A
Aquinas11
Guest
The infallible Canon expressly discusses language so that’s incorrect. Saying it doesn’t isn’t an argument.The FORM of the Mass, and that includes the language is not dogma/doctrine
The infallible Canon expressly discusses language so that’s incorrect. Saying it doesn’t isn’t an argument.The FORM of the Mass, and that includes the language is not dogma/doctrine
Constantly using the word “infallible” because that’s your personal opinion isn’t an argument.Saying it doesn’t isn’t an argument.
Have you actually read Trent?Strawman. Not my opinion. Feel free to cite source that the Canon isn’t infallible teaching.
It is used in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.Yes but many Protestant Bibles add it to the Lords Prayer erroneously, as it was added to the end of that much later. Let’s be real. It was added in the novus ordo to appeal to bringing Protestants in.
What makes the Church universal is that it encompasses all rites, all forms of the Eucharistic sacrifice. It does not have to be in the same form to reflect the same faith. We have unity in the Church even though we have great diversity.I don’t think it is the Latin that makes it a big deal. My understanding as to why it was Latin was because it is a universal Church and wherever in the world you went it would be the same mass in the same language.
This separation was based on culture, of which language is a significant part. . Ethnic parishes where established when large ethnic groups immigrated to the United States. They found it to be a comfort and source of strength to be surrounded by others who shared their language and culture and have a priest who was also a part of that culture. When these ethnic parishes were established, the Mass itself was still in Latin.I don’t know why there is a Spanish church in my town. Also there is French one though they don’t do masses in French anymore; but it’s like why separate us based on language? If we all had the same language of mass you wouldn’t need this separation; anywhere you went it’s the same.