P
ProVobis
Guest
History is not an exact science. This may answer some of your questions.
catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-introduction.htm
- Status
catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-introduction.htm
P
ProVobis
Guest
It would be logical for the Church to have preserved those liturgies and vernaculars which have helped flourish the Catholic faith, even if in confined areas. However, the trick from the time of Christ was for the Church to determine whether what was being taught was consistent with the faith or not. We see that in our current attempt to retranslate the English liturgies. Schisms aside, we can assume that the older languages and liturgies of the Eastern Church have been time-proven to be consistent with the Faith and we don’t have to learn special alphabets in order to understand them. The fact that the Church has received and accepted those liturgies from ancient times is all we really need to know.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Fair enough.
L
LilyM
Guest
Umm … have you SEEN the Greek and Hebrew alphabets?
Yes, thankfully scholars have developed means of transcribing biblical Greek and Hebrew using the Latin alphabet instead of the native alphabets.
And buess what? They’ve done exactly the same with modern Russian, Mandarin, Hindi and whatnot. So alphabets certainly aren’t any more of a barrier to using vernacular than they are to using Koine Greek or Biblical Hebrew.
The misconceptions about language, ancient and modern, seem to be multiplying on this thread like rabbits.
And for me, the fact that the Church has approved and accepted the vernacular translations in use today is all I need to know.
E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
ch. 2). I think that inclusion of the vernacular in at least part of the Liturgy can have an evangelistic and ecumenical character. I am not caling for an abandonment of the LAtin, but a change so that both Latin and the vernacular are included in the Liturgy.
My hometown parish does that very thing. Novus Ordo in Latin. My big objection, honestly, to the vernacular in practice is the simply awful music, and the far greater lee-way given to heterodox liturgical directors. It reduces ancient prayer to interchangeable words in practice, even if not in theory.
I stand corrected. Oops. I still love the idea of Latin as a symbol of unity, though.
If Latin were universal in the Church, wouldn’t that so finally emphasize the universality of the Church? I say Latin not because Latin is better but because Lain is historically universal within the largest rite, a not quite but close to wholly arbitrary distinction.
M
malphono
Guest
That’s nice. But for how many years has the ICEL versification (no way am I using the word “translation” here), and which is still in use today, been “accepted & approved” by the Church? Perhaps the question of when it was “accepted & approved” is pertinent here as well, but I digress.And for me, the fact that the Church has approved and accepted the vernacular translations in use today is all I need to know.
And when the ICEL drivel was (finally) deemed to be unacceptable, how many long years has it taken (or will it take?) to purge the “dynamic equivalence” that was introduced thereby and has (most unfortunately) become standard in English-speaking parts of the Roman Church?
P
ProVobis
Guest
I understand the “many” vs “all” controversy started even before the New Mass was promulgated. Perhaps in order to try to minimize all such translational controversies inter alia, the OF was promulgated only in Latin? Seems as if that was a most wise move now.
L
Layman
Guest
One argument used against Latin and for vernacular is “The people won’t understand it”. The people aren’t essential to a Mass being said. It’s not a good enough reason to drop Latin.
L
Layman
Guest
Please show how I’ve exaggerated, in my post.Could we be just a bit more melodramatic?
M
malphono
Guest
And then there is one of my pet peeves: (“and also with you”), not to mention the “oddities” in the Creed, etc. The bottom line is that the ICEL did what we call a “bum job” from the get-go. And even worse, the bishops bought into it.
But, when one comes to think of it, what choice did Rome have? Promulgate the Novus Ordo in 150+ “vernacular” languages? The “official” version had (read: has) to be in one language. Else the whole thing might just as well be in mime.
L
Layman
Guest
Latin wasn’t the liturgical language from the year 34 A.D? Then let’s ignore 1800 years of liturgical development.
Just realised this is a protestant attitude i.e. Wake up in 1517 and decide those old saints were wrong. For about 1490 years.
The assumption seems to be that if only we could get back to the Mass of, say, 50AD, it would trump the TLM.
Whereas I see a picking and choosing of the bits we like from 2000 years of the Church’s history, to suit the fashionable ideas of our time.
Just realised this is a protestant attitude i.e. Wake up in 1517 and decide those old saints were wrong. For about 1490 years.
The assumption seems to be that if only we could get back to the Mass of, say, 50AD, it would trump the TLM.
Whereas I see a picking and choosing of the bits we like from 2000 years of the Church’s history, to suit the fashionable ideas of our time.
P
ProVobis
Guest
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
How come we do not “attend” Mass but “assist” in Mass?
How can we assist in something we’re just a bystander?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
And pushing one language is not the Catholic attitude. Otherwise there would be no Latin at all today, it would either be Greek or Aramaic. Definitely not Latin.
L
LilyM
Guest
Vernacular wasn’t used in liturgy from 34 AD? Then let’s ignore and pour vitriol all over 40 years of Church-sanctioned use of vernacular and call for a return to all Latin all the time.
How is waking up in 2010, deciding that the past 40 years of liturgy is plain wrong, should just be junked in toto, and that you’d rather turn the clock back to the liturgy of 1950, or 1550 for that matter, any better or less ‘Protestant’ than the attitude you’ve described?
How is deciding that the TLM trumps the Mass of Paul VI, which you’ve clearly done, any better or different than deciding (not that we’ve done so) that a theoretical Mass of 50 AD trumps the TLM?
