Words at the Consecration

[gnosisofthomas]

I think it would have to be an approved translation for it to be licit. The Catholic Mass has been celebrated in Esperanto, a constructed language, by Esperantist Catholics for years. As long as a priest is presiding, it doesn’t matter what language is used for it to be valid.

“Tio estas mia korpo” means the same as: “This is my body,” “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” “Ceci est mon corps,” etc…

 

[superamazingman]

When I mean know more I am referring to your expeience with God within the Liturgy or Mass. I was referrng more to your heart not exaltly what the format is. You may know these words of another language what it gives but I was not thinking about that. I was only directing to one’s own affair with God which at best can be done within the language they best understand.

As I said above, Vatican II reiterated that Latin was the primary language for worship.

The church does not hold that you must understand the prayers of the Mass in order to unite oneself to the Mass and pray it well. If that were not the case, would the church have said that latin is the primary language of worship? It doesn’t matter if we know everything that is being said.

There’s a simple reason for this: the priest isn’t speaking to us. He’s speaking to God, on our behalf.

 

[ProVobis]

“Tio estas mia korpo” means the same as: “This is my body,” “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” “Ceci est mon corps,” etc…

True to some extent, but how many languages would actually tell you transubstantiation is occurring, for example, “Hoc” being in neuter case has to refer to “corpus” which is also neuter and not “panem” which is masculine? In English “this” is most ambiguous.

 

[chimo]

As I said above, Vatican II reiterated that Latin was the primary language for worship.

The church does not hold that you must understand the prayers of the Mass in order to unite oneself to the Mass and pray it well. If that were not the case, would the church have said that latin is the primary language of worship? It doesn’t matter if we know everything that is being said.

There’s a simple reason for this: the priest isn’t speaking to us. He’s speaking to God, on our behalf.

This is not the understanding I have learned. Without the participation of the Laity the Mass or the Divine Liturgy will be a useless exercise for one to grow into sanctity. Here I am not referring to children because the children can all receive without actually knowing what they need to do to participate into the Saving Graces of God. It is like this. Once a person reaches an age where they can work into the community this same ideal comes to us when we are in Church. God expects us to do our part to fulfill our obligations to give back what He has given to us. Unless you know of God’s purpose when you are of age you are actually raiding His “refridgerator” every time you come. You need to put something back into the “refridgerator” or you will be like any young person who lives at home and does nothing to help with his or her parents with the common household they are all living in. It is very meaningful to understand the Mass or the Divine Liturgy when you are of age because God expects this from you for you to begin your work and sacrifice. This is not a one way street.

I have been taught that the priest is only one part of that participation and he needs ours if God is to do His. Without our participation God’s pouring out of His Graces will become limited. In the Eastern Church I was taught the priest does not invoke God but rather he is invoking us to respond. This is the teaching I believe of the Western Church as well. When the priest is saying for instance “For the community we live in and for those we pray for let us pray to the Lord” he is not addressing God but he is addressing the congregation to respond to God. That is when we respond with intentions such as “Lord have Mercy” and so on. It is vitally important the congregation who are of age and of “working age” know this. I believe we are just beginning to know about this and this relationship we have with God by our participation within the Mass or the Divine Liturgy.

It was said by the Cure of Ars the great Catholic saint of France, St. John Vianney, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is God’s work and not ours. That means the Mass and the Divine Liturgy is God’s Sacrifice. Our sacrifice and work must come on the rest of the week. Unless your participation in doing some work or sacrifice for your Lord is present during that week you are actually not doing anything that comes close to what your Lord is doing. Your sacrifice must work with His if it is to be of any value. Our Lord wants us to extend His Mercy by participating into devotions (which is our sacrifice to Him) so He can be pleased to welcome you in His Sacrifice on Sunday’s Holy Communion. Your “mustard seeds” are important for Him.

And God needs those “mustard seeds” or He will not have anything to work with. When Maria Faustina was told by Jesus to tell her mother superior to say what two sisters were not doing when they came to Mass He was concerned for their lack of committment. He was referring not only their lack of committment at Mass but during the week as well. He said He does not like to go to souls with this type of indifference. Once these sisters were corrected He was pleased to come to them in Communion.

The sadness of our Lord who is trying to teach this to us is actually becoming more and more better because of the Laity who are now understanding more there roles. God is now teaching us more how to work with Him and how we can please Him. The Church is now in the beginning stages of this emerging Laity which is inceasingly its own involvement which for centuries was only done by most of the clergy. This involvement of the Laity will bring forth so many good things. For instance one can see the prayers of the faithful been said at the requests of the Holy Mother at Fatima as one fine example where our prayers working with the Sacrifice of the Mass worked together to finally end Communism in Russia and of Eastern Europe.

 

[PJM]

=ClemtheCatholic;10213856]Those few lines before the miracle of transubstantiation are so important - they make the Mass.

