The reform of the O.F. Mass is closer

[Verbum_Caro]

I celebrate the Roman Rite and never use Latin.

The Church in Rome did not always use Latin.

Those are my points.

Thanks dd.

Those points don’t seem to marshal against recognizing Latin as the liturgical language of the Latin Rite.

VC

 

[redroses098]

Okay, what is the big blooming deal? Most of it says the exact same thing in an only slightly different way. Some other things seemed down right silly/nonsensical. Example: “And with your spirit” Because, you know, it’s detached from his body and is the only part worth blessing. Huh???

 

[benedictgal]

Okay, what is the big blooming deal? Most of it says the exact same thing in an only slightly different way. Some other things seemed down right silly/nonsensical. Example: “And with your spirit” Because, you know, it’s detached from his body and is the only part worth blessing. Huh???

With all due respect, I would urge you to study the translations before making what I consider flippant coments such as those in your post. We need to pray these prayers exactly as the Church wants us to pray them. The problem with the current translation is that it uses paraphrases and such that do not have any basis in anything. Even though it took Rome 40 years to correct this problem, we are now going to have a translation that is practically word-for-word what the original Latin says and will bring us into conformity with the rest of the world.

As for your disregard for the greeting, this formula is actually found in Scripture, thus, if you consider this nonsensical, then your line of thought would also extend to the biblical references from which this greeting originates.

 

[diggerdomer]

Thanks dd.

Those points don’t seem to marshal against recognizing Latin as the liturgical language of the Latin Rite.

VC

The statement I was responding to was:

Yes, the Roman Rite originated in Rome, where the liturgical language was Latin.

I was simply noting that the liturgical language of Rome was not always Latin.

And, on a practical level today, while official texts of the Roman Rite are promulgated in Latin, the vast majority of those of us who celebrate the Roman Rite do not use Latin.

 

[benedictgal]

The statement I was responding to was:

I was simply noting that the liturgical language of Rome was not always Latin.

And, on a practical level today, while official texts of the Roman Rite are promulgated in Latin, the vast majority of those of us who celebrate the Roman Rite do not use Latin.

You seem to forget one very important fact, diggerdomer. The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy mandated that Latin be used. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI, in Sacramentum Caritatis, affirms this.

Furthermore, your comments regarding language in the Liturgy, as I read them, tend to drift towards antiquarianism.

 

[diggerdomer]

You seem to forget one very important fact, diggerdomer. The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy mandated that Latin be used.

No it didn’t mandate that Latin be used. Read the document. It said Latin is “to be preserved” in the Latin Rite. That is not the same as mandating it. And even if it did, as a teaching of the Church’s Magisterium, the Church’s Magisterium if free to change such teaching unless it’s unalterable dogma.

Furthermore, your comments regarding language in the Liturgy, as I read them, tend to drift towards antiquarianism.

Then you read them wrong. Maybe like you read Sacrosanctum Concilium?

 

[benedictgal]

No it didn’t mandate that Latin be used. Read the document. It said Latin is “to be preserved” in the Latin Rite. That is not the same as mandating it. And even if it did, as a teaching of the Church’s Magisterium, the Church’s Magisterium if free to change such teaching unless it’s unalterable dogma.

Then you read them wrong. Maybe like you read Sacrosanctum Concilium?

You are the one misreading it because it clearly notes that:

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

It does not say it may be preserved or should be preserved. It clearly states it is to be preserved, which is stronger language.

I used to write legislation, diggerdomer. I know legislative language probably better than most. Nice try.

 

[diggerdomer]

You are the one misreading it because it clearly notes that:

It does not say it may be preserved or should be preserved. It clearly states it is to be preserved, which is stronger language.

I used to write legislation, diggerdomer. I know legislative language probably better than most. Nice try.

So you’re saying “is to be preserved” is exactly the same as “is mandated”?

 

[benedictgal]

So you’re saying “is to be preserved” is exactly the same as “is mandated”?

It’s pretty clear, is it not? But, as I read your posts, you seem to be contrary to such things. Pope Benedict, in his pre-Papal books, also makes the same argument. In fact, many, if not all, of the Papal liturgies he has celebrated make heavy use of Latin. He leads by example.

With all due respect, on reading your posts, I get the impression that you seem to think that the Mass is an anything goes project and that if we really wanted to be authentic, then we should go engage in antiquarianism, something that was soundly condemned by the popes.

