The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

[MTD]

Couple of things…as you say, the text of the TLM liturgy does express the sacrificial nature of the mass more explicitly than does the text of the NO liturgy, and it’s important to remember that a big chuck of the catechesis of the mass that educated the layfolk was based and formulated around these these texts, since these texts made up the mass itself. In other words, it is in large part the words of the liturgy itself that catachizes. The explicit sacrificial nature of the mass expressed in the liturgy was made clear to the priests who in turn transmitted this understanding to the lay-folk who had it ingrained in them from their childhood.

Um, I’m afraid those priests got a lot of their understanding of the sacrificial nature of the Mass from the seminary training they received; that seminary training is highly deficient today.

Anyway - second point…the text of the liturgy notwithstanding, don’t underestimate the other aspects of the TLM liturgy - the gestures, etc. and their ability to communicate the sacrificial nature of the mass.

Well, I can see those gestures as communicating reverence, but sacrifice? I’ve been to quite a few Dominican Rite Masses and one Solemn High TLM; I can’t say my experience has been that the gestures, etc. really spoke of sacrifice. Of course, that might have been due to the fact that I’ve been blessed at my parish to have reverent and holy priests celebrating the NO Mass.

One thing that struck me in my first couple of TLMs was that the gestures and behavior of everyone in the church signified to me that they all understood and believed what we all are *supposed *to understand and believe as Catholics.

Well, you have to admit that the type of Catholic who attends the TLM is generally one better educated and aware of what the Mass is. You have a rather elite group here that understands and is very attentive to the rubrics and prayers of the Mass.

Regardless, your two points are good ones.

Maria

 

[jco2004]

I reckon they shifted from Greek to Latin because the Chair was in Rome not Greece. I think some common sense prevails here.

The Romans shifted from Greek to Latin because Latin was the vernacular in Rome. Much later, in the early middle ages, the Roman church decided to impose Latin as a vernacular language on the churches under its authority. Joe

 

[TNT]

The Romans shifted from Greek to Latin because Latin was the vernacular in Rome. Much later, in the early middle ages, the Roman church decided to impose Latin as a vernacular language on the churches under its authority. Joe

1. Latin remained the Lingua of choice well into the middle ages. Even Luther insisted on using it. It was the precision language of the educated.
2. Latin remains today in nearly all sciences that have a long history, such as botany, biology, medicine as well as Law/Legal…
3. The Roman church decided KEEP THE TRADITION OF LATIN as a religious language on the churches under its authority.
   A. Most other languages in popular use except Greek, were seriously deficient in precise religious vocabulary. Nearly all historical religious writings were in Latin or Greek. Any change required hand copying + translation…an impractical endeavor that had no market that was willing to pay for it.
   B. Anyone well versed in any budding Romance language was also well versed in Latin.

In summary, the Church simply followed Her own tradition and that of most of the sciences & schools of learning.

 

[St_Isidore]

I am hunting wabbits. Is that what you’re looking for?

If the NO can get better just because it’s within shouting distance of a TLM…what exactly does that say about the NO? In isolation, it would just get worse? Be nice if we could put that one to the test. Oh, wait a minute. We’ve been testing for 40 years. And the prototype still needs reform.

I notice no one ever claims the NO will influence the TLM for the better. Wonder why that is?

 

[St_Isidore]

Mein Gott! Will this worn-out argument never end?!

Everytime I or someone else posts a thread here to discuss traditional customs, art, architecture, rites, ect. ect., those threads are ignored in favor of the never-ending argument of TLM vs. NO, or the alleged schism of the SSPX, or who said what, and speculation over the cannonical status of individuals and groups, and the list goes on.

The description of this forum says “Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality”. I’m still looking for that forum, because everytime I click on the link I end up with a seething pile of gossip, insults, and the same old squabbles repeated over and over and over again.

I have a little theory about this forum- please hear me out about this- and that is I believe that the moderators at CAF never intended for a “Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality” in the first place. Rather, a whole new forum just makes it easier for them to regulate and control the multitude of uncharitable posts and thinly-vieled slurs that are abound here.

Just my two-cents…

I agree

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I agree

Then stop snipping at the Church and the Popes and the Mass. If there was no offense, there would be no need of a defense.

 

[lak611]

1. Latin remains today in nearly all sciences that have a long history, such as botany, biology, medicine as well as Law/Legal…

In summary, the Church simply followed Her own tradition and that of most of the sciences & schools of learning.

I agree. I have a B.S. in biology.

 

[rlg94086]

If there was no offense, there would be no need of a defense.

Well said, Kirk. I read through the whole thread, and found it pretty sad. I agree with Caeser’s post stating disgust at the use of the Traditionalist thread for on-going disagreement, but the “traditionalist” posters who nodded in agreement seem to fail to realize that the very purpose of this thread was another bash on the Pauline Mass.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is now closed. Thank you to all who participated.