Why a "dead" language?

  • Thread starter Thread starter agr4028
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wraithx said:
catharina: I think that you could say that the traditional Mass is superior to the new in the sense that the new is almost always abused in one way or another - the traditional Mass with its very strict set of rubrics makes abuse much more difficult and less likely - as far as superior in the quantity of grace it imparts - that is a different argument.

You can probably say the the new Mass when said exactly as it should be could impart the same amount of grace as the traditional Mass. However, the fact remains, there are very very few instances of the new Mass being done exactly as the council intended.
Click to expand...
If and when the Holy Father says all of the above, then I’ll pay attention to it.
Until then, this is your own very limited opinion.
 
wraithx said:
Phemie: indeed - hence my comment that the current Pope is trying to get it used in the new Mass as that is MEANT to be the default. I can’t help but think that when the new Mass is finally corrected (pro multis - the Pope has that sorted now at least) and everyone is saying it in Latin as the Pope desires, that people will start to wonder why we have both forms. When the new Mass is said as the Pope wants it, the only difference will be that the new Mass is shorter and uses a larger variety of Bible readings.
Click to expand...
There is a much greater difference than that between the ordinary and the extraordinary form. The number of prayers that belong solely to the priest and were added over the centuries for one thing. I have no problem with the ordinary form and am very happy that we get more readings from the Bible. I would be quite happy to just hear more Latin in the OF as was the intention after Vat. II
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:
34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.
Click to expand...
 
wraithx said:
catharina: I am sure the holy father wouldn’t refer to the new Mass as a “babel Mass” - but I am not the holy Father 🙂 I still believe my parallel stands true - I am not saying the new Mass is sinful, I am saying it bears a resemblance to the situation at Babel - a variety of languages were introduced and the result was confusion.
Click to expand...
… and I’m saying that the situation that arose at Babel was a punishment for sin. So your analogy strikes me as unusually irreverent. IMO, that you cling to it is absurd. Believe me when I say that I’m neither smiling nor laughing about this.
 
catharina:

“This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

From the Letter to the Bishops accompanying the recent Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI.

Full text here: ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum2.htm
 
catharina: I am referring ONLY to the language issue from Babel - not the cause that moved God to create the disparate languages. You are unfairly reading more in to what I am saying which is not especially charitable. I am not saying the new Mass is sinful - I am saying that, like Babel, the result of it being said in the vernacular has caused Catholic parishes to segregate - which is exactly what happened at Babel.

I really can’t speak more plainly - I am not saying the new Mass is sinful or referring to sin in any way. Perhaps you could give me the benefit of the doubt rather than presuming that I am speaking ill.
 
wraithx said:
catharina: I am referring ONLY to the language issue from Babel - not the cause that moved God to create the disparate languages. You are unfairly reading more in to what I am saying which is not especially charitable. I am not saying the new Mass is sinful - I am saying that, like Babel, the result of it being said in the vernacular has caused Catholic parishes to segregate - which is exactly what happened at Babel.

I really can’t speak more plainly - I am not saying the new Mass is sinful or referring to sin in any way. Perhaps you could give me the benefit of the doubt rather than presuming that I am speaking ill.
Click to expand...
Well, THANK YOU for explaining your special meaning.
Using an analogy that speaks to a sin of the past is less than helpful, yes?

As for Benedict’s comments, I’m completely familiar with them.

Your own comments (TLM-NO) carved a new path of absolutes.
Hope you can see the difference.
 
dulcissima said:
Do they never sing Latin hymns at Mass at your parish? I can’t see how someone could not be moved by such hymns and prayers. They take you outside of the mundane and into the sacred. I just don’t understand how anyone could have disdain for Latin.
Click to expand...
In our parish we sing songs in Latin, English and Spanish. We often sing verses in English and repeat those verses in Latin or Spanish. It is the best of many worlds and in addition we are able to learn some very valuable lessons about our rich and wonderful heritage.

