M
- Status
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
M
mao_now
Guest
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
R
Rabbititus
Guest
I do think, however, that translating the name of the season as “Ordinary Time” does rather downplay the meaning of the season - it makes it sounds like “these are the Sundays where nothing important happens, the dull green season.” Perhaps it would have been better to retain the Latin terminology (“The 8th Sunday of Tempus Per Annum” sounds kinda cool, actually).
A
AJV
Guest
The translation is by E. Henderson- there is also another one found in the book SS Cyril and Methodius, Apostles of the Slavs by C.J. Potocek. The text of the defense of Slavonic by St. Cyril is in PL Lavrov’s Years of Emigration, and Byzantine missions among the Slavs by F. Dvornik may also be helpful.
A
AJV
Guest
Oh, and the Latin of the part quoted by JKirkLVNV is:
Litteras denique sclaviniscas a Constantio quondam philosopho repertas, quibus deo laudes debite resonant, jure laudamus; et in eadem lingua Christi domini nostril preconia et opera enarrentur jubemus. Neque enim tribus tantum sed omnibus linguis dominum laudare auctoritate sacra monemur, que precipit dicens * Laudate dominum omnes gentes et collaudate eum onmes populi. * Et apostolic repleti Spiritu sancto locuti sunt omnibus linguis magnolia dei. Hinc et Paulus coelestis quoque tuba insonat monens: * Omnis lingua confiteatur, quia dominus noster Jesus Christis in Gloria est Dei Patris. * De quibus etiam linuis in prima ad Corinthios epistola satis et manifeste nos admonet, quatenus linguis loquentes ecclesiam dei edificemus. Nec sanae fidei vel doctrinae aliquid obstat, sive missas in eadem sclavinica linguia canere, sive sacram evangelium vel lections divinas novi et veteris testamenti bene translates et interpretatas legere aut alia horarum offia omnia psallere: quoniam qui fecit tres liguas, hebream scilicet, grecam et latinam, ipse creavit et alias omnes ad laudem et gloriam suam.
I’ll get to work on transcribing the whole of Industriae tuae.
Litteras denique sclaviniscas a Constantio quondam philosopho repertas, quibus deo laudes debite resonant, jure laudamus; et in eadem lingua Christi domini nostril preconia et opera enarrentur jubemus. Neque enim tribus tantum sed omnibus linguis dominum laudare auctoritate sacra monemur, que precipit dicens * Laudate dominum omnes gentes et collaudate eum onmes populi. * Et apostolic repleti Spiritu sancto locuti sunt omnibus linguis magnolia dei. Hinc et Paulus coelestis quoque tuba insonat monens: * Omnis lingua confiteatur, quia dominus noster Jesus Christis in Gloria est Dei Patris. * De quibus etiam linuis in prima ad Corinthios epistola satis et manifeste nos admonet, quatenus linguis loquentes ecclesiam dei edificemus. Nec sanae fidei vel doctrinae aliquid obstat, sive missas in eadem sclavinica linguia canere, sive sacram evangelium vel lections divinas novi et veteris testamenti bene translates et interpretatas legere aut alia horarum offia omnia psallere: quoniam qui fecit tres liguas, hebream scilicet, grecam et latinam, ipse creavit et alias omnes ad laudem et gloriam suam.
I’ll get to work on transcribing the whole of Industriae tuae.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
I have asked many times. Is there a properly celebrated Pauline Missal (not the revised stuff) Mass in the Greater Pittsburgh area? All the Masses we have found do not follow the Missal and are in 100% english with local slang thrown in.
The translation into the vernacular is one of the reasons that I prefer the Latin. Living languages change meanings of words on a regular basis. They “evolve” with use. Latin being a “dead” language does not change from the original intent and meaning.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Here are some more whoppers (forgive me if they have already been said):
**1. Traditionalists believe there were no crises in the Church prior to Vatican II–they need to be informed that there were.
**1. Traditionalists believe there were no crises in the Church prior to Vatican II–they need to be informed that there were.
- Traditionalists think that every problem in the Church will go away if only we went back to the Tridentine Mass.
- Traditionalists think that there were never any abuses at all with the Tridentine rite.
