|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 19, 2023 0:26:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jun 20, 2023 3:54:59 GMT
The Church should have asked and even tested the faithful about their understanding of the Mass and even of the Bible and Catechism. That's the implication of the first point. The problem is that the Church learned that the hard way, as missionaries were allowed to use translations of the Mass and even the Bible, and American Catholics called for translations of the Mass by WW2 because they didn't understand the Latin used in it.
The second point misses on that entirely: you may choose what to attend, but can you understand what you're attending if you don't know the language used? The implication is what is personal isn't actually based on taste or even preference but what one understands. And insisting that the Mass is some sort of performance such that as long as you understand what part you're in then you're fine is absurd.
The third is based on not realizing that what one understands is what drives what one prefers. That is, a particular liturgy is used because, as Pope Benedict XVI points out correctly, it's what one grew up with and for which one will find difficulty replacing. That's why provisions were made to those organizations who had been using the EF from the start and did not switch. The same goes for liturgies used by other Churches.
In short, what's feeble and unconvincing aren't the three reasons for letting go of the EF but for retaining it.
This isn't rocket science: if you attend a Mass in Latin and need to hear the readings and the homily, plus any prayers that change, in the vernacular, then the use of Latin makes no sense. The same goes when you have to read the Bible and even read the Catechism in the vernacular.
In fact, that's the main reason why Latin was used, as more no longer understood Aramaic, Greek, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 20, 2023 4:41:30 GMT
The Church should have asked and even tested the faithful about their understanding of the Mass and even of the Bible and Catechism. That's the implication of the first point. The problem is that the Church learned that the hard way, as missionaries were allowed to use translations of the Mass and even the Bible, and American Catholics called for translations of the Mass by WW2 because they didn't understand the Latin used in it. The second point misses on that entirely: you may choose what to attend, but can you understand what you're attending if you don't know the language used? The implication is what is personal isn't actually based on taste or even preference but what one understands. And insisting that the Mass is some sort of performance such that as long as you understand what part you're in then you're fine is absurd. The third is based on not realizing that what one understands is what drives what one prefers. That is, a particular liturgy is used because, as Pope Benedict XVI points out correctly, it's what one grew up with and for which one will find difficulty replacing. That's why provisions were made to those organizations who had been using the EF from the start and did not switch. The same goes for liturgies used by other Churches. In short, what's feeble and unconvincing aren't the three reasons for letting go of the EF but for retaining it. This isn't rocket science: if you attend a Mass in Latin and need to hear the readings and the homily, plus any prayers that change, in the vernacular, then the use of Latin makes no sense. The same goes when you have to read the Bible and even read the Catechism in the vernacular. In fact, that's the main reason why Latin was used, as more no longer understood Aramaic, Greek, etc. There is no more left for you and me to discuss back and forth regarding the Traditional Latin Mass (EF), so I am not going to engage in further discussion of it. I welcome anyone who is interested, to read what I have written here on CCS, and what you have written, and weigh the merits of each. I am curious to know, though, since it is so important, in your view, for those who attend Mass, to understand each and every word (correct me if I'm wrong), should Latin --- which relatively few people understand --- be totally purged from the Mass, such that there is no more Agnus Dei, no more Sanctus, no more Latin hymns, and so on? Should there be no more OF Masses in Latin, unless they are for groups who either know or are learning Latin, such as seminarians? |
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Jun 20, 2023 15:11:07 GMT
Roche will go long before the TLM does.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 20, 2023 16:03:10 GMT
Roche will go long before the TLM does. While wishing him length of years in good health, preferably far away from anything that touches on the sacred liturgy, he can't be gone a day too soon. I just console myself with the idea that the conclave would almost certainly never elect a European-blooded cardinal from the part of the Anglosphere that is comprised of wealthy Western democracies. That would harsh the mellow of too many people who don't share those demographic characteristics. |
|
bluekumul
Full Member
Christian humanist, democratic socialist, world citizen
Posts: 199
|
Post by bluekumul on Jun 20, 2023 18:42:12 GMT
Roche will go long before the TLM does. While wishing him length of years in good health, preferably far away from anything that touches on the sacred liturgy, he can't be gone a day too soon. I just console myself with the idea that the conclave would almost certainly never elect a European-blooded cardinal from the part of the Anglosphere that is comprised of wealthy Western democracies. That would harsh the mellow of too many people who don't share those demographic characteristics. There was AFAIK never a Pope from the Anglosphere and most of them were Italian. I'd like to see a black Pope.
Trivia: Latin was introduced by Victor I, who was probably black.
|
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Jun 20, 2023 19:54:27 GMT
One pope only:
Nicholas Breakspear - whose Papal Name was Adrian IV. Famed for a particular set of reasons around a particular Papal bull (which may or may not have existed) in Ireland. Namely, Laudabiliter.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 20, 2023 21:05:48 GMT
While wishing him length of years in good health, preferably far away from anything that touches on the sacred liturgy, he can't be gone a day too soon. I just console myself with the idea that the conclave would almost certainly never elect a European-blooded cardinal from the part of the Anglosphere that is comprised of wealthy Western democracies. That would harsh the mellow of too many people who don't share those demographic characteristics. There was AFAIK never a Pope from the Anglosphere and most of them were Italian. I'd like to see a black Pope.
