Posted on 10/10/2006 5:35:42 PM PDT by Petrosius
Only in your feverish imagination.
I think the "Latin purists" would reverse the Vatican II reforms in a heartbeat if given the opportunity.
And the reason I keep arguing about Latin is that the "Latin purists" keep making irrational statements about Latin--to wit: "Latin is more reverent", "Latin is more melodious", "Latin is sacred"---all of which are malarkey. Latin is just another language. There is nothing "special" about it. Jesus Christ never spoke Latin. No Apostle ever performed a Mass in Latin. There is no reason whatsover that Latin should be the preferred language for the liturgy other than sheer sentimentality.
I agree with the Vatican II reformers that performing the Mass in the vernacular helps in understanding and deepens the faith. I also agree with the traditionalists that the specific translation and language used in the Novus Ordo liturgy is badly done---but that's fixable.
A ridiculous statement, how would you know if Jesus ever spoke Latin or not. As for the Apostles who knows how much Latin was or wasn't in any of St. Peter's sermons in Rome, no one really knows. We have some indications in the Apostolic Constitution that there was a Latin liturgy of some kind as early as the 2nd century and Tertullian speaks of a Latin Liturgy in the early part of the 3rd century. I certainly do not argue with you that the Liturgy has been in many different languages in the past. Has anyone on this thread argued that point with you? Has anyone on this thread called for the use of Latin only? What does it mater what the "Latin purists" as you call us would do in heartbeat? We can't reverse anything only the Vatican can do that. I could just as easily say the Liturgical Reformers would erase all traces of the Latin Liturgy and Gregorian Chant from the face of the earth in a heartbeat if given the opportunity? Oh...wait, they were given the opportunity or more accurately, they seized the opportunity and almost suceeded.
Uh, there's this thing called HISTORY. There is no evidence whatsoever that Christ or any Apostle spoke Latin to their various audiences (other than possibly under the influence of the "gift of tongues"). It comes from the use of REASON by way of EVIDENCE (you know, what the Church uses to make decisions).
"We have some indications in the Apostolic Constitution that there was a Latin liturgy of some kind as early as the 2nd century and Tertullian speaks of a Latin Liturgy in the early part of the 3rd century."
And there was even more evidence of a GREEK liturgy before that, and an Aramaic one even earlier---so what.
"I certainly do not argue with you that the Liturgy has been in many different languages in the past."
GEE, WHAT AN ADMISSION. I'm glad you acknowledge at least SOME historical truth.
"Has anyone on this thread argued that point with you? Has anyone on this thread called for the use of Latin only?
I don't know if it's on this specific thread, and I'm certainly not going to check back through all the posts to see, but I've seen a whole lot of it in this specific forum.
"What does it mater what the "Latin purists" as you call us would do in heartbeat? We can't reverse anything only the Vatican can do that. I could just as easily say the Liturgical Reformers would erase all traces of the Latin Liturgy and Gregorian Chant from the face of the earth in a heartbeat if given the opportunity? Oh...wait, they were given the opportunity or more accurately, they seized the opportunity and almost suceeded.
So, once again you imply that the "Latin liturgy" and "Gregorian Chant" are somehow "special" and shouldn't have been displaced. Did it occur to you that all those changes were done with the approval of all levels of the Church heirarchy, and it is you "Latin purists" with your constant "bitching and moaning" that have been "giving scandal to the faithful" FOR YEARS??
Then you fall into the other category, not the lier that is. Vatican II specifically states that Latin should be given pride of place. If anything we wish to see that injunction adhered to. In the larger sense we also wish to undo the abuses done in the name of Vatican II, because as it stands now the Latin liturgy is a prettier form than the English one. You may disagree, but there is no "objective" grounds to.
And the reason I keep arguing about Latin is that the "Latin purists" keep making irrational statements about Latin--to wit: "Latin is more reverent", "Latin is more melodious", "Latin is sacred"---all of which are malarkey.
Why should such sentiment bother you unless you had a personal animus against the use of Latin. No, your argument doesn't make sense otherwise. Why be so snotty to us unless you really believed Latin to be inferior. Perhaps your problem is that you are, because of either aesthetic atrophy or cultural myopia, not capable of understanding that there are people, who with every right to the opinion, prefer Latin.
If we feel that Latin is better, of what concern of yours is it? You can't claim that we are wrong. You'd never be able to win that argument. You might as well say we're wrong for filling our observances with 'outdated' pious ritual. Your argument, and especially your tone, are akin to that.
Your continued determination to argue with us latinists, and your arrogance in proclaiming us 'sentimental romantics' has a diabolical character to it. I am serious, I say this as a warning. St. Michel protect us. .
You can't argue from a negative like that, there is no proof either way. If you foolishly think that we prefer Latin because we believe Jesus spoke in it you're wrong. The language Jesus spoke in has no bearing on this issue for us, if it does for you then your whole argument for English collapses because then we should have the liturgy in Greek or Aramaic. Your statement to the effect that Jesus never spoke Latin is in the place unprovable and in the second, a non sequitur to this issue.
And there was even more evidence of a GREEK liturgy before that, and an Aramaic one even earlier---so what.
And absolutely no evidence of an English liturgy! (just a little levity here). You are still under the delusion that we want only Latin and no other language. Even if we believe that Latin is best liturgical language (admittedly as somewhat subjective position) you cannot draw from that that we believe it should be the only one.
GEE, WHAT AN ADMISSION. I'm glad you acknowledge at least SOME historical truth.
