TLM on the way ??????

[Dr.Bombay]

And no, I don’t think the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid. But, mercifully, I don’t have to participate in it.

You and me both, brother. Ain’t it great?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I did not mean to be accusatory, I only wished to point out that Trent made some pretty strong statements about the vernacular and soft voice. Vatican II suggested the possibility of maybe adding some vernacular to some parts of the mass, Trent laid down an anathama on anyone who said Latin should be totally ditched. This to me show that the constant voice of the Church is that Latin should be retained, at least partially.

But according to your argumentation above (God doesn’t need Latin, we don’t need Latin) the Church is foolish is demanding this, especially at Trent (the Council Fathers must have known that most parishoners weren’t fluent in Latin and couldn’t even read a translation if they had one). You have also in past conversations denounced the Silent Canon, again the Council Fathers saw value in the soft tone.

I’ve never denounced the Silent Canon I said I prefer the audible canon and I don’t see why it can’t be audible. That’s different from saying “It CAN’T be!” The same goes for Latin.

And I use Latin every Sunday at Mass, after the Kyrie in Greek: the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Mysterium Fidei, and the Agnus Dei. I think I can say without fear of anathema that I hope it isn’t expanded beyond that in the Pauline Rite. I trust you’re not saying that the Church has no right to dictate the audibility of the Canon or the amount of Latin used and that I have no right to like what the Church has permitted. Do you honestly think that the use of Latin or the non-use of it is infallibly protected beyond the protection given to all the Church’s discipline (ie, that a discipline of the Church cannot lead the faithful into impiety, but with the understanding that the discipline imposed is the discipline that can be moderated, or relaxed, or suppressed)? Are you positing that the use of Latin is a matter of faith and morals?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

What do we hope to accomplish in the liturgy? The proptiation of our sins through the confection of the Holy Sacrifice and the fitting worship of God. We can still do this in the vernacular. You are basically making the assertion that Latin is the best we can offer (what makes it the best?) and that the vernacular is banal, the “paper plates,” which IS a matter of taste, aesthetics, and opinion (lots of people love Bach’s cantatas, but as I can’t stand to sit and listen to sung German, I’m not able to share in their affection for those particular works of his. I’m a huge Bach fan, however, though frankly, I find Handel’s stuff more conducive to prayer. Why? Because I can understand it). I don’t buy that for an instant that the vernacular is banal, though a translation may be. A word is a symbol for a reality, ie, “cat” is the English “symbol” for an animal that meows, chases mice, washes itself and doesn’t come when it’s called. But “cat” isn’t the reality, any more than “gato” is, or “chat” or “felis.” “Deus” doesn’t come any closer to completely explaining God than “Dios” or “Gott.”

Does God need for the Mass to be in Latin? We both know He doesn’t. Do we need for it to be? Not really. I think it benefits the faithful to be able to understand fully (or as fully as we can). I’ve hear the argument that it doesn’t matter if we understand it or not. Great. Now we’re using a language God doesn’t need and we don’t understand. I don’t see the logic.

Most of the Mass is the same day after day, week after week. It is really not that hard to pick the Latin up, unless someone does not wish to spare any effort (not to mention missals with an English translation).

As far as why Latin is the best, I again refer to Pope John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia () for some of the reasons.

I do not think the vernacular is banal per se, I merely think our present translation is banal. And this was done on purpose, to a degree. The ICEL did not want elevated language, they wanted it to be more “street level,” judging by the distress some are having at the hint that our translations may turn to a more elevated type of language.

I have seen excellent vernacular translations in Tridentine Latin missals. And of course God does not “need” Latin. He also does not “need” churches that look Catholic, or stained glass, or beautiful art, etc. What I wish to reiterate is that aesthetics, or form, are not entirely subjective. There are standards. Obviously, the worth and artistic merit of Bach’s cantatas are not diminished one iota because you don’t like to listen to sung German. Similarly, the worth of Britney Spears’ music would not elevate an inch even if someone thought she was better than Beethoven. If I visit the Parthenon, and give it a thumbs down, that is my problem, not the Parthenon’s. I am not here discussing the differences between worthy forms of art. I like gothic, but I certainly would not begrudge someone building a church in the neo-classical style as that is just as worthy. The differences I am discussing here are the differences between what is truly worthy of the liturgy, and what is not because it is so mediocre. This notion that we can actually determine what is worthy of the Church and her liturgy is within Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican II:

1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
2. Holy Mother Church has therefore always been the friend of the fine arts and has ever sought their noble help, with the special aim that all things set apart for use in divine worship should be truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world, and for this purpose she has trained artists. In fact, the Church has, with good reason, always reserved to herself the right to pass judgment upon the arts, deciding which of the works of artists are in accordance with faith, piety, and cherished traditional laws, and thereby fitted for sacred use.

