Use of Latin and the vernacular at Mass

[Resurrexit]

Rykell;1665286:

These straw man arguments have been around over 30 years already and have been refuted many times over. You simply choose to do “selective” reading.

The fact that the Church used advisers who were HERETICS and they had a large role in constructing the liturgy; the traditions of the church; the words of the Holy Councils… straw man arguments. Naturally - what else?

 

[Rykell]

You can prove they are heretics? You can prove these few men who did not have a vote were able to influence 2500 bishops? Like I said, it is false and obtained from your rad-trad websites. These people are bent on destroying the church and will stoop to lying in order to accomplish their goals.

You must think the rest of us don’t read, and only you have the truth.

It boggles my mind that after 40 years and zillions of post and threads on “I want my latin” that you folks have NOT accepted that the vernacular is here to stay. You have legitimate procedures for registering complaints with the hierarchy … have you done so?

Did you observe the mass this week on EWTN where all the US bishops who gathered in Baltimore for their fall meeting celebrated the mass entirely in english? Not a shred of latin. Surely you don’t believe the entire group of bishops are heretical?

 

[Rykell]

Resurrexit,

I just realized you are not in the US, so maybe you did not see the mass, although this station is pretty much worldwide with its broadcasts.

However, the point to consider is that when the church makes a decision through the prayerful discernment of an entire body of bishops, they have to go with the “common good” of the majority, not the selective good of the few.

In pure charity and compassion for the “few” who still cannot depart from the mass of old, the church has granted limited permissions for them to attend these masses. That is a blessing from the Lord on your behalf and I pray you appreciate this gift.

The situation is the same in any town or neighborhood where zoning laws limit the personal preferences of some, even though they own the property. The councils must enact laws on behalf of the majority. There are just some things we are not able to do much about and the serenity prayer teaches to accept this suffering where we cannot obtain everything we desire.

I may have not given you good advice asking if you voiced your concerns through proper channels, for even had you done so, if you are still part of the minority group, it will not be able to be changed. What is so deeply troubling to me and many others is the vendetta aimed at the church by those who cannot have things their own way. The total lack of charity demonstrated in these posts and threads all over the internet reveals a bitter, joyless spirit full of rancor at times towards fellow christians.

With all my heart, I wish you peace, and may God enable you to discern what is most pleasing to Him … .

 

[srp643]

LilyM;1665257:

The fact that the Church used advisers who were HERETICS and they had a large role in constructing the liturgy; the traditions of the church; the words of the Holy Councils… straw man arguments. Naturally - what else?

That’s my understanding as well Resurrexit. Exactly what these non-Catholics were doing if they weren’t there to influence the outcome has to be questioned at a minimum. Maybe I can find an explanation in one of the EDIT websites out there.

Dominus tecum.

 

[scylla]

I agree that the vernacular is very important to understanding the Mass, we are using it right now to communicate with each other.

I disagree with those EDIT who think that the Pope is a heretic. But I also disagree with the progressives who think that the Church has to modernize.
Both positions are evil.

Truth is what is important to Catholics and unity, not bickering over who is wrong and more Catholic.
Latin as stated by Vatican II has to be preserved in the Catholic Worship unless we are going to ignore Vatican II.
The vernacular also has it’s place as it allows us to understand the readings and the homily.
Removing either is wrong and ignoring truth.

Going to pure vernacular is pretty much making a Tower of Babel out of the Catholic Church as going to pure Latin will never do for the majority of Catholics.
One way you are a liberal who doesn’t care about truth.
The other way you are a EDIT radical-tradrationalist who thinks that they are more Catholic than anyone else.

Unfortunately many Catechism classes lack any teaching of Latin which unifies Catholics around the world as many are scared of it.
I am a little scared as to what my liberal parish is going to do when I teach the 2nd graders how to do their basic prayers in Latin. My volunteer job is at risk just for trying to follow the Pope.
The reason for this is there are EDIT those who scare everyone from even trying to learn a basic understanding of Latin since they are so extreme. And liberal Catholics usually cringe at any Latin whatsoever.

