F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Sorry for this but as noted earlier asistir in Spanish means attend in English.
Ayudar is Spanish for assist.
Atender does not mean assist, it means address.
Asistir is not a cognate.
- Status
Ayudar is Spanish for assist.
Atender does not mean assist, it means address.
Asistir is not a cognate.
J
JReducation
Guest
It depends what country you’re in.
In many South American countries there is a strong influence from American English. We assist one another. They use assistir. Ayudar is used to help. However, it is also used to mean attend as in “I attended the meeting.” “Yo asistí a la reunión.”
Atender is used to attend to or to pay attenton to.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Well, atender a alguien means to wait on, look after, or assist someone. I’ve never heard it used to mean “address,” except maybe in the sense of “addressing oneself to something,” i.e. paying attention to it. YMMV?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I guess Google Translate is wrong.
If you do Spanish to English and enter atender it comes up address.
But if you do English to Spanish and enter address it comes up dirección.
Seems to have an issue.
From my limited Spanish I thought you were right but I went with Google Translate, stupid me.
J
JReducation
Guest
Oh you don’t want to do that. I have yet to see a good online translator. The best translator that I know is the one that comes with Microsoft Word. It’s not perfect, but it gets close than most.
However, as a fluent speaker of several languages, including Spanish, I can tell you
atender = to attend to, to pay attention, to take care of a situation
asistir = to render assistance, to attend (a function)
ayudar = to help
If you went to a store the merchant may say ¿En qué le puedo ayudar? = How may I help you?
They can also use ¿En qué le puedo asistir? = How can I assist you?
That’s why it’s much easier to translate from Latin to Spanish than into English. Both languages have a much smaller vocabulary than English. However, because they have less words, words can be used in different ways, not as precisely as English.
I’ve seen it happen often on these threads that people will take a Latin citation from a document and translate it with their English speaking brain. However, someone like me, who speaks Spanish, French and Italian fluently, because I grew up in the foreign service, will read these same Latin texts with a Romance brain. Just to clarify, I mean Romance as in the Latin languages, not romantic.
I can come away with a different meaning, because the one phrase can have multiple meanings if you lift it from its context. That’s why it’s important to know what the original speaker wanted to say. In the case of Church documents, the best way to do this is to look at the historical context in which the document was produced and examine the target audience. In theology, we would ask, “Would a pope say this to the faithful or to the bishops?” The answer to that question can give us an insight into the way that certain words are being used. Of course there are other questions that one asks as well.When I did my STD, since it was in Ascetical and Mystical Theology, my doctoral dissertation was “Franciscan Poverty in Teresian Spirituality”. I had to read the writings of the Franciscan and the Carmelite schools. Most of those writings were in Latin, Italian and Spanish where one word can be used three different ways. Context, speaker, audience, historical situation and custom were very important in determining what Francis and Teresa were saying and what was said about them.
I believe that many people who have a knee-jerk reaction at some things that the modern popes write may be thrown off because they are not as fluent in Latin as the popes and they don’t know the background of what was said by a previous pope. Just an example out of the blue. Pope John Paul may have said something that sounds contrary to something said by Pope Pius X. But we cannot forget that Bl. John Paul understood St. Pius better than we do. He understood the Latin better than we do. He understood the history better than we do. And he understood the scope and limits of the papacy better than we do. He knew what he could say and what he could not say. While he may have pushed the envelop, it’s not the same as crossing the line and speaking heresy or contradicting a previous pope. The language being used lends itself to a lot of translations into modern English. Those who speak a language such as Italian, as they do in the Vatican, would have less of a problem understanding the different nuances of Latin than an English speaker.
We, English speakers, look for precision. We try to have one word and one meaning. The Latin languages don’t follow that pattern, because they don’t have enough vocabulary. A great example is the word “should” in Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian. It can mean “should” as we know it in English, but it can also mean “to be duty bound”. The difference is going to be decided by the context, the intent, the speaker and the audience. Another great example is the word “care”, as in “God cares for us” or “I care about you.” The word does not exist in the Latin family. The “to take care of” exists. To care for or care about does not. A sentence that tries to convey this concept is very difficult to translate, because it has to describe, rather than use a single word. That description can suffer in the translation into English.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
jannypan
Guest
I do agree with him that the section on training in seminaries is probably the weakest point. “Asked” and “should be” does not inspire confidence - especially for me, when I consider the present state of the seminary system in Ireland.Buy Runescape Gold
Runescape Gold
Buy World of Warcraft Gold
Runescape Gold
Buy World of Warcraft Gold
I
InquisitorMax
Guest
‘Assist’ at Mass comes, in English, comes from the French. In French, ‘assister’ means ‘to attend’.
