R
rben20
Guest
Me too. Any chance you can give me the link to the thread?
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I’m trying. I think it would be easier if he would just post it again
I’m trying the search but can’t find it. It could have been deleted or moved to another forum. I forgot the thread title now.
R
rben20
Guest
I’ll just PM him. Thanks though ConstantineI’m trying. I think it would be easier if he would just post it again
I’m trying the search but can’t find it. It could have been deleted or moved to another forum. I forgot the thread title now.
V
Vince1022
Guest
How do we know Jesus chose to speak in Aramaic? Greek was the common language at the time. Latin was not the common language at this time, Greek was, even though the Romans ruled the empire. Can you clarify what you mean? Thanks!
V
Vince1022
Guest
Thanks, but I can’t access that reference online. Do you have a link? Or a translation?. Any further help? Appreciate it. Though I can’t help but think, you’re referring to a writing in some non-Magisterial source, right? And from 1990? So, hardly an authoritative Papal or Magisterial teaching. Right? So what’s your real point referring to this?
And as you note, I agree (and this was the same imho for the radical revision to the Mass following Trent)-- traditional elements that go back to the first liturgies but also seemingly new (debatable) innovations. Trent was more radical than Vatican II in at least one respect, it abrogated all other Eucharistic liturgies that had not existed for at least 200 years.
As we’ve seen, according to current Church teaching, the reforms of Vatican II did not apparently take the same radical position.
L
Layman
Guest
They’re not. AFAIK, Only the bishops were technically in schism before and now even they are not. Their priests and those who go to their Masses were not and are not in schism.
That’s debatable. It’s certainly very different. Even just the text, never mind the way it is now commonly said. See the link in my signature for a side by side comparison.
L
laszlo
Guest
We all know that Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI after 1970 overwhelmingly celebrated the public mass according to the 1969 rubrics. He also named that form as Ordinary Form, as it is opposed to the older rubric called by him Extraordinary Form. This should mean, that he accepts that changes as the changes made by the living Magisterium.
Still some people circulate less than a half dozen quotations, some of them from him, some of at least somewhat dubious origin which rejects the Ordinary Form as man made, fabricated banal.
The only proper resolution is that in the mind of of the Pope and in the reality, there are three forms of the Masses
In the abusive Masses always the people’s part is overemphasized against Jesus Christ. Typical example was the former pastor of my territorial parish, who sat while the collections were finished, sometimes two collections consecutively, taking over 15 minutes, and because the time frame is 90 minutes, the Mass proper the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was squeezed into less than 10 minutes followed by the festive distribution by more than a dozen Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers; totally missing the Sacrifice element of the Mass; even the bell ringing for the consecration was omitted.
This and similar ones are the man made, artificial, fabricated banal elements of the abusive masses rejected by our pope, not the 1970 Rubrics, which represent less change in the Rubrics of the Mass than St Pius X Divino Afflatu represented against the Traditional Tridentine Office.
Still some people circulate less than a half dozen quotations, some of them from him, some of at least somewhat dubious origin which rejects the Ordinary Form as man made, fabricated banal.
The only proper resolution is that in the mind of of the Pope and in the reality, there are three forms of the Masses
- the Traditional Tridentine Mass
- the 1970 Mass as it is defined,and as it is celebrated by our Pope and priests faithful for the tradition of the Church
- the abused mass which wants to force the concept of ‘people’s Church’ and consequently ‘people’s Mass’ against the true Church of Jesus Christ and true Mass of Jesus Christ.
- gathering, leaning, offering in our part
- sacrifice for us, feeding us wioth His body and sending us to His mission by the part of our Lord Jesus Christ
In the abusive Masses always the people’s part is overemphasized against Jesus Christ. Typical example was the former pastor of my territorial parish, who sat while the collections were finished, sometimes two collections consecutively, taking over 15 minutes, and because the time frame is 90 minutes, the Mass proper the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was squeezed into less than 10 minutes followed by the festive distribution by more than a dozen Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers; totally missing the Sacrifice element of the Mass; even the bell ringing for the consecration was omitted.
This and similar ones are the man made, artificial, fabricated banal elements of the abusive masses rejected by our pope, not the 1970 Rubrics, which represent less change in the Rubrics of the Mass than St Pius X Divino Afflatu represented against the Traditional Tridentine Office.
L
laszlo
Guest
I made myself that comparison too, I found no essential differences
divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/missa/Cmissa.pl
Would you so kind to list some details from your comparison. (also please print the links, I do not see that as I read this thread)
L
Layman
Guest
Isn’t the “Jesus didn’t speak Latin” proposition commonly used in the “Anything But Latin We Want The Vernacular” argument with regard to the Roman Rite. Is that’s what’s being argued here? I’m a bit lost.
Went to a Low Mass in a big church on All Soul’s Day. There was to be a N.O. Mass and devotions afterwards. During the TLM, attendees for the N.O. came trickling into the church.
Some walked around it, even up front, touching various statues, crawling on their knees, making noise tidying bits and pieces at the back. Their personal activitives took precedence over the ongoing Mass. They were from various ethnic minorities. **They either didn’t know they were looking at a Mass or didn’t care. **This is the second time I’ve experienced this, there. When a pal told one to be quiet, he was told to shut up.
