Posted on 07/30/2005 9:06:18 AM PDT by littlepaddle
A HARVARD STUDENT SPEAKS OUT Why I Attend the Traditional Latin Mass
June 2003By Francis X. Altiere IV
Introibo ad altare Dei — “I will go unto the altar of God.” So begins the holy sacrifice of the Mass, as it has been celebrated in the Roman rite of the Church for well over a millennium. Contrary to the sincere wishes of the liturgical apparatus that has visited havoc upon orthodox Catholics for the past forty years, the traditional Latin liturgy still survives. Indeed, not only does it survive, but it is attracting new followers and exciting a profound piety in Catholics of all ages — many of whom, like myself, were born over a decade after the imposition of the new liturgy. With the recognition by many concerned Catholics that the lex orandi of the modern liturgy is not an adequate expression of the Church’s lex credendi, there has been concerted effort in recent years to address the poverty of Catholic liturgical life today. (The “reform of the reform” solution proposed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Joseph Fessio immediately comes to mind.) While many orthodox Catholics are directing their attention to salvaging the Novus Ordo Missae introduced by Pope Paul VI in 1969, many others are directing their energies toward the restoration — or at least the revival — of the traditional Latin Mass.
At the outset, I should entertain one particular question about the old Mass: What’s in a name? The traditional rite of Mass, which prevailed from the very first Christian centuries until right after the Second Vatican Council, is often called the “Latin Mass” or the “Tridentine Mass.” Neither of these two names, strictly speaking, is satisfactory. While it is certainly true that the old Mass is celebrated in Latin, the new Mass is technically also a Latin Mass — it is, after all, a Mass of the Latin rite (as opposed to the Byzantine or Maronite rites, for example) and the Missale Romanum of Paul VI was written in Latin. The Oratorian Fathers, as well as some monasteries, are known to celebrate the new Mass mostly or entirely in Latin. But, in view of the fact that the new liturgy is most often celebrated in the vulgar tongue (and the ICEL translation reminds one what a vulgar tongue it can be!), it is not surprising that no one thinks of the new Mass as the Latin Mass.
To call the old Mass the “Tridentine” Mass is also misleading. Although the Roman Mass did undergo some minor revisions and purifications under Pope St. Pius V after the Council of Trent in the 16th century (“Tridentine” comes from the Latin for Trent), it is not the case that the missal of 1570 was a new or fabricated product. Unlike the new liturgy, which was produced by a committee of liturgical “experts” almost from scratch in 1969, the missal of Pius V merely attended to “the preservation of a pure liturgy” — the same liturgy, in fact, whose core elements had been codified by the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great in the sixth century. Reliable liturgical scholars, such as Fr. Adrian Fortescue and Msgr. Klaus Gamber, have documented the antiquity of the traditional Roman rite. The most recent edition of the traditional missal was published in 1962. This is the missal used by the priests, such as those of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, authorized by the Holy See to preserve the classical liturgy. The changes made in 1962, like those made by Pius V and some of his successors, were minor and organic, leaving the integrity of the rite in place.
Catholics of all ages should be grateful to Pope John Paul II for the understanding he has shown to those Catholics who still desire the old Mass. Even if the Holy Father himself views the modern liturgical experiment as a blessing for the Church, he has nonetheless urged the bishops of the world to respect the desire of many Catholics to worship in the manner of their fathers. In his 1988 motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, in fact, the Pope asked the bishops to grant “wide and generous” permission for the old liturgy, in order to accommodate “the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition.” (The Pope celebrated the classical Mass last summer in his private chapel at Castel Gandolfo.)
When bishops first gave their grudging permission for the retention of the old Latin Mass, most people thought the measure was simply a provisional gesture to placate time-warped priests and laity. That these old-timers will die off, and with them the old Mass, was the prevailing idea. How wrong these people were! I am 20 years old, and have attended the traditional Mass for about three years now. There certainly are elderly people at the church I attend, no doubt still disoriented from the radical changes that tore from them the traditions of their youth, but there are many young people as well. It cannot be mere nostalgia that attracts youngsters — who were born decades after Vatican II — to the old Mass. For that matter, it is not even primarily an aesthetic consideration that leads many Catholics to favor the old Mass. Above all, we prefer the ancient rite because it more accurately reflects the faith of the Church in the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice than the new liturgy, which instead emphasizes it as a communal banquet.
