal indignation over whatever ills and damages we beleive have be committed against us.

St. Maximilian Kolbe often said that no one has loved Christ more than his mother and yet no one has given to humanity more than she has. Therefore, to love Christ one must give as Mary gave. This is what drove Maximilian to give his life for an innocent man.

When millions of Catholics passionately argue and debate about the form of the mass, because they love God, then one would expect to see the same millions of Catholics give as Mary gave. One would expect to see them where Christ is most injured and most offended, in those places where human lives are destroyed and discarded like garbage.

It does little honor to God to separate the passion of Christ on the cross, the passion of Christ at the mass, from the passion of Christ at the hands of human cruelty. Fidelity demands that we honor Christ’s passion everywhere it becomes present. Fidelity demands that we be Catholic in all things, not just at mass.

The question becomes, why are so few Catholics present and passionate when Christ is crucified at an abortuary and when our fellow Catholics go to jail for defending him?

The mystical life is not about the SSPX’s view of the mass. The mystical life is about the Father’s view of the mass and uniting our vision to his own. As Mother Teresa always taught that God the Father gave us the mass so that we would never cease to participate in Christ’s passion on the cross and in those who suffer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

All too often, Catholics are more faithful to observances than to their Church and the people who make up that Church. I experienced this several times in my life. When men like Archbishop Chaput, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Fr. Pavone or I spend three days in jail for protesting against an abortuary and the only people who show up to bail you out are the members of your community, you begin to wonder what are Catholics thinking. You get one million Catholics around the world leaving their parishes in search of a more reverent mass, but you can’t get one million Catholics to attend the March for Life. You can’t get ten Catholics to confront the civil authorities who penalize and prosecute those who defend the Church’s teaching on the sacredness of life. You can’t get the five million Catholics in the State of Florida to protest the newest legislation allowing same-sex couples to foster parent, knowing full well that this law is harmful to the child and to the foster-parents, because they will become attached to each other only to be separated, because same-sex adoptions are illegal in that state.

One has to raise the voice of conscience and ask, the question. Have Catholics forgotten that being Catholic encompasses our entire existence, not only how we worship? Have Catholics forgotten that we are related to each other? Does the term “family” hold any meaning in the mind of Catholics?

(Alas) well spoken!
Wonderful posts, Bo. JR. I have had no time this week, but I would like to respond to several of the points in your very informative articles. I will make them separate posts.

Pro-Lifers
Firstly: I was very sad to hear of the pathetic response of the Catholics to your wonderful pro-life work. Two thoughts came to mind: firstly, that it is certainly nothing new: in the Fourth Century – you probably know the actual author, Brother, [we don’t say ‘Frater’ here, & ‘Brother’ has no bad connotations] but I think it was S. Augustine, who noted how pious and well-behaved were the Arian Goths (who most unfortunately had been evangelised by the Arians before the Roman Catholics got to them). Augustine (or whoever) commented that

if the Catholics lived up to their Faith half as well as did the Goths to their heretical creed, the World would already be Catholic.

You mention that the ‘Trads’ have been noticeably absent from the fray in the USA. Shame on them. In Ireland, the full might of the Abortion Industry has been brought to bear for decades but the Irish, who can be conned (God help us) but can’t be bullied, have voted NO! on three separate weasel-worded referendums, and abortion is still illegal. This was during two decades when the voters (assuming the integrity of the voting process, which could be discussed) let themselves be persuaded to vote YES for about a dozen other things, all of which (you might or might not be interested to know) my like-minded compatriots & I all voted No for…
Ahem! As I was saying, … And the forefront of the pro-Life movement for decades has been spearheaded by what one would call Traditionalists, who promote the Catechism and form their spirituality from the traditional sources of the Rosary, Stations, and the whole Trad way of Life, whether SSPX or *Summórum Pontíficum *or both. Might I recommend their websites: try googling “Youth Defence Against Abortion”
www.youthdefence.ie/
www.youthdefence.ie/latest-news/category/abortion–ireland/
www.facebook.com/YouthDefence
Mother and child Campaign
www.motherandchild.ie/News/
and Cóir (a pun, which means both “righteousness” and “a favourable wind”). This is a broader-based group, but inevitably has some of the same individuals involved:
www.coircampaign.org/…/62-pr-coir-we-challenge-kenny-to-debate-on-abortion
www.youthdefence.ie/…/mother-and-child-campaign-call-for-robust-opposition-to-euthanasisa/

 

[JReducation]

(Alas) well spoken!
Wonderful posts, Bo. JR. I have had no time this week, but I would like to respond to several of the points in your very informative articles. I will make them separate posts.