We need to focus on what is Catholicism, it is a worldwide family which needs to be unified in it’s worship and understanding, as truth is what is most important.
Latin unifies and has it’s place
The Vernacular allows us to understand and participate.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Resurrexit]

Rykell, I will reply in detail tomorrow. You are entitled to support the Novus Ordo and not support the Tridentine. But you clearly have little understanding of the issue, when you imply that everyone who has at least a mild preference for the Tridentine is clinging to the past and should get with times. It is not as simple as that.

If Pope Benedict sees that Latin etc is dead and a silly thing of the past - why is he interested in Reconciliation with the SSPX? And in 1993 he said:

*In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.

Therefore, a new spiritual impulse is necessary so that the liturgy becomes a community activity of the Church for us once again and to remove it from the will of parish priests and their liturgical teams.

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.*

Perhaps he’s just an extremist and silly old man we should ingore who can’t move on and get with the times.

 

[LilyM]

:banghead: Hmm… it would be interesting to find where before in the history of the Church, the Church has sought the ‘expertise’ of heretics.

Pleased to oblige the Council of Trent, for one, sought the ‘expert’ participation of heretic Protestant leaders as well as Catholics. I quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia in regards to the background and leadup to Trent (with whole paragraph provided so no quoting out of context). Source here

"On 2 June, Paul III published the Bull calling all patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and abbots to assemble at Mantua on 23 May, 1537, for a general council. Cardinal legates were sent with an invitation to the council to the emperor, the King of the Romans, the King of France, while a number of other nuncios carried the invitation to the other Christian countries. The Netherlander Peter van der Vorst was sent to Germany to persuade the German ruling princes to take part. The Protestant rulers received the ambassador most ungraciously; at Smalkald they refused the invitation curtly, although in 1530 they had demanded a council. "

 

[Resurrexit]

Pleased to oblige the Council of Trent, for one, sought the ‘expert’ participation of heretic Protestant leaders as well as Catholics. I quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia in regards to the background and leadup to Trent (with whole paragraph provided so no quoting out of context). Source here

"On 2 June, Paul III published the Bull calling all patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and abbots to assemble at Mantua on 23 May, 1537, for a general council. Cardinal legates were sent with an invitation to the council to the emperor, the King of the Romans, the King of France, while a number of other nuncios carried the invitation to the other Christian countries. The Netherlander Peter van der Vorst was sent to Germany to persuade the German ruling princes to take part. The Protestant rulers received the ambassador most ungraciously; at Smalkald they refused the invitation curtly, although in 1530 they had demanded a council. "

Thank you for that. But where does it say they wanted their theological advise/expertise? Protestant rulers invited along to the council is one thing, letting them have a major role in re-writing your liturgy is something else.

 

[AJV]

Resurrexit, I’m curious: what *exactly *did the much talked Protestant advisors do?

I’ve still not got a clue why the readings are for God or directed to Him.

And actually yes, many people were thinking of a lot of reforms. Not as radical as the 1970 ones though. It’s just that not much is known of them but there were at least 5 reform commisions before St. Pius X.

P.S. LilyM, google for Fr. Cekeda’s article on Pope Leo XIII and the St. Michael’s prayer.

 

[Tom_Taylor]

Maybe you all who think Holy Mass should be in Latin only should ask a stone deaf person what is more important…the language used, or being there for it…

 

[TradyDaddy]

There is so much more to this than the use of Latin. It is the change of the theology that was desired by Team Bugnini. Not just the Mass either, but also the prayers of the Mass ( the Introit, Collect, Secret and Offetory, etc.). A book published by TAN called “The Problems With The Prayers Of The Modern Mass” cover this quite well. It’s only about 30 pages and can be had for a few bucks. It shows side by side Old vs New prayers and how they were stripped of Catholic theology and teachings on such subjects as Hell and damnation.

No, this is NOT about nostalgia. It is about the Apostolic Faith.

 

[scylla]

Maybe you all who think Holy Mass should be in Latin only should ask a stone deaf person what is more important…the language used, or being there for it…

Your right Tom the being there for it is way more important. But if truth is not being portrayed it destroys peoples faith.