In grammar, this is what’s called a ‘false friend’; you think it means the same as it does in English, because it looks the same.
So to assist at Mass means merely to attend. To be there.
Kind of like how ‘active participation’ has been interpreted from the Latin. It doesn’t mean ‘everybody get busy’. It means pray along mindfully during the Mass and that can be internally.
Another mistake is to think that because something is allowed, it should be done.
If you add all the things that are allowed in a Mass (folk music, CITH standing, EMHCs, birthday greetings at the end, a band in the sanctuary, childish decorations, unvested laypeople reading) and some things that aren’t but happen anyway (personal blessings at Communion, lay orations at funerals), you have a Mass that’s going to put off serious-minded adults looking for a glimpse of glory.
Currently, the TLM offers a respite from this populist-infantilist-feminist tendency.
In grammar, this is what’s called a ‘false friend’; you think it means the same as it does in English, because it looks the same.
So to assist at Mass means merely to attend. To be there.
Kind of like how ‘active participation’ has been interpreted from the Latin. It doesn’t mean ‘everybody get busy’. It means pray along mindfully during the Mass and that can be internally.
Another mistake is to think that because something is allowed, it should be done.
If you add all the things that are allowed in a Mass (folk music, CITH standing, EMHCs, birthday greetings at the end, a band in the sanctuary, childish decorations, unvested laypeople reading) and some things that aren’t but happen anyway (personal blessings at Communion, lay orations at funerals), you have a Mass that’s going to put off serious-minded adults looking for a glimpse of glory.
Currently, the TLM offers a respite from this populist-infantilist-feminist tendency.
C
Cat
Guest
I’m one of the people who finds “pop music” much more conducive to worship and a feeling of awe than ancient music.
I disagree strongly that OF Mass looks like a “college degree presentation.”
I think that perhaps people on this thread should stop trying to sound like movie critics and using such hyperbole in their attempts to find “The Perfect Derisive Word” to describe their opinion the OF of the Mass. If you don’t like it personally, fine–just say “I don’t like it.” There is no need to write a “review.”
P
ProVobis
Guest
It’s also called a cognate, and you’re right, it doesn’t always mean the same in the two languages, especially over time.
J
JReducation
Guest
The bold is mine. You know, in charity and out of respect for the mass and the people who attend the mass, we don’t have to make these kinds of comments. We can leave it at the obvious, everything that may be done need not be done.
These kinds of comments is what makes people lump all Traditionalists and all defenders of Tradition into one pot as being rude and holier than thou. This actually makes my job and that of other priests and religious more difficult when we try to help other Catholics understand why they should make room for an EF mass in their community and why they should welcome and try to understand the spiritual needs of those who prefer the EF mass.
You’re not doing us or those who prefer the Ordinary Form any favors. Your comment does nothing to promote the spiritual life of the readers on this thread and probably does not do much for your spiritual life either. It sounds more like you venting than an profound spiritual reflection.
I don’t mean to be nasty, but I find these comments do not help and do not reflect traditional Catholic spirituality.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
Denise1957
Guest
Quote by Inquisitor Max:
“Kind of like how ‘active participation’ has been implemented from the Latin. It doesn’t mean ‘everybody get busy.’ It means pray along mindfully during Mass, and that can be done internally.”
Exactly. Thanks for providing what the original meaning, from the Latin, is regarding the meaning of ‘active participation.’
If I could add a thought ot two of my own to this, I would like to say that the Mass, either in the OF or EF, is, firstly, a prayer. It is the longest prayer of the Church. To pray along interiorly, either by following the missel, or otherwise, still constitutes ‘active participation.’ To pray is something active that we do, even if it is silent. And there are parts of the prayer of Mass that are not meant to be silent, of course. If it is always remembered that the Mass is a prayer, then the addition of those things to the Mass which are not conducive to reverent prayer will hopfully be kept to a minimum, in either form.
“Kind of like how ‘active participation’ has been implemented from the Latin. It doesn’t mean ‘everybody get busy.’ It means pray along mindfully during Mass, and that can be done internally.”
Exactly. Thanks for providing what the original meaning, from the Latin, is regarding the meaning of ‘active participation.’
