Posted on 04/22/2006 5:05:54 PM PDT by tridentine
The old Latin Mass will return to the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston for the first time since 1970 when Monsignor Edward Sadie leads a special service at 2 p.m. Sunday at Sacred Heart Co-Cathedral. The church choir will sing in Latin as well.
Sadie thought it was a good idea when the Catholic Church dropped the Tridentine Mass — Catholics know it as the Latin Mass — in 1970. It had been many centuries since Latin was the language of the people, and that was never the case in America.
Now Sadie thinks it’s a good idea to bring the Tridentine Mass back to his church, where two priests celebrate Mass six times a weekend, but generally not at 2 p.m. Sunday.
“I’m anxious to bring back to church any who feel they were abandoned or neglected,” he said. “I want to meet the needs of people who feel strongly about it.”
He is getting calls from people around the state who want to attend Sunday’s Latin Mass. Some are older Catholics nostalgic for the Mass as it was before 1970, Sadie said. “Some are younger Catholics who think we lost a lot,” he said.
Sadie said he has received the encouragement and approval of Pope Benedict XVI and diocesan Bishop Michael J. Bransfield. After Pope Paul VI revised the Mass in 1970 and decided priests should celebrate it in each country’s prevailing language, a priest couldn’t celebrate the old Mass without first getting permission from the local bishop.
Bishop Bernard W. Schmitt had not given that permission in the 16 years he led the diocese ending in 2005, Sadie said. “I don’t know if Bishop Schmitt was asked,” he said. “It depends who does the asking, too.”
Latin was the language of the people when St. Jerome, who lived from around 347 to 420, went back to the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Old Testament and the Greek texts of the New Testament and made the authoritative translation of the Bible now known as the Vulgate.
St. Jerome wasn’t the first to translate the Bible into Latin, but earlier attempts had created a jumble of inaccuracies. “As new scrolls are discovered, the authenticity of St. Jerome’s text has been reinforced,” Sadie said.
After Gutenberg invented the printing press in about 1450 and the forces of nationalism began to gather, national leaders rejected the authority of Rome, Sadie said. Meanwhile, regional dialects were coalescing into national languages, Sadie said. “The Church became defensive and held strongly to the Latin.”
As the years have passed since 1970, the Latin issue has become less emotional and less divisive, Sadie said. “There was a group who broke away from the church at that time over the issue. There are efforts now to heal that schism.”
Acting within bounds that Pope John Paul II set out in 1984, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston brought the Tridentine Mass back to that city’s Holy Trinity German Church, where it is celebrated at noon every Sunday. In Troy, N.Y., St. Paul the Apostle Church [sic--St. Peter's] offers the Tridentine Mass every Sunday.
Sadie isn’t sure how often he will celebrate the Latin Mass here. “It could be once a week if enough people want to come,” he said. “I’m getting calls from around the state. I’ll take a survey to find out where people are coming from. I expect people from an hour or two away.”
To contact staff writer Bob Schwarz, use e-mail or call 348-1249.
Not attacking - just engaging in some rightous indignation for what I perceive to be a real nasty attitude regarding the Latin Mass.
many people do not like the Latin Mass and they are still Catholics, correct, even though they attend a Novus Ordo Mass.
I will put the reverence of my priest up against anyone who says that a Latin Mass is more reverent. He is such a holy man.
Yeah, and what you implied was that those who support the use Latin think otherwise. That is your straw man.
This is false. Church councils are not considered infallible unless they state something infallibly with regard to faith and morals, binding all of the faithful to it, which a statement containing an anathema certainly does.
It has been sometimes said that it is impossible to know whether or not a theological definition has been issued; but very few words are needed to show that the assertion is without foundation. At times, doubt will remain about the definitive nature of a decree, but as a rule no possibility of doubt is consistent with the terminology of a definitive decree. Thus in the doctrinal teaching of a general council, anathema attached to condemned errors is a certain sign of an infallible definition. Words also like those in which Pius IX solemnly defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin give irrefutable proof of the definitive nature of the decree: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful." No set form of words is necessary; any form which clearly indicates that the four requisite conditions are present suffices to show that the decree is a definition in the strict sense.
Excellent clarification.
The first half of your statement is correct. The second is not.
Uh, if you had bothered to actually READ the FULL definition of an infallible teaching, you would see that it has to meet FOUR critera, not just the one you pointed out. Simply sticking in the word "anathema" doesn't fulfill the requirements. I say again--the specific language used in the Mass is neither a matter of faith nor a matter of morals--it's a "company policy decision", for which there were probably valid reasons at the time it was promulgated, but which the later (and equally empowred) Council and Pope have obviously decided are no longer extant.
