TLM on the way ??????

[Dr.Bombay]

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.

:banghead::banghead::banghead: I never said it was BECAUSE the Church wanted it as a liturgical language. I said it simply was what is was. Politics, Kirk. The East/West divide. Rome and Constantinople. You know.

The Mass was said in Greek, a liturgical language. It switched to Latin, a liturgical language. Were there overriding reasons? Yes, probably. Making the Mass more “accessible” to the people was not, however, among them, modern day liturgical revisionists notwithstanding.

The wall softens eventually. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[JKirkLVNV]

:banghead::banghead::banghead: I never said it was BECAUSE the Church wanted it as a liturgical language. I said it simply was what is was. Politics, Kirk. The East/West divide. Rome and Constantinople. You know.

The Mass was said in Greek, a liturgical language. It switched to Latin, a liturgical language. Were there overriding reasons? Yes, probably. Making the Mass more “accessible” to the people was not, however, among them, modern day liturgical revisionists notwithstanding.

The wall softens eventually. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

No, no, that’s not really what I mean. I doubt “accessibililty” was at the forefront of anyone’s mind. But in terms of the Empire, etc., Koine Greek was the lingua franca (thanks in part to good Alexander the Great and his successors), NOT a liturgical language, and MORE people would have been able to speak and understand it than NOT. Gradually, the same with Latin. You only go to prove my point. There less sanctity about language and more power struggle, etc., about it than some would admit.

So, what’s the big deal about it being in the vernacular NOW? Why NOT?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

No, no, that’s not really what I mean. I doubt “accessibililty” was at the forefront of anyone’s mind. But in terms of the Empire, etc., Koine Greek was the lingua franca, NOT a liturgical language, and MORE people would have been able to speak and understand it than NOT. Gradually, the same with Latin.

So, what’s the big deal about it being in the vernacular NOW? Why NOT?

It’s called Tradition, Kirk. The Church, and the Holy Father himself, has an obligation to protect our Traditions. As well as an obligation to protect our traditions.

Just because it’s a small “t” doesn’t lessen the obligation.

We have a good old boy priest who grew up on a Montana ranch. One of his sermons is titled, “Leave the gate the way you found it.” When you’re out riding on the prairie (or whatever they call it in Montana) if you happen upon a gate, you leave it just the way it is. If it’s open, you leave it open. If it’s closed, you leave it closed. Leave the gate the way you found it.

Why didn’t those in charge for the past 40 years just leave the gate the way they found it? Why? They rip our precious liturgical patrimony from us, meanwhile living on the cache built up over two millenia. And now they are puzzled that their fabrication isn’t able to stand on its own.

Uhhhh…maybe if you had left the gate the way you found it??

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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?

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).

In regards to the Latin and evangelization, there were more Protestant converts (as well as a greater percentage of people going to Mass) prior to the liturgical changes. I will say, however, that if I had to choose, I would choose a decent vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass over a Novus Ordo Mass all in Latin.

I still maintain that notions of what is beautiful and fitting are not completely subjective. I think one needs to try distinguish between what is truly ugly or mediocre and personal preference. For instance, I might prefer to worship at a Gothic cathedral. Does that mean that I would say a church in the Spanish architectural style is inferior? Absolutely not. (Actually I like both).

I found what I think are the EWTN statues and I agree, they are mediocre and I particularly do not like the Sacred Heart statue. And if these statues are truly mediocre, EWTN should try to replace them with something better. Liked what I saw of the Santero sculptors. I thought there was genuine excellence there. However, what has happened in the Church in the past 40 years has not been a matter of trying to strive for beauty and excellence in art and liturgy and possibly missing the mark at times. Rather it has been afflicting the faithful with the banal, mediocre, and ugly (or nothing at all) for spurious reasons such as the idea that the congregation should be more front and center.

To me, there are some things which are so obvious they are not really debatable. Thus, Shakespeare is a better writer than Danielle Steele even if some might prefer Danielle Steele. And if one does not realize this, then they do not have particularly good discernment in regards to literature (which is entirely possible). Thus, for example, I would say that the new cathedral in Los Angeles should never have been built. And speaking of statues, check out the statue above the bronze door: olacathedral.org/. Further examples can be provided in Michael Rose’s book, “Ugly as Sin”.

Regarding the liturgy, I do not regard it as debatable that the Tridentine Mass (disregarding the Latin or abuses) is better than the Novus Ordo. In language, nobility, clarity, and doctrinal strength the Tridentine Mass is a cut above. Then when one couples the Novus Ordo with its English translation, well, let’s not even speak of it.

To reemphasize, I am not debating Gothic vs. Baroque vs. Neo-Classical. It is more beauty in the Catholic tradition vs. the Los Angeles Cathedral. Or Gregorian chant vs. polyphony vs. sacred hymns (use them all!). Rather it’s Gregorian chant and Polyphony vs. pop-like songs. If we are faced with something which is truly ugly or banal we need to recognize it. If we can’t, or don’t think it’s possible since it’s all subjective, then we should probably stick to apologetics.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

**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. **

I would agree that some Pauline Masses are celebrated better than others. There probably is not too much we would disagree on as being a paper plate; paper plates are too obvious. Simplicity of form is not necessarily a paper plate, but too often in the last 40 years it has turned out to be.