It’s kind of peculiar but I was thinking about how the Priest can use any language and say the words in whatever way (you know: really loud, quiet, etc.) as long as he says them intending to do as the Church does. But how does this work when you really analyse it? Could a dead language (such as Old English, I do not include Latin as dead because the Vatican still uses it officially) be used? I mean this seriously: What if I was to make up a gibberish-sounding language and give the phrase I’d made up that translated to mean the words at the Consecration? Seeing that the Priest can speak any of thousands of different languages and the miracle still happens, could he use some random new language? What about Tolkien’s Elvish?

GREAT Q!

ANYTHING that “touches the Sacred Liturgy” MUST be and can only be changed by and or through our Pope!

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff

Can. 928 The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[gnosisofthomas]

True to some extent, but how many languages would actually tell you transubstantiation is occurring, for example, “Hoc” being in neuter case has to refer to “corpus” which is also neuter and not “panem” which is masculine? In English “this” is most ambiguous.

That is a pretty cool coincidence, but it actually just comes down to grammar. The genders are the same in Greek too, the words of scripture. In both languages, “this” takes the gender of the noun within its own clause, so it would be ungrammatical to use the masculine case. It’s a neat coincidence though!

But, just like in English, French, or Esperanto – we know the object that used to be plain bread is the antecedent of “this”, because there’s nothing else it could refer to, so it’s not totally ambiguous.

A skeptic could argue that the statement is only a metaphor, however I don’t think Jesus would have gone through all the trouble earlier to tell everyone they had to eat his body and drink his blood or they had no life in them. If it was merely a metaphor, he would have stopped people and clarified when the idea scared them away!

 

[ProVobis]

That is a pretty cool coincidence, but it actually just comes down to grammar. The genders are the same in Greek too, the words of scripture. In both languages, “this” takes the gender of the noun within its own clause, so it would be ungrammatical to use the masculine case. It’s a neat coincidence though!

But, just like in English, French, or Esperanto – we know the object that used to be plain bread is the antecedent of “this”, because there’s nothing else it could refer to, so it’s not totally ambiguous.

Perhaps it is a coincidence, you may have a point there.

But the English (and other languages) do leave in the possibility of the Lutheran belief that it is both bread and body. The Latin and Greek do not.

As far as the wine is concerned, it is not mentioned in the consecration but “hic” in gender would refer either to the chalice (calix) or His blood (sanguinis), both masculine. It is not “wine” (vinum) any longer as that would be neuter in gender. One has to conclude that “this” refers to His blood, and wine no longer.

 

[andrewstx]

To be honest there is an approved old English (or jkv) mass used by the Cathoilc Anglican Rite.

 

[twf]

To be honest there is an approved old English (or jkv) mass used by the Cathoilc Anglican Rite.

I think that the Anglican Rite would technically be early modern English - or more specifically, a liturgical dialect that has evolved in the Church of England (and now been incorporated into the Catholic Church), and not Old English - which would be far more Germanic and barely understandable to modern ears.

 

[Digitonomy]

I think that the Anglican Rite would technically be early modern English - or more specifically, a liturgical dialect that has evolved in the Church of England (and now been incorporated into the Catholic Church), and not Old English - which would be far more Germanic and barely understandable to modern ears.

Yes. Here is the Our Father in Old English.

youtube.com/watch?v=7Wl-OZ3breE

 

[gnosisofthomas]

To be honest there is an approved old English (or jkv) mass used by the Cathoilc Anglican Rite.

I think the OP is referring to Anglo-Saxon spoken up to about the 12th century, which is also called Old English. The approved Anglican liturgy uses archaic English, but that’s technically early Modern English. Old English would be a completely foreign language to modern English speakers.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Perhaps it is a coincidence, you may have a point there.

But the English (and other languages) do leave in the possibility of the Lutheran belief that it is both bread and body. The Latin and Greek do not.

As far as the wine is concerned, it is not mentioned in the consecration but “hic” in gender would refer either to the chalice (calix) or His blood (sanguinis), both masculine. It is not “wine” (vinum) any longer as that would be neuter in gender. One has to conclude that “this” refers to His blood, and wine no longer.

Well, that’s arguable… Latin and Greek do allow the possibility of consubstantiation, or even that it’s merely symbolic if someone were to take the statements as metaphor. The gender is just a grammatical feature, nothing more than that… the words have to agree with each other in number and gender. “Hic” would have to refer to chalice no matter what’s in it.

Actually, wine is only mentioned in Eucharistic Prayer IV of the OF, but in the Latin that prayer says He took the cup filled with the fruit of the vine (genimine vitis), and “fruit” is also neuter. “Hic” has to be in the masculine form because it must agree with “blood”, just as “hoc” must agree with “body”. Even if a church wanted to use Latin, and rejected transubstantiation, they would still have to use the same words or it would be ungrammatical. Ancient Roman grammarians would be turning over in their graves, haha!