Trivia: Latin was introduced by Victor I, who was probably black.
Actually, he was Berber. I know you probably know this, but when people say "black" in the modern world, they are usually referring specifically to autochthonous Sub-Saharan Africans --- I say "autochthonous" because white South Africans, Zimbabweans, et al, could be spoken of that way, but normally they're not. Anyone who dares to refer to Elon Musk (for instance) as an "African American" gets slapped down promptly by the thought police. He is politically incorrect on several levels, and that would be just one more. Berbers, Libyans, Egyptians, and so on, are genuinely Africans, but that's not normally what comes to one's mind. |
|
bluekumul
Full Member
Christian humanist, democratic socialist, world citizen
Posts: 199
|
Post by bluekumul on Jun 21, 2023 11:43:18 GMT
Berbers can be white, black, or anything in between. So there is a possibility that Victor I was black, though traditional depictions show him as white: |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jun 21, 2023 12:11:27 GMT
There is no more left for you and me to discuss back and forth regarding the Traditional Latin Mass (EF), so I am not going to engage in further discussion of it. I welcome anyone who is interested, to read what I have written here on CCS, and what you have written, and weigh the merits of each. I am curious to know, though, since it is so important, in your view, for those who attend Mass, to understand each and every word (correct me if I'm wrong), should Latin --- which relatively few people understand --- be totally purged from the Mass, such that there is no more Agnus Dei, no more Sanctus, no more Latin hymns, and so on? Should there be no more OF Masses in Latin, unless they are for groups who either know or are learning Latin, such as seminarians?
Is it important to understand each and every words used? Definitely. Imagine attending a Mass, for example, where the Collect, the Liturgy of the Word, the Preface, the Prayer after Communion, and Final Blessing are in Latin, or Thai, or Russian.
What about prayers that don't change or Latin hymns? If the purpose is to teach people Latin, then do so. But keep in mind that this leads to a prerequisite for using Latin for Mass: people need to learn Latin first.
In the end, you need to use common sense concerning this. If you want people to attend Mass, read the Bible, understand the Catechism, take Confession, and talk to each other about their faith, then by default you and they do so using a language that you and they understand.
As I said, this isn't rocket science.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jun 21, 2023 12:18:56 GMT
While wishing him length of years in good health, preferably far away from anything that touches on the sacred liturgy, he can't be gone a day too soon. I just console myself with the idea that the conclave would almost certainly never elect a European-blooded cardinal from the part of the Anglosphere that is comprised of wealthy Western democracies. That would harsh the mellow of too many people who don't share those demographic characteristics. There was AFAIK never a Pope from the Anglosphere and most of them were Italian. I'd like to see a black Pope.
Trivia: Latin was introduced by Victor I, who was probably black.
I think several Popes were African, Syrian, etc.
Also, some Rites were translated into Latin:
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 23, 2023 5:15:22 GMT
There is no more left for you and me to discuss back and forth regarding the Traditional Latin Mass (EF), so I am not going to engage in further discussion of it. I welcome anyone who is interested, to read what I have written here on CCS, and what you have written, and weigh the merits of each. I am curious to know, though, since it is so important, in your view, for those who attend Mass, to understand each and every word (correct me if I'm wrong), should Latin --- which relatively few people understand --- be totally purged from the Mass, such that there is no more Agnus Dei, no more Sanctus, no more Latin hymns, and so on? Should there be no more OF Masses in Latin, unless they are for groups who either know or are learning Latin, such as seminarians?
Is it important to understand each and every words used? Definitely. Imagine attending a Mass, for example, where the Collect, the Liturgy of the Word, the Preface, the Prayer after Communion, and Final Blessing are in Latin, or Thai, or Russian.
What about prayers that don't change or Latin hymns? If the purpose is to teach people Latin, then do so. But keep in mind that this leads to a prerequisite for using Latin for Mass: people need to learn Latin first.
In the end, you need to use common sense concerning this. If you want people to attend Mass, read the Bible, understand the Catechism, take Confession, and talk to each other about their faith, then by default you and they do so using a language that you and they understand.
As I said, this isn't rocket science.
Just out of curiosity, does this mean that, following your reasoning, Eastern liturgies may no longer be celebrated in ancient liturgical languages such as Old Church Slavonic and the Ge'ez language used in the Ethiopian liturgy? Nobody speaks those languages today. Or is the elimination of non-vernacular languages (which, BTW, runs contrary to the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum concilium) something that only applies to the Latin Rite of the Church? And if so, why? |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jun 23, 2023 23:52:35 GMT
Is it important to understand each and every words used? Definitely. Imagine attending a Mass, for example, where the Collect, the Liturgy of the Word, the Preface, the Prayer after Communion, and Final Blessing are in Latin, or Thai, or Russian.