I am not for Latin only, that is wrong as no-one would understand what is going on.
I am for Latin and the common language(vernacular)
That is the Catholic way to do it.

To only have the Mass in the vernacular would be to deny our unity and the sacredness of the Mass. It is not just for us to be there, but to do the absolute most in professing unity and sacredness. This is much more effective in Latin.
We should not look for the easy way to do things but the most we can do for God. Too often in this society we have become accostomed to doing what we can, not the most possible. For God we should do the most possible to promote truth.
That is expressed in our language, gestures, prayers, etc.
Which is very poorly expressed as we allow abuses especially in the more progressive Catholic parishes.

In Christ
Scylla

We could not only just throw out language but also throw out the crucifix, the pews, the altar. This is not improving just changing for the sake of change, for innovation not to reflect truth.
We shouldn’t look at what is more comfortable but what is more obedient.

 

[Resurrexit]

Resurrexit, I’m curious: what *exactly *did the much talked Protestant advisors do?

Archbishop Bugnini (not a fact, but some say he was in league with the masons) had a team of 6 Protestant advisors. In the late 1960s, the Archbishop and the 6 advisors wrote the Novus Ordo Missal in a Swiss Hotel. For all the ‘progressives’ out the re - that IS a FACT.

I’ve still not got a clue why the readings are for God or directed to Him.

I went into this with Lily. Firstly, the priest says them facing away from the congregation. Secondly, the whole Mass is one long prayer directed towards God. God does not get bored of hearing readings from the Sacred Scriptures. For instance we sing Psalms in the Breviary. The Homily is technically not part of the Mass, so it is acceptable (and only right) by traditional standards to have it in the vernacular. If we were to have the traditional Latin followed by the vernacular for those who can’t read, everyone would be happy (apart from Mahony and the likes of).

And actually yes, many people were thinking of a lot of reforms. Not as radical as the 1970 ones though. It’s just that not much is known of them but there were at least 5 reform commisions before St. Pius X.

Indeed. People up until the 50s were taught that the Tridentine was the Mass from God, and it would NEVER change. Yes, changes were suggested, but these were very minor, and probably an improvement.

And it is quite clear that Sacrosanctum Concilium did NOT intend the entire mass to be translated into the vernacular and said on a far more regular basis than the Latin.

At the start of the council.nobody even dreamed that such a thing would happen. If someone had mentioned it they would have been laughed out. It was utterly unthinkable.

 

[Rykell]

Archbishop Bugnini (not a fact, but some say he was in league with the masons) had a team of 6 Protestant advisors. In the late 1960s, the Archbishop and the 6 advisors wrote the Novus Ordo Missal in a Swiss Hotel. For all the ‘progressives’ out the re - that IS a FACT.

According to the bible of the SSPX, I suppose … no source document? No matter — I have seen this many, many times. At least I can provide a souce which is more reliable:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6056

The famous “six Protestants” constantly flouted by opponents of the Second Vatican Council were simply observers at the Consilium, which was involved with the liturgical reform mandated by the Council. The suggestion that these “six Protestants” virtually put together the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI is a great exaggeration!

Assuming your source to be bona-fide, what good does this accomplish to cry over spilt milk? The mass was approved by and promulgated by Pope Paul VI. You might take seriously my last words, and bring peace to your troubled spirit, for it is not going to change by your posting dissent on the internet.

Giving you the benefit of a doubt, that perhaps you are in a mode to learn, I have a few things to share. There is still quite a bit more on Trent than the basics that Lily furnished to you, and I can add to this, but you may want to absorb slowly for the moment.

Other clerics have always been admitted as notaries. Lay people may be, and have been, present at councils for various reasons, but never as voters. They gave advice, made complaints, assented to decisions, and occasionally also signed the decrees.