Although no devotee of the ancient liturgy would — or should — prefer it simply because of its beauty, there is no denying the cultural and aesthetic value of the traditional rite. In fact, in 1971 leading cultural figures (including non-Catholics and even non-Christians) appealed to Pope Paul VI, on cultural grounds, to preserve the ancient rite. In their appeal, published in The Times of London (July 6, 1971), they wrote, “The rite in question, in its magnificent Latin text, has also inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts — not only mystical works, but works by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries and epochs.” Being present at a traditional high Mass, replete with well-crafted vestments and Gregorian plainchant, is a moving experience indeed. If perchance a Gather hymnal were to turn up at a Latin Mass, someone would surely have the sense to burn it.
But, as I said, it is not the artistic merit of the old Mass — nurtured in the womb of Mother Church for 1500 years — that is the most compelling argument in its favor; rather, it is doctrinal precision. One does not wish to call into question the doctrinal sufficiency of the new Mass, which, being promulgated by a reigning pope, is obviously a valid rite of Mass. But the fact that the new Mass is orthodox and validly confects the sacrament does not imply that it is as perfect an expression of the Catholic faith as the old Mass. The use of a “dead” language such as Latin plays a valuable role in preserving orthodoxy, as the text of the liturgy is fixed, and the words used to express Catholic eucharistic theology are not subject to any vicissitudes in their meaning. In his monumental encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII reminded Catholics, “The use of the Latin language…is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.”
What is it that recommends Latin, and not a vernacular tongue, as an ideal liturgical language? We should note that almost all major religions have set aside some particular language, which, through its intimate connection with the religious cultus, has become sacred, even long after passing out of quotidian usage. We should not forget that our Lord Himself worshiped in a non-vernacular tongue — Hebrew. Even though the Jews of Palestine 2,000 years ago used Aramaic in their daily discourse, they retained this sacred tongue in their worship. And as Providence led the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter, to erect the mother diocese of all Christendom in Rome, it is only fitting that the language of ancient Rome should, in time, have become the language of the Church. Whenever a Catholic hears Mass in Latin, he is reminded that he belongs to a worldwide communion and, moreover, he is reminded of the special primacy of the Roman pontiff. As Pope Pius XI explained in his letter Officiorum Omnium, “the Church — precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time — of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.” It is significant that Vatican II, which opened the door to liturgical renovation, reaffirmed that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (Sacrosanctum Concilium). Pope John XXIII himself, the father of Vatican II, had issued an encyclical on the eve of the council to protest the desire of some Catholic innovators to move away from Latin.
The current Holy Father wrote in his 1980 Holy Thursday letter, Dominicae Cenae, “The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself.” It would be tempting to make this line the basis for a syllogism:
(1) Major premise: The Catholic Church must manifest her obligations to Latin whenever the occasion presents itself.
(2) Minor premise: The occasion always presents itself. (The missal of St. Pius V, of course, presupposes celebration in Latin; and, the normative edition of the missal of Paul VI is also in Latin.)
(3) Conclusion: Mass should always be celebrated in Latin in the Roman rite of the Catholic Church.
Catholics today, perhaps, may disagree as to how much of the vernacular is desirable in the celebration of holy Mass, but it would be wholly contrary to the mind of the Church to assert that the Mass ought to be celebrated entirely in the vernacular. The Council of Trent, indeed, declared on this point, “If any one saith…that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only…let him be anathema” (Session XXII, canon 9). It is significant that the council makes this point in a dogmatic canon, with an anathema attached, rather than in a decree on discipline.
