I know many of you long for Latin mass and I don't care about it one way or another. But you can't claim tradition when the original practice was the opposite of what you want.
Have fun in your revelry and whatever victory you think you have achieved by this pronouncement.
**I know many of you long for Latin mass and I don't care about it one way or another. But you can't claim tradition when the original practice was the opposite of what you want. **
Excellent!
Take your attitude somewhere else, pal. I'm actually an Novus Ordo Catholic myself. But I can see the Traditionalists have been treated like dirt for the last 30 plus years and I can be happy for them.
You sure don't sound like someone who doesn't care one way or the other. Why not admit it? I freely admit I prefer the Mass said in English. Also, it's not so simple to define tradition as what we believe was originally done by the apostles. Particularly since the Council of Trent defined the Latin Mass as the Mass for all time.
Dear bigsigh,
For the Catholic Church, neither "Tradition" or "tradition" always mean "most original practice."
Neither "Tradition" nor "tradition" should be equated with "antiquarianism."
In fact, I believe there is a name given to that particular error, although it escapes me right now.
I've pinged a couple of folks more capable than I am of elucidating these points.
sitetest
I think you are confusing traditionalism with primitivism.
It is not so clear that the original practice was worship in the language of the people. According to some scholars, worship in Jerusalem in Jesus's time was in Hebrew, even though the language of the people was by then Aramaic. So it is not clear that even Jesus Himself worshipped exclusively in the vernacular. The Church in Rome used Greek in its liturgy for the first three centuries, well past the time that most Christians there spoke Latin as their mother tongue. The use of special languages in worship is a very widespread phenomenon. Today, Jews use much Hebrew and Aramaic in worship even in places where those are not the vernacular. (I went to an Orthodox Jewish wedding, and the ritual was largely in Aramaic). In some eastern Churches, Coptic, Church Slavonic, and other "dead" languages are used in worship. One sees the same thing even in Protestantism, where the archaic version of English of the King James Bible with its Thees and Thous has become for many a "hieratic" language.
It is not so clear that the original practice was worship in the language of the people. According to some scholars, worship in Jerusalem in Jesus's time was in Hebrew, even though the language of the people was by then Aramaic. So it is not clear that even Jesus Himself worshipped exclusively in the vernacular. The Church in Rome used Greek in its liturgy for the first three centuries, well past the time that most Christians there spoke Latin as their mother tongue. The use of special languages in worship is a very widespread phenomenon. Today, Jews use much Hebrew and Aramaic in worship even in places where those are not the vernacular. (I went to an Orthodox Jewish wedding, and the ritual was largely in Aramaic). In some eastern Churches, Coptic, Church Slavonic, and other "dead" languages are used in worship. One sees the same thing even in Protestantism, where the archaic version of English of the King James Bible with its Thees and Thous has become for many a "hieratic" language.
In the near future you will become aware of recent Prot scholarship on the nature of the Pauline letters.
Among other things, the Prot scholars are discovering that Paul was concerned with local audiences UNTIL it became clear that the Church was decidedly not "local."
Besides its implications (all negative) for Luther's glosses, it also addresses your flip commentary.