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.
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.
The problem was in the phrasing of the first sentence of your post:
I do, but since he chose to state his motives plainly I didn't think I was doing anything but acknowledging them.
I have re read the thread, and frankly I can't see where I was anything but patiently, charitably, and exhaustively responding to Mr. Warthog's question, "what's the hoopla about Latin?" even when he plainly stated the hostility he apparently has towards those who esteem Latin and seek the return of the traditional Latin mass.
OK, got'cha. BTW, great mnemonic device to explain Infallibility. Sometimes it takes a convert's eye to give a fresh insight into what was once bred into the bones of Cradle-Catholics but has beome corrupted under the baleful influence of the soi disant traditionalists
44. Since, therefore, it is the priest chiefly who performs the sacred liturgy in the name of the Church, its organization, regulation and details cannot but be subject to Church authority. This conclusion, based on the nature of Christian worship itself, is further confirmed by the testimony of history.
45. Additional proof of this indefeasible right of the ecclesiastical hierarchy lies in the circumstances that the sacred liturgy is intimately bound up with doctrinal propositions which the Church proposes to be perfectly true and certain, and must as a consequence conform to the decrees respecting Catholic faith issued by the supreme teaching authority of the Church with a view to safeguarding the integrity of the religion revealed by God.
.. The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. More properly, since the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the supreme teaching authority of the Church, it can supply proofs and testimony, quite clearly, of no little value, towards the determination of a particular point of Christian doctrine. But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, "Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi" - let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer. The same holds true for the other theological virtues also, "In . . . fide, spe, caritate continuato desiderio semper oramus" - we pray always, with constant yearning in faith, hope and charity.[46]
49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."
5 53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.
60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
* The vernacuar has been approved by the competent authorities. Your selective and partial quoting of Mediator Dei may caue confusion amongst our Christian brothers and sisters.
No Pope may bind another in matters Liturgical.
Faithful sheep are supposed to be docile and obedient in the face of decisions taken by legitimate, competent authorities rather than assert our own wills in opposition to Divinely-Constituted authority
Y'know, I "do" get tired of being told that I "hate" something or other when I don't. I just don't agree with the justifications given. There may at one time have been good reasons for "sole latino" (or whatever correct equivalent phrase would be) at the height of the Reformation, but that time is long past. In today's world of instantaneous communication and translation, it makes more sense to use the vernacular. Personally, I prefer to understand what people are saying instead of having to try to do "instantaneous transation" by following a different column in a different language in the missal.
"Don't bother to respond I'm shaking the dust from my sandals and moving on."
Bye! "Have a nice day".
Well, I wish I could claim credit, but said credit belongs to the author of the book "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic"--the "convert's eye" and fresh insight were his.
INTRODUCTION
1. When Christ the Lord was about to celebrate the passover meal with his disciples and institute the sacrifice of his body and blood, he directed them to prepare a large room, arranged for the supper (Lk 22:12). The Church has always regarded this command of Christ as applying to itself when it gives directions about the preparation of the sentiments of the worshipers, the place, rites, and texts for the celebration of the eucharist. The current norms, laid down on the basis of the intent of Vatican Council II, and the new Missal that will be used henceforth in the celebration of Mass by the Church of the Roman Rite, are fresh evidence of the great care, faith, and unchanged love that the Church shows toward the eucharist. They attest as well to its coherent tradition, continuing amid the introduction of some new elements.
A WITNESS TO UNCHANGED FAITH
2. The sacrificial nature of the Mass was solemnly proclaimed by the Council of Trent in agreement with the whole tradition of the Church. [1] Vatican Council II reaffirmed this teaching in these significant words: "At the Last Supper our Savior instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of his body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again and in this way to entrust to his beloved Bride, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection." [2]
The Council's teaching is expressed constantly in the formularies of the Mass. This teaching, in the concise words of the Leonine Sacramentary, is that "the work of our redemption is carried out whenever we celebrate the memory of this sacrifice"; [3] it is aptly and accurately brought out in the eucharistic prayers. At the anamnesis or memorial, the priest, addressing God in the name of all the people, offers in thanksgiving the holy and living sacrifice: the Church's offering and the Victim whose death has reconciled us with God. [4] The priest also prays that the body and blood of Christ may be a sacrifice acceptable to the Father, bringing salvation to the whole world. [5]
In this new Missal, then, the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to its constant rule of faith (lex credendi). This rule of faith instructs us that the sacrifice of the cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass, which Christ instituted at the Last Supper and commanded his apostles to do in his memory, are one and the same, differing only in the manner of offering and that consequently the Mass is at once a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, of reconciliation and expiation.
