Why is the Church heading back to the Dark Ages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gerimar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gerimar

Guest
It seems lately;i.e.( Latin Mass) the Church is moving backwards. We are in the 21st century! Why go back to a language people don’t understand. This is how to lose more and more Catholics.
 
gerimar said:
It seems lately;i.e.( Latin Mass) the Church is moving backwards. We are in the 21st century! Why go back to a language people don’t understand. This is how to lose more and more Catholics.
Click to expand...
Actually the Church is timeless in a transcendent sense.

As for Latin, Vatican II actually expressly mandated the preservation of Latin. It also called for the laity to be taught the Latin responses. So what we have here is a simple implementation of the Decrees of VII. Admittedly VII did permit the use of the vernacular, but it is quite clear on the preservation of the use of Latin.

So rest assured the Church is NOT moving backward; it is preserving the heritage to which we are heirs; it is implementing VII and, IMHO, it is connecting us to those who came before uniting us in a single language and enabling us to demonstrate our unity while working to see we understand that language for which the most beautiful and, IMHO, God-given music was ever written.

Take heart. The decrees of Vatican II will be implemented. You can read them by simply googling it.
 
I see you’ve never studied Church history, gerimar. But don’t worry, lots of people who compare the present to the past don’t study history; they just base their beliefs on what they think the past was like.
 
gerimar said:
It seems lately;i.e.( Latin Mass) the Church is moving backwards. We are in the 21st century! Why go back to a language people don’t understand. This is how to lose more and more Catholics.
Click to expand...
If you look at the numbers, this is the way *not *to lose Catholics.

First, there is the fact that millions of Catholics stopped attending Mass after the imposition of the Mass in the vernacular. It may have been that other causes factored in, but the new Mass did nothing to stop that.

Second, there is the fact that the more conservative or traditional a diocese is, the more young men seek to become priests.

So I would say that the Church is not moving backwards, but back to its proper position.
 
Rather then the “Dark Ages” I think it’s more appropriate to refer to this time in history as the “Age of faith”.
 
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.(emphasis added)
  2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
  3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
  4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
  5. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
    **Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. **(emphasis added)
    And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.
As you see from the above, use of Latin is a good thing.

Also, my personal opinion is Latin is useful for very good practical reasons:
  1. When there are multi-language communities it allows for a unity in celebration of the liturgy.
  2. It is a dead language so it is not afflicted with changing meanings to terms allowing for a more precise use of language than the vernacular affords.
  3. It reflects a unity both across languages but also across time as it was used by so many for so long.
  4. Most classical liturgical music was written for it.
  5. It is part of our heritage as Latin Rite Catholics.
  6. Official Vatican documents continue to be written in Latin - translations necessarily having interpretive issues - knowledge of Latin gives a better understanding of what is written.
  7. Among the official documents are the Order of the Mass etc., meaning the arguments over translation of certain sections go away when you read the Latin.
  8. It’s beautiful - and beauty should not be easily dismissed.
  9. It’s part of our heritage if we are Western European or of Western European descent
  10. To try to understand the transcendent and immanent God - maybe it helps sometimes to have to puzzle the mystery of the incomprehensible and Latin, if you don’t know it, maybe can fit that bill from time to time - simply accepting that God is addressed and prayed to. and answers prayers; He is immanent even when we don’t understand.
Just some thoughts.
 
gerimar said:
It seems lately;i.e.( Latin Mass) the Church is moving backwards. We are in the 21st century! Why go back to a language people don’t understand. This is how to lose more and more Catholics.
Click to expand...
John XXIII said about Vatican II that it would open up the doors of the church and let in fresh air, believing more people would attend church. People, priests and laity, left the church in droves:(. Besides, Latin was supposed to be preserved in the mass, with the vernacular being allowed in some parts. A mass totally in the vernacular was never what was supposed to be. Unfortunately, at least in Canada and the US, the bishops, with I assume priests backing them, took the vernacular “ball” and ran with it.

On a personal note, I was born in 1952 and miss the Latin Mass.:o
 
I am a brand new Catholic and attend a NO Mass. Today I went to daily Mass with two of my kids. We sang the Agnus Dei in Latin and prayed the traditional prayers at the end of the Mass. I love all of it. When I took the Church I took all 2000 years, not just the last 40.
 
gerimar said:
It seems lately;i.e.( Latin Mass) the Church is moving backwards. We are in the 21st century! Why go back to a language people don’t understand. This is how to lose more and more Catholics.
Click to expand...
A couple of quick points:

1 - The so-called “Dark Ages” were not as dark as secularists would have you believe.

2 - Latin is the official language of the Church. This did not change with the second Vatican council.