Pro-Lifers
Firstly: I was very sad to hear of the pathetic response of the Catholics to your wonderful pro-life work. Two thoughts came to mind: firstly, that it is certainly nothing new: in the Fourth Century – you probably know the actual author, Brother, [we don’t say ‘Frater’ here, & ‘Brother’ has no bad connotations] but I think it was S. Augustine, who noted how pious and well-behaved were the Arian Goths (who most unfortunately had been evangelised by the Arians before the Roman Catholics got to them). Augustine (or whoever) commented that

You mention that the ‘Trads’ have been noticeably absent from the fray in the USA. Shame on them. In Ireland, the full might of the Abortion Industry has been brought to bear for decades but the Irish, who can be conned (God help us) but can’t be bullied, have voted NO! on three separate weasel-worded referendums, and abortion is still illegal. This was during two decades when the voters (assuming the integrity of the voting process, which could be discussed) let themselves be persuaded to vote YES for about a dozen other things, all of which (you might or might not be interested to know) my like-minded compatriots & I all voted No for…
Ahem! As I was saying, … And the forefront of the pro-Life movement for decades has been spearheaded by what one would call Traditionalists, who promote the Catechism and form their spirituality from the traditional sources of the Rosary, Stations, and the whole Trad way of Life, whether SSPX or *Summórum Pontíficum *or both. Might I recommend their websites: try googling “Youth Defence Against Abortion”
www.youthdefence.ie/
www.youthdefence.ie/latest-news/category/abortion–ireland/
www.facebook.com/YouthDefence
Mother and child Campaign
www.motherandchild.ie/News/
and Cóir (a pun, which means both “righteousness” and “a favourable wind”). This is a broader-based group, but inevitably has some of the same individuals involved:
www.coircampaign.org/…/62-pr-coir-we-challenge-kenny-to-debate-on-abortion
www.youthdefence.ie/…/mother-and-child-campaign-call-for-robust-opposition-to-euthanasisa/

I teach mystical and ascetical theology to those who are in formation for the religious life. When we discuss the mass I always tell them that at Calvary, Christ is both the ascetic and the mystic. He suffers (ascetic) and he adores (mystic). At mass, we are invited to enter into communion with him and the Church in the same ascetical and mystical act. However, like Christ, our suffering and adoration must spill beyond the mass, just as Christ’s suffering and adoration reached far beyond that historic day and time. If we go to mass, even if we have the most beautiful music, the best spoken Latin, the most perfect liturgical vestments, and the most choreographed gestures, we will have failed to meet Christ’s invitation to join him until we suffer and worship in the streets where we live and work. The great saints teach us to take the mass as a way of life, not just an act of worship. The martyrs died for the mass. They did not die because they attended a reverent mass. They were killed because they became different from everyone else around them. It was not just their devotions and liturgy. Their whole worldview changed and they were not afraid to tell people about this new worldview that they discovered at Calvary. One such person was Mother Teresa. She lived the mass on the streets of Calcutta. At the mass, she encountered Christ who told her, “I thirst.” She knew what he thirsted for were souls. So she took him to those souls for whom he thirst. She lived a martyr’s life. Her love was not for ritual, but for the Passion of Christ, which we re-enact at mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

And the forefront of the pro-Life movement for decades has been spearheaded by what one would call Traditionalists.

There’s a lot of truth there. In my area, the Lutheran churches are usually the first ones setting up the tiny white crosses over their lawns. And the Muslims seem to be very pro-life, at least in practice.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The point was raised about using Latin (or any European language) in places where it might be completely foreign and/or politically a possible liability (sorry, JR, it was one of your posts but I can’t find it). Here are my initial thoughts.

**The cultural and philosophical baggage of Latin & European languages in general. **
There are two issues here: philosophical/theological, and cultural.

Philosophical/theological issues of Latin & European languages in general.
To steer back to the topic of the thread, we should all remember that the quarrel with the SSPX was never primarily about the Latin language as such (although many in high positions in the Vatican persisted for decades to treat it as if it were a mere superficial and sentimantal attachment to this, which is one reason why the “talks” stalled for so long.) Mgr Lefebvre said,* “I would prefer the Old Mass in the vernacular to the New Mass in Latin”.* The real problems are with the points raised in the Ottaviani Intervention fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html and elsewhere – with the actual text and rubrics, whatever the language.

But there are issues much further back ontologically, which were opened after Vatican II – I do not think they had ever been openly raised before in the whole history of the church, though I am open to correction. ‘Ontologically’ means, things as they really are in their most basic essence or being]. That very sentence shows straightaway what we are talking about. There is no English equivalent of ‘ontologically!’ And as we say in Scottish Gaelic, “What is the English word for ‘civilisation’? You haven’t got one, have you?” (“civilisation” being Latinised Greek, imported into English.) This is most definitely not off the topic of the thread. There are words in oriental languages that cannot really be rendered into English - the Chinese Tao, for instance. So the question in a rapidly-shrinking world – the Global Village – must in the end be answered –indeed raised! – How far is our so-Called Catholic theology merely a by-product of our European roots, an accident of language and history?*