If I could add a thought ot two of my own to this, I would like to say that the Mass, either in the OF or EF, is, firstly, a prayer. It is the longest prayer of the Church. To pray along interiorly, either by following the missel, or otherwise, still constitutes ‘active participation.’ To pray is something active that we do, even if it is silent. And there are parts of the prayer of Mass that are not meant to be silent, of course. If it is always remembered that the Mass is a prayer, then the addition of those things to the Mass which are not conducive to reverent prayer will hopfully be kept to a minimum, in either form.
I
InquisitorMax
Guest
I used those words to describe what I have seen and read of. Another word would be ‘minimalist’; removing ornament, in diocesan churches and Masses.The bold is mine. You know, in charity and out of respect for the mass and the people who attend the mass, we don’t have to make these kinds of comments. We can leave it at the obvious, everything that may be done need not be done.
These kinds of comments is what makes people lump all Traditionalists and all defenders of Tradition into one pot as being rude and holier than thou. This actually makes my job and that of other priests and religious more difficult when we try to help other Catholics understand why they should make room for an EF mass in their community and why they should welcome and try to understand the spiritual needs of those who prefer the EF mass.
You’re not doing us or those who prefer the Ordinary Form any favors. Your comment does nothing to promote the spiritual life of the readers on this thread and probably does not do much for your spiritual life either. It sounds more like you venting than an profound spiritual reflection.
I don’t mean to be nasty, but I find these comments do not help and do not reflect traditional Catholic spirituality.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I prefer the TLM. Failing that, I’d like an Novus Ordo said the way the Council envisaged. What’s fascinating, in a horrid way, is that the latter are very rare.
I thoroughly disagree with the proposition that: ‘The Church allows it, therefore it is fine for it to replace previous practice’.
The proposition that: ‘That’s just your opinion’, is invalid. My opinion coincides with how Roman Catholic Masses were typically said up to the 1940’s and what they sloooowwwly seem to be reverting to: Ad-orientem, with Latin and chant.
I suspect that the Church, as a body, had a crisis of confidence on the 40’s - 60’s, resulting from an over-emphasis on the intellectual and the literary. Once priests and religious contrive to return to more mystical practices: Prayer, sacrifice, chanting, adoration, nullifying egotism, introspection and deliberately trying to cadge favours from their Master in return, a lot of the nonsense will stop.
When you truly, really, realise Who you are dealing with, you’ll be very careful not to offend Him and work hard to please Him. What does He deserve? The best.
I submit that we haven’t been doing that over the past few decades. The analogy that comes to mind is that of a host not giving his guest the best and saying ‘Well, he won’t mind, because he’s so nice’, not realising how that reflects on him.
A
archangel04
Guest
I like this very much Br. JR. I think the older generations who longed for the EF still have some bitterness to what happen to the liturgy post-council. There is however bitterness on both sides regardless, this does not exclude “traditionalist” only. I think as newer generations embrace or understand the EF, that bitterness or even negativity will be barely noticeable. I think the goal now is to educate those newer generations on why the EF is needed, but also on how to properly participate in both forms of the mass. I also feel that those currently in leadership positions should do everything possible for newer generations to learn and educated themselves on both forms and allow them to choose which spiritual path will be more fruitful for them. This is what I had wished I had when I was a kid. That’s just my humbled opinion.The bold is mine. You know, in charity and out of respect for the mass and the people who attend the mass, we don’t have to make these kinds of comments. We can leave it at the obvious, everything that may be done need not be done.
These kinds of comments is what makes people lump all Traditionalists and all defenders of Tradition into one pot as being rude and holier than thou. This actually makes my job and that of other priests and religious more difficult when we try to help other Catholics understand why they should make room for an EF mass in their community and why they should welcome and try to understand the spiritual needs of those who prefer the EF mass.
You’re not doing us or those who prefer the Ordinary Form any favors. Your comment does nothing to promote the spiritual life of the readers on this thread and probably does not do much for your spiritual life either. It sounds more like you venting than an profound spiritual reflection.
I don’t mean to be nasty, but I find these comments do not help and do not reflect traditional Catholic spirituality.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
We have all seen many things in this life. Through the history of the Church there have been pleasant and unpleasant things. Some were allowed and others were abuses. However, one thing has proven to be true throughout the Church’s 2,000 year history, derogatory labels have never done anything for unity. Just the opposite, they have helped broaden the chasm between Christians.