Thus, it is a fitting judgment that paper plates would not be a proper way to fete a President. And if someone thought they were, well, then, I guess they should not be organizing official presidential dinners.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

This post represents the most sensible take on the whole question. Thank you, Kirk. And I have no idea what someone meant by taking it as an “invitation to impiety.” It hit me more as an invitation to common sense.

As for the example given of the “proper” translation vs the “banal,” I definitely prefer the sparer text–fewer adjectives, fewer rococo flourishes, and clear as you please. (What do you know–there’s more subjectivity to these things than we might like to admit.) And I prefer it, I think, for the same reason that I prefer the spare “decor” of the Cistercian basilica at Gethsemani Abbey to a fully appointed gothic cathedral. I happen to like clean simplicity and think it’s a worthy atmosphere in which to worship. That’s my preference.

This argument is far more about personal aesthetic preferences than some people are willing to admit.

The preference for a veil of obscurity–someone posted earlier that part of Latin’s utility as a liturgical language stemmed from the fact that it was not easily understood by everyone–seems odd to me, although it makes a certain amount of sense from a psychological standpoint. i.e., How can a liturgy whose language is fully clear to me be worthy of the mysterious one true God? But I think that view just represents another kind of preference.

If it’s obscurity we’re after, let’s do the whole thing in semaphore.

There’s an invitation to impiety for ya.

I am not going to repost my quotes immediately above from Sacrosanctum Concilium which seem to be saying that whatever we use in the liturgy or in a church should be worthy and help elevate one’s mind and heart to God, thus implying there are things (such as Gregorian chant) which do this better than others, regardless of one’s personal preference.

I think it obvious that some churches help elevate one’s mind and heart to God better than others. I have spent some time at the Abbey of Gethsemani. I really don’t have an issue with someone preferring something more sparse. I’m sure some abbeys or churches (such as the Trappists’) probably always tended to be more spare. Nevertheless, I think it is legitimate to discuss whether the changes made to the church and liturgy at abbeys such as Gethsemani have truly been of greater benefit to the monks regardless of preference. Monks such as the Trappists do have an advantage in that they pray seven times a day and perhaps can withstand the effects of a bare church better than laypeople in a parish setting. And Gethsemani does have the positive benefit of vertical height which helps elevate one’s mind and heart to God. If one were to cut that height in half, I think one could safely say that no benefit whatsoever was accomplished for the monks, regardless of preference.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As far as why Latin is the best, I again refer to Pope John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia () for some of the reasons.

Most of the Mass is the same day after day, week after week. It is really not that hard to pick the Latin pick up, unless someone does not wish to spare any effort (not to mention missals with an English translation). **But why? I’m honestly asking. You know, many on these forums bat about the allegation that the Latin was dropped to appease the Protestants, but what if we looked at it differently: rather than appeasement, what if Protestants were actually evangelized by the proper (and I acknowledge the need for the caveat “proper”) celebration of the Mass in the vernacular? **

I do not think the vernacular is banal per se, I merely think our present translation is banal. And this was done on purpose, to a degree. The ICEL did not want elevated language, they wanted it to be more “street level,” judging by the distress some are having at the hint that our translations may turn to a more elevated type of language. **
Yes, the tired, old “but we need to be relevant” whine. I completely agree. If “relevance” as the world undestand “relevance” is to be our goal, we might as well have given up five minutes after Pentecost. We won’t ever be relevant in that sense, ever, since the Gospel is so radically contradictory to all the other “isms,” those on the right and those on the left. If Christ lifted up upon the Cross isn’t relevant, I’d just as soon be dead (and we both know that bit about “if I be lifted up, I will draw all the world unto me” is the ultimate and thus only relevancy).
**
I have seen excellent vernacular translations in Tridentine Latin missals. And of course God does not “need” Latin. He also does not “need” churches that look Catholic, or stained glass, or beautiful art, etc. What I wish to reiterate is that aesthetics, or form, are not entirely subjective. There are standards. Obviously, the worth and artistic merit of Bach’s cantatas are not diminished one iota because you don’t like to listen to sung German. Similarly, the worth of Britney Spears’ music would not elevate an inch even if someone thought she was better than Beethoven. If I visit the Parthenon, and give it a thumbs down, that is my problem, not the Parthenon’s. I am not here discussing the differences between worthy forms of art. I like gothic, but I certainly would not begrudge someone building a church in the neo-classical style as that is just as worthy. The differences I am discussing here are the differences between what is truly worthy of the liturgy, and what is not because it is so mediocre. You are still missing what I’m saying, though. Setting aside outstanding and classic examples (such as the Pieta), notions of what are beautiful and fitting are still subjective opinion. The Pieta is one thing, things that exist in the vein of the Pieta (like COPIES of the Pieta, for example, or what I regard as a rather unfortunate example of Catholic art, namely the statue of the Blessed Mother that you frequently see on EWTN, though I love EWTN, or the statue of the Sacred Heart in the same locale, which I regard as being equally unfortunate) is another. I regard the examples I cited as being INCREDIBLY mediocre! They look mass produced. They don’t compare to the beauty of the santero sculptors of Northern New Mexico (google it and try to see some examples, esp. in the decor of the churches in the Archdioces of Santa Fe), or the crucifix I have from Kenya (check out Ampleforth Abbey’s online gift shop, where the Crucifix,in red wood, is above a COPY of a medieval statue. Mine was in black ebony, but the same artist did both), both of which are in what could only be called a “primitive” style. These things are no less beautiful for not resembling the Pieta (which is a glory to the Church).

