A
Aboveallbereal
Guest
and vast millions are nominally catholic whilst being de facto Protestant denying the magisterium when teaching is not to their liking.
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
If you want to be very techinical about it, you could say anyone who sins is less Catholic because sin stains our relationship with the Church and therefore we’d be in a less than perfect communion with the Church.
P
ProVobis
Guest
We don’t know the fluency degree Christ spoke Latin but we’ll have to presume He did understand Latin. As did the Jews in Pilate’s court.
A similar thing in Poland in the 30’s and 40’s. When the Germans occupied half their country, many of the Polish people learned to speak German. I know as my mother told me. Didn’t mean they liked it, though, but that’s what happens when countries are conquered.
But it all shouldn’t really matter. Latin served to spread the Catholic faith for over 1600 centuries and it continues to be the official language of the Church.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The Philippines was under Spanish rule for 333 years and yet the masses never gained a fluency in Spanish the same way South America did. In fact, the Spanish left 112 years ago and today or even 30 years ago you’d be hard pressed to find anyone with any kind of Spanish fluency.
Occupation doesn’t always equal familiarity with the language of the occupiers. There will be those who would adapt for one reason or another, but it depends on the intention of the occupier if they want to educate or not. The Americans followed for 50 years after the Spanish and immediately taught the Filipinos English. To this day English is a second official language of the Philippines.
P
patrick457
Guest
Actually, At its height, Spanish was spoken by 60% of the populace with varying degrees of fluency. The reason why it became rare is because the Americans suppressed it, putting English in its place. As a result, by the 1960’s, only a few knew Spanish. In Latin American countries, the Spanish language never became widely spoken until they gained their independence from Spain. In the Philippines, the same would have happened if not for the American invasion.
R
rben20
Guest
A traditional Catholic is orthodox and in line with the Pope. We have two ways of being traditional in the OF and EF but there is no denying that the EF is the most traditional as it was not invented in the 60s.
On that note, we should follow the OF rubrics and documents correctly and that is not having a priest face the people and preserve the gregorian chant and latin in the Mass…something many churches have given up and forgotten. The reintroduction of the EF is to help establish that reverence and tradition lost in the OF and provide what has nourished Catholics for over a thousand years. Nothing changes the OF is valid.
On that note, we should follow the OF rubrics and documents correctly and that is not having a priest face the people and preserve the gregorian chant and latin in the Mass…something many churches have given up and forgotten. The reintroduction of the EF is to help establish that reverence and tradition lost in the OF and provide what has nourished Catholics for over a thousand years. Nothing changes the OF is valid.
P
patrick457
Guest
Sometimes I even wonder whether some traditionalist Catholics, because they seem to be so hung up on the “traditional” part, forget the “Catholic” part of their label.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Because Pilate may have spoken Greek, which was the common tongue? We really don’t know what language Pilate spoke, do we?
Are you claiming that Pilate spoke only Latin, which was not the common language of the Roman empire at this time?
V
Vince1022
Guest
Where in the Gospels is that? Thanks.
R
rben20
Guest
Lets not forget Jesus was God…therefore highly knowledgable in all tongues. So what if Jesus knew Latin or Greek in addition to Aramaic? What difference does any of this have to do with being a traditional Catholic?
V
Vince1022
Guest
Not really. I am sure Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers would identify themselves as “traditional Catholics” yet they are in schism.
The Mass of Paul VI was not “invented in the 60s” just as every liturgical reform (including the one following the Council of Trent, which was far more radical than the one following Vatican II) is not an “invention.”
R
rben20
Guest
Well anyone can make that argument. I’m sure liberal Catholics could say they are being traditional as well as anglicans, protestants and many other groups…doesn’t change the fact that a traditional catholic needs to be in line with the Pope. Let’s not get into semantics and realize what is authentically traditional.
And yes the Mass of Paul VI was invented. Pope Benedict XVI said himself:
“The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication.They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.”
Your opinions are just that…yours.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Isn’t this the most mis-quoted words of Cardinal Ratziner now Pope Benedict XVI? I believe he was referring to Liturgical abuses with this statement, not the Mass of Paul VI itself. Of course some self-serving group made it sound like the Cardinal was referring to the OF Mass in itself and not just the abuses that is happening.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Of course Jesus, as God, knew all languages. That’s not the question that was raised. The question is what language did people actually use in the first century eastern Mediterranean?
I don’t know what difference any of this makes regarding being a “traditional Catholic” why not ask the OP?
V
Vince1022
Guest
What quotation are you referring to? I would appreciate reading all of what you claim Benedict said, in context.
The Mass of Paul VI was not invented any more than the Mass of Pius V (following Trent) was.
R
rben20
Guest
I’m not trying to cleverly force a secret message. This is clearly what Pope Benedict XVI said about the Pauline Mass.
That’s who I directed my question to originally but I can see where you thought it was directed at you. As far as the languages at the time…Latin (Ruled by Romans), Greek (Merchant/business language), and Aramaic (Jesus’s language He chose to speak in)
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
No, I’m telling you that the quote was not for the Pauline Mass but for the abuses. That is why I said that this was a misquote. This has been debated before many times in this forum. There are those who chopped these words off and taken them into context to make other people believe that he was lambasting the OF Mass itself when in fact he was speaking against Liturgical abuses.
edit:
I’m not implying you are out to deceive people here. I believe that you were honestly taken for a ride as most people have by those who originated the misquote.
R
rben20
Guest
Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104
Sure the New Mass has elements that are traditional and go back to the first liturgies but there were new innovations and especially after the poor management of abuses that settled in afterwards by our bishops and priests.
R
rben20
Guest
O well I would be willing to see everything in context then if I am not interpreting it correctly. It’s a pretty common source most notable with traditional groups. Thanks Constantine.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I believe it was Bro. JR who clarified this some while back in another thread which this was brought up. To tell you the truth I’ve never read the whole thing but I trust Bro. JR completely.
- Status