3. The celebration of Mass also proclaims the sublime mystery of the Lord's real presence under the eucharistic elements, which Vatican Council II [6] and other documents of the Church's magisterium [7] have reaffirmed in the same sense and as the same teaching that the Council of Trent had proposed as a matter of faith. [8] The Mass does this not only by means of the very words of consecration, by which Christ becomes present through transubstantiation, but also by that spirit and expression of reverence and adoration in which the eucharistic liturgy is carried out. For the same reason the Christian people are invited in Holy Week on Holy Thursday and on the solemnity of Corpus Christi to honor this wonderful sacrament in a special way by their adoration.
4. Further, because of the priest's more prominent place and office in the rite, its form sheds light on the ministerial priesthood proper to the presbyter, who offers the sacrifice in the person of Christ and presides over the assembly of a holy people. The meaning of his office is declared and detailed in the preface for the chrism Mass on Thursday of Holy Week, the day celebrating the institution of the priesthood. The preface brings out the passing on of the sacerdotal power through the laying on of hands and, by listing its various offices, describes that power. It is the continuation of the power of Christ, High Priest of the New Testament.
5. In addition, the ministerial priesthood puts into its proper light another reality of which much should be made, namely, the royal priesthood of believers. Through the ministry of presbyters the people's spiritual sacrifice to God is brought to completeness in union with the sacrifice of Christ, our one and only Mediator. [9] For the celebration of the eucharist is the action of the whole Church; in it all should do only, but all of, those parts that belong to them in virtue of their place within the people of God. In this way greater attention will be given to some aspects of the eucharistic celebration that have sometimes been neglected in the course of time. For these people are the people of God, purchased by Christ's blood, gathered together by the Lord, nourished by his word. They are a people called to offer God the prayers of the entire human family, a people giving thanks in Christ for the mystery of salvation by offering his sacrifice. Finally, they are a people growing together into unity by sharing in Christ's body and blood. These people are holy by their origin, but becoming ever more holy by conscious, active, and fruitful participation in the mystery of the eucharist. [10]
A WITNESS TO UNBROKEN TRADITION
6. In setting forth its decrees for the revision of the Order of Mass, Vatican Council II directed, among other things, that some rites be restored "to the vigor they had in the tradition of the Fathers"; [11] this is a quotation from the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum of 1570, by which St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Missal. The fact that the same words are used in reference to both Roman Missals indicates how both of them, although separated by four centuries, embrace one and the same tradition. And when the more profound elements of this tradition are considered, it becomes clear how remarkably and harmoniously this new Roman Missal improves on the older one.
7. The older Missal belongs to the difficult period of attacks against Catholic teaching on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the ministerial priesthood, and the real and permanent presence of Christ under the eucharistic elements. St. Pius V was therefore especially concerned with preserving the relatively recent developments in the Church's tradition, then unjustly being assailed, and introduced only very slight changes into the sacred rites. In fact, the Roman Missal of 1570 differs very little from the first printed edition of 1474, which in turn faithfully follows the Missal used at the time of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216). Manuscripts in the Vatican Library provided some verbal emendations, but they seldom allowed research into "ancient and approved authors" to extend beyond the examination of a few liturgical commentaries of the Middle Ages.
8. Today, on the other hand, countless studies of scholars have enriched the "tradition of the Fathers" that the revisers of the Missal under St. Pius V followed. After the Gregorian Sacramentary was first published in 1571, many critical editions of other ancient Roman and Ambrosian sacramentaries appeared. Ancient Spanish and Gallican liturgical books also became available, bringing to light many prayers of profound spirituality that had hitherto been unknown.