In his phenomenal and prescient 1966 essay “The Case for the Latin Mass,” the celebrated Catholic philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand asks rhetorically “whether we better meet Christ in the Mass by soaring up to Him, or by dragging Him down into our own pedestrian, workaday world?” It is a good question, and it is a question that indicates a basic problem about modern man: anthropocentrism. Unfortunately, the modern liturgy reinforces this basic failure to understand the fundamentally unequal relationship between God and man. The problem with “creative liturgies” is that they miss the very point of liturgical prayer: The faithful must encounter Christ in the Mass by conforming themselves to the liturgy. It has been well said that in the traditional Mass, the priest leaves his own personality in the sacristy so that he becomes a true alter Christus. Following exactly the words and rubrics of the missal, he makes an oblation of his own will. Although a closer adherence to the text of the new missal would eliminate some difficulty, even so the tendency of individual celebrants to leave their own mark on Christ’s Mass is still pronounced. After all, the new Mass allows celebrants to choose from four different “Eucharistic Prayers” instead of the formerly obligatory Roman Canon. This is not to mention the slew of other approved ad libitum options that typify the Novus Ordo.
The faithful too are less inclined toward anthropocentrism at the traditional Mass. The priest faces the altar, rather than the people — the Mass after all is the greatest prayer the Church can offer to God. Why orient the priest toward the congregation, when the entire assembly should have its attention on the sacred Host — the “pure, holy, and spotless Victim,” in the words of the traditional missal. Moreover, the traditional liturgy also guards against the blurring of the distinction between clergy and laity, which is all too common today. All of the readings of the Mass are read by clergy — sub-deacon, deacon, and priest; the official representatives of the Church carry out all the prayers and readings of the ancient liturgy. What a valuable reminder for us all that God has charged the Church with the correct interpretation of Scripture. If Mrs. Smith can read the epistle to the congregation at Mass, why can she not decide what it means for her? Although the scandalous practice of lay preaching is supposedly banned in the new Mass, it is not surprising that it has become rather widespread. Reverence for the Blessed Sacrament also dictates that only the priest — whose hands were consecrated for this purpose in the rite of ordination — should touch the sacred Host, and that the faithful should kneel to receive our Lord in Communion. The hierarchical arrangement of the old Mass, with all attention directed at the altar, is an apt expression of our interior faith.
The “silence” of the Roman Canon, the central prayer of the Mass, containing the consecration of the bread and wine (which the priest always reads sotto voce, in a low voice) in the traditional rite reminds us that the world was silent at the crucifixion. And of course it is precisely the sacrifice of Calvary that is re-presented in every Mass. The crisp ringing of the bell pierces the silence, alerting the faithful of the elevation of the Host and Chalice.
What of the claim that people cannot understand what is happening at the traditional Latin Mass? Well, do people really understand what is happening at the Novus Ordo Mass? Of course they can hear the Mass in their own language, but do they understand what actually happens at holy Mass? It is a well-documented fact that only a minority of today’s Catholics actually believe in Transubstantiation — that the bread and wine consecrated at Mass become the body and blood, soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we must assume that most Catholics, even though they understand the words of the vernacular Mass, do not actually understand what is happening at Mass. In view of this fact, the criticism that people do not understand the Latin Mass falls flat. The “understanding” that the majority of modern Catholics have of the new Mass is subjective and superficial — which does not prove that the new liturgy is bad, per se, but it does prove that there is more to “understanding” than the mere recognition of vernacular words. (Of course, orthodox catechesis and solid preaching — whether at a Latin Mass or at a Novus Ordo parish — go a long way. There are obviously Catholics who attend the new Mass who believe in Transubstantiation and who have a profound reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, but the vernacular liturgy as such does nothing to create a deeper awareness of this reality.)