Latin is as old, if not older, than the ancient languages that are used in the beautiful heritage of many of our Native American ceremonies. We have learned that it was wrong to take the language and heritage from a people. We should respect that same concept within our own heritage.

I love singing in Latin. I also love singing in English and Spanish.
 
catharina: I didn’t - I still stand by my initial comments. I have nothing to apologize for so doing so would be dishonest.
 
wraithx said:
catharina: I didn’t - I still stand by my initial comments. I have nothing to apologize for so doing so would be dishonest.
Click to expand...
Oh - so you simply launched some sarcasm. I missed the sarcasm, the same as I missed the “humor” in “Babel Mass.” Over time, all learn that not everything is a cause for attempts at humor. I’m sure your time will come - eventually, if you live long enough. Until then, maybe QUOTE the Pope rather than attempting to paraphrase him? Plus skip analogies that compare the Holy to ‘punishment for sin’ - or go through life determined to offend as many people as possible. Whatever, your choice.
 
catharina: I did quote the pope. I even made the key points bold.
 
Catharina and Wraithx, would it be possible for you guys to carry on your discussion with messages just between two of you. It really is unpleasant witnessing this disagreement.
 
wraithx said:
catharina: I did quote the pope. I even made the key points bold.
Click to expand...
You quoted the Pope AFTER making your own statements.
Perhaps, quote first - then you won’t editorialize like this:

"I think that you could say that the traditional Mass is superior to the new in the sense that the new is almost always abused in one way or another - the traditional Mass with its very strict set of rubrics makes abuse much more difficult and less likely - as far as superior in the quantity of grace it imparts - that is a different argument.

You can probably say the the new Mass when said exactly as it should be could impart the same amount of grace as the traditional Mass. However, the fact remains, there are very very few instances of the new Mass being done exactly as the council intended."
 
HelenRose: my apologies. I had no intention of continuing anyway 🙂
 
HelenRose said:
Catharina and Wraithx, would it be possible for you guys to carry on your discussion with messages just between two of you. It really is unpleasant witnessing this disagreement.
Click to expand...
You didn’t find it “unpleasant” to see the Holy Mass referred to as the “Babel Mass?”
I did - I found it both “unpleasant” and offensively irreverent, so I said so.

The discussion is over as far as I’m concerned.
 
agr4028 said:
We can probably all agree, that our purpose on this earth is to seek eternal life with God after this tour is done.

That being said, why would we want to pursue the most important purpose for our existience, by adhering to a dead, foreign language to do so?

Does it not make more sense, to evangelize the nations in their native tongues? Is that not what the Holy Spirit provided to the Apostles?

🤷
Click to expand...
I was always told that Latin is used as the official language of the Catholic Church in that it allows/allowed participation in community worship no matter where one goes, and that, as the one official language, it facilitates communication. Further, in that it is a “dead language,” it is frozen in time; word meanings cannot change over time as they can and do in living languages. What was written 500 years ago means exactly the same thing now that it did then, it can’t be misinterpreted.
 
RC_Matt said:
I was always told that Latin is used as the official language of the Catholic Church in that it allows/allowed participation in community worship no matter where one goes, and that, as the one official language, it facilitates communication. Further, in that it is a “dead language,” it is frozen in time; word meanings cannot change over time as they can and do in living languages. What was written 500 years ago means exactly the same thing now that it did then, it can’t be misinterpreted.
Click to expand...
That has always been my understanding as well.
 
catharina said:
It’s hard to imagine how anyone other than those so involved (or gifted linguists) would develop an attachment to it today.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you own any U.S. Dollars but you may want to check out some of the Latin written on it. I don’t see any effort to remove it.
 
catharina said:
You didn’t find it “unpleasant” to see the Holy Mass referred to as the “Babel Mass?”
I did - I found it both “unpleasant” and offensively irreverent, so I said so.

The discussion is over as far as I’m concerned.
Click to expand...
I would consider the all-vernacular Mass somewhat anti-Vatican II and anti-Trent. I don’t know what’s more “unpleasant” and “offensively irreverent” than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top