Transitioning to Tridentine Rite

[Cristiano]

A few of the Church Fathers were platonists, like Origen. That tradition has not survived because it was never a consensus among the Church Fathers.

I say many and you say a few, that seems to be quite a relativistic argument. Is is possible that a lot of other arguments in relation to some of the traditions (e.g. language) are partially relativistic too? Isn’t it possible that using a present language in part of today’s liturgical work might be as essential as keeping Latin into it?

 

[ProVobis]

I can certainly understand that the Church wants Latin in the liturgy preserved for reasons of accuracy of transmitting the faith, and also for honoring tradition. But does the Church really teach that the speaking of Latin is somehow more “sacred” then the speaking of other language?

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere it is arrogance to claim some national modern language is as good as or better than the official language of the Church. Yes, like Hebrew and Greek, Latin is the language of the cross, and as such, can be claimed sacred in that respect. We’d be having a different discussion if only Greek and Hebrew were used as inscriptions on the cross. Christianity might not have subsumed the Roman Empire for all we know.

 

[TimothyH]

A lot of the Church Fathers, the early ones, followed Plato’s philosophical approach and not the Aristotle’s one. Should we go back to that approach and then put St. Thomas work in the back burner? Probably it would not be such a bad idea.

I think you are onto something.

It wouldn’t be such a bad idea, at least temporarily, to throw aritotlean philosophy out the window entirely, and go back to the “Traditional” approach to theology which was used for the first 1100 years of of the Church. Lectio Divina and meditating on Sacred Scripture - the monastic contemplative approach.

It might not be such a bad idea to step back to a time when Augustine was able to exclaim “Too long have I waited to love you!” out loud. It might not be too bad of an idea to enter into the theology of the desert Fathers, when grace was something not only recieved in the sacrament on Saturday afternoon, but something you felt coursingyou felt and lived instead of waiting on line for on Saturday afternoon.

“Following the Footsteps of the Invisible” anyone?

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

A lot of the Church Fathers, the early ones, followed Plato’s philosophical approach and not the Aristotle’s one. Should we go back to that approach and then put St. Thomas work in the back burner? Probably it would not be such a bad idea.

C, if you’re going to use some form of Homer vs Virgil approach here, it’s best to remember that Cicero himself was a deep Greek scholar. So in a sense Western civilization has incorporated much Greek philosophy in its law, sciences, math, mythology, etc. The Romans loved the Greeks after they had conquered them.

 

[Cristiano]

C, if you’re going to use some form of Homer vs Virgil approach here, it’s best to remember that Cicero himself was a deep Greek scholar. So in a sense Western civilization has incorporated much Greek philosophy in its law, sciences, math, mythology, etc. The Romans loved the Greeks after they had conquered them.

I am not trying to use Homer vs. Virgil but simply Plato vs. Aristotle, both Greeks. I was simply trying to make the point that we have to really look at thing in the original context and that we should be very careful before picking either item A or item B when we could pick both of them. Usually I am very uncomfortable with absolute statements. I would dare to say that I am always uncomfortable with absolute statements.

 

[Cristiano]

I think you are onto something.

It wouldn’t be such a bad idea, at least temporarily, to throw aritotlean philosophy out the window entirely, and go back to the “Traditional” approach to theology which was used for the first 1100 years of of the Church. Lectio Divina and meditating on Sacred Scripture - the monastic contemplative approach.

It might not be such a bad idea to step back to a time when Augustine was able to exclaim “Too long have I waited to love you!” out loud. It might not be too bad of an idea to enter into the theology of the desert Fathers, when grace was something not only recieved in the sacrament on Saturday afternoon, but something you felt coursingyou felt and lived instead of waiting on line for on Saturday afternoon.

“Following the Footsteps of the Invisible” anyone?

-Tim-

This is scary. When I typed my post I was thinking about a book on the Lectio Divina.

 

[ProVobis]

How is this “Christian nuance” retained when going from Hebrew and Greek to Latin but lost when going from Latin to English.