Traditions dating back to the first centuries before the formation of the Eastern and Western rites are also better known today because so many liturgical documents have been discovered.
The continuing progress in patristic studies has also illumined eucharistic theology through the teachings of such illustrious saints of Christian antiquity as Irenaeus, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, and John Chrysostom.
9. The "tradition of the Fathers" does not require merely the preservation of what our immediate predecessors have passed on to us. There must also be profound study and understanding of the Church's entire past and of all the ways in which its single faith has been expressed in the quite diverse human and social forms prevailing in Semitic, Greek, and Latin cultures.This broader view shows us how the Holy Spirit endows the people of God with a marvelous fidelity in preserving the deposit of faith unchanged, even though prayers and rites differ so greatly.
ADAPTATION TO MODERN CONDITIONS
10. As it bears witness to the Roman Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) and guards the deposit of faith handed down by the later councils, the new Roman Missal in turn marks a major step forward in liturgical tradition.
The Fathers of Vatican Council II in reaffirming the dogmatic statements of the Council of Trent were speaking at a far different time in the world's history. They were able therefore to bring forward proposals and measures of a pastoral nature that could not have even been foreseen four centuries ago.
11. The Council of Trent recognized the great catechetical value of the celebration of Mass, but was unable to bring out all its consequences for the actual life of the Church. Many were pressing for permission to use the vernacular in celebrating the eucharistic sacrifice, but the Council, judging the conditions of that age, felt bound to answer such a request with a reaffirmation of the Church's traditional teaching. This teaching is that the eucharistic sacrifice is, first and foremost, the action of Christ himself and therefore the manner in which the faithful take part in the Mass does not affect the efficacy belonging to it. The Council thus stated in firm but measured words: "Although the Mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it did not seem expedient to the Fathers that as a general rule it be celebrated in the vernacular." [12] The Council accordingly anathematized anyone maintaining that "the rite of the Roman Church, in which part of the canon and the words of consecration are spoken in a low voice, should be condemned or that the Mass must be celebrated only in the vernacular." [13] Although the Council of Trent on the one hand prohibited the use of the vernacular in the Mass, nevertheless, on the other, it did direct pastors to substitute appropriate catechesis: "Lest Christ's flock go hungry. . .the Council commands pastors and others having the care of souls that either personally or through others they frequently give instructions during Mass, especially on Sundays and holydays, on what is read at Mass and that among their instructions they include some explanation of the mystery of this sacrifice." [14]
12. Convened in order to adapt the Church to the contemporary requirements of its apostolic task, Vatican Council II examined thoroughly, as had Trent, the pedagogic and pastoral character of the liturgy. [15] Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was able to acknowledge that "the use of the mother tongue frequently may be of great advantage to the people" and gave permission for its use. [16] The enthusiasm in response to this decision was so great that, under the leadership of the bishops and the Apostolic See, it has resulted in the permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the faithful participate to be in the vernacular for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.
13. The use of the vernacular in the liturgy may certainly be considered an important means for presenting more clearly the catechesis on the mystery that is part of the celebration itself. Nevertheless, Vatican Council II also ordered the observance of certain directives, prescribed by the Council of Trent but not obeyed everywhere. Among these are the obligatory homily on Sundays and holydays [17] and the permission to interpose some commentary during the sacred rites themselves. [18]
Above all, Vatican Council II strongly endorsed "that more complete form of participation in the Mass by which the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's body from the same sacrifice." [19] Thus the Council gave impetus to the fulfillment of the further desire of the Fathers of Trent that for fuller participation in the holy eucharist "the faithful present at each Mass should communicate not only by spiritual desire but also by sacramental communion." [20]
14. Moved by the same spirit and pastoral concern, Vatican Council II was able to reevaluate the Tridentine norm on communion under both kinds. No one today challenges the doctrinal principles on the completeness of eucharistic communion under the form of bread alone. The Council thus gave permission for the reception of communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this more explicit form of the sacramental sign offers a special means of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful are taking part. [21]
15.Thus the Church remains faithful in its responsibility as teacher of truth to guard "things old," that is, the deposit of tradition; at the same time it fulfills another duty, that of examining and prudently bringing forth "things new" (see Mt. 13:52).