There probably have been lesser manifestations of the roccoco or baroque style along with many excellent ones (don’t know that I’ve ever seen an ugly manifestation). However, the issue is more with those who do not want any church built in the roccoco, baroque, gothic, or neo-classical style. Everthing must be stripped so as not to distract from the priest or congregation (or other reasons).

 

[Vox_Borealis]

:banghead::banghead::banghead: I never said it was BECAUSE the Church wanted it as a liturgical language. I said it simply was what is was. Politics, Kirk. The East/West divide. Rome and Constantinople. You know.

The Mass was said in Greek, a liturgical language. It switched to Latin, a liturgical language. Were there overriding reasons? Yes, probably. Making the Mass more “accessible” to the people was not, however, among them, modern day liturgical revisionists notwithstanding.

The wall softens eventually. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Doc, I think you’re…wrong on this one. First of all, wasn’t the switch from Greek to Latin largely a third century phenomenon? If so, then it happened before ‘Constantinople’ (or more precisely, any Rome-Conatantinople split). There were certainly cultural divisions east-west, but I would hesitate to retroject the sort of political divisions that certainly arose in the late fourth century on the third century.

Second, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia (on NewAdvent–you know, the old one from 1911, not any post VII version), the move from Greek to Latin resulted at least in part because Latin was the language of the laity:

The Liturgy was celebrated in Greek, and the apologists and theologians wrote in Greek until the time of St. Hippolytus, who died in 235. It was much the same in Gaul at Lyons and at Vienne, at all events until after the days of St. Irenaeus. In Africa, Greek was the chosen language of the clerics, to begin with, but Latin was the more familiar speech for the majority of the faithful, and it must have soon taken the lead in the Church, since Tertullian, who wrote some of his earlier works in Greek, ended by employing Latin only. And in this use he had been preceded by Pope Victor, who was also an African, and who, as St. Jerome assures, was the earliest Christian writer in the Latin language.

But even before these writers various local Churches must have seen the necessity of rendering into Latin the texts of the Old and New Testaments, the reading of which formed a main portion of the Liturgy. This necessity arose as soon as the Latin speaking faithful became numerous, and in all likelihood it was felt first in Africa. For a time improvised oral translations sufficed, but soon written translations were required.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

I would agree that some Pauline Masses are celebrated better than others. There probably is not too much we would disagree on as being a paper plate; paper plates are too obvious. Simplicity of form is not necessarily a paper plate, but too often in the last 40 years it has turned out to be.

I disagree, and think you should push your original point further. Simplicity of form IS a paper plate, in the current analogy. Liturgy (more precisely, liturgical langauge) must by necessity be separated from ‘regular’ language or ceases to be liturgical. Liturgical language is noted in general by repetition and elevation of form. In other words, liturgical language is supposed to sound a little weird. Now, liturgical language can take the form of a ‘magic’ language (Latin, Aramaic, Abbracadabra, etc.), ornate and elevated form, verse, chant or singing, etc., leaving room for us to debate just how removed liturgical language should (for example, in the extreme, do we want to have a liturgical language that is literally completely incomprehensible to anyone except the priest).

No one should argue that austere language or simplicity of form can’t be beuatiful or noble, etc. That is not the point. Indeed, I happen to find many mundane objects in our world to be beautiful. But they fail to satisfy as liturgical or sacral.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

John 23 praises it largely for its universality. But surely if we’re seeking universality today, English is the best candidate, running rings around Latin in terms of the number of people who know/speak it.

Certainly English is working on becoming the new universal language, but it lacks the extra-national character provided by Latin. When a priest celebrates the sacraments in Latin he lays down his particularity to a certain degree and acts as part of a universal society, the Catholic Church. Latin didn’t begin like this, for sure - it had to evolve to that point. But since it is already there and English is not, let’s stick with Bl. John XXIII.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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.

My question: What actually constitutes “taking the Lord’s name in vain”? Is it *any *use of a name for God in a nonreligious context? The use cited above seemed pretty innocuous to me, but I’m not a very good Catholic, and my opinion here might be just another sign of how far down the slippery slope I’ve slud, eh?

I would back up Bear on that one. Unfortunately, there is no magisterial compilation of inappropriate turns of phrase, which leads to separate schools of thought on the subject. I was taught by nuns that using cuss words was wrong (=objectively sinful) and naming Him outside of prayer or genuine discussion about Him (think examples like “What has God commanded?” “Well, God qua God is non-corporeal, but Jesus has a body.”). Contrast that with priests who constantly make comments just like Alex’s and curse like drunken sailors. I obviously think my position is the better, but in the end I admit it’s not based on unassailable deduction.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**This thread having wandered far afield of the topic-- the press releases speculating on a change in rules celebrating the TLM is now closed.
**