 

[Vox_Borealis]

I am not going to repost my quotes immediately above from Sacrosanctum Concilium which seem to be saying that whatever we use in the liturgy or in a church should be worthy and help elevate one’s mind and heart to God, thus implying there are things (such as Gregorian chant) which do this better than others, regardless of one’s personal preference.

I think it obvious that some churches help elevate one’s mind and heart to God better than others. I have spent some time at the Abbey of Gethsemani. I really don’t have an issue with someone preferring something more sparse. I’m sure some abbeys or churches (such as the Trappists’) probably always tended to be more spare. Nevertheless, I think it is legitimate to discuss whether the changes made to the church and liturgy at abbeys such as Gethsemani have truly been of greater benefit to the monks regardless of preference. Monks such as the Trappists do have an advantage in that they pray seven times a day and perhaps can withstand the effects of a bare church better than laypeople in a parish setting. And Gethsemani does have the positive benefit of vertical height which helps elevate one’s mind and heart to God. If one were to cut that height in half, I think one could safely say that no benefit whatsoever was accomplished for the monks, regardless of preference.

Thank you–you said what I was trying to say about sacral language, only much more forcefully. This and your last post–well argued!

 

[arieh0310]

I’ve never denounced the Silent Canon I said I prefer the audible canon and I don’t see why it can’t be audible. That’s different from saying “It CAN’T be!” The same goes for Latin.

True, you have never said that the silent canon is to be condemned but you also see no value in it and wish it never to be used at the parish you choose to attend (I paraphrase). This attitude does have the same effect as condemnation though–no silent canon is to be used in your ideal mass.

And I use Latin every Sunday at Mass, after the Kyrie in Greek: the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Mysterium Fidei, and the Agnus Dei. I think I can say without fear of anathema that I hope it isn’t expanded beyond that in the Pauline Rite.

But why would you even want any Latin whatsoever at your mass? We have bantered back and forth before and you saw no merit to any of my arguments for the benefits of the use of Latin. It is a bizarre mix, you see no value in it yet you seem to take pride in the fact that the majority of the Ordinary at the mass you attend is said in Latin.

Are you positing that the use of Latin is a matter of faith and morals?

I don’t know what I am positing, I just ran into this canon today. My question is: Can the Church ever invoke an anathema that isn’t related to faith and morals? Even if She wanted to, could the Church say “let all those who believe that the priesthood should be open to married men be anathema”. It certainly is true that the Roman Rite has a long and venerable tradition with the celebate priesthood (and in my opinion should be retained), but is it in the Church’s prerogative to give an anathema about it. I guess what I am asking is can the Church lay down an anathema (calling someone accursed) in matters of discipline?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This notion that we can actually determine what is worthy of the Church and her liturgy is within Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican II:

1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. **And it certainly should. I’m not advocating for the latest in popular styles. **
2. Holy Mother Church has therefore always been the friend of the fine arts and has ever sought their noble help, with the special aim that all things set apart for use in divine worship should be truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world, and for this purpose she has trained artists. In fact, the Church has, with good reason, always reserved to herself the right to pass judgment upon the arts, deciding which of the works of artists are in accordance with faith, piety, and cherished traditional laws, and thereby fitted for sacred use. **Right, never argued with this. But she’s included some things since the Pieta, to cite that example again. And she doesn’t come out and actually define “truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful.” She simply reserves to herself that judgment. **

Thus, it is a fitting judgment that paper plates would not be a proper way to fete a President. And if someone thought they were, well, then, I guess they should not be organizing official presidential dinners.