The first half of her statement is incorrect. By their nature, ALL ecumenical councils are infallible. That itself is a Doctrine of the Church
The misunderstanding is on your end, but I do not presume to know if you have a deficiency or are being intentionally obtuse. In any case, I've read enough of your posts that any judgment I might make would certainly not be rash.
I did and it did. If fact, the section I pointed out to you explained that most infallible pronouncements are easily identified as such, and if any "doubt" could possibly remain an anathema attached puts an end to all such doubt.
Here is some more from the same source:
"All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: 'If any one says . . . let him be anathema'."
No, actually it does not.
Let's look at the critera:
1)Must be a decision by the Supreme teaching authority of the church.
Met.
2) Decision must concern faith and morals.
Not met. Concerns neither faith nor morals.
3) Must apply to the UNIVERSAL CHURCH
Not met. Since we are talking about the use of LATIN in the "Latin Rite" of the Roman Catholic church, it obviously does NOT apply to those OTHER rites (Eastern Catholic, etc) that are in full communion with Rome.
4) Must be irrevocable, or, as it is called, definitive.
Met--BUT--from your own source---"It is well to note that the definitive nature of a decree does not prevent the defined doctrine from being examined anew and defined again by the pope or a general council; what it excludes is a re-opening of the question in a spirit of doubt about the truth of the doctrine which has been already definitively settled."
Final score---two out of four requirements met. Therefore, NOT an infallible statement.
I find it useful to use the "five D's":
1) Deposit---the original repository of the faith as taught by Christ and the Apostles. Infallible by definition.
2) Dogma---knowledge obtained by logic from the "deposit". Things like the Triune nature of the Godhead, that Jesus was both fully God and fully human, the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Infallible by the specific teaching authority of the Papacy and Magisterium.
3) Doctrine--current rules of the faith. May or may not become infallible dogma.
4) Discipline--things like "not eating meat on Friday", priests may not be married, etc. May be changed at any time by the Pope.
5) Devotions--the Rosary and such. These are encouraged but never required.
I would put specifying the language that may be used in the Mass in either category 3) or category 4)--more likely 4)
Well, that's certainly true. But what I had in mind was that all STATEMENTS issued by a Council are not necessarily to be considered infallible--only those clearly identified as being dogmatic. Same as for the Pope.
Dear Wonder Warthog,
Nice explication. Clear, succinct.
And also, my best on your entering the Church.
sitetest
Thanks. It took a while (59 years to be exact), but I'm here.
1)Must be a decision by the Supreme teaching authority of the church.
Met.
So far, you're on fire.
2) Decision must concern faith and morals.
Not met.
sorry Charlie, you're wrong.
"But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.
"This council (Trent) used the word canon for short, dogmatic definitions with an anathema attached to them. On the other hand it gave the name of decrees to its disciplinary regulations.
Now let's look at the quote:
" If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema . " - Council of Trent (Session XXII, Canon 9)
Oh lookie it's a canon not a decree.
3) Must apply to the UNIVERSAL CHURCH
Not met. Since we are talking about the use of LATIN in the "Latin Rite" of the Roman Catholic church, it obviously does NOT apply to those OTHER rites (Eastern Catholic, etc) that are in full communion with Rome.
I'm sorry but where is Latin mentioned? What is condemned is that vernacular be used exclusively.
" If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema . " - Council of Trent (Session XXII, Canon 9)
4) Must be irrevocable, or, as it is called, definitive.
Met--BUT--..."what it excludes is a re-opening of the question in a spirit of doubt about the truth of the doctrine which has been already definitively settled."
Which is just what you are doing. Unlike the pronouncement in the 2nd Vatican Council which "examined anew and defined again" re-asserting more specifically that which was declared by Trent,
"[T]he use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." -Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
Final score---
It seems you're out of gas.
Now, your original comment was,
I fail to see what all the hoopla is about the "Latin mass".
...which through numerous posts and links has been adequately explained, including the fact that the hoopla is not just about the language, although very important, but the actual differences in the NO and the TLM. You can no longer claim to not see what the "hoopla" is about, although you can still obstinately refuse to accept the very solid reasons for the "hoopla".
P.S. The Protestant Reformers saw quite well what all the "hoopla" was about Latin and the TLM, which is why they rejected it.
"Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . . The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn't hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning .… . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one's work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . ."- Dom Prosper Gueranger 1805-1875
Sure I can, since I don't buy the arguments put forth as "very solid reasons", but propaganda put forth by a bunch of "Latin purists" whose only goal is to go back to the Tridentine Mass.
As to the rest of your "arguments", I'll respond when I have more time to study your links--but I suspect I'll find that you have taken things out of context once again.
Ah, your true disposition revealed, not that of an inquiring soul, genuinely seeking to understand another's view, but that of a modernist with a hatred for "Latin purists". You're in good company here.
I'll respond when I have more time to study your links
Don't bother to respond I'm shaking the dust from my sandals and moving on.
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.