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

GREAT Q!

ANYTHING that “touches the Sacred Liturgy” MUST be and can only be changed by and or through our Pope!

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff

Can. 928 The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

This is very helpful! Thanks very much!! And thanks to everybody else!

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, wine is only mentioned in Eucharistic Prayer IV of the OF,

It’s mentioned in the Offertory in both the EF and OF. That’s what I went by.

But the point I was trying to make was that the demonstrative, which is used quite a bit in the Canon, is more vague in the English. Thus one can’t say it’s exactly like the Latin or Greek.

 

[superamazingman]

This is not the understanding I have learned. Without the participation of the Laity the Mass or the Divine Liturgy will be a useless exercise for one to grow into sanctity.

Most certainly! You should participate. But as I said above that doesn’t require the vernacular. That requires an internal uniting of oneself to the sacrifice on the altar, which requires no external actions.

Here I am not referring to children because the children can all receive without actually knowing what they need to do to participate into the Saving Graces of God. It is like this. Once a person reaches an age where they can work into the community this same ideal comes to us when we are in Church. God expects us to do our part to fulfill our obligations to give back what He has given to us. Unless you know of God’s purpose when you are of age you are actually raiding His “refridgerator” every time you come. You need to put something back into the “refridgerator” or you will be like any young person who lives at home and does nothing to help with his or her parents with the common household they are all living in. It is very meaningful to understand the Mass or the Divine Liturgy when you are of age because God expects this from you for you to begin your work and sacrifice. This is not a one way street.

Of course it’s not a one way street. Like I said, you need to unite yourself to the prayers of the priest (whether you understand them or not). Again, if latin made this impossible, vatican II would clearly not have kept it as the primary language of worship.

It seems your biggest hang-up is on outward participation. Active participation, as envisioned by the church, is not always an outward participation. Silently praying at a latin Mass during the silent canon can most certainly be a deep form of active participation, even if you don’t know what words are being said at what time.

John Paul II said quite clearly that active participation “demands … the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening.”

In that same address, he also said that we should not trying to make everything in the liturgy very obvious and easy to understand. It’s good that some of it is veiled, and more difficult to understand, because it helps to draw us up into it.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Lay people years ago used a St. Joseph Missal which had Latin on one side and the English translation on the other. We knew what was happening. I do agree that more emphasis should be on teaching the Mass to children.

Many people take for granted the missals that people have during the Mass that they attend. They will say “well, the people were able to follow along with the priest saying the Latin Mass because they had the missal. Thus, the people were not ignorant.” However, those who make such statements take for granted something which was only an innovation of the late 19th century. Latin to English Missals were prohibited prior to that point. Until the time of Pope Leo XIII, Latin to English missals were in some way put in the same category as heretical books by Martin Luther. The removal of the prohibition by Pope Leo XIII was an important but first step of getting the people more involved in the Mass.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

It’s mentioned in the Offertory in both the EF and OF. That’s what I went by.

But the point I was trying to make was that the demonstrative, which is used quite a bit in the Canon, is more vague in the English. Thus one can’t say it’s exactly like the Latin or Greek.

Ah okay, I was only looking at the Eucharistic Prayers of consecration. You’re right, the Offertory does use the word “vinum”. The mingling of water and wine uses “hujus” though, the genetive form of hoc/hic, which is the same whether it’s masculine, feminine, or neuter. So that’s a little vague. And the line “we have this wine to offer” doesn’t use hoc/hic at all, just “accepimus vinum”.

English is a lot different from Latin or Greek, and I know there is a lot that can’t be translated from one language to another. I guess I’m just not understanding how the grammar indicates transubstantiation, when the wording would still have to be the same even if transubstantiation were rejected. If someone wanted to change the liturgy there because they rejected the Real Presence, the wording would be ungrammatical. Or from the other perspective, they could still reject the Real Presence with the grammar as it currently is, because the gender and declensions don’t prove it.

I’ll admit though that I’ve only studied Latin for my linguistics classes, so I can’t say with certainty what sense a native speaker would get from it. I do speak French though, so I understand grammatical gender.

 

[PJM]

=ClemtheCatholic;10223558]This is very helpful! Thanks very much!! And thanks to everybody else!

Your VERY WECOME my friend

 

[gnosisofthomas]

It’s mentioned in the Offertory in both the EF and OF. That’s what I went by.

But the point I was trying to make was that the demonstrative, which is used quite a bit in the Canon, is more vague in the English. Thus one can’t say it’s exactly like the Latin or Greek.

Something else just occurred to me, that I found interesting to think about… Latin also has some ambiguity in that “Hoc est enim corpus meum” could be interpreted as “I am my body”.

As a Gnostic Christian, I’d reject that interpretation… But it’s ambiguous nonetheless!