I
Indyann
Guest
I agree wholeheartedly. Brother JR who was a longtime frequent poster here said that we should always use the words of the Church. At that time Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was the voice of the Church.
- Status
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
But the reality is that education is going to primarily occur in the vernacular of a people. No matter how you get people to a particular truth of a church, it’s going to start solely in their native tongue.
Preserving doctrine is all well and good, but to pretend that everyone is going to master a foreign language for the sake of their religious beliefs is impractical. Most people, even knowledgeable and educated people, are going to learn in the vernacular and rely on translations for mastery of their faith knowledge.
Again, I know and have studied Latin. I understand the TLM fully in Latin. Yet, I still gain much more meaning and value over the OF because it’s the language that I know and speak. The Priest who taught me Latin–on his own free time–felt very similar. Even though he could probably have a conversation in Latin he loved the reverent OF more. He felt that Latin simply lead to meaningless memorization but said that the beauty of the Mass unfolded for him when praying in the language he knew well.
So even knowing Latin doesn’t make one desire Mass in that language even if it is “more accurate” because something is lost when you take something out of a person’s native tounge.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
If he knew that Latin well enough to be conversant in it, why did it seem like “meaningless repetition” to him? What was meaningless about it? In both the Traditional Mass and the New Mass there are propers that differ with each Mass, and the ordinary parts of the Mass are repeated in both the Trad and New Masses. What is the difference? I can understand the he personally likes his vernacular more, but the rationale that “he felt Latin simply lead to meaningless memorization” doesn’t really make sense if he knows what the Latin means. It wasn’t meaningless for him. Also, and this is just my own opinion, but I find it strange that if this priest is indeed conversant in Latin, meaning that he understands the words that he is praying, that he would prefer the stripped down (many of the most beautiful prayers of the Trad Mass are not included in the New Mass for example the Judica Me, Suscipe Sancta Trinitas, Placeat tibi sancta Trinitas, etc. )and banal language of the New Liturgy to the tender eloquence of the traditional prayers.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
You’d have to ask him. I know one of the parents was very upset with him that he was teaching us Latin AND giving us our own private Daily Mass but did not do it in Latin. She thought that he was guilty of all the things that you indicate–losing the beautiful prayers, etc etc. And remember I was only a child at this time so my understanding of his answer was more simple. I’m sure if I was more than 12 he would have explained some sort of deeper reason.Xanthippe_Voorhees:
If he knew that Latin well enough to be conversant in it, why did it seem like “meaningless repetition” to him? What was meaningless about it? In both the Traditional Mass and the New Mass there are propers that differ with each Mass, and the ordinary parts of the Mass are repeated in both the Trad and New Masses. What is the difference? I can understand the he personally likes his vernacular more, but the rationale that “he felt Latin simply lead to meaningless memorization” doesn’t really make sense if he knows what the Latin means. It wasn’t meaningless for him. Also, and this is just my own opinion, but I find it strange that if this priest is indeed conversant in Latin, meaning that he understands the words that he is praying, that he would prefer the stripped down (many of the most beautiful prayers of the Trad Mass are not included in the New Mass for example the Judica Me, Suscipe Sancta Trinitas, Placeat tibi sancta Trinitas, etc. )and banal language of the New Liturgy to the tender eloquence of the traditional prayers.
Regardless of his knowledge he still felt that Latin created for him a situation where the words lost meaning for the sake of memorization. He much preferred the vernacular because it added to his spiritual life.
I think what is blowing your mind is that a knowledgeable Latin scholar who volunteered to teach children Latin after school would willingly choose the OF over TLM.
But the thing is, that not everyone who learns–and likes–Latin is going to pick the TLM. People still have preferences and especally now that the Vatican has improved the translations it’s clear the OF is valid and has been legitimzed and isn’t going anywhere.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
Doesn’t blow my mind at all. Most of the modernists at the Council who demanded and implemented novelties into the liturgy were excellent Latinists. It’s good to know the enemy. I’m not saying this priest is a modernist, though. Just saying that I am well aware that there are clergy out there who know Latin quite well and loathe tradition.
Last edited:
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
He didn’t loathe tradition. He simply liked to say Mass in the vernacular. Heck, he wore a cassock rather than pants…he was very “traditional”. But he truly loved vernacular Mass and was glad the church permitted it.Xanthippe_Voorhees:
Doesn’t blow my mind at all. Most of the modernists at the Council who demanded and implemented novelties into the liturgy were excellent Latinists. Its good to know the enemy. I’m not saying this priest is a modernist, though. Just saying that I am well aware that there are clergy out there who know Latin quite well and loathe tradition.
I think this idea that one must dislike tradition to not like the Latin mass is just so full of holes that it’d sink a boat. People, even well-educated priests, have preferences…and those preferences are to be honored…and should not be cast aside because they are “enemies” or other such ludicrious ideas.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
Since the primary means by which tradition is developed and conveyed to the next generation of Catholics is through the Sacred Liturgy, I think there is a glaring contradiction in such a position. “I like tradition, but I’d rather offer a Mass created in 1969.” That statement just doesn’t make sense. Sure, I’ll honor their preferences and thank them for their priesthood, but I will never understand why they won’t just admit that they really aren’t fans of tradition. If you don’t “like” (what does that even mean?) the Traditional Mass, then you aren’t very “traditional”. Wearing a cassock doesn’t change that.
S
Spyridon
Guest
Preach brother.
If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, Peter, James and John, it’s good enough for me.