Accordingly, a part of the new Roman Missal directs the prayer of the Church expressly to the needs of our times. This is above all true of the ritual Masses and the Masses for various needs and occasions, which happily combine the traditional and the contemporary. Thus many expressions, drawn from the Church's most ancient tradition and become familiar through the many editions of the Roman Missal, have remained unchanged. Other expressions, however, have been adapted to today's needs and circumstances and still others-for example, the prayers for the Church, the laity, the sanctification of human work, the community of all peoples, certain needs proper to our era-are completely new compositions, drawing on the thoughts and even the very language of the recent conciliar documents.
The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church.
In short, the liturgical norms of the Council of Trent have been completed and improved in many respects by those of Vatican Council II. This Council has brought to realization the efforts of the last four hundred years to move the faithful closer to the sacred liturgy, especially the efforts of recent times and above all the zeal for the liturgy promoted by St. Pius X and his successors.
*So says Mom about the new Liturgy.
"I object and refuse to obey because I know more than Mom and she can't be trusted" seems to summarize the objections of many soi disant traditionalists
Seems like another straw man to me.
Marcel Lefebvre, in a letter to the editor of the Journals Itineraires and Present:
"The plan announced in the documents of the Masonic Alta Vendita and published on Pius IX's orders, is becoming a reality day by day beneath our very eyes. Last week I was in Rome, at the summons of Cardinal Gagnon, who handed me the enclosed letter [written by Card. Ratzinger). A very well organized network is in control of all the Curia's activity, inside and outside the Curia itself."
"The Pope is an instrument of this mafia which he put in place and with which he sympathizes. We may hope for no reaction to come from him, on the contrary. The announcement of the meeting of world religions decided on by him for the month of October in Assisi, is the culminating imposture and the supreme insult to Our Lord. Rome is no longer Catholic Rome. The prophecies of Our Lady of LaSalette and of Leo XIII in his exorcism are coming about: Where the seat of blessed Peter and the chair of truth was set up for a light to enlighten all nations, there they have established the throne of the abomination of their wickedness so that having struck the Shepherd they may scatter the flock in turn...." *(In other words, Marcel thinks, like innumerable protestants before him, that Jesus failed to protect His Church from teaching error)
"You will see, in the reply to our letter [again, that reply of Jan. 20 quoted above], that Cardinal Ratzinger is striving once more to make Vatican II into a dogma. We are dealing with people who have no notion of Truth. We shall from now on be more and more obliged to act on the assumption that this new Conciliar Church is no longer Catholic." (Letter to Mr. Madiran, Jan. 29, 1986).
*The choice is stark. The Church Jesus established and promised to be with until the end of time and promised to send the Holy Spirit upon it to teach it all truth, or the Schism. The Church can lead to Heaven. The schism ineluctably leads to Hell.
Like times immemorial, good and evil are still set before us and we must choose
Thanks for posting this.
That said, why is it OK to say, "Please grow-up and act like a Christan." (post 49) and, "But, confusion is the very least of your issues, sister." (post 40) without so much as a cautionary note, much less a reprimand?
Neither are acceptable. I try to read every post, but it is not always possible. Both shall be removed.
Thanks for the scholarly summary of the reasons Vatican II decided on increased use of the vernacular in the Mass. I simply have never understood the logic behind the fixation on Latin. Christ never used Latin. If we were pursuing a "historically exact" language for Mass use, we should be using Aramaic.
What is the Traditional Latin Mass?
For nearly 1,400 years, the traditional Latin Mass was the Liturgy of the Roman Catholic world. This is the Mass at which every Pope, and Saint and Christian of the West worshipped from 600 A.D. to 1970 A.D. This is the Mass Catholic martyrs gave their blood to preserve during the Protestant Reformation. This is the Mass that unites Christians across Continents and across centuries. The traditional Latin mass has been described as “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven.”
What happened to the Latin Mass?
At the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Catholic Church dramatically changed the way Mass was celebrated. The Church’s goal was to make the Mass more accessible to the modern world. These changes resulted, for the most part, in the replacement of the Latin Mass with the new Mass, which most Roman Catholics of today are familiar. Many Catholic priests, however, such as Saint (Padre) Pio, continued, and still continue to celebrate the Latin Mass.