I submit that Catholics, especially those who have attended the old liturgy consistently, do in fact understand the Latin Mass. First of all, there are Latin-English handmissals which enable the lay faithful to follow the prayers of the Mass if they find it helpful to do so. Others of us, however, are edified by simply following the actions of the priest at the altar. Either way is a fruitful means of participation. Secondly, the scriptural readings of the Mass, after having been read or chanted in Latin, are read again in the vernacular. The sermon, of course, is always preached in the language of the people. We have already mentioned that the hierarchical nature of the traditional Mass ritual is opposed to the anthropocentrism of the modern world. An overemphasis on the ability of the laity to participate actively in the liturgy is a reflection of this anthropocentrism. It does not matter that the prayers of the old Mass are recited in Latin and sometimes in silence — these prayers are directed at God, not at a deified mankind. The fact that I do not understand every word of Latin at the Mass does not bother me: The Mass is offered to thank God, to adore Him, to beg His forgiveness, and to implore His blessing. It is not offered to appeal to my ego or to entertain me.
Even if the old Mass, so clearly oriented to the divine, does not pander to the subjective sensibilities of the congregation, one should not imagine that it is therefore uninstructive or unedifying. A person unacquainted with Catholic theology who walked into a traditional Latin Mass would perceive that something was happening — he might not know what, but he would be enchanted by it. A Catholic woman once justified to me her decision to attend a Protestant church because, she said, Catholics and Protestants sing all the same songs at their services now, so what’s the difference? Maybe it is not her fault. The Catholic liturgy has become so denatured that it seems to many Catholics to be nothing more than a sing-a-long. There was a news report last summer about a California woman who was disturbed to learn that she had been attending a Lutheran church for years when she had thought it was a Catholic one. What a sad day when the sacrifice of the Mass bears no outward difference from a Protestant service! The traditional liturgy certainly is instructive, and no one would ever confuse it for a Lutheran service.
The sheer antiquity of the traditional Roman rite of Mass is a very compelling argument for any Catholic, who, as a matter of fact and not simply of temperament, must be tradition-minded. Novelty, even in secondary matters of ecclesiastical and liturgical discipline, can undermine the stability of the faith. How often do we hear dissenting Catholics claiming that the Church’s position on contraception and the ordination of women is prone to change because the Church has experienced so many other dramatic changes in the past thirty-five years? It is not disloyal to suggest that the decision of the hierarchy to cave in to demands for such liturgical innovations as Communion in the hand and altar girls — which Paul VI and John Paul II, respectively, opposed before reluctantly authorizing them — actually undermines the authority of the Church in other matters. St. Thomas Aquinas notes the deleterious effect that innovation can have: “to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave” (Summa theologiae I-II. 97. 2). And so, aside from the doctrinal merits of the Latin liturgy that have been considered above, the very antiquity of the traditional rite speaks strongly in its favor. To fabricate a whole sacramental rite ex novo is completely alien to Catholic liturgical common sense. Cardinal Ratzinger, even if he does not view the eventual restoration of the 1962 missal as a goal, is acutely aware of the rupture presented by the liturgical reform. In his preface to Msgr. Gamber’s Reform of the Roman Liturgy, the Cardinal described the Novus Ordo as “a banal on-the-spot product.”
The Mass is the summit of all Christian life, and in the light of the glories of the traditional Mass, we should not wonder that it is enjoying such a revival today — not of course that it has ever died. The “vocations crisis” afflicting dioceses in which the faith has been watered down for decades does not apply to those priestly societies such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King that were founded (in 1988 and 1990, respectively) to bring new life to our Latin liturgical heritage. Traditional Benedictine monasteries like Le Barroux in France and the more recent Clear Creek in the U.S. are important centers of the Latin liturgical resurgence. Well over 150,000 American Catholics attend the Latin Masses offered in their dioceses every week, not to mention the many more who are waiting for their bishop to make one available. (A complete listing of the locations of all the traditional Latin Masses offered under the jurisdiction of the bishops of the United States is available at: latinmass.org/directory.html) Let us end with another quotation from that most reliable of all theologians, St. Thomas: “It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old.”
Francis X. Altiere IV is an undergraduate at Harvard.
