Posted on 06/19/2005 9:33:26 PM PDT by Lady In Blue
Pope set to return to traditional liturgy:-
VATICAN CITY | June 19, 2005 5:11:27 AM IST
Pope Benedict XVI wants to restore the traditional ceremonial Mass in St. Peter's Basilica, with Latin instead of the vernacular and Gregorian chants.
Vatican expert Sandro Magister reported in his weekly newsletter Saturday that the pope is expected to replace Archbishop Pietro Marini, his predecessor Pope John Paul II's master of liturgical ceremonies.
Whoever follows Marini will have orders to restore the traditional style and choreography of papal ceremonies in St. Peter's.
Out will go the international Masses so dear to Pope John Paul II's heart, with such innovations as Latin American and African rhythms and even dancing, multi-lingual readings and children in national costumes bringing gifts to the altar.
Pope Benedict wants to return to the Sistine Chapel choirs singing Gregorian chant and the church music of such composers as Claudio Monteverdi from the 17th century. He also wants to revive the Latin Mass.
Archbishop Marini always planned the ceremonies with television in mind, Magister said, and that emphasis will remain. A decade ago the Vatican set up a system for transmitting papal ceremonies world wide via multiple satellites.
(UPI)
way cool!
You reference a story with which I am not familiar. However, wouldn't a person named "Sandro" be a man? And I have to confess that I'm underwhelmed with leakers and sneakers these days ... fallout from the re-emergence of "Deep Throat," perhaps.
There is much to be said FOR the concepts of: 1) sacred time, 2) sacred space, 3) sacred ritual, and 4) sacred language.
That's really the "hidden" part of the debate, but you've likely noticed the posts which demonstrate that the RC's Latin is hardly unique in formal worship.
As I once tried to explain to a notorious lefty on one of the threads: Latin (like the other 'sacred' items above) establishes a 'fence' around the prize. One may or may not need the fence, but one doesn't want to endanger the prize with imprudence.
The same concept applies to the "old days" rules about priestly conduct: always live in the rectory, NEVER go out without a priest-companion, curfew, MUST wear clerics, (the list goes on.)
Now, a zillion dollars later, some have figured out that those nasty old disciplines may actually have had utility.
Hebrew was "reconstructed" in the early Zionist period, before the establishment of the State of Israel, after being effectively "dead" for centuries. It's a fascinating story ... I wish I remembered where I read it.
I seem to be in the minority on the gender of Sandro.
I'll take your word that S. is a male.
The story, as briefly as possible: Back during the campaign, the Bishops were under some pressure to speak with a unified voice and make Kerry unwelcome for Communion. Abp. Burke (and others) were quite clear and vocal on the topic, and what they wrote was impeccable in terms of Canon Law.
Other Bishops (you know their names) would not THINK of tossing a fellow-liberal into the pit of practical excommunication.
At a Bishops' meeting in Denver, McCarrick pulled out a letter from Ratzinger and told his brother Bishops that R, in effect, stated that McC's position (don't anathematize Kerry) was just fine.
Except McC lied. The ACTUAL letter from R. was leaked and it was quite different from the one McC quoted. R. backed Burke...
Magister "found" the actual letter...
The Romance Languages are DERIVED from Latin, they are NOT THEMSELVES Latin. There is a huge difference there. Spanish and French speakers for example, aren't likely to understand something said in Latin any better than you, an English speaker, are likely to understand it.
Bravo, I completely agree. I've preferred praying and saying the Rosary in Latin for a long time now.
Then I didn't make myself clear, because my question hasn't really been answered. My question is simple: What is the point of a service in a language that the majority of those in the pews, don't understand? I think we can safely say that there aren't a lot of folks who understand the Latin. The whole idea of translation in the service guide is proof of that. Why not have services in the native tongues of those in the pews?
I wish I remember where I read it too. The one thing that sticks out in my mind though, is that they killed the dog of the guy who spearhaded the Hebrew revival, because he spoke Hebrew to the dog.