What about prayers that don't change or Latin hymns? If the purpose is to teach people Latin, then do so. But keep in mind that this leads to a prerequisite for using Latin for Mass: people need to learn Latin first.
In the end, you need to use common sense concerning this. If you want people to attend Mass, read the Bible, understand the Catechism, take Confession, and talk to each other about their faith, then by default you and they do so using a language that you and they understand.
As I said, this isn't rocket science.
Just out of curiosity, does this mean that, following your reasoning, Eastern liturgies may no longer be celebrated in ancient liturgical languages such as Old Church Slavonic and the Ge'ez language used in the Ethiopian liturgy? Nobody speaks those languages today. Or is the elimination of non-vernacular languages (which, BTW, runs contrary to the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum concilium) something that only applies to the Latin Rite of the Church? And if so, why?
Eastern liturgies should be celebrated because that's what their followers grew up with, and the liturgies remain part of their Churches. The same applies to the Ethiopian Church.
For the Roman Catholic Church, the OF has been used for decades. Very few grew up with the EF, and Pope Benedict XVI allowed it for them:
Pope Francis follows Pope Benedict XVI's argument, which is why an exemption from the TC is granted to the FSSP.
Finally, there is no elimination of non-vernacular languages as the clergy and those who attend certain schools still need to learn Latin, and the base language of Church documents is still that.
All of these points have been explained several times in various threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 24, 2023 0:16:57 GMT
Just out of curiosity, does this mean that, following your reasoning, Eastern liturgies may no longer be celebrated in ancient liturgical languages such as Old Church Slavonic and the Ge'ez language used in the Ethiopian liturgy? Nobody speaks those languages today. Or is the elimination of non-vernacular languages (which, BTW, runs contrary to the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum concilium) something that only applies to the Latin Rite of the Church? And if so, why?
Eastern liturgies should be celebrated because that's what their followers grew up with, and the liturgies remain part of their Churches. The same applies to the Ethiopian Church.
For the Roman Catholic Church, the OF has been used for decades. Very few grew up with the EF, and Pope Benedict XVI allowed it for them:
Pope Francis follows Pope Benedict XVI's argument, which is why an exemption from the TC is granted to the FSSP.
Finally, there is no elimination of non-vernacular languages as the clergy and those who attend certain schools still need to learn Latin, and the base language of Church documents is still that.
All of these points have been explained several times in various threads.
But this contradicts what you just said: If you want people to attend Mass, read the Bible, understand the Catechism, take Confession, and talk to each other about their faith, then by default you and they do so using a language that you and they understand.Slovaks and Ethiopians don't "read the Bible, understand the Catechism, take Confession, and talk to each other about their faith" in OCS or Ge'ez. No, rather, they do these things in Slovak or Amharic. True, they grew up with those liturgies, but as to the other things, again, they do these in their vernaculars. And ditto, FSSP adherents don't do those things either (though some FSSP adherents might read the Latin Vulgate). I was referring to "elimination" of the Latin liturgy in everyday circumstances (laity in the pews), not the use of Latin for instruction in seminaries or official Church documents and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jun 25, 2023 1:44:42 GMT
Eastern liturgies should be celebrated because that's what their followers grew up with, and the liturgies remain part of their Churches. The same applies to the Ethiopian Church.
For the Roman Catholic Church, the OF has been used for decades. Very few grew up with the EF, and Pope Benedict XVI allowed it for them:
Pope Francis follows Pope Benedict XVI's argument, which is why an exemption from the TC is granted to the FSSP.
Finally, there is no elimination of non-vernacular languages as the clergy and those who attend certain schools still need to learn Latin, and the base language of Church documents is still that.
All of these points have been explained several times in various threads.
But this contradicts what you just said: If you want people to attend Mass, read the Bible, understand the Catechism, take Confession, and talk to each other about their faith, then by default you and they do so using a language that you and they understand.Slovaks and Ethiopians don't "read the Bible, understand the Catechism, take Confession, and talk to each other about their faith" in OCS or Ge'ez. No, rather, they do these things in Slovak or Amharic. True, they grew up with those liturgies, but as to the other things, again, they do these in their vernaculars. And ditto, FSSP adherents don't do those things either (though some FSSP adherents might read the Latin Vulgate). I was referring to "elimination" of the Latin liturgy in everyday circumstances (laity in the pews), not the use of Latin for instruction in seminaries or official Church documents and so on.
OCS is close to Slovak and Ge'ez to various Eritrean languages. How close is Latin to the various vernacular languages spoken by various Roman Catholics worldwide? How close is Latin to English?
What about Romance languages? Some may prefer Latin because they would be able to understand enough, but even preference is based on logic: what's the point of doing so when you can do the same for your first language?
If these two Churches expand to other parts of the world that don't speak even their vernacular languages, what are the chances that they will be able to evangelize using those languages? Recall that reading the Bible, Catechism, etc., are part of evangelization, and are necessary for understanding the Mass.
Why do you think Catholic missionaries translated the Mass and more in the vernacular? Why do you think the Church translated the Bible into Latin, and then into various other languages?
|
|