 

[japhy]

I was simply noting that the liturgical language of Rome was not always Latin.

Right, it wasn’t always Latin, but only a few hundred years in, it became Latin. And it still is.

while official texts of the Roman Rite are promulgated in Latin, the vast majority of those of us who celebrate the Roman Rite do not use Latin.

That’s a shame, because Vatican II expressly desired that use of Latin in the Latin rites was to be preserved: preserving its use sounds (to me) like maintaining its use. And Vatican II expressly desired that the faithful be taught to sing or say parts of the Mass in Latin.

It’s a shame that those two express desires of Sacrosanctum Concilium essentially ended up on the “cutting room floor” by the time the Consilium was finished cutting-and-pasting together a brand new missal.

 

[diggerdomer]

It’s pretty clear, is it not? Pope Benedict, in his pre-Papal books, also makes the same argument. In fact, many, if not all, of the Papal liturgies he has celebrated make heavy use of Latin. He leads by example.

.

It’s clear to me it’s not the same. It seems clear to you it is the same. Again, is that correct; yes or no, that you are interpreting “is to be preserved” the same as “is mandated”?

Making “heavy use” of Latin is fine. But that’s not the same (as I understand) as “mandating” (i.e. commanding) it. I have no problem with the use of Latin despite what you think.

I think if the Church wanted to “mandate” (i.e. command) the use of Latin, she would have. But, she hasn’t. The Church teaches that Latin is to be preserved. Which it is. Which I agree with.

 

[Walking_Home]

It’s clear to me it’s not the same. It seems clear to you it is the same. Again, is that correct; yes or no, that you are interpreting “is to be preserved” the same as “is mandated”?

Making “heavy use” of Latin is fine. But that’s not the same (as I understand) as “mandating” (i.e. commanding) it. I have no problem with the use of Latin despite what you think.

I think if the Church wanted to “mandate” (i.e. command) the use of Latin, she would have. But, she hasn’t. The Church teaches that Latin is to be preserved. Which it is. Which I agree with.

---

So if someone says — a doctor is to be knowledgeable in heart surgery to operate on someones heart. You are going to argue —no —because you believe this does not mandate that he be knowledgeable in heart surgery.

 

[benedictgal]

It’s clear to me it’s not the same. It seems clear to you it is the same. Again, is that correct; yes or no, that you are interpreting “is to be preserved” the same as “is mandated”?

Making “heavy use” of Latin is fine. But that’s not the same (as I understand) as “mandating” (i.e. commanding) it. I have no problem with the use of Latin despite what you think.

I think if the Church wanted to “mandate” (i.e. command) the use of Latin, she would have. But, she hasn’t. The Church teaches that Latin is to be preserved. Which it is. Which I agree with.

Again, though, your posts seem to contradict what you are writing. It is not up to you to have a problem with Latin. It is what the Church wants. Japhy has already given you some good reasons why. The Holy Father has already given excellent reasons as to why this needs to be done. Latin was never done away with, contrary to what you seem to think. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy made it very clear that Latin was not to disappear from the Mass.

If you agree that Latin is to be preserved, where is your line of reasoning regarding why you seem to advocate antiquarianism when it comes to language?

 

[diggerdomer]

Again, though, your posts seem to contradict what you are writing. It is not up to you to have a problem with Latin. It is what the Church wants. Japhy has already given you some good reasons why. The Holy Father has already given excellent reasons as to why this needs to be done. Latin was never done away with, contrary to what you seem to think. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy made it very clear that Latin was not to disappear from the Mass.

If you agree that Latin is to be preserved, where is your line of reasoning regarding why you seem to advocate antiquarianism when it comes to language?

You continue to neglect my question and misread what I wrote. If you don’t want to answer my question, that’s fine. I’ll stop asking.

I never said it was “up to me” to have a problem with Latin. In fact, I wrote that I don’t have a problem with Latin.

I never said Latin was done away with, in fact I noted what the Church teaches (that it is to preserved) and clearly stated I agree with and support it.

I agree, the Constitution made it clear Latin was not to disappear. That’s why I quoted the document. You are the one claiming the Constitution “mandated” (commanded) Latin. I am simply claiming what the Church taught in the Constitution: Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites. I am claiming nothing more, nothing less.