Because they were nuances of the same period. And highly inflected languages at that. English is one of the least inflected languages and thought flow is different than say Polish, even with the most literal of translations. I see the Polish translation of the Latin much truer than that of the English.

Also consider that Latin, which was codified by Cicero et al, was Christianized by the early Church. Deus became the one, true God, oratio became “prayer,” gratia “grace” and so forth. It has been specifically set aside as the language of its liturgy.

Or does an oscilliscope render Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin all the same?

Of course not. Even Dominus vobiscum produces different sound waves than Vobiscum Dominus, though one can fix it so it produces the same. You have to love physics, though.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

There is no disputing the sacredness and importance of Latin within the Latin Chruch, but this thread reminds me of the story about Texas Governer Ma Ferguson, which we could adapt:

"If Latin was good enough for Jesus Christ, it oughta be good enough for all Catholics."

 

[Cristiano]

There is no disputing the sacredness and importance of Latin within the Latin Chruch, but this thread reminds me of the story about Texas Governer Ma Ferguson, which we could adapt:

"If Latin was good enough for Jesus Christ, it oughta be good enough for all Catholics."

I am in Texas and that is what I keep saying!

The only thing is that I have such a strong personal preference for Latin that I usually do not get in any discussion in support of Latin because I can be extremely biased. I just try to keep some balance and to be as objective as I can.

 

[ProVobis]

I was simply trying to make the point that we have to really look at thing in the **original context **and that we should be very careful before picking either item A or item B when we could pick both of them.

You’re right as usual but the cavemen should get some credit then too.

Otherwise we’d have no god of fire.

 

[floresco]

For the record, I do resent your continual implication that I am misrepresenting church teaching. It is clear that you do not wish to relinquish your opinion, though it is entirely foreign to the mind of the church.

I am not implying it. I am very clearly stating that you are misrepresenting Church teaching when you claim that she teaches that *versus populum * is the preferred position. Apparently you have misunderstood the documents that you have quoted in this thread.

Let’s take one more look at your error.

It is your error, but I’m glad to look at it again.

While Fr. Z may have been entirely correct that the latin was misinterpreted in GIRM’s #299, he based this on 2002’s GIRM, to which Cardinal Estevez made his official response. So far we agree.

However, if the Church did not intend that V.P. is the preferred form, then the correction would have been made in 2010’s GIRM. This was not changed, notwithstanding the Cardinal’s response, which made allowance for A.O.

Perhaps, the English translation has not changed because it is difficult to translate the Latin more clearly. Perhaps it was an oversight. Perhaps it was felt that the Cardinal’s earlier response made a clearer translation unnecessary since he had already explained this passage:

The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.

The phrase “which is desirable whenever possible” refers to building the altar apart from the wall. It does not refer to celebrating Mass facing the people. This is the conclusion that Fr. Z came to in his analysis of the Latin (and normative) original. This is what the Cardinal said in the response that you yourself cited. The Church does not teach that we are to celebrate versus populum whenever possible.

Kindly note that the 115 footnote refers to the other document I quoted in this thread:
Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction, Inter Oecumenici, September 26, 1964, no. 91: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964), p. 898.

If this was not the intent of the I.O. Commission, why then would they have instructed that the altar be free standing, if the celebrant was to continue using ad orientum? **There would have been no need to make this statement or direct the changing of our altars whatsoever, **other than this was discussed at length within the V-II Council. These Commissioners did not pull this idea out of a hat, totally foreign to the direction of the bishops.

Instructing that the altar be free standing allows for versus populum as an option, which is consistent with Church teaching that both positions are permitted. Allowing it as an option when most altars make it physically impossible, does not make sense. Yes, versus populum was discussed in many places I’m sure. However, there is no official teaching from the Church that says this is the preferred position.