I've gotten one reply to my query that the Latin is in part because the RC chuch, historically didn't encourage individuals to read scripture themselves, but rather intended such things to come solely from the clergy. I'll need to research that idea further before I accept it or reject it, but it is food for thought, and it is a logically consistant answer.
OK, so you ignored my response, too.
Your seeming insistence on "pragmatism" (vernacular) is a weak argument. Worship as a whole is not within the "pragmatic" weltanschuung--
Why worship at all? Because some un-seen God may have dictated that to someone long dead around 5000 years ago?
As Dom mentioned, precision of the language is part of it; as I stated, 'sacral language' is part of it. Another large part is tradition---the democracy of the dead, per GKChesterton.
Sigh...I'll let it go. I just don't get it. I guess I'm just one of those overly pragmatic protestants. My church is so very different than the one you hold dear, and you probably wouldn't get it anymore than I get yours. I wish you well though.
Seems to me that judgement(distinguishing good from evil) is a two-way street. If you cannot judge him as bad, you also cannot judge him as good. You seem to be setting yourself up as quite the judge of many on this forum.
That some may regard JP II as a less than stellar administrator is a mere matter of opinion. The conventional wisdom and the verdict of history are likely to disagree with that assessment.
It IS a matter of opinion Either Way. Conventional Wisdom is in the eye of the beholder. Fr. Richard McBrien believes that conventional wisdom dictates that Pope John XXIII is the greatest pope of all time. Here in Chicagoland, Cardinal Bernadin is seen as the best loved cardinal in diocesan history as you well know.
I don't know, why are Christians attracted to a God they can never fathom? Latin is found on on the cross of the Savior, contains mystery which rewards those who bother to fathom it and is immutable. In this fashion, it seems to partake in form with things eternal.
My reply to your question was in #283.
If you MEANT to ask why the Church began using Latin exclusively around the year 600 AD, it was because Gregory the Great (Pope) sought to unify the liturgical practice of the Church.
And BTW, don't allow someone to feed you that garbage about "only the clergy understood latin." Remember that before books, people actually knew by memory anything important--Jews could recite enormous chunks of the Torah, and Greeks could recite enormous chunks of the Odyssey.
The "lived in year 700, therefore stupid and illiterate" theory is only a product of evolutionary theory plus an enormous amount of current-day arrogance.
Fr. McBrien was a fool when he was incardinated in the Archdiocese of Hartford (he served at Our Lady of Victory Parish in West Haven until infesting Notre Dame in about 1962. McBrien is still a fool and has been throughout his priesthood. He should have been defrocked for writing Cuomo's "I am a pro-abort Catholic" speech. In a sane world, he would have been burned at the stake.
JP II is just about universally admired. Few know Lefebvre's name. Few ever will, as it should be.
I don't live in Chicagoland. I live in rural Northwestern Illinois in the Rockford diocese of Bishop Doran. I live in a relatively narrow circle of friends, none of whom seem to have regarded Bernardin as other than the worst archbishop Chicago ever had and as one who dictated that the music at his funeral be done by the Windy City Gay Men's Chorus to send an obvious message.
Like it or not, JP II is John Paul the Great. I suspect that discernment may be a gift received at confirmation. True or not, bad churchmen are like pornography. We know them when we see them. Likewise, saints. If that makes me judgmental, at least I am not caterwauling against the decisions of the Holy Spirit in the last conclave of 1988.
I have been judging since I was about 5 years old (oh, so many years ago) and generally I have hit the right targets. If someone shows me I am wrong, I generally admit it.
You can help me judge.
Did Marcel Lefebvre die excommunicated?
Was Marcel Lefebvre ever excommunicated?
Same questions as to the Econe 4
Is SSPX in schism? Why? Why not?
Get back to me when you have answered those.
"One party possesses the fullness of Christian Truth."
What arrogance for you to think you know it all. Wow.
As a Calvinist, I understand my mind is not able to comprehend the full mystery of God.
Thanks for the information. I vaguely recall that, now.
I didn't know that! I think what I read was in a History of Israel that came out around the 50th anniversary of the founding. It went over the background of the Zionist movement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.