Use of Latin and the vernacular at Mass

[bear06]

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.

Sigh! If you are suggesting that he prefers the “Old Mass” to an Adoremus style Novus Ordo then I believe that you would be mistaken. He is sympathetic to those who are attached to the “Old Mass”. So am I! What I take issue with is the constant charge that the Protestants had any more (name removed by moderator)ut in VII than in Trent.

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.

The Church does not need SSPX to foster devotion to the TLM. We have, already, the FSSP, ICRSS and Campos. The Holy Father, out of love and charity, is seeking reconciliation with the SSPX for their sakes and the sakes of those who might lean in that direction.

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

I’m all for preserving it. That said, I am curious about this statement:

People up until the 50s were taught that the Tridentine was the Mass from God, and it would NEVER change

I asked my very pre-VII mother about this comment a few minutes ago. She said that she never was taught that. She can’t recall once that anyone said that the Mass could never change in all her years of Catholic education. She did say that she was taught that you can’t do anything outside of the rubrics set by Rome. When the Novus Ordo was promulgated, she, her relatives and my father never thought that the Mass was not supposed to change regardless of whether they had a preference for that change.

 

[AlexV]

Anyone who wants to study the period of the liturgical “reform” needs to read the book written by the man appointed by Paul VI to manage it. That man was Annibale Bugnini, and his book is entitled “The Reform the Roman Liturgy.”

He was a meticulous cataloguer of everything he and his Commission did. He talks at length about Swiss hotels and the composition of “Eucharistic Prayers”, and even about why various things were deliberately done to the Mass.

If you have not read his book, you are missing one of the most important scholarly works on the liturgy…a major primary source from the man who was at the center of the whole period.

As for the whole problem with the liturgy today, as long as bishops like the one in a certain citrus fruit diocese are allowed to tell people they can’t have Tridentine Masses, but they can indeed have devils hand out Communion at “Halloween Masses”, you bet we will have conflict and division.

 

[TradyDaddy]

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

“many of the”… Pro Multus of the clergy eh?.. I guess that would mean that Pro Multus are also not in ageement… OOPS… I forgot… I Rykells dictionary, Pro Multus means “all”… sorry, my bad.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

I never said the Holy Spirit gives us understanding. What I meant was that we receive the graces from the Holy Spirit by hearing the Gospel of the Lord. Understanding is a different issue.

Why read the Scriptures if no one understands them? Do you want people to not know the Bible???

What an abomination!

No wonder Protestants think that Catholics don’t know their Scripture. They’ve got people like you running around saying that the people don’t need to understand the Scripture readings being read.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

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.

Pax tecum!

Whoa whoa whoa! Where has ANYONE said ANYTHING about hating the Old Mass??? No one says that, and yet every single TLM-onlyist on these forums keeps telling us that we hate the Old Mass. Well, here is some news for you. I attend the TLM and Dominican Rite as often as I can. I do not hate the Old Mass in the LEAST. I love both, something that TLM onlyists are incapable of doing. The only way they can talk about the TLM is to demean and ridicule the NO. So don’t give us that garbage about us hating the TLM.

And no, Protestants did not write the NO in a Swiss hotel room. I’m really getting sick of people making that same post time and time again on these forums when every time it’s made, someone else disproves it.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[CatholicNick]

No wonder Protestants think that Catholics don’t know their Scripture. They’ve got people like you running around saying that the people don’t need to understand the Scripture readings being read.

I dont particularly care what Heretics think…

 

[Rykell]

After swallowing your bitter prophet of doom pill, Alex, I looked up the book at Amazon, where reviews range on a scale from 2-5. Hard to determine its worth based on this (name removed by moderator)ut. There are many other books on my “to read” list.

But I still go back to asserting that the church is not going to make any changes unless the bishops vote upon them and obtain the approved recognitio. If you had faith, you would realize that the disciplines are always in transition throughout the history of the church. Nothing has changed its *immutable essence *… period! Whether one “likes” it or not does not invalidate the sacrifice on the altar celebrated by a lawfully ordained priest.

I’m reminded that some stinking shepherds did not shrink from joyfully worshipping in a stable.

Catholics who are heavily invested in tradition (little t) are part of what makes us rich, strong and vibrant. Here’s where it goes wrong: have a look at the way many express themselves: everything they disapprove of is outrage, sacrilege, the work of enemies of the church, conspiracies.