It will accomplish little toward unity to continue arguments pitting AO against VP, and I have no desire to debate the worthiness of either orientation. You are completely free to believe AO is better, whereas I may honestly disagree. In the long run, it is merely personal preference, yes? For the EF your preference is correct and proper, and for the OF, facing the people is the present norm - both are in accord with the rubrics for each celebration.

My preferences are irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about you claiming the Church teaches versus populum is to be preferred when she does not in fact teach this. Your misrepresentation of Church teaching would be a problem even if I preferred Mass to be celebrated with everyone standing on their heads.

I have not seen any threads here at CAF where Catholics who attend the OF are vehement in opposing the posture of EF liturgies, as are traditionalists who object to the priest facing the people in the OF liturgies. For the life of me, I cannot understand this mindset. It needs to stop!

I am not opposing any particular altar position. (Although, for the record, I think that “standing on their heads” thing is a bad idea. ) I am opposing claiming the Church teaches things that she does not.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

A lot of the Church Fathers, the early ones, followed Plato’s philosophical approach and not the Aristotle’s one. Should we go back to that approach and then put St. Thomas work in the back burner? Probably it would not be such a bad idea.

It actually wouldn’t be a bad idea if there were good theological reasons for doing so; however, “convenience” would never pass as a good theological reasons just like how change for the sake of convenience doesn’t come across as a good enough reason to remove Latin from the Liturgy.

The Contemporary Church and Latin

Vatican II:
“The use of Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (Sacrosanctum
Concilium, n. 36)

“care must be taken to insure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the
Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 54)

Pope Paul VI:
“We want to say something very plainly to those whose shallow minds or unthinking passion for the new lead them to the idea that the Latin language must be totally spurned by the Latin Church. To them we say that it is absolutely clear that Latin must be held in high honor…” (Address to Latinists, 1968)

“…take away the language that transcends national boundaries and possesses a marvelous spiritual power and the music that rises from the depths of the soul where faith resides and charity burns – we mean Gregorian Chant – and the choral office will be like a snuffed candle; it will no longer shed light, no longer draw the eyes and minds of the
people.” (Sacrificium Laudis, 1966)

Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities:
“Thus use of the vernacular must never become the general practice at the expense of Latin. In granting the use of the vernacular the Church does not intend that clerics think themselves freed from going to the sources or that in their preparation for the priesthood they neglect even slightly the universal language of the Latin Church.” (Doctrina et
Exemplo, 1965)

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship:
“For liturgical celebrations sung in Latin, Gregorian Chant, as the music proper of the Roman liturgy, should have pride of place, all other things being equal.” (General Instruction for the Liturgy of the Hours, 1971)

“Pope Paul VI has expressed often, and even recently, the wish that the faithful of all countries be able to sing at least a few Gregorian Chants in Latin (for example, the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei). In compliance, this Congregation has prepared the enclosed booklet Iubilate Deo, which provides a short collection of Gregorian Chants.” (Voluntati
Obsequens, 1974)

Code of Canon Law (1983):
“The Eucharistic Celebration is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been approved.” (c.928)

“The program for priestly formation is to m ake provision that the students are not only carefully taught their native language but also that they are well skilled in the Latin language…” (c. 249)

Pope John Paul II:
“The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself.” (Dominicae Cenae, 1980)

“If, there are some present who do not understand what is being said or sung, they know at least that all is said and sung to the glory of God, and that is sufficient for them to join in it devoutly.”—Saint Augustine.

 

[TimothyH]

It actually wouldn’t be a bad idea if there were good theological reasons for doing so; however, “convenience” would never pass as a good theological reasons just like how change for the sake of convenience doesn’t come across as a good enough reason to remove Latin from the Liturgy.