**

I agree that paper plates shouldn’t be used for the President. You and I simply seem to be disagreeing on what actually constitutes a paper plate. I don’t think the Pauline Mass or any Mass in the vernacular is of necessity a paper plate. I don’t think everything that ISN’T Gregorian chant is a paper plate, though I readily acknowledge that what passes for music these days in the Church IS a paper plate. I don’t think simplicity of form is a paper plate anymore than I believe that roccoco or baroque style is beautiful in and of itself. “Less is more” sometimes works. On the other hand, no one enjoys a swinging censor and beautiful vestments and a good choir more than I do.
**

 

[Dr.Bombay]

True, you have never said that the silent canon is to be condemned but you also see no value in it and wish it never to be used at the parish you choose to attend (I paraphrase). This attitude does have the same effect as condemnation though–no silent canon is to be used in your ideal mass.

But why would you even want any Latin whatsoever at your mass? We have bantered back and forth before and you saw no merit to any of my arguments for the benefits of the use of Latin. It is a bizarre mix, you see no value in it yet you seem to take pride in the fact that the majority of the Ordinary at the mass you attend is said in Latin.

I don’t know what I am positing, I just ran into this canon today. My question is: Can the Church ever invoke an anathema that isn’t related to faith and morals? Even if She wanted to, could the Church say “let all those who believe the Earth is flat be anathema”. It certainly is true that the Earth isn’t flat, yet is it in the Church’s prerogative to give an anathema about it. I guess what I am asking is can the Church lay down an anathema (calling someone accursed) in matters of discipline?

Just how do we know that the earth isn’t flat? I wouldn’t have any way to prove such a thing yea or nay and I suspect the vast majority of persons on this planet wouldn’t either.

My point is, we take a lot of things on faith, with very little in the way of demonstrable facts to back it up: The Earth is round. The sun is the center of the universe. Vatican II ushered in a new springtime.

And so forth…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

True, you have never said that the silent canon is to be condemned but you also see no value in it and wish it never to be used at the parish you choose to attend (I paraphrase). This attitude does have the same effect as condemnation though–no silent canon is to be used in your ideal mass.

**Let me be more clear. I completely agree that there has been, in many places, an over-emphasis on the horizontal in our Catholic worship (the hand-holding, the back-slapping, the elevated hands of everyone, except the priest, the music that talks about bread more than Body, etc.). I think, however, that the horizontal has its place. Regarding the canon, God can hear it whether it is spoken audibly or inaudibly. So who would it benefit, lift up, move, transform if they were to hear it? Not God, but His people. Why shouldn’t we be able to hear these single most important Words ever uttered? Wouldn’t it be good for us to hear them? **

But why would you even want any Latin whatsoever at your mass? We have bantered back and forth before and you saw no merit to any of my arguments for the benefits of the use of Latin. It is a bizarre mix, you see no value in it yet you seem to take pride in the fact that the majority of the Ordinary at the mass you attend is said in Latin. I don’t take pride in it. It’s a morally neutral question to me. My point was that we’ve fufilled the Church’s request to include Latin. The Holy Father expressed the desire that we all learn some of the prayers in Latin and I’ve done and am doing so. It doesn’t mean that I “see” the sense in it, but there’s no point in having a pope, a Vicar of Christ, if you aren’t going to obey him (and I love and trust Pope Benedict, so…whatever). If he suddenly stood up tomorrow and said,“Right, then, that’s it, all of it in Latin,” I hope I’d be given the grace to obey. But it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, no (but then God loving me enough to die for me doesn’t make sense in the conventional “sense,” so go figure), esp. in light of the fact that it became a liturgical language BECAUSE it was a vernacular language. Unless you really understand Latin, you’re kind of parroting things, aren’t you? If I say the Our Father in Latin, but it’s still English in my head, well, what’s the point?

I don’t know what I am positing, I just ran into this canon today. My question is: Can the Church ever invoke an anathema that isn’t related to faith and morals? Even if She wanted to, could the Church say “let all those who believe the Earth is flat be anathema”. It certainly is true that the Earth isn’t flat, yet is it in the Church’s prerogative to give an anathema about it. I guess what I am asking is can the Church lay down an anathema (calling someone accursed) in matters of discipline?