"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the ‘traditional’ Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.
[If you have followed the thread, you will have noted the focus that bishops must exercise for the "common good of the majority.]

“You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a ‘right’ to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a ‘right’. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church’s law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice.”
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary
unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

This letter was written to Una Voce regarding SSPX Masses. In telling them they have no right to the mass of the 1962 Roman Missal, one would err if they believed it pertained only to the SSPX-ers, and not all who expect that the TLM is to be granted to them in full measure throughout the countries of the world, because of the small minority who desire it.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I dont particularly care what Heretics think…

Pax tecum!

If I had this attitude towards all Protestants, I sincerelly doubt that my best friend would ever consider converting to Catholicism from Lutheranism, as I believe he is. If I and my Catholic friends had this attitude towards all Protestants, then there would be no hope of my good friend’s boyfriend converting one day. If we just called him a heretic, he probably wouldn’t be involved in our Catholic young adult group, would he?

Oh, but wait, I guess that being friends with Protestants and helping to clear up misconceptions that they have is some of that “false ecumenism” that Vatican II taught, right?

I do believe that it was St. Jerome that said, “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” It would seem that you guys are advocating for the ignorance of Scripture here.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[CatholicNick]

It would seem that you guys are advocating for the ignorance of Scripture here.

Not in the slightest

 

[AJV]

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.

Yes, but I would like to know what exactly what the proposals were. Being a bit of a perfectionist, I like to know details and since you seem to have read up on it, what are they?

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).

Saying God gets bored and that Scripture is not directed to God are two different things, no?. All Scripture does not have the same nature(? correct word). The psalms for example are praises to God and very frequently address Him directly: “Introibo in domum tuam” “Salvum me fac Deus” The Epistles are instruction- which is part of the reason they were read in the first place. Addresses to God directly are rare.

If one looks at the ancient positions of reciting the lections, it was always toward the people

 

[AJV]

After swallowing your bitter prophet of doom pill, Alex, I looked up the book at Amazon, where reviews range on a scale from 2-5. Hard to determine its worth based on this (name removed by moderator)ut. There are many other books on my “to read” list.

Oh, it’s a good book.

 

[Rykell]

Rand.

Five minutes ago, I just finished listening to Father Groschel’s homily on EWTN’s mass. How timely was his message about those in his neighborhood in the Bronx who are not Catholic, yet come to adoration in his church … primarily black christians of other faiths. They know Jesus is there, they tell him: they can “feel” His presence.

His sharp admonition was directed to those who think like EDIT Catholic Nick that all those who are outside the RCC are heretics. Never can we dare to judge this, for he reminded all, “The kingdom of God is within.” None of knows in whom God dwells, huh? I thought it might be wise to print the section of Lumen Gentium that solemnly teaches this.

1. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits.** Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power**. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.

In all of Christ’s disciples, the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

And a most profound statement can be found in LG-14, "He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.” Are the EDIT radical -traditionalists demonstrating the charity that is the sign of being in the bosom?
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Walking_Home]

For anyone who maybe on the verge of losing their Catholic Identity in a cloud of ecumenism.

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=96361

Code: ZE06101107

Date: 2006-10-11

Be Firm in Your Catholic Identity, Says Pope

Reflects on Contributions of Two Apostles

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 11, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The path of dialogue with other confessions must not make us forget our Catholic identity, says Benedict XVI.

In his catechesis, Benedict XVI continued to meditate on the Twelve Apostles…

Identity

Benedict XVI continued: …That in all the existing temptations, with all the currents of modern life, we must preserve the identity of our faith."

It is true, that “the path of indulgence and dialogue, must be continued with firm constancy,” but “this path of dialogue, so necessary, must not make us forget the duty to rethink and to witness always with as much force the guidelines of our Christian identity that cannot be given up,” said the Holy Father.

 

[AlexV]

Actually, Rykell, I could care less what “Amazon.com” recommends about a book, or the people on Amazon.com.

The book is a historical record. It’s a book written by the man most entrusted with the work of the Novus Ordo. He wrote large sections of the Novus Ordo. It’s a historical document that cannot be ignored by any serious scholar or student of the Roman Rite’s modern period…whether you like it or not.

Did I say the Novus Ordo Missae was invalid? Not once. Not ever. But it is objectively unCatholic to say that just because bishops, or even a pope, approves something liturgical that it is immune from error (translations can be in error, and Paul VI signed the first edition of the Novus Ordo Missae that contained the Arian heresy, which had to be corrected rather swiftly). Nor is a liturgical form immune from criticism.