The particular congregations of more recent councils were merely consultative assemblies (committees commissions) brought together by appointment or invitation in order to deliberate on special matters. At Trent there were congregations of prelates and congregations of theologians, both partly for dogma, partly for discipline. The congregations of prelates were either “deputations”, i.e. committees of specially chosen experts, or conciliary groups, usually three into which the council divided for the purpose of facilitating discussion.
newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

Yes, there were Protestants at Vatican II as official observers only. However, at Trent the Protestants were to have a voice!
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/valmass.html

This teaching on Ecumenical Councils of the church should be helpful as well:

When all the bishops of the Catholic world (this totality is to be understood as morally speaking; it suffices for the whole Church to be represented) are thus assembled in council, the council is called oecumenical. The doctrinal decrees of an oecumenical council, once they are approved by the pope, are infallible as are the ex cathedra definitions of the sovereign pontiff.

The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past.
newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

 

[bear06]

Thank you for that. But where does it say they wanted their theological advise/expertise? Protestant rulers invited along to the council is one thing, letting them have a major role in re-writing your liturgy is something else.

thewandererpress.com/b1-16-2003.htm

From the Council of Trent’s 13th session, we read:

“The . . . Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, . . . grants . . . to all and each one throughout the whole of Germany, whether ecclesiastics or seculars, . . . who may wish to repair to this ecumenical and general council, the public faith and full security, which they call a safe-conduct, . . . so as that they may and shall have it in their power** in all liberty to confer, make proposals, and treat on those things which are to be treated of in the said synod; to come freely and safely to the said ecumenical council, and there remain and abide, and propose therein, as well in writing as by word of mouth, as many articles as to them shall seem good, and to confer and dispute, without any abuse or contumely, with the fathers, or with those who may have been selected by the said holy synod; **as also to withdraw whensoever they shall think fit.”

 

[jgarvey]

I grew up with the Latin Mass. I was ordained in 1958 and used it until using English became possible. I was grateful to hear that it was a necessary change:

The top liturgist in the Church (His Holiness of course) said: “…the complete archaizing of the liturgy, which now passed from the stage of living history, became embalmed in the status quo and was ultimately doomed to internal decay. The liturgy had become a rigid, fixed and firmly encrusted system; the more out of touch with genuine piety, the more attention was paid to its prescribed forms. We can see this if we remember that none of the saints of the Catholic Reformation drew their spirituality from the liturgy. Ignatius of Loyola, Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross developed their religious life solely from personal encounter with God and from individual experience of the Church, quite apart from the liturgy and any deep involvement with it…The endeavours of the Sacred Congregation of Rites to preserve old forms had obviously resulted in the total impoverishment of the liturgy. If the Church’s worship was once again to become worship of God in the fullest sense – i.e., for all the faithful – then it had to get away from fixed forms. The wall of Latinity had to be breached if the liturgy were again to function either as proclamation or as invitation to prayer.”

The author of that quote is His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.

I am Fr. Jack Garvey. Anything I post anywhere is never posted anonymously.

 

[Rykell]

Resurrexit:

But you clearly have little understanding of the issue, when you imply that everyone who has at least a mild preference for the Tridentine is clinging to the past and should get with times. It is not as simple as that.

If Pope Benedict sees that Latin etc is dead and a silly thing of the past - why is he interested in Reconciliation with the SSPX?

Tridentiners are not clinging to the past? Well whaddya know. I would never have guessed! http://bestsmileys.com/doh/2.gif

Regarding your last paragraph, my guess is that it is the pure love of of a Shepherd who leaves the 99 and seeks the lost. He may then say to the Lord, I have not lost one of those you gave me, but guarded them from the evil one.

Why do you think some people spend hours on this forum trying to reconcile the two opposing groups, using all diligence in sharing the truths of our faith? Just to argue? No, it is from a fraternal love for souls that you may not understand fully, and to honor Christ’s desire for laborers to work in His vineyard.

But like Our Savior, some of these apologists fully expect that, “if they persecuted the Master of the house, they will also persecute the servants.” How true are these words!