Why has the Latin Mass returned? With the crises both in the world and in the Church today, more and more people (young people, especially) seek an alternative to the “modern world.” They are returning in droves to the wisdom of the ages, to things tested and timeless. For many young Catholics and converts to the Catholic Faith, this has included a return to the Latin Mass.
What has Pope John Paul II said about the Latin Mass?
His Holiness Pope John Paul II called for the “wide and generous” availability of the traditional Latin Mass. He praised the Latin Mass for capturing a “sense of the sacred.”
Latin is the official language of the Church, and Pope John Paul II called for the greater use of Latin in the liturgy. Across the centuries, Latin has helped unify Roman Catholics from different countries and backgrounds. Because Latin is not an “evolving” language, the meaning of the prayers said at the Latin Mass do not change over time, but remain fixed. What is more, it is fitting to worship God in a special, sacred language reserved for this purpose alone.
If rumors become reality, perhaps Pope Benedict XVI will issue a motu proprio which recognizes the "pride of place" which was put forward in Vatican II for the Latin language and specifically Gregorian Chant music. We will see if that happens. We do know that Pope Benedict has strong views on preserving elements of our Faith's traditions, including that represented in the Mass of Ages and Latin.
And I've got no problem with it staying the "bureaucratic language" of the church. That is no reason for it's continued use in the liturgy.
"It is a matter of tradition."
That's "tradition", not "Tradition". Latin purists don't seem to recognize that there is a difference.
""..a heightened sense of the sacred in the Latin liturgy".
No such thing exists.
"..a recognition the unique benefits which are provided in the unchangable reverence contained in the Latin Mass liturgy."
And what might those benefits be, compared to the difficulties caused by the laity not understanding the language?? I don't buy that the benefits outweigh the negatives.
"Why that is raised as a reason to deny the 1,500 years of Latin tradition in the liturgy since Christ's death on the cross doesn't confront the true and basic issues here."
Because the early church used the vernacular, depending on what country the apostles were preaching in. One of the first "gifts" of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles was the "gift of tongues", specifically for that reason. LATIN was "the vernacular" at one time. The long-term use of Latin was strictly an accident of politics, and the retention of it by the Church was probably also political (trying to retard/prevent the breakup of the "Holy Roman Empire).
"The Church’s goal was to make the Mass more accessible to the modern world. These changes resulted, for the most part, in the replacement of the Latin Mass with the new Mass, which most Roman Catholics of today are familiar.
And rightly so.
"Latin has helped unify Roman Catholics from different countries and backgrounds.
The ONLY group that has ever been true for is the priesthood/church bureaucracy, not for the 99.999% of Catholic worshippers who don't know Latin.
"Because Latin is not an “evolving” language, the meaning of the prayers said at the Latin Mass do not change over time, but remain fixed."
Oh, please--with the practically instantaneous translation capabilities that exist today, you actually think that matters.
"What is more, it is fitting to worship God in a special, sacred language reserved for this purpose alone."
Do you honestly think God cares what language we use??
Since Latin can't be found in the Novus Ordo liturgy, that's hardly a concession. Latin is inextricably tied to the Missal of 1962, and cannot be removed from that liturgy. Don't take my word for it, check the Council of Trent.
"..a heightened sense of the sacred in the Latin liturgy".
No such thing exists.
Pope John Paul II used the "sense of the sacred" phrase; so you disagree with him, eh?
The long-term use of Latin was strictly an accident of politics, and the retention of it by the Church was probably also political (trying to retard/prevent the breakup of the "Holy Roman Empire).
It is laughable to think the Church kept Latin as the universal language of the liturgy and its official language to somehow "retard/prevent the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire." Is that a personal conjecture or wild guess? Latin was/is used because of its unchanging nature (its a dead language so there are not updates in the latest Webster's), its interface with literally millions upon millions of people who spoke different languages around the globe, and its attributes of common usage. During this 1,500 years it was not the primary vernacular anywhere.