I did not say a single thing about “prophecies of doom”. Don’t dare try to misconstrue what I wrote, Rykell, in my earlier post. I wrote historically verifiable facts. The Novus Ordo was largely composed in a Swiss hotel suite under secrecy arranged by Annibale Bugnini. He didn’t want press coverage, as he said, which might “embarass.”

His word…not mine.

No one who has ignored his book can have a complete education in the history of what happened to the liturgy in 1965-1975.

As for “small minorities” who desire the Tridentine Mass…let’s chat about small minorities, shall we, Rykell? Attendance figures at Novus Ordo in France? Holland? Belgium? Shall we talk minorities, Rykell? And since when does the majority rule in matters of custom, which are protected by Canon Law? Since when does something become less important in the matters of liturgical custom because the minority desires it?

In any case, I personally don’t care. I’m a member inscribed in the Apostolic Administration of St. John Vianney, which means the Tridentine is my ordinary rite, not indult rite. I am not under the authority of my local ordinary.

Do you intend a vernacular Novus Ordo? Enjoy your indult.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

For anyone who maybe on the verge of losing their Catholic Identity in a cloud of ecumenism.

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=96361

Code: ZE06101107

Date: 2006-10-11

Be Firm in Your Catholic Identity, Says Pope

Reflects on Contributions of Two Apostles

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 11, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The path of dialogue with other confessions must not make us forget our Catholic identity, says Benedict XVI.

In his catechesis, Benedict XVI continued to meditate on the Twelve Apostles…

Identity

Benedict XVI continued: …That in all the existing temptations, with all the currents of modern life, we must preserve the identity of our faith."

It is true, that “the path of indulgence and dialogue, must be continued with firm constancy,” but “this path of dialogue, so necessary, must not make us forget the duty to rethink and to witness always with as much force the guidelines of our Christian identity that cannot be given up,” said the Holy Father.

Pax tecum!

There’s a difference between evangelizing and trying to bring the faith to our seperated brethren and simply calling them heretics. Dare I say even being nice to Protestants, is not false ecumenism. Calling someone a heretic and pushing the faith on them is not ecumenism and it is not going to bring them into the Church, only drive them further away.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Leeta]

A Fraternity of St. Peter priest, P. Ramm, who is serving in Switzerland now once explained this very question about why the Gospel and reading is first read in Latin.

The Latin reading and the Latin Gospel are procaimed to God and not to us. They are read for His Glory mainly and because they are so important and holy, they are said in sotto at a Low Mass because these words are Holy Spirit inspired. Also, at a Pontifical Mass, the reading and the Gospel are much more festive in Latin, than in the vernacular. Torchbearers and the singing of them is also done. Again because the Latin is for God and His Glory.

The vernacular is read and procaimed for the people and thus secondary to that which is for God. After all we are not the center or main part of the Holy Mass. We are rather secondary.
This is the way it is done at every Old Mass properly celebrated. Many times the Fraternity priest would skip the vernacular readings at a daily Low Mass just because of time constraints.

‘Fratres’ often begins the readings from St. Paul. But not always. St. Paul, it may surprize many to learn, never wrote, ‘brothers and sisters’. He wrote the Aramaic or Greek (I can’t recall in which languages he is said to have wriitten his epistles) equivalent of ‘fratres’. Which is brothers or brethern.

It irks me to no end, since I read the King James Bible when I was protestant, to hear the mistranslation of the Holy Scriptures at Mass of all places. I could expect it of protestants or Jehovah’s Winesses’ trying to avoid a too Catholic reading of scripture. But Catholic bishops allowing a bad translation?

It has been very trying for my faith to face that fact.