As you said "The church concelebrates with Jews, Orthodox, Protestant, has Eucharistic Hospitality sessions with Protestants where the body of Christ is given to those in Mortal sin and not even Catholic, but if you are Traditional or go to the TLM-you are banned, pushed off, the Novus Ordo priest looks at you like you have 3 heads".
And as I hope everyone here understands fully, all of that - most especially the come one come all "Eucharistic Hospitality sessions" - is strictly forbidden by the Apostolic Canons, some of which were composed by no less than St. Peter the Holy Apostle himself.
The canons of the Church are not mere laws. They are statements of basic Christian principle. How anyone can read them, and also read what you just said Bulldog, without concluding that the NO establishment is an entirely new religion is quite beyond my pitiful ability to comprehend. Nanette Claret(an Anglican who is apparently on her way into the NO establishment), has tried her best to explain this to me, but I'm afraid I still just don't get it.
A lie. How exactly would a "concelebration" with Jews work, anyway?
Can. 908 Catholic priests are forbidden to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which are not in full communion with the catholic Church.
come one come all "Eucharistic Hospitality sessions"
Certainly this is not a practice of the Catholic Church.
Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.
the Apostolic Canons, some of which were composed by no less than St. Peter the Holy Apostle himself
Bad history. The Pseudo-Apostolic canons are of third or fourth century provenance, and they are not all correct. For instance, the canon of Scripture given in canon 85 has always been rejected by the Catholic Church:
Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by you, both of the clergy and laity. Of the Old Covenant: the five books of Moses-Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; one of Joshua the son of Nun, one of the Judges, one of Ruth, four of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, two of Ezra, one of Esther, one of Judith, three of the Maccabees, one of Job, one hundred and fifty psalms; three books of Solomon-Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; sixteen prophets. And besides these, take care that your young persons learn the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. But our sacred books, that is, those of the New Covenant, are these: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you the bishops by me Clement, in eight books; which it is not fit to publish before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us the Apostles.
Note that Wisdom and Tobit are missing, and so is Revelation.
"Bad history. The Pseudo-Apostolic canons are of third or fourth century provenance"
That's news to me. Please state your authority.
If one of the canons is erronious as to the list of books to be considered Holy Scripture, this would seem to argue for a much earlier date than 4th century. Since that particular canon was apparently written by St. Clement, it looks more like 2nd century.
"'come one come all "Eucharistic Hospitality sessions' Certainly this is not a practice of the Catholic Church."
How come I, a known non-Catholic, was invited to one and invited to receive the sacrament? We all know these have been going on. It's positively notorious. Why deny it? I thought the NO people were proud of it.
Read the link I gave. Many are copied from a council held in Antioch in 348, for one thing. Another strong reason for doubting authenticity is that they were never entirely received in the Western Church - Pope St. Hormisdas, for instance, declared them apocryphal in the early sixth century.
Since that particular canon was apparently written by St. Clement, it looks more like 2nd century.
I suggest you look up the history of the Apostolic Constitutions, where the Apostolic Canons are derived from. They are a forgery in the name of St. Clement. Eusebius, when he gives St. Clement's writings, mentions only his First Epistle as valid, and his Second Epistle as doubtful. He certainly would have known about the Canons and the Constitutions if they had been written by St. Clement.
How come I, a known non-Catholic, was invited to one and invited to receive the sacrament?
That does not make "come one come all Eucharistic Hospitality sessions" a practice of the Catholic Church.
Where is the evidence that the Pope held "come one come all Eucharistic Hospitality sessions" every year at Assisi?
As for the canons, I was simply pointing out that you are misattributing them. They weren't written by St. Peter or any apostle. You are correct that the Council in Trullo received them, but this Council never received the assent of the universal Church (St. Bede calls it a "reprobate" synod), so it is not binding on Catholics, who follow the rule of Vincent of Lerins: "held everywhere, always, and by all".
If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated.
"Common participation in worship which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law." (Vatican Council II, Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite §26).