Just look at the story of the Protestant Reformation, the story of the splits and reforms in the large religious orders, the distance between Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics. Much of it could have been prevented had people set out to promote the spiritual welfare of the other person and to help their own spiritual welfare. As St. Augustine said, that can only be done through the kind word, not the critique. Along with Augustine, we have other spiritual masters who have taught us the same thing in different words: Benedict, Francis, Vincent, Dominic, Ignatius, Teresa of Avila, Teresa of Calcutta, and John Paul.
They’re not as rare as you are led to believe. The problem is always the same. Whatever is ordinary is not considered worth talking about, putting on Youtube, posting on a thread, discussing on a blog. What makes it to the public eye is whatever is sensational.
I’ll give you two simple examples to show my point. The two largest religious families in the Church are the Franciscan and the Augustinian. There are over 114 Franciscan obediences and over 200 Augustinian obediences. An obedience is a branch of a religious order that has its own superior general. They are also international and very old. The only time that you will see a video on Youtube of a Franciscan Friary mass or a Augustinian Priory mass is if it’s put there by them. These Franciscan Friars have many ordained men who serve in parishes. The Augustinians are all ordained Canons who serve in parishes or Cathedrals. They cover thousands of parishes around the world. No one ever mentions them. Why not? Because there is nothing out of the ordinary at their masses.
Thanks to Mother Angelica the laity is learning that there is such a thing as the Franciscan Use mass. I’m not so sure about that. I have met many people who can’t tell the difference. The important thing is that were it not for her, most people would never see a mass celebrated according the the rubrics. The Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word are a very tiny obedience. There are less than 25 of them and only six are priests. Like them, there are many Franciscan, Augustinians, Dominicans, Salesians, Benedictines, Trinitarians and other priests in religious orders and secular priests in dioceses and societies who celebrate the mass as prescribed, but get little publicity. Just think about it. Of 1.7 million Franciscan men and women, only three are ever seen celebrating mass. Not all six ordained friars of the Eternal Word Missionaries celebrate mass for the laity. Of that 1.7 million, about 9,000 are friar-priests.
Now, let’s count how many priests we know who break the rules, not just in big things like consecrating crackers, but in little things too, like skipping a prayer or rushing through the mass. They don’t add up to 9,000. That’s only 9,000 ordained Franciscans. Remember, I said there are far more Augustinians, including the Dominicans who follow the Rule of St. Augustine and are huge. To top it all off, only 40% of priests belong to religious communities. The majority belong to dioceses. You don’t hear about them.
Don’t trust what you see or what you read. What you see or what you read does not represent the majority. We would not do this with a Black person, an Arab, a Jew, a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, so why do it with priests? Because something repeats itself frequently does not suggest that it’s the case most of the time. Frequently and most of the time are not the same. Frequently speaking, it’s the same people violating the rules.
Actually, it is. That’s the way law works. If it is allowed, then it is OK to do it. One can say that just because it is allowed, doesn’t mean that it has to be done. That’s legitimate. We cannot say that it should not be done or may not be done. The same rule can be applied to the EF. It’s allowed, but it’s still extraordinary and there is no intention to make it the norm. Others can say, “Just because the EF is allowed doesn’t mean that we must have an EF mass.” That argument can go two ways.
The charitable and honest way to go, at least the way that the spiritual fathers and mothers would teach us to go is to say, “If the Church allows it, in obedience, I submit and I offer my discomfort as a penance for my sins.”
I will give you a piece of sage advice from one of the great Franciscan mystics. St. Anthony of Padua once said that one should never proceed to asses what one’s brother brings to the altar, because God does not expect the best. In his sublime poverty, God is pleased with whatever you can give. No one knows how much or how little the other person can give. Anthony was a very wise man.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
There are many of us who want to do this. I also know that many feel as I do. I’ll put it in my own words. “Don’t push me.” I have worked with a group to help them get an EF and I also walked away from another. The frist group was very polite and accepted the groundwork that had to be done. The second group was demanding, hostile and wanted the illegal. They wanted the religious superior to command a priest to celebrate the EF. They were angry when they were told that a superior cannot do that.
For this to happen smoothly and to meet the spiritual needs of all involved, people have to put aside old anger and feelings of entitlement. Neither those who prefer the OF or the EF are entitled to make demands that are unreasonable or to be hostile. The most precious gift that we bring to the Eucharist is a humble and fraternal heart.