**
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
A quote from Fr. John Parsons on Latin:
christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_bonus_dec01.html
Liturgical **Language Set Apart
**
For what are the facts? Historically the liturgy, like the Faith, has been received by cultures as a sacrosanct whole at the time of conversion, and has never been put into another language thereafter. Whether that language was the vernacular or not, seems to be utterly arbitrary and a matter of historical accident. In Italy, Gaul and Spain, the Latin liturgy was initially vernacular, but ceased to be so within five hundred years; the language however remained sacrosanct precisely because it was used for sacred purposes. In Russia, the liturgical language now known as Old Church Slavonic was used for the vernacular version of the Greek books; it is now old Slavonic precisely because it differs from the current language; but because it is sacred, it has been left undisturbed. In Ethiopia the liturgical language is Gheez, which centuries ago was replaced by Amharic as the vernacular; again no change was made to the liturgy. On the other hand, among the Irish, English, Dutch, Germans, Basques, Poles, Swedes, Ceylonese, Bantus, Vietnamese, Finns, Norwegians, Lithuanians, Hungarians and so many others, the liturgy had never been in the vernacular up until the 1960s. And are we to say that these great peoples and cultures were never Christian, never properly evangelized as a result? In South India the Faith had been quietly flourishing for a thousand years prior to the arrival of the Portugese in the sixteenth century, but the liturgy had never been translated and was still celebrated in the Syriac tongue in which it had arrived. English Catholics from St Augustine of Canterbury until the 1960s never used the vernacular for Mass.
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_bonus_dec01.html
christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_bonus_dec01.html
Liturgical **Language Set Apart
**
For what are the facts? Historically the liturgy, like the Faith, has been received by cultures as a sacrosanct whole at the time of conversion, and has never been put into another language thereafter. Whether that language was the vernacular or not, seems to be utterly arbitrary and a matter of historical accident. In Italy, Gaul and Spain, the Latin liturgy was initially vernacular, but ceased to be so within five hundred years; the language however remained sacrosanct precisely because it was used for sacred purposes. In Russia, the liturgical language now known as Old Church Slavonic was used for the vernacular version of the Greek books; it is now old Slavonic precisely because it differs from the current language; but because it is sacred, it has been left undisturbed. In Ethiopia the liturgical language is Gheez, which centuries ago was replaced by Amharic as the vernacular; again no change was made to the liturgy. On the other hand, among the Irish, English, Dutch, Germans, Basques, Poles, Swedes, Ceylonese, Bantus, Vietnamese, Finns, Norwegians, Lithuanians, Hungarians and so many others, the liturgy had never been in the vernacular up until the 1960s. And are we to say that these great peoples and cultures were never Christian, never properly evangelized as a result? In South India the Faith had been quietly flourishing for a thousand years prior to the arrival of the Portugese in the sixteenth century, but the liturgy had never been translated and was still celebrated in the Syriac tongue in which it had arrived. English Catholics from St Augustine of Canterbury until the 1960s never used the vernacular for Mass.
Code:
In the 1960s, when mass literacy, cheap peoples' Missals, and bilingual editions were more in evidence than ever before, and it was thus easier to follow the Mass than ever before, there was less justification than there had ever been for switching to the vernacular. Why then did it happen?
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
GerardP wrote:
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew.** But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.**
However, the matter is moot – for my response to caveman was in respect of his contention that
Sorry for the delay in responding; can you please supply the reference? In any event - thanks to StMaria, who quoted from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
.
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew.** But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.**
However, the matter is moot – for my response to caveman was in respect of his contention that
Inasmuch as
- the Gospels may not yet have been written when “Saints Peter and Paul first preached in Rome; and
- the Gospels and St Paul’s Epistle (when written contain variations from the “Tridentine Consecration);
- approved consecratory terms in other approved Orthodox and “Uniate” Rites contain variations; and
- one particular Oriental Rite does NOT contain “our” normal formula at all!; and
- a priest MAY say Mass in extraordinary circumstances saying only “this is My Body” and “This is My Blood” (e.g. in prison in Russia, China, etc.), then
I think that the his contention is an exaggeration.