3 - The Pope’s Motu Proprio decree does not substitute one mass for another or impose the Tridentine Latin Mass on anyone who does not want it; it simply makes it more available to tradition-minded parishioners (in theory at least).
 
I attend Latin Mass & sing in the choir or “schola”. I think the Latin Mass is beautiful & should be preserved, however I’d be fine with a reverent Mass in English-maybe at an “Anglican Rite” Catholic church. We don’t have any in our neighborhood, unfortunately.
I like the older, more reverent language.I think having a special way of speaking to God & worshiping Him in His house helps us to understand the sacred better.
 
It seems someone needs to learn what the Dark Ages were.

That was the period after the collapse of the Roman Empire when the governmental system reverted to near tribalism instead of the organized and centralized system operated by the Romans.

People tend to conflate the Church and the State, but they’ve ALWAYS been separate entities. True, there was a LOT more meddling in each other’s affairs back then than today, but the hierarchy of the Church has always been separate from the authority structure of the state.

What people fail to realize is that when the state collapsed it was the CHURCH that preserved the advances of the Roman (and the absorbed Greek) civilizations! It was the monasteries that preserved the books, the bishops who protected the art, the priests who continued the traditions of learning…

Had it not been for the Church, civilization would have lost ALL the treasures of the Greek and Roman periods and we’d likely have all been conquered by the muslims centuries later since we’d have had to almost literaly re-invented the wheel.

It’s an important theme to remember as our own secular civilization accumulates more and more problems to the point where a new imperial collapse is becoming possible once again. We may again face dark ages, but it won’t be because the Church has sought to preserve her legacy, culture and Tradition. It’ll be because the rest of Western civilization didn’t.
 
“When I took the Church I took all 2000 years, not just the last 40.”

This is the best quote out of the whole thread.
 
It’s true that the dark ages weren’t as dark as they might seem, and that the role of the Church during that time has been neglected. There’s a popular Protestant Pastor who has a radio show here in Ottawa and the other night I heard him directly blame the Catholic Church for causing the dark ages. He said that as the Church moved away from its original mission and towards accumulating power and enforcing rules, the world went into a spiritual decline until the Protestant reformers came along and interpreted things properly. This seems to be a popular notion in some circles even though it’s unsupported by history.
 
MrsHall said:
😊
Click to expand...
Mrs. Hall, I agree with that poster’s comment. Well said! I love praying the Mass in the same words hundreds of great Saints prayed it in! I wish the LATIN Rite of the Church kept Latin as the “universal” language…just think how awesome it’d be to go to Mass in any Roman Catholic Church in the world and hear the prayers just as they are back home!

I’m in my early 20s and when my husband and I attended the Tridentine Mass at St. John Cantius in Chicago, we were amongst many many YOUNG families.
 
gerimar said:
It seems lately;i.e.( Latin Mass) the Church is moving backwards. We are in the 21st century! Why go back to a language people don’t understand. This is how to lose more and more Catholics.
Click to expand...
I understand your concern, but don’t worry. The Church continues to move forward at her normal glacial pace. The Pope has made clear that he is allowing both forms of the Mass to heal the divisions caused by the abrupt way the use of the old form ended. He has also repeatedly explained that he wants to move forward with the reforms of Vatican II, and that this does not represent any retrenchment.

As you can see from the glowing reviews of the wonder that was the dark ages in this thread, this forum is not the best place to get balanced information on progress in the Church, but the Church continues to grow, nonetheless.
 
I don’t think anyone is trying to glorify the dark ages or deny they happened, it’s just the implication that by emphasizing the heritage of the Church, the Pope is somehow turning back the clock. The liturgy and traditions of the Church are one of the glories of western civilization, and deserve to be celebrated. I’m not a traditionalist in the strict sense, but I appreciate the old mass because it’s beautiful and reverent. To say that this is turning back the clock is like saying I’m turning back the clock to the 18th century by listening to Mozart.
 
Nobody is posting any “glowing reviews” of the Dark Ages. We are just pointing out the reality of the reason they were DARK AGES in the first place since most people today seem not to understand the concept.

I love the Mozart analogy, but it might be a little TOO good. If we turned back from rap and hip-hop to Mozart, we’d be making a major ADVANCE in culture. But if we were able to enjoy BOTH Mozart AND the Beatles, we’d be in a good place…
 
TMC said:
As you can see from the glowing reviews of the wonder that was the dark ages in this thread, this forum is not the best place to get balanced information on progress in the Church, but the Church continues to grow, nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I’m just trying to point out that not everything in the Middle Ages was backward and barbaric; some things were arguably better. It’s important to understand that the Middle Ages was not a period lacking in culture (an idea that is deeply ingrained in the popular consciousness as evidenced by the very term “Dark Ages”), but rather it had its own culture with its own logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top