I dunno. But I know I haven’t made any absolute statments that the Mass should or shouldn’t be in Latin or that the Canon HAD to be audible. I try to be careful that way. The disciplines of the Church are infallibly protected, but that doesn’t mean that they are immutable. The Church in her wisdom can govern her sacraments. That’s what I meant: the Church can allow the Mass in the vernacular or an audible canon and I’m free to prefer it.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Latin was NOT the vernacular, as I’ve pointed out numerous times. Latin replaced Greek as the language of the Mass. One liturgical language replaced another.

Why must I constantly repeat myself?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Latin was NOT the vernacular, as I’ve pointed out numerous times. Latin replaced Greek as the language of the Mass. One liturgical language replaced another.

Why must I constantly repeat myself?

Well, you don’t HAVE to, but it’s always kind of fun when you do.

What I heard (you know, from “the guy”) is that the Mass was moved from Greek to Latin because more people understood the Latin (the “vulgar” Latin, to be precise). Thus, when the Mass started in Latin, it wasn’t out of desire for a liturgical language, it was out of a desire for more people to understand it. But I’m sure “the guy” lied.

 

[bear06]

I’m curious about the charge leveled, a few post back, that the expression “My God, what pedantry” was taking the Lord’s name in vain. I thought the charge itself a little pedantic, and probably disingenuous, but that’s another issue.

I can assure you my charge was not disingenuous. If you’ll notice, most people are very careful not to use it. There really is not reason to let it slip when you are typing.

My question: What actually constitutes “taking the Lord’s name in vain”? Is it *any *

Here’s some links on the situation:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=303038&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=lords+name+in+vain&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51896

 

[Unfinished]

You and me both, brother. Ain’t it great?

Amen. Although that hour drive on Sunday can seem cumbersome sometimes. But, it could be worse. Since there is only one indult in my entire state, I could be further and not get to go at all. Count your blessings I suppose.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Well, you don’t HAVE to, but it’s always kind of fun when you do.

What I heard (you know, from “the guy”) is that the Mass was moved from Greek to Latin because more people understood the Latin (the “vulgar” Latin, to be precise). Thus, when the Mass started in Latin, it wasn’t out of desire for a liturgical language, it was out of a desire for more people to understand it. But I’m sure “the guy” lied.

I’m quite positive he did as well.

“There seems to have been a sharp cultural cleavage between the upper classes, who had not only received a literary education in Latin and Greek, but probably spoke one or other of these languages, and the mass of the people, who were not only illiterate, but spoke in a different tongue…it is clear that many of the common people, not only peasants but townspeople, had no knowledge of Greek or Latin.” (A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, Basil Blackwell 1964 p.995)

The switch from Greek to Latin had nothing to do with a desire for more people to understand. It was probably, at least in part, political. The old East/West divide that still separates us today.

 

[arieh0310]

Unless you really understand Latin, you’re kind of parroting things, aren’t you? If I say the Our Father in Latin, but it’s still English in my head, well, what’s the point?

I would hazard to guess that many parishoners parrot the English to an equal degree that a life long TLMer parrots the Latin. Take a random sampling of pew sitters and ask them to, line by line, explain the Nicean Creed. How many explanations would approach orthodoxy? English can be rote, too.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m quite positive he did as well.

The switch from Greek to Latin had nothing to do with a desire for more people to understand. It was probably, at least in part, political. The old East/West divide that still separates us today.

They still spoke the vulgar tongue, which was Latin. I’m not saying that they were all Cicero.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

They still spoke the vulgar tongue, which was Latin. I’m not saying that they were all Cicero.

negative. it wasn’t latin. that’s the point. :banghead:

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I would hazard to guess that many parishoners parrot the English to an equal degree that a life long TLMer parrots the Latin. Take a random sampling of pew sitters and ask them to, line by line, explain the Nicean Creed. How many explanations would approach orthodoxy? English can be rote, too.

Still not a sound argument for using a tongue that they don’t understand at all.

Ask the same ones to explain the Hypostatic Union. Now we have to not only be able to speak Latin (all those declensions!), but we need a degree in theology to be decent Catholic Christians?!?!? Wow, we’re in deep trouble.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

negative. it wasn’t latin. that’s the point. :banghead:

So in Rome, how did the non-hoipoloi express himself? Grunting? He didn’t call a dog a “canis?” What did he call it, a “woof?” I’m talking early Roman Christians, 50-150 years or a little more post Peter/Paul, not late Roman, what about those liturgies? Those were all in Greek exclusively? I can except that those awful Germanic barbarians grunted (have you listened to Wagner? Awful).

I don’t think that you can make the case, Doc, that the liturgy switched to Latin BECAUSE the Church wanted it as a liturgical language.

Don’t bang your head, you’ll concuss yourself.