I don’t think the lituturgical experts realise how much sheer ignorance there is of the Faith and Tradition out there. They’ve been experimenting with the rubrics while the ignorance of their flock increases.
What traditionalist Catholics would like is a local TLM on a Sunday morning and respite from local creativity in our sacraments. A priest who “Says the black and does the red”, mentions Hell in his sermons to keep us honest, and, oooh, shoot for the stars, a choir which meets to practice Gregorian chant, led buy cantor with a distaste for treacle.
**
There was actually a bishop who complained about the use of Latin during the Pope’s mass here. He said that that wasn’t what had been agreed upon, or words to that effect.**
Went to a Low Mass in a big church on All Soul’s Day. There was to be a N.O. Mass and devotions afterwards. During the TLM, attendees for the N.O. came trickling into the church.
Some walked around it, even up front, touching various statues, crawling on their knees, making noise tidying bits and pieces at the back. Their personal activitives took precedence over the ongoing Mass. They were from various ethnic minorities. **They either didn’t know they were looking at a Mass or didn’t care. **This is the second time I’ve experienced this, there. When a pal told one to be quiet, he was told to shut up.
I don’t think the lituturgical experts realise how much sheer ignorance there is of the Faith and Tradition out there. They’ve been experimenting with the rubrics while the ignorance of their flock increases.
What traditionalist Catholics would like is a local TLM on a Sunday morning and respite from local creativity in our sacraments. A priest who “Says the black and does the red”, mentions Hell in his sermons to keep us honest, and, oooh, shoot for the stars, a choir which meets to practice Gregorian chant, led buy cantor with a distaste for treacle.
**
There was actually a bishop who complained about the use of Latin during the Pope’s mass here. He said that that wasn’t what had been agreed upon, or words to that effect.**
L
Layman
Guest
I don’t think I’m allowed, on this forum, to compare the two. Your link compares the old Latin rite, in Latin, with a Paul VI in English. Mine compares two vernacular versions.
One can simply note the amount of text in each, what’s added, what’s subtracted and the tone of what’s being said in each. That’s what’s most striking to me.
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm
Personally, I urge all readers to petition for the liberation of the 1924 missal. That’s the last one before the editing became subtractive, I think.
UPDATE: Seems the LMS website might be having some problems.
P
ProVobis
Guest
According to the Gospel of St. John, the inscription above the cross was in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew so that everyone could read and understand. Pilate talked to the crowd as well as Christ. Maybe he spoke in all three languages at that time as well. A lot of people, even uneducated, do speak multiple languages, after all.
One other thing a “conquering” empire does is to force its currency (basis of trade) as well as language. And don’t we have something in the Gospels about rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s? If so, isn’t it reasonable to presume that those exchanging Roman coins understood at least a little Latin? But you can draw your own conclusions. It’s possible that no one in Pilate’s court spoke Latin, but what are the odds?
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree, but it seems the traditional Catholics are the ones who have to defend the Mass being said in Latin, or even any part of it. Unfortunately it’s not enough that the Council of Trent, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, the current Pope, and the Second Vatican Council all spoke about preserving Latin or spoke against the babelized vernacular, but now we have to show that Christ understood Latin as well. But will even this be enough?
W
Warrenton
Guest
Three cheers for that idea!!!
R
rben20
Guest
Vince. There is not much more I could clarify. We know Jesus spoke Aramaic because the Scriptures have him quoted in the language. Latin was used by the Romans and the Romans ruled over Jerusalem and other provinces. Greek was the common language yes because it was the business/merchant language similar to english today. The entire New Testament is in Greek originally. So we know that there were 3 languages going around.
"Layman:
I’m a bit lost too as there really is no point in knowing the languages spoken other than good knowledge. Whatever we have to prove there is no denying that Latin is our heritage and tradition as a Church. Traditional catholics are the ones who seek to preserve and promote its greater use…and these are the wishes of the Popes as well. Something to think about and bite if you are a vernacular only.
By the way, this is a terrible bait thread.
M
malphono
Guest
I believe the editio typica was that of 1920.
L
Layman
Guest
Just looked it up on Wikipedia. Interesting how there were not too many editions before the last century and that the 1920 one was largely additive, if I read it right.
L
laszlo
Guest
As a matter of fact my link is dynamic,
divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/missa/Cmissa.pl
simply clicking on the widgets on the top you may compare 8 different versions of the Holy Mass selecting either Latin of English in pair.
Also my opinion is, if you believe that you cannot stand up for a statement do not make the statement. Accusing other for the fault why you cant stand for it, is not exactly nice
P
ProVobis
Guest
This is a valuable website. Thanks. If one does the Latin-Latin comparisons between the 1960 and the New Mass, he can easily see that they are recognizable (to each other). The translations are a somewhat different story.
L
Layman
Guest
I didn’t accuse you of anything. That page defaults to a Latin TLM vs. English N.O., that’s all. Making derogatory comparisons of the TLM and the NO is not allowed on this forum.
P
Pregustator
Guest
1924 missal?
At any rate, if a celebrant were to use a Missal older than the 1962 edition, he would have to subtract St. Joseph’s name from the canon. It was added by John XXIII in 1962.
- Status