* Because this is Sunday, I enjoyed witnessing this example of afflatus. Have a nice day sister
ON THE USE OF VERNACULAR LANGUAGES IN THE PUBLICATION OF THE BOOKS OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
FIFTH INSTRUCTION “FOR THE RIGHT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 36)
1. The Second Vatican Council strongly desired to preserve with care the authentic Liturgy, which flows forth from the Church’s living and most ancient spiritual tradition, and to adapt it with pastoral wisdom to the genius of the various peoples so that the faithful might find in their full, conscious, and active participation in the sacred actions – especially the celebration of the Sacraments – an abundant source of graces and a means for their own continual formation in the Christian mystery.[1]
2. Thereupon there began, under the care of the Supreme Pontiffs, the great work of renewal of the liturgical books of the Roman Rite, a work which included their translation[2] into vernacular languages, with the purpose of bringing about in the most diligent way that renewal of the sacred Liturgy which was one of the foremost intentions of the Council.
3. The liturgical renewal thus far has seen positive results, achieved through the labor and the skill of many, but in particular of the Bishops, to whose care and zeal this great and difficult charge is entrusted. ....
For this reason, even while calling for the revision of the various Rites in accordance with sound tradition, the Council set forth the principle that only those changes were to be introduced which would foster their specific organic development...
Clearly, the same vigilance is required for the safeguarding and the authentic development of the liturgical rites, the ecclesiastical traditions, and the discipline of the Latin Church, and in particular, of the Roman Rite. The same care must be brought also to the translation of the liturgical texts into vernacular languages. This is especially true as regards the Roman Missal, which will thus continue to be maintained as an outstanding sign and instrument of the integrity and unity of the Roman Rite...
The work of inculturation, of which the translation into vernacular languages is a part, is not therefore to be considered an avenue for the creation of new varieties or families of rites; on the contrary, it should be recognized that any adaptations introduced out of cultural or pastoral necessity thereby become part of the Roman Rite, and are to be inserted into it in a harmonious way...
In fact, it seems necessary to consider anew the true notion of liturgical translation in order that the translations of the Sacred Liturgy into the vernacular languages may stand secure as the authentic voice of the Church of God...
I. ON THE CHOICE OF VERNACULAR LANGUAGES TO BE INTRODUCED INTO LITURGICAL USE 10. To be considered first of all is the choice of the languages that it will be permissible to put into use in liturgical celebrations. It is appropriate that there be elaborated in each territory a pastoral plan that takes account of the spoken languages there in use, with a distinction being made between languages which the people spontaneously speak and those which, not being used for natural communication in pastoral activity, merely remain the object of cultural interest. In considering and drafting such a plan, due caution should be exercised lest the faithful be fragmented into small groups by means of the selection of vernacular languages to be introduced into liturgical use, with the consequent danger of fomenting civil discord, to the detriment of the unity of peoples as well as of the unity of the particular Churches and the Church universal...
20. The Latin liturgical texts of the Roman Rite, while drawing on centuries of ecclesial experience in transmitting the faith of the Church received from the Fathers, are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal, just recently brought forth. In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.[20]
*One can't pit the Magisterium against itself. It is clear Mass in the vernacular is here to stay - which was what Latin Mass was - Mass in the vernacular.
Mass in the vernacular is Tradition. I know this comes as a shock to some.
"Mass in the vernacular is Tradition. I know this comes as a shock to some."
The liturgy in a language that people understand is indeed of the Tradition, but that should not be taken to mean that it is language that is not liturgical, language that is common and ordinary. Nor should it be taken to mean that Latin is always a language not understood. God is holy other. The very language that we use for prayer has always been language indicating respect. Just my personal opinion, but I find the English of the Novus Ordo banal and common, not respectful.