"Latin has helped unify Roman Catholics from different countries and backgrounds.
The ONLY group that has ever been true for is the priesthood/church bureaucracy, not for the 99.999% of Catholic worshippers who don't know Latin.
Oh, please--with the practically instantaneous translation capabilities that exist today, you actually think that matters.
It was unifying in that a Catholic could walk into any church in any part of the world and hear, see, and understand what was being done during the Sacrifice of the Mass. Again, this isn't about "understanding a language" it is about form, substance, and the Mass. Of course, if you have only experienced the Novus Ordo during the last decade or so, perhaps you can't relate...
"What is more, it is fitting to worship God in a special, sacred language reserved for this purpose alone."
Do you honestly think God cares what language we use??
I don't presume to know what God cares about language, nor should anyone else, including you. But God does care about the souls that are brought to Him. If the Mass of Ages is a proven and favorable path to Him, what man should block its way?
As I've said MANY times in this thread, the way to handle this is to have one weekend service in the parish in Latin, if the congregation wants it.
"Pope John Paul II used the "sense of the sacred" phrase; so you disagree with him, eh?"
Yes. There is nothing whatsoever "special" about Latin. It's just one more language used by man. JPII felt that heightened "sense of the sacred" because he was a "cradle Catholic" who grew up with the Latin Mass.
"It is laughable to think the Church kept Latin as the universal language of the liturgy and its official language to somehow "retard/prevent the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire." Is that a personal conjecture or wild guess?
Conjecture, based on a knowledge of the history at the time. The Church desperately wanted to prevent the breakup of the "Holy Roman Empire" (and they were probably right to want to do so). I'm sure the hierarchy felt that REQUIRING Latin would help to this end.
"Latin was/is used because of its unchanging nature (its a dead language so there are not updates in the latest Webster's), its interface with literally millions upon millions of people who spoke different languages around the globe, and its attributes of common usage.
Which "advantages" no longer exist today. The language with those advantages today is English--spoken by more people as a "second language" than speak it as a "first language".
"During this 1,500 years it was not the primary vernacular anywhere."
Correct. And this was probably ONE of the driving forces of the Reformation.
"It was unifying in that a Catholic could walk into any church in any part of the world and hear, see, and understand what was being done during the Sacrifice of the Mass.
REALLY. People who couldn't understand Latin, but (for instance) could speak English go to a service in a Spanish-speaking area, and somehow magically now understand the service in a language THEY DON'T SPEAK with the "translation sidebar" now in a second langauage they don't understand. Go peddle that malarkey elsewhere.
"Again, this isn't about "understanding a language" it is about form, substance, and the Mass.
See above about the "Spanish-Latin" missal and the English-speaking tourist to see just how ridiculous that comment is.
"Of course, if you have only experienced the Novus Ordo during the last decade or so, perhaps you can't relate..."
THANK YOU for making my point so well. MOST of the world no longer HAS that experience, so the so-called "advantages" of Latin no longer exist. And that INCLUDES today's "cradle Catholics".
"But God does care about the souls that are brought to Him. If the Mass of Ages is a proven and favorable path to Him, what man should block its way?"
And precisely how do you know that the Latin mass is "a proven and favorable path to him" as compared to the Novus Ordo. It seems that the Pope and the Council of Vatican II felt that a more favorable approach existed, hence the increased use of the vernacular. How many conversions happened in the forty years prior to Vatican II compared to the forty years after. It seems to me that the numbers are UP "post VCII" rather than down.
It seems to me that the numbers are UP "post VCII" rather than down.
Here is a graph featuring Great Britain's stats...
The fact is that vocations are dramatically down in almost every area of the world, 'cept in the continent of Africa. Mass attendance has plummeted everywhere as has the belief in the Real Presence, according to numerous surveys. Add to this situation parish church closings, a monumental financial crisis due to the priest sexual abuse crisis plus mismanagement, and guess what: things are not well in the Church today.
None of which address my comment. What is CATHOLIC CHURCH MEMBERSHIP for those two time periods---NOT vocations, NOT "mass attendance", NOT "belief in the Real Presence". How many NEW CATHOLICS were added to the Church rolls.
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.