The Contemporary Church and Latin

Vatican II:
“The use of Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (Sacrosanctum
Concilium, n. 36)

“care must be taken to insure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the
Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 54)

Pope Paul VI:
“We want to say something very plainly to those whose shallow minds or unthinking passion for the new lead them to the idea that the Latin language must be totally spurned by the Latin Church. To them we say that it is absolutely clear that Latin must be held in high honor…” (Address to Latinists, 1968)

“…take away the language that transcends national boundaries and possesses a marvelous spiritual power and the music that rises from the depths of the soul where faith resides and charity burns – we mean Gregorian Chant – and the choral office will be like a snuffed candle; it will no longer shed light, no longer draw the eyes and minds of the
people.” (Sacrificium Laudis, 1966)

Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities:
“Thus use of the vernacular must never become the general practice at the expense of Latin. In granting the use of the vernacular the Church does not intend that clerics think themselves freed from going to the sources or that in their preparation for the priesthood they neglect even slightly the universal language of the Latin Church.” (Doctrina et
Exemplo, 1965)

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship:
“For liturgical celebrations sung in Latin, Gregorian Chant, as the music proper of the Roman liturgy, should have pride of place, all other things being equal.” (General Instruction for the Liturgy of the Hours, 1971)

“Pope Paul VI has expressed often, and even recently, the wish that the faithful of all countries be able to sing at least a few Gregorian Chants in Latin (for example, the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei). In compliance, this Congregation has prepared the enclosed booklet Iubilate Deo, which provides a short collection of Gregorian Chants.” (Voluntati
Obsequens, 1974)

Code of Canon Law (1983):
“The Eucharistic Celebration is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been approved.” (c.928)

“The program for priestly formation is to m ake provision that the students are not only carefully taught their native language but also that they are well skilled in the Latin language…” (c. 249)

Pope John Paul II:
“The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself.” (Dominicae Cenae, 1980)

“If, there are some present who do not understand what is being said or sung, they know at least that all is said and sung to the glory of God, and that is sufficient for them to join in it devoutly.”—Saint Augustine.

Nobody on this thread that I have read has stated that Latin should be abolished altogether.

Personally, I love the Angus and Sanctus in Latin, and the Kyrie in Greek, and have recently taught myself the traditional O Salutaris and Tantum Ergo tunes in Latin.

I think you are shadowboxing with a postion no one has taken, that Latin should be totally abolished from the Church. Maybe I missed it, but that is not what I read anywhere on this thread.

I take issue with the insistence that all liturgies must always be in Latin, and I take strong issue with anyone who insists that two Masses being equal, the one in Latin has a greater power to make those who attend holy, less prone to sin, or to make God love them more than attening the same Mass which is not in Latin.

Nobody is against Latin. Nobody hates the Latin Mass and want’s to abolish it. At least I don’t. What I take issue with is the position that people who go to the Latin Mass are somehow better Christians because the Mass is in Latin, as opposed to French or Russian or Haitian Creole.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

Also:

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7

• Veterum Sapientia, Pope John XXIII, 1962

the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure … of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

• Veterum Sapientia, Pope John XXIII, 1962

 

[Sirach2]

Floresco:

My preferences are irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about you claiming the Church teaches versus populum is to be preferred when she does not in fact teach this.

I am simply presenting the documents of the church, which are to be interpreted solely by those who hold Divine Authority. Our place is to obey, not to sit here with gavel in hand and expect others to buy into your personal misinterpretation. I thought you gave up arguing for lent?

The NORM of celebration in the OF is VP…

• whether or not you like it,
• whether or not the latin was misinterpreted several years ago,
• whether or not you believe I am mistaken in my understanding
• whether or not the bishops are reading the documents incorrectly

If the bishops “happen” to be wrong in THEIR understanding of using the preferred form VP, then it is illogical to expect that I will not believe likewise. What gives you a more certain theological expertise in YOUR interpretation? When you have consulted the majority of bishops as to whether or not VP is the norm, let me know - maybe then I’ll listen.

Until the church revises her position on this or until the local Ordinary directs his clergy to celebrate A.O., it is fruitless for you to sit in judgment of what I may or may not believe. It is completely tacky and uncharitable. The official Church documents I presented speak for themselves, not I, not Fr. Z, not Wikipedia. The only lawful interpreter, as I said, is the Church herself, who obviously disagrees with you.