If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, Peter, James and John, it’s good enough for me.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
You might not understand, but they are a priest and you are not. I think there is a tad bit of hubris in your statement and more than a smidge of judgment. You can’t fathom why a priest would knowledgeably make a choice to act in this way but suffice to say that he was a very devoted, kind and giving priest, who completely knew Latin and preferred to say Mass in English. You have subtly–and not so subtly–made the inference that he is somehow an enemy of the Church or of truth or of whatever. You cannot seem to admit that there exists a priest who honors tradition, wants to share it but chooses to use what the church has given in allowing the vernacular. You need to continually caveat it with the implications that he somehow has alterior motives.Xanthippe_Voorhees:
Since the primary means by which tradition is developed and conveyed to the next generation of Catholics is through the Sacred Liturgy, I think there is a glaring contradiction in such a position. “I like tradition, but I’d rather offer a Mass created in 1969.” That statement just doesn’t make sense. Sure, I’ll honor their preferences and thank them for their priesthood, but I will never understand why they won’t just admit that they really aren’t fans of tradition. If you don’t “like” (what does that even mean?) the Traditional Mass, then you aren’t very “traditional”. Wearing a cassock doesn’t change that.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
I have no reason to doubt you about his good qualities. Literally the only thing I “can’t fathom” is why he would insist that he is a “traditionalist” when he dislikes the Traditional Liturgy (or at least prefers the modern one to it) which is a primary source from which all other tradition flows.
I specifically said I wasn’t talking about him. I was calling attention to the fact that I am well aware that a priest can know Latin and still oppose tradition, and among them are, without a doubt, enemies of the Church. Wolves in sheep’s clothing.
The Church has given him the authority to offer the Traditional Mass with freedom and regularity and instead he chooses to offer the New Mass. To me, that’s like someone saying they are a Yankee’s fan and then someone offers them season tickets and they say “no thank you”. A traditionalist would have jumped eagerly on the opportunity to offer the Ancient Mass with regularity. Someone who is indifferent or hostile to tradition or more favorable of modern practices and novelty will gravitate towards the New Mass.
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
Most of the OF’s celebrated around the world are in Spanish. English Masses comprise about 5%, although the English Mass forms a basis for the many vernaculars said in remote countries. So it appears we are already far removed from Latin. It appears there indeed was wisdom in Veterum Sapientia.
There was also this prophecy by Dom Guaranger, founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France,
“Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . . The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn’t hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning .… . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .”
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/latina.htm
Last edited:
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Nothing I say or do will convince some of you that I don’t hate Latin.
There’s a unbridgeable gulf between hate and simply not preferring it. I am on one side and you put me on the other.
Now who’s toxic?
O
OraLabora
Guest
This is a pretty hefty accusation. Justify it, or retract it.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I didn’t intend for it to be a personal thing, if that’s what you’re implying.
But then English is a barbaric language so what else can it lead to?
But then English is a barbaric language so what else can it lead to?
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Like Latin isn’t perfect for insinuation and nuanced implications.
You simply can’t fathom, or admit, that someone may know, understand and have participated in learning Latin and attending TLM, hold no animosity against it but still decide that it is not for them. You’ve said again and again that this makes no sense to you. You believe there is an intrinsic and indisputable value to Latin that any informed person must make the decision to hold TLM above all other options.
But I AM educated in Latin, I KNOW the prayers, I have attended MANY TLM. I hold no animosity, nor hate, nor any bad feelings towards TLM. I simply find it unhelpful to my spiritual life. To say that somehow I am misinformed or lacking in my choice to attend OF would be to deny that the Vatican has the right, the power and the ability to propagate the Mass in the vernacular…and that it is to deny that they have wisdom that laity does not in providing a vernacular Mass.
P
phil19034
Guest
They are not traditionalist… they are heretics. I have a deep respect for the Latin mass, but I will tell you that anyone who says the Ordinary form is not a real mass, or is not as good as the Extraordinary form is a heretic.
So PLEASE stop saying “traditionalist” say this or that. They don’t. Heretics do.
A
Augustinian
Guest
I don’t think that there is “hate” for the Latin Mass on the part of the priests. A lot of priests, a lot of old school people, would just rather have all of the people together as one on Sunday morning. Not split up according to different preferences and such.
The idea that this group over here prefers latin, sort of separates them from the mainstream thought.
Way back in the day, when I was a kid, the same people had no problem with latin, because that’s all that we had.
The idea that this group over here prefers latin, sort of separates them from the mainstream thought.
Way back in the day, when I was a kid, the same people had no problem with latin, because that’s all that we had.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In a lot of parishes by me, they are split up. For example, English Mass at 5pm, Spanish Mass at 7pm.
P
ProVobis
Guest
FWIW, I won’t go against any wisdom of the Church, especially Veterum Sapientia, which means “The wisdom of the ancient Church.”
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Or basically–" I won’t admit that there is wisdom in the OF because I think that there is more in TLM"
God, and the Church had a reason for allowing vernacular. They have normalized even dissident behavior like communion in the hand. People claim that the church “couldn’t” change it so they had to go along with it. Bull. The Church has no issue with calling a spade a spade. Obviously, God had greater plans than the sinners who did wrong. Why given the past declarations on TLM? I’m not sure–but the church has made it clear that the vernacular discipline isn’t going anywhere. So there MUST be wisdom in their actions. To declare that it’s anything less is to try to make the decisions of the church into illegitmate actions.
- Status