Interestingly, as Kosta50 points out, the preferred language at St. Peter's in Rome, at least for some of the liturgy, is Greek. When SS Peter, Paul, Mark and others evangelized in Rome, they brought with them the Divine Liturgy of St. James the Brother of the Lord, in Greek. Only very gradually were certain parts ever translated into Latin. And some never were, at least not at St. Peter's. The reason for this is that Greek is more a language for theology, Latin for law. To see how this is so, simply try to translate "Theotokos" into Latin. Can't be done. "Mater Dei" is hardly a precise translation of "Theotokos"
What is good about the Old Rite is the formulary of the words, not the language. The Old Rite was great in Croatia also, where it was always celebrated in Slavonic, and never in Latin.
I'd be ecstatic if it was restored entirely in the vernacular or in Latin.
The Rite and its tradition is what is important, not the language.
And those positive results would be?
I much prefer the idea of the Latin Mass to the situation above.
Yes, Graves, "Theotokos" is simply irreplaceable and, as you note, untranslatable, and - you would know this better than I, being Orthodox - isn't it one of those words (like Maranatha, Alleluia, etc.) that the Tradition senses should be left alone, no matter what language the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in? I seem to remember hearing the litanies in an OCA setting, where that one word was left untranslated in the midst of all the English words around it. Something like, "Remembering our most holy, most pure, most-blessed, ever-virgin Mary, the Theotokos . . . " I think I heard that somewhere.
On the other hand, neither the Missale Romanum (Vatican II's Calendar restores the ancient Roman Marian feast of the Mother of God to January 1) nor even the popular Litany of Loreto uses the expression "Mater Dei",
but the more formal, dogmatic (as I understand it) expression:
Sancta Dei GENETRIX.
I think that GENETRIX is, therefore, considered to be the Latin equivalent of Theotokos.
You wrote: "'come one come all "Eucharistic Hospitality sessions' Certainly this is not a practice of the Catholic Church." How come I, a known non-Catholic, was invited to one and invited to receive the sacrament? We all know these have been going on. It's positively notorious. Why deny it? I thought the NO people were proud of it.
I guess it's like you've always told me about the variety of "Orthodox" practices that don't agree: when someone does something they're not supposed to, they're doing it on their own authority, illicitly and in contradiction to the canon law and liturgical theology of the official Church. If that's true with the Orthodox - a gazillion different national churches, synods, and jurisdictions - how much more so for us Roman Catholics who have one Pope who, in the end, is Supreme Legislator?
Ha-even the Protestants admit it-and your JPII the Great allowed this apostate Kasper to push these Hospitality sessions. And guess what? They will surely take place at this great world youth day, where JPII the great calls young men and woman in some big kumbaya woodstock session to sing and play the guitar, sleep together on the grass, who knows what else they are doing. Real smart. and what ever happened to a crucifix? Ever notice the Youth day cross has no Christ on it-to please his protestant friends!
Not being a Latinist, I'll pass on Genetrix.
Re "I guess it's like you've always told me about the variety of 'Orthodox' practices that don't agree: when someone does something they're not supposed to, they're doing it on their own authority, illicitly and in contradiction to the canon law and liturgical theology of the official Church",
I think you are referring to another discussion with another person posting at FR. But, since you here bring it up, I would obviously agree - in theory. In practice, I have not encountered any such practices. I have heard, however, of some heterodox rites being "baptized", so to speak, but only after they have been cleaned up by having certain obviously heretical parts removed, e.g. the filioque heresy in the Nicene Creed. None of that, however, comes even close to the kind of idiocy going in the NO version of the Roman Catholic Church.
Good point Bulldog ("Ha-even the Protestants admit it-and your JPII the Great allowed this apostate Kasper to push these Hospitality sessions. And guess what? They will surely take place at this great world youth day, where JPII the great calls young men and woman in some big kumbaya woodstock session to sing and play the guitar, sleep together on the grass, who knows what else they are doing. Real smart. and what ever happened to a crucifix? Ever notice the Youth day cross has no Christ on it-to please his protestant friends!")
But really, it's bad enough, certainly enough to justify defrocking Benedict XVI after this happens, that he reportedly intends to enter a Jewish synagogue and then to pray there once he enters it.
Apostolic Canon LXIV.
If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated.
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.