A
AJV
Guest
I believe this might be it (no. 414)?
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
Excellent AJV - many thanks! From the letter “Cum Marthae circa” to a certain John, Archbishop of Lyons, Nov. 29, 1202.
And the the quote ends: 415:
And the the quote ends: 415:
BUT, the form as contained in the Consecration does NOT correspond with the phraseology as expresses in the Gospels or St Paul’s Epistle - as claimed by Caveman, does it? And those writings were NOT extant at THAT point in time. THOSE are MY points!
C
Caveman
Guest
"HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM…" "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI …"
It’s safe to say that (as I initially stated) the Consecration hasn’t changed since Sts. Peter and Paul first preached in Rome. Why woulod they vary from the very words of Christ?
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
This thread brought up many topics for legitimate discussion, but the main topic is that of misconceptions concerning Traditionalists. Please start new threads to discuss some of the side issues, or I will have to close this thread. Thank you.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Actually, I’ve also heard the Sundays of Ordinary Time referred to as Sundays of the Year. I.e., the 17th Sunday of Ordinary Time would the the 17th Sunday of the Year.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
Caveman:
If so, then you are in error! For, as has been already quoted from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
Nevertheless, my points remain: "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM…" "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI …" and only those words alone(!!!) are NOT precisely recorded in the Gospels or in St Paul. I suggest that you refer to the relevant passages to see where there IS variation.
Now! I hasten to add that the Church has ALWAYS had the power to determine what constitutes the Words of Consecration for the Roman Rite - and all other Rites as well.
Secondly, as has already been pointed out - the Catechism of the Council of Trent provided the response: “Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.”
That means that they are not necessarily contained in the Gospels - which in the time of “SS. Peter and Paul in Rome” had not YET been written - much less compiled into the Bible! Moreover, sections of one were combined with sections from another writer to form a whole.
Are you NOW claiming, Caveman, that the Words of Consecration for the “old” Roman Rite (fromthe so-called “Tridentine Missal”) are: "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM…" “HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI …”?
If so, then you are in error! For, as has been already quoted from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
However, is you are saying that "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM…" "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI …" is/was sufficient to confect the Sacrament in extraordinary circumstances (subject to the person saying them being a validly ordained priest AND he used the correct matter, AND he had the intention of doing what the Church does - then, I agree with those sentiments.
Nevertheless, my points remain: "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM…" "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI …" and only those words alone(!!!) are NOT precisely recorded in the Gospels or in St Paul. I suggest that you refer to the relevant passages to see where there IS variation.
Now! I hasten to add that the Church has ALWAYS had the power to determine what constitutes the Words of Consecration for the Roman Rite - and all other Rites as well.
It is safe to say the the Consecration per se has not changed since Christ himself said the FIRST Mass at the last Supper! However, YOU have limited the event to commence from “since Sts. Peter and paul first preached in Rome.” That is a nonsence!
Secondly, as has already been pointed out - the Catechism of the Council of Trent provided the response: “Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.”
That means that they are not necessarily contained in the Gospels - which in the time of “SS. Peter and Paul in Rome” had not YET been written - much less compiled into the Bible! Moreover, sections of one were combined with sections from another writer to form a whole.
E
elzoro
Guest
Check out these Whoppers:
- Traditionalist believe that if a Mass isn’t said in Latin, it’s not valid.
- Traditionalists believe that the first Masses were said in Latin.
- Traditionalists believe that it’s all about the “smells and bells” and nothing to do with the actual text of the New Mass.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
Furthermore, the following from:
CHRISTIAN LIFE AND WORSHIP
Rev. Gerald Ellard, S.J., Ph.D.,
The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee
Imprimi potest, Nihil obstat and Imprimatur Nov. 20, 1939.
(My copy Seventh Printing 1947), pp. 186/7:
CHRISTIAN LIFE AND WORSHIP
Rev. Gerald Ellard, S.J., Ph.D.,
The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee
Imprimi potest, Nihil obstat and Imprimatur Nov. 20, 1939.
(My copy Seventh Printing 1947), pp. 186/7:
A
AJV
Guest
That is Hippolytus, no?
- Status