That is also why Latin in Holy Mass is SO important. It keeps the truth present from one generation to the next. Fratres is fratres, not fratres et sorori. It is ‘credo in unum Deum’-I believe in God, not ‘we believe’. Now I don’t understand Latin per se. But things like the above are pretty obviously wrongly translated.
In the 600’s, St. Bede translated the Gospels into Anglo-Saxon. Now what if someone had decided to celebrate the Mass only in Anglo-Saxon in all of England for the length of time Anglo-Saxon was spoken? Then when the language changed as vernacular languages always do, the Mass would have been revised. There would be plenty of opportunity for error, whether purposeful or not, to slip into to the celebration of Mass. Also, who would understand Anglo-Saxon nowadays? No one outside of England would be privy to that Mass. It would provincialize and nationalize the central sacrament of the Church, instead of universalizing it.
And that is what has happened with the Mass now.
And that is a big reason I attend the Old Mass is because of the unchanged truth which is preserved in the Classical Roman Rite , not tampered with by liturgical comittees.
The proper attitude toward God is embodied coherently and consistently in it, including that Latin is mainly for God’s glory and not necessarily our understanding.
God could have picked any language for the Church. Latin is the perfect language, so said our late Pope John Paul II. It is very concise, more so than English and relatively simple. It is designed to preserve the Truth of our faith from one generation to the next until Jesus comes again.

 

[Melanie01]

Ummmm the use of Latin by the RCC was always (understood by me anyway) a universal language as our dear mother Church extends to all areas of this world of ours. The beauty of the Tridentine Mass is about its unchangingness…I could be in Finland or Outer Mongolia or the wilds of the southern states of the USA and be able to assist in the Mass.

Since Vatican2 the Church has suffered a severe infection of Liberalism and Modernism, which earlier popes have decried.

The Tridentine Mass is absolutely Christ centred, with a human priest leading his congregation in the desire to adore God and help us His children make sense of our purpose here in this short period we have on earth to adhere to the call of God or reject it.

I will not criticise the modern Mass because I am neither very clever or a canonical lawyer, but it is very different in its focus from the Tridentine Mass

 

[Caesar]

Ummmm the use of Latin by the RCC was always (understood by me anyway) a universal language as our dear mother Church extends to all areas of this world of ours. The beauty of the Tridentine Mass is about its unchangingness…I could be in Finland or Outer Mongolia or the wilds of the southern states of the USA and be able to assist in the Mass.

Since Vatican2 the Church has suffered a severe infection of Liberalism and Modernism, which earlier popes have decried.

The Tridentine Mass is absolutely Christ centred, with a human priest leading his congregation in the desire to adore God and help us His children make sense of our purpose here in this short period we have on earth to adhere to the call of God or reject it.

I will not criticise the modern Mass because I am neither very clever or a canonical lawyer, but it is very different in its focus from the Tridentine Mass

Very true.

The New Mass is more of a performance then a Liturgy.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I will not criticise the modern Mass because I am neither very clever or a canonical lawyer, but it is very different in its focus from the Tridentine Mass

Pax tecum!

The one I attend on Sundays is not any different in its focus than the TLM.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[AJV]

A Fraternity of St. Peter priest, P. Ramm, who is serving in Switzerland now once explained this very question about why the Gospel and reading is first read in Latin.

The Latin reading and the Latin Gospel are procaimed to God and not to us. They are read for His Glory mainly and because they are so important and holy, they are said in sotto at a Low Mass because these words are Holy Spirit inspired. Also, at a Pontifical Mass, the reading and the Gospel are much more festive in Latin, than in the vernacular. Torchbearers and the singing of them is also done. Again because the Latin is for God and His Glory.

Althoguh the good father probably had a much better education than myself (a bit of an understatement) I do feel that he is a bit mistaken in this area.

To begin with, the Epislte and Gospel are not to be read in sotto voce in a low Mass. They are to be audible.

The sotto voce Epistle and Gospel was read by the celebrant at High Mass, simultaneously with the subdeacon chanting for the Epistle, and preceding the deacon for the Gospel. This however, was an instrusion of the low Mass into the High Mass, and was removed in the 1961/62 Missal (whose books the FSSP uses) where the priest listens to the subdecon and deacon.

Torachbearers do indeed give honour to the Gospel because they are the account of the life of Christ.

If we want to adrress somethign to God why pick an Epistle. Why not insert a couple of extra prayers and litanies there?

The vernacular is read and procaimed for the people and thus secondary to that which is for God. After all we are not the center or main part of the Holy Mass. We are rather secondary.
This is the way it is done at every Old Mass properly celebrated. Many times the Fraternity priest would skip the vernacular readings at a daily Low Mass just because of time constraints.

Why is the intruction from the apostles there? It is for the benefit of the laity, so that we may be properly instructed. An argument can be made for the Canon, the collects, etc. because these are all prayers directed to God. But if you think about it: why do they start an Epistle from the apostle always with ‘Fratres’ if we are addressing God? Why, as I said earlier is the prayer for the Gospel to be announced? Announced to whom?