No-one here has called for a diminiution or disregarding of the TLM by any means, I for one would be the first to campaign for more widespread use and access of it, even though I’m not especially attached or attracted to it. We simply call for an effort to allow peaceful co-existence, and an avoidance of doing what was done to the TLM in 1970 in reverse. Why would anyone who went through the trauma of that sudden change want to inflict the same pain on others?
What I see is an equally pernicious picking and choosing on your part - only in your case it’s whatever bits of the 2000 years of Church history YOU like, that YOU think are more ‘appropriate’, ‘reverent’, ‘Catholic’, ‘unifying’ or whatever.
L
Layman
Guest
I see the past 40 years as an experiment that has got way out of hand. It has resulted in an iconoclasm.** I’ll take 500+ years of tried and tested worship, in a language immune to vulgarity, which is international and historic, over local variation. **
We’re in the Roman Catholic church here. It is entirely appropriate that Latin should be the liturgical language. It’s crazy that it was dropped. Don’t forget, we were all told the TLM was banned. It was not an option for 99.999% of Catholics until 2007.
Even here in the UK, which had an indult, it was a rare flower indeed. Even now, a sung, Sunday, Latin Mass is quite rare, for all the hoo-hah about Summorum Pontificum.
The many benefits to the Church of retaining Latin outweigh the sole benefit of making it more easy to the laity to understand what’s being said. Especially considering those parts of the Mass which are directed at God, not at the congregation.
It’s very irritiating to have to go into a church and wonder what you’re going to get. Even one you’re familiar with. I think the faithful need to be preserved from ‘creative’ priests and liturgical directors.
Extrapolated into the future, this trend towards localisation, if left unchecked, will result in some very peculiar Masses. [As an example: Liturgical dance is a fact in some non-Western countries and I’m waiting for the *“It’s the Holy Spirit at work amongst the people” argument to be tried here in the West, to justify it. If the next Pope is not a conservative …]
We’re in the Roman Catholic church here. It is entirely appropriate that Latin should be the liturgical language. It’s crazy that it was dropped. Don’t forget, we were all told the TLM was banned. It was not an option for 99.999% of Catholics until 2007.
Even here in the UK, which had an indult, it was a rare flower indeed. Even now, a sung, Sunday, Latin Mass is quite rare, for all the hoo-hah about Summorum Pontificum.
The many benefits to the Church of retaining Latin outweigh the sole benefit of making it more easy to the laity to understand what’s being said. Especially considering those parts of the Mass which are directed at God, not at the congregation.
It’s very irritiating to have to go into a church and wonder what you’re going to get. Even one you’re familiar with. I think the faithful need to be preserved from ‘creative’ priests and liturgical directors.
Extrapolated into the future, this trend towards localisation, if left unchecked, will result in some very peculiar Masses. [As an example: Liturgical dance is a fact in some non-Western countries and I’m waiting for the *“It’s the Holy Spirit at work amongst the people” argument to be tried here in the West, to justify it. If the next Pope is not a conservative …]
L
Layman
Guest
“The French verb attendre means “to wait”, yet an English speaker learning French might expect the English equivalent to be “attend”, which means “to participate in” or “to go to”. However, the verb “attend” in English is translated as assister in French and asistir in Spanish, both of which could be further misinterpreted as equivalent to the English “assist”, which means “to help” (which is also another meaning of the Spanish’s asistir). In Catholic literature in English, the term “assist at Mass” has been used to mean “to attend Mass” due to a mistranslation of the French “assister à la messe” which means “to attend Mass”.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend
‘Assist’ in the Mass is not the equivalent of the English ‘to help’. It has the meaning, in English, ‘to attend’.
If I’m right, this is a good example of how the vernacular can be a problem. People get the wrong meanings. This is why Latin should be pushed as much as possible: so our spiritual descendants can get the exact meaning the authors of our books and rites intended.
**This is like the misunderstanding of the term “active participation”. Many take it to mean the laity must actually be outwardly busy at Mass, or even in the sanctuary. They don’t. ** It means praying along with the Mass.
I always think back to the Jewish High Priests making a sacrifice of a lamb in the Temple of Jerusalem. I highly doubt the lay attendees were integral to proceedings.
I’d go further and say diminishing yourself at Mass, through silent adoration and COTT, kneeling, is one of the few ways left in modern life in which you humble yourself, publicly. In a time when egotism is touted as a good, it’s a treasure.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
argument to be tried here in the West, to justify it. If the next Pope is not a conservative …]
Enter the Golden Calf. Your arguments are based on your own desires, in effect, to force all to worship in the way you prefer. The Liturgy is not to be what we wish, but within the parameters revealed through the Church. You are overstating the problem of liturgical abuse. This is not to say it does not occur, but that it is much less common than you seem to convey. If I were you, I would stop listening to ultra-tradtionalist sources, and listen instead to your local Bishop and the legitimate Magisterium.
P
ProVobis
Guest
On the contrary. The word “catholic” means something that is UNIVERSAL. Latin, Greek, and some other Eastern languages are “catholic” per Veterum Sapientia. English is not catholic (nor Catholic, for that matter) and never has been.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
English is actually universal. It is the most commonly used language on the internet. It is one of the official languages of the United Nations. It is an official language in at least one country on every populated continent save South America. Yeah, its pretty universal.
- Status