 

[Cristiano]

I am simply presenting the documents of the church, which are to be interpreted solely by those who hold Divine Authority. Our place is to obey, not to sit here with gavel in hand and expect others to buy into your personal misinterpretation. The NORM of celebration in the OF is VP…

• whether or not you like it,
• whether or not the latin was misinterpreted several years ago,
• whether or not you believe I am mistaken in my understanding
• whether or not the bishops are reading the documents incorrectly

If the bishops “happen” to be wrong in THEIR understanding of using the preferred form VP, then it is illogical to expect that I will not believe likewise. What gives you a more certain theological expertise in YOUR interpretation?

Until the church revises her position on this or until the local Ordinary directs his clergy to celebrate A.O., it is fruitless for you to sit in judgment of what I may or may not believe. It is completely tacky and uncharitable.

It is not about theological interpretation. It is about understanding the Latin grammar. You are trying to use the English construction of a sentence instead of the Latin construction of a sentence to make your point. “It is preferred to have an altar that allows the position versus populum” and it is not “to have an altar that allows the preferred position versus populum”.

Given that the two are equally allowed the Bishops can express their preferences.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Nobody on this thread that I have read has stated that Latin should be abolished altogether.

Personally, I love the Angus and Sanctus in Latin, and the Kyrie in Greek, and have recently taught myself the traditional O Salutaris and Tantum Ergo tunes in Latin.

I think you are shadowboxing with a postion no one has taken, that Latin should be totally abolished from the Church. Maybe I missed it, but that is not what I read anywhere on this thread.

I take issue with the insistence that all liturgies must always be in Latin, and I take strong issue with anyone who insists that two Masses being equal, the one in Latin has a greater power to make those who attend holy, less prone to sin, or to make God love them more than attening the same Mass which is not in Latin.

Nobody is against Latin. Nobody hates the Latin Mass and want’s to abolish it. At least I don’t. What I take issue with is the position that people who go to the Latin Mass are somehow better Christians because the Mass is in Latin, as opposed to French or Russian or Haitian Creole.

-Tim-

The problem I have Tim is some think the EF is the only Mass which should have Latin in it and that the OF should be regarded as the Venacular Mass; which as shown above is not what the Popes or the Council called for.

 

[Sirach2]

Given that the two are equally allowed the Bishops can express their preferences.

Thank you, My point exactly. I have stated it clearly, that BOTH are allowed, as per Cardinal Estevez’s clarification. However, after 40-plus years, the bishops have not changed their preference. Why are we nitpicking this to death, particularly when Floresco is an avid trad who would love to see this changed, even though she does not attend the OF.

 

[ProVobis]

However, if the Church did not intend that V.P. is the preferred form, then the correction would have been made in 2010’s GIRM. This was not changed, notwithstanding the Cardinal’s response, which made allowance for A.O. Here is the new wording for #299:

One would be hard-pressed to find any Vatican II documents calling for radical reforms. There is no dispute some reforms were called for, especially when dealing with pastoral matters. But making versus populum the normal posture for the entire Mass would IMO have been a radical reform in the Latin rite (and I’m sure in Eastern rites as well).

 

[Sirach2]

You were there, PV?

I need to point out that Floresco is an avid latin scholar, and on her other website, she frequently corrects others with regard to latin usage and grammar. Yet she is strangely silent about the latin used in I.O. #91, 1964, which was approved by Paul VI, inserted in AAS archives, and requoted in two editions of the GIRM #299. To clarify, I could consult a latin scholar of my own, but it is beyond the scope of this little thread, and not a mania of mine to prove I’m right.

As it was said in Cardinal E’s response, for those who find the practice objectionable,

These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will, even though some of them were and still are the object of controversy with regard to their continuity with earlier magisterial teaching, or their compatibility with the tradition.

There is nothing more to say. Either one obeys, or one argues. You choose.

P/S … I am placing Floresco on ignore, for this discussion is very uncharitable.