I also agree that we need to stop being “movie critics”. Critical thinking and criticism are not the same thing. “Say only the good things men need to hear,” is a very wise saying. People don’t need to hear criticism. It gets old. Ask a person who is married to a critic.
After the death of St. Francis some historians were trying to write his biography. They interviewed Brother Leo. Brother had been Francis’ nurse, secretary and close friend for a few years. He said this, “He preached always; but only when necessary did he use words.”
Thomas of Celano once wrote about Francis, “When he corrected his brothers they went away happy, because he spoke to them in the kindest tone of voice and offered to assume their guilt and do penance and atonement in their stead, for he dearly loved his brothers as Christ loved his Apostles.” This is the kind of love that we must show when correcting what we perceive as an error or a wrong.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
archangel04
Guest
I agree with the statement I bolded, but what I feel and again this is me, is that you have the usual critics as well from the other side. Now what I mean from other side I don’t mean liberals or non-traditionals, but those who prefer the OF, but also those who privately dislike the OF but don’t admit it, I don’t know who they are because they don’t admit it, but from reading some post in the past you can kind of guess. A trend I notice on here other than some “traditionalist” trying to change Church teaching or bash on clergy as previous topic you wrote about, is that of people who come on here and immediately want to add their own opinion which is contrary or against the topic at hand only to “start something” or to show their hidden dislike of the EF without openly admitting to it. Another trend is that of those who are educated and respond, but in the way they respond to correct a “traditionalist” is sometimes uncharitable, even though they may have good-intent. That’s why I learn a lot from your post Br. JR because although sometimes it may be contrary to ones opinion they are educational and charitable, and you seem to have a lot of patience with stubborn people, like me lol. I hope I make sense in what I am trying to say, and of course anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong.I** also agree that we need to stop being “movie critics”. Critical thinking and criticism are not the same thing. “Say only the good things men need to hear,” is a very wise saying. People don’t need to hear criticism. It gets old. Ask a person who is married to a critic. **After the death of St. Francis some historians were trying to write his biography. They interviewed Brother Leo. Brother had been Francis’ nurse, secretary and close friend for a few years. He said this, “He preached always; but only when necessary did he use words.”
Thomas of Celano once wrote about Francis, “When he corrected his brothers they went away happy, because he spoke to them in the kindest tone of voice and offered to assume their guilt and do penance and atonement in their stead, for he dearly loved his brothers as Christ loved his Apostles.” This is the kind of love that we must show when correcting what we perceive as an error or a wrong.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Thank you for the compliment. Patience is a challenge for me. I’ll offer a little aside her that is not germain to the thread, but helps understand where I’m coming from. First, I’m a convert form Judaism to Catholicism. That was many years ago, 1965. It took a lot of patience to answer many questions from Catholics and Jews alike.
Second, I was married. My wife, oldest son and my father were killed in an auto accident. I was left a widower with a 9 yr old daughter and a 4 yr old son with autism. Today they are independent adults. Even my son with autism holds a job, owns a home and does a million things for himself. However, I had to practice being patient with God, life, my kids and me.
Third, I left a career to pursue religious life and went back to school to get a doctorate in theology. That was quite a challenge when you’ve been out of the classroom for a long time. Again, I had to be patient. I had always been in charge, both at work and at home. Once inside religious life I had to ask for permnission to go for a walk, to get toothpaste, to wash my habit, to sleep an extra hour, to go to bed early, to visit a sick relative, to attend my mother’s funeral. All of this teaches you that you’re not entitled to anything. You are nothing. You are just an instrument in God’s hands that he uses as he wishes.
I beleive that this has taught me a valuable lesson in life. Critics and criticism are not the sign of a poor man or a person who is an instrument. The instrument never critiques the artist nor the work. It allows itself to be used, sometimes abused too. A tool is a humble thing. It accepts what it is, a simple tool. Those who have an agenda against either form of the mass are the rebellious tools.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
archangel04
Guest
Correction on the bolded it’s meant to say, “but also those who privately dislike the EF but don’t admit it.” Sorry for the mistake
D
Denise1957
Guest
I find it interesting that some here believe that criticism is wrong, but they themselves criticize, and sometimes strongly so, those with whom they disagree. They criticize someone for being critical, or what perceive as being critical, even when it isn’t directly critical at all (and they will even stretch the truth somewhat, and feel justified in doing so). As long as a person feels justified in their criticisms of others, it’s alright for them; but they do not afford others this same right. This is not a mature stance at all.
- Status