And, again (and again) I am not advocating antiquarianism, despite your repeated attempts to read more into (or out of) what I wrote and misinterpret it, and unfairly accuse me of such. Please stop accusing me of things I have not stated, or if you are unclear simply ask for clarification rather than imposing your views of what you think I think or accusing me of things I did not advocate.

 

[benedictgal]

You continue to neglect my question and misread what I wrote. If you don’t want to answer my question, that’s fine. I’ll stop asking.

I never said it was “up to me” to have a problem with Latin. In fact, I wrote that I don’t have a problem with Latin.

I never said Latin was done away with, in fact I noted what the Church teaches (that it is to preserved) and clearly stated I agree with and support it.

I agree, the Constitution made it clear Latin was not to disappear. That’s why I quoted the document. You are the one claiming the Constitution “mandated” (commanded) Latin. I am simply claiming what the Church taught in the Constitution: Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites. I am claiming nothing more, nothing less.

And, again (and again) I am not advocating antiquarianism, despite your repeated attempts to read more into (or out of) what I wrote and misinterpret it, and unfairly accuse me of such. Please stop accusing me of things I have not stated, or if you are unclear simply ask for clarification rather than imposing your views of what you think I think or accusing me of things I did not advocate.

You are the one who is saying that if Latin wasn’t originally spoken in the Church then we should go back to the original. That, as I read it, is a strong shade of antiquarianism.

Your own words indicate the opposite, diggerdomer. In many posts, as I read them, you seem to be contrary to many things and then try to backtrack what you wrote. With all due respect, other posters have also managed to dismantle your line of thinking, since you did not specifically have any supporting, authoritative documentation from the Church to back up your line of thought.

As I read your posts, it’s attitudes such as this that stymie the cause for the reform of the reform. It’s as though everyone bought into the alleged Spirit of Vatican II while never bothering to read what the documents actually said. As japhy indicated, the geunine statements wound up in the cutting room floor. Misintepretation reigned supreme and now the Holy Father is tryng to clean things up.

 

[ProVobis]

we are now going to have a translation that is practically word-for-word what the original Latin says and will bring us into conformity with the rest of the world.

Actually, no translation holds EXACTLY the same meaning as the Latin. Even in something as simple as Dominus vobiscum, translated as (May) the Lord be with you, there is no “the” and there is no “be” in the Latin, not to mention the “cum” has a very unique usage tied to the noun it doesn’t proceed. But it would not make too much sense to have “Lord you with”, would it? Also try “Upwards hearts” for “Sursum corda” if you want word-for-word.

That said, I’m glad at least they’ll change the important words of consecration to “for many,” though keeping it in Latin (or even Aramaic) would be better, in my opinion.

 

[ProVobis]

No it didn’t mandate that Latin be used. Read the document. It said Latin is “to be preserved” in the Latin Rite. That is not the same as mandating it. And even if it did, as a teaching of the Church’s Magisterium, the Church’s Magisterium if free to change such teaching unless it’s unalterable dogma.

Perhaps you need to be reminded that the same Magisterium “strongly advised” against an all-vernacular Mass at the more doctrinal Council of Trent.

Maybe they didn’t want to succumb entirely to the Reformists?

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, no translation holds EXACTLY the same meaning as the Latin. Even in something as simple as Dominus vobiscum, translated as (May) the Lord be with you, there is no “the” and there is no “be” in the Latin, not to mention the “cum” has a very unique usage tied to the noun it doesn’t proceed. But it would not make too much sense to have “Lord you with”, would it? Also try “Upwards hearts” for “Sursum corda” if you want word-for-word.

That said, I’m glad at least they’ll change the important words of consecration to “for many,” though keeping it in Latin (or even Aramaic) would be better, in my opinion.

My parochial vicar and I spent about an hour and a half going over what is already approved and we are both excited. Finally, beauty will be restored to our prayers!

 

[diggerdomer]

You are the one who is saying that if Latin wasn’t originally spoken in the Church then we should go back to the original.

I never said that. I disagree with that thought.

The rest of your message is just more of your thoughts imposed on what I wrote, making judgments on me that go beyond what I wrote without asking for clarification.

 

[diggerdomer]

Perhaps you need to be reminded that the same Magisterium “strongly advised” against an all-vernacular Mass at the more doctrinal Council of Trent.

Maybe they didn’t want to succumb entirely to the Reformists?

Can you clarify where Trent said this? Thanks.

Definitely, Trent was a reaction to the Reformists.