 

[Rykell]

Welcome, Father Garvey,

You are a rainbow after a stormy day …

It is wonderful to hear (name removed by moderator)ut from the clergy, which is a rare occurrence around here. Thanks so much for expressing your sentiments on how the liturgy affected you personally. I would reckon that many of the clergy are in agreement with you.

http://bestsmileys.com/happy/2.gif

Ryan

 

[Resurrexit]

I spent about 15 minutes typing a reply, then it disappeared. Sorry, I can’t be bothered to type it all again.

So, very briefly, if you look into detail about Bugnini and his advisers, (not on SSPX sites and similar sources) you will find that the situation was not quite as rosey as you protray. I am fully aware of what happened at Trent. If you tell me something I don’t know, I will glady listen.

Also, you seem to have this delusion that anyone who does not love the New Rite and hate the Old, is an SSPX extremist who refuses to accept the Council and is stuck in the past, living on nostalgia. (I exaggerate, but I think it’s a fair point). There are many clever and important people who are at least sympathetic to traditional orders such as the FSSP and ICRSS.

It would be interesting to see when that quote from Ratzinger/Benedict was taken. I may be wrong, but I suspect it is an earlier one. If you look into his stuff on liturgy, you will see that he thinks the Novus Ordo Mass has a great deal of problems, and he is more than sympathetic to the Old Mass.

Before long he will liberalise the Traditional Mass, for the two reasons of Reconciliation with that terrible society the…dare I whisper it… SSPX, and to foster devotion to the Traditional Mass.

So to get back to the topic of Latin and vernacular in the Mass. Can you not accept that Latin is traditional, and we should at least preserve it, as Vatican 2 instructed. As I said earlier:

Indeed. People up until the 50s were taught that the Tridentine was the Mass from God, and it would NEVER change. Yes, changes were suggested, but these were very minor, and probably an improvement.

And it is quite clear that Sacrosanctum Concilium did NOT intend the entire mass to be translated into the vernacular and said on a far more regular basis than the Latin.

At the start of the council.nobody even dreamed that such a thing would happen. If someone had mentioned it they would have been laughed out. It was utterly unthinkable.

 

[Rykell]

I don’t know who you were addressing, Resurrexit, but I assume it may be me?

So, very briefly, if you look into detail about Bugnini and his advisers, (not on SSPX sites and similar sources) you will find that the situation was not quite as rosey as you protray.

Since you are full of knowledge, do enlighten us students with authentic references to official church documents on the SSPX.

Also, you seem to have this delusion that anyone who does not love the New Rite and hate the Old, is an SSPX extremist who refuses to accept the Council and is stuck in the past, living on nostalgia.

Yes, you used the correct word “seem”, for nowhere did I state this as fact, nor did I use the other words you attributed to me. You err in distorting my words.

It would be interesting to see when that quote from Ratzinger/Benedict was taken. I may be wrong, but I suspect it is an earlier one. If you look into his stuff on liturgy, you will see that he thinks the Novus Ordo Mass has a great deal of problems, and he is more than sympathetic to the Old Mass.

I have no idea what you you are referring to, for when I quote, you will indeed see a source. No one disputes that there are problems, least of all the bishops. They are presently using their experience to change the less desirable aspects that crept into liturgy. Are you in the closet with regard to their being *NO *problems in the Tridentine? It was perfect in every way?

So to get back to the topic of Latin and vernacular in the Mass. Can you not accept that Latin is traditional, and we should at least preserve it, as Vatican 2 instructed.

You claim to have extensive knowledge about Trent. How is it that you are unable to research anything that took place after the Council? The growth with extended use of vernacular evolved lawfully through the work of the Bishops to whom the Council directed this authority. If you remain fixated in sola-Conciliar language, unable to accept the decrees of the Commissions that implemented the directives of the Vatican Council, then I guess we are at a standstill in discussion. You are free to remain uneducated. If you change your mind, I’ll be glad to discuss.

Somehow, though, I get the feeling that after maybe ten years of these threads on the latin mass, with all the good information that has been posted by others, that you are deliberately adhering to ignorance. With communication being so advanced and rapid in our day, there is little excuse for not knowing the truth. Every Catholic has a duty to develop an informed conscience with the “present” mind and teaching of the Church.