More than you have thus far, you consistently lie, condescend and in every manner portray yourself as a child on this issue. In insisting we believe something we do not, you are merely trying to argue with us for argument sake. Your whole position is intellectually bankrupt. You claim to be a realist but I don't see it.
I don't know if it's on this specific thread, and I'm certainly not going to check back through all the posts to see, but I've seen a whole lot of it in this specific forum.
No evidence then. Why, because there is none. It is becoming axiomatic as far as I'm concerned that your “position” and “reality” are two foreign inteties. Pelayo's right, get thee to an exorcist.
They don't have to admit they're wrong. Just give people the option of celebrating the Latin mass. However, IMO, it would definitely be those 50 and above who would be interested in the Latin mass, since anybody younger probably wouldn't have had much, if any, exposure to it.
That's were you are wrong. Give us younger Catholics some credit, some of us actually want a religion. All men know what religion is and what it is not. This generation is starved for it. You can see it in the rise of neo-pagan spiritualist movements. It's so hard to describe because our modern world is trained to look down on the romantic element of anything, especially religion. What we need, and what many of us are aware that we want and are lacking, though not all realize it or put it in so many words, is something with a great and terrible sense of the sublime, of pious ceremony, with an ever-so-slight touch of oriental mysticism, of something frankly courageous and triumphant! For all that we have to have a language other then the mundane vernacular for our solemnities.
The intransigence I've found more from the older generation. Someone like Wonder Warthog who despite what he says, is certainly opposed to even the option. They do because they are particularly attached to the “revolution.” And they know that the mundane cannot compete when one has that wonderful option! Even when I do find those of my own generation who are afraid, it is mostly a fear that they are missing out, but don't want to admit it. Mostly though they don't particularly see a problem with some having the option because, being young, they are not tied emotionally or philosophically to the revolution.
I understand what you're saying. I didn't realize that younger people would be interested in a Latin mass, since most of them have never experienced one. I thought it would be the old-timers who are hoping for its return.
What we need, and what many of us are aware that we want and are lacking, though not all realize it or put it in so many words, is something with a great and terrible sense of the sublime, of pious ceremony, with an ever-so-slight touch of oriental mysticism, of something frankly courageous and triumphant!
Beautifully said.
I understand what you're saying. I didn't realize that younger people would be interested in a Latin mass, since most of them have never experienced one. I thought it would be the old-timers who are hoping for its return.
Oh certainly, that is the problem though. From my own experience and from that which I've seen in others, I believe the main reason why you don't see any strong impulse in favor of Latin among younger Catholics is precisely that most have never experienced it. Many have only the vaguest of notions about its existence. And usually none about the conflict over it. There are three basic responses I have found in those who are exposed to it for the first time. One is sympathy; for something new and different from what they are used to. Remember that for them it IS a new thing usually. If they have been internally conscious of faith, but apathetic to religion in its outward forms this introduction can take the form of a stupendous awakening. For me, after this “sense of the thing” developed for some time, it was even accompanied by (and still is in a way) anger "Why was I never told religion could be like this?"
In truth though I originally fell between this first and the second common reaction. That is, an initial rejection. But don't be confused; the basis of this rejection is not fear of Latin, or latinists, but fear that one HAS been missing out. Fear that, perhaps, all this time has somehow been waisted, though the internal argument usually runs something like this "I don't like all that old fashion religiousism, it's out dated and not what I'm used to." But this is a trick. The real reason someone will react this way is that he has fallen into the confusion of associating himself with the older [from his perspective] mediocrity, and thus feels defensive. Indeed it can often be an angry rejection because "how dare this new thing be so elevated, and beautiful!"
I'll admit now, that my initial rejection and fear of the Latin Mass, was because I was actually afraid that what I had been used to thus far was somehow less Catholic. And I couldn't face that. It wasn't really of course, but this defensiveness is usually in the back of the head when one is shown the comparative mediocrity of his world view. Fortunately I must have instinctively realized that any argument which compels me to reject something precisely because it is beautiful is diabolic in nature.
Nevertheless, this fear of one's own comparative insufficiency can fester and lead to a provincial temperament or worse. It is perhaps ironic then that one of the common accusations against us traditionalists is that it is WE who are the myopic provincialists. Or maybe it's not ironic.
Of course this second reaction can't easily be maintained, because in its very dialectics it presupposes that this new thing [The Latin Mass] is good, and may be more good then what you're used to. When this reaction is dropped one either must begin on that road which leads to "all good adventure" and religion as all mankind instinctively know it, which requires that one find the best possible expression of that religion. Or else, one must give up on ever really understanding what's really going on, and develop an apathetic attitude to the whole thing.
This is the third reaction I've noticed. And, though for sure it is a common one among the young, I think it is common in all age groups.
Those who have a vested interest in impoverishing the piety of the Church of course have no wish to expose those young Catholics to “this new thing.” They cannot take the risk that even some will fall into the first reaction. This is why I have very little patience with those who would ridicule me and mine for being old fuddy dudy sentimentalists. I don't buy their position that they are merely afraid of Latin being forced on them. That would only happen if there was such a huge swell of demand for it that the vernacular would become secondary. Not likely to happen of course, but one can hope. In any case I hear behind such weak arguments the same voice that tried to confuse me and make me view the beauty of the Latin Mass as a threat.
So I hope you can understand why I take a dim view of those people. I apologize if I used harsher language than necessary. But I cannot but blame their attitude for the reason I grew up in a progressive parish always feeling like I was missing something.
So does this mean you're an evolutionist?
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.