|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 25, 2023 3:16:56 GMT
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?
Not that close. Here's the Our Father in OCS: otĭče našĭ Iže jesi na nebesěxŭ. Da svętitŭ sę imę tvoje da pridetŭ cěsar'ĭstvije tvoje da bǫdetŭ volja tvoja jako na nebesi i na zeml'i. hlěbŭ našĭ nasǫštĭnyi daždĭ namŭ dĭnĭsĭ i otŭpusti namŭ dlŭgy našę jako i my otŭpuštajemŭ dlŭžĭnikomŭ našimŭ i ne vŭvedi nasŭ vŭ iskušenije nŭ izbavi ny otŭ neprijazni. And in Slovak: Otče náš, ktorý si na nebesách, posväť sa meno tvoje; prid' kráľovstvo tvoje, bud' vôľa tvoja, jako na nebi, tak i na zemi. Chlieb náš vozdajší daj nám dnes, a otpusť nám naše viny, jako i my odpúšťame našim vinníkom. A neuvod' nás v pokušenie, ale zbav nás od zlého. They're further apart than Latin is from Italian, Spanish, French, or Portuguese. I wouldn't have a clue about Ge'ez and Amharic, so I'm not going to venture a guess. I have considerable familiarity with Slavic language patterns due to my knowledge of Polish and some Russian. Actually, both Byzantine and Ethiopian Christianity (especially the former) have spread to parts of the world outside Eastern Europe and Greater Ethiopia respectively. I attended a Byzantine Slovak parish (Ruthenian) for about a year in suburban Northern Virginia, and continued to go there from time to time afterwards. Vernacular translations, such as you note, were done for pastoral reasons (Croatia, China, the Mohawk nation, possibly elsewhere) prior to the post-Vatican II changes. If the Church had responded to calls from the faithful for a vernacular Mass (not sure how widespread this desire was, but I'm assuming it did exist in some form) throughout the entire Western Church by translating the 1962 Missal straight into a dignified, literary form of the vernacular (such as may be found in bilingual hand missals such as Lasance and Stedman), leaving the Mass itself otherwise unchanged, I would have no real objection to that, as long as Latin were retained for some Masses for those who prefer it. But Bugnini et al went far, far beyond that. As I said, I am done discussing the EF/OF thing in our exchanges, there is nothing left to say, so I'll leave it at that. One more question, alluded to above: since nobody speaks Latin as a vernacular language, nor as their primary language, and relatively few people understand it, would you support the suspension of OF Latin Masses altogether (aside from perhaps places such as seminaries and monasteries)? They are not common, but they do exist, a Latin OF is offered once a week (weekday Mass) in our downtown church in a mid-sized Southern US city. Should this stop too? And what about the Agnus Dei and the Sanctus in Latin at vernacular OF Masses, which is fairly common? (For that matter, what about the Kyrie eleison? Does anyone, aside from hellenophones and liturgy buffs, know what that means unless they are told? Ironically enough, it appears in the eponymous song by the pop group Mr Mister.)
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jun 26, 2023 5:26:38 GMT
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?
Not that close. Here's the Our Father in OCS: otĭče našĭ Iže jesi na nebesěxŭ. Da svętitŭ sę imę tvoje da pridetŭ cěsar'ĭstvije tvoje da bǫdetŭ volja tvoja jako na nebesi i na zeml'i. hlěbŭ našĭ nasǫštĭnyi daždĭ namŭ dĭnĭsĭ i otŭpusti namŭ dlŭgy našę jako i my otŭpuštajemŭ dlŭžĭnikomŭ našimŭ i ne vŭvedi nasŭ vŭ iskušenije nŭ izbavi ny otŭ neprijazni. And in Slovak: Otče náš, ktorý si na nebesách, posväť sa meno tvoje; prid' kráľovstvo tvoje, bud' vôľa tvoja, jako na nebi, tak i na zemi. Chlieb náš vozdajší daj nám dnes, a otpusť nám naše viny, jako i my odpúšťame našim vinníkom. A neuvod' nás v pokušenie, ale zbav nás od zlého. They're further apart than Latin is from Italian, Spanish, French, or Portuguese. I wouldn't have a clue about Ge'ez and Amharic, so I'm not going to venture a guess. I have considerable familiarity with Slavic language patterns due to my knowledge of Polish and some Russian. Actually, both Byzantine and Ethiopian Christianity (especially the former) have spread to parts of the world outside Eastern Europe and Greater Ethiopia respectively. I attended a Byzantine Slovak parish (Ruthenian) for about a year in suburban Northern Virginia, and continued to go there from time to time afterwards. Vernacular translations, such as you note, were done for pastoral reasons (Croatia, China, the Mohawk nation, possibly elsewhere) prior to the post-Vatican II changes. If the Church had responded to calls from the faithful for a vernacular Mass (not sure how widespread this desire was, but I'm assuming it did exist in some form) throughout the entire Western Church by translating the 1962 Missal straight into a dignified, literary form of the vernacular (such as may be found in bilingual hand missals such as Lasance and Stedman), leaving the Mass itself otherwise unchanged, I would have no real objection to that, as long as Latin were retained for some Masses for those who prefer it. But Bugnini et al went far, far beyond that. As I said, I am done discussing the EF/OF thing in our exchanges, there is nothing left to say, so I'll leave it at that. One more question, alluded to above: since nobody speaks Latin as a vernacular language, nor as their primary language, and relatively few people understand it, would you support the suspension of OF Latin Masses altogether (aside from perhaps places such as seminaries and monasteries)? They are not common, but they do exist, a Latin OF is offered once a week (weekday Mass) in our downtown church in a mid-sized Southern US city. Should this stop too? And what about the Agnus Dei and the Sanctus in Latin at vernacular OF Masses, which is fairly common? (For that matter, what about the Kyrie eleison? Does anyone, aside from hellenophones and liturgy buffs, know what that means unless they are told? Ironically enough, it appears in the eponymous song by the pop group Mr Mister.)
I'd say close enough as they're from the same language group. Now, Latin and other vernacular languages, like several from Africa and Asia?
The next point is critical: would those Churches insist on using the same languages for evangelization, or would they try to translate the Mass and anything else to languages that others can understand?
Notice, too, that you keep wavering in your views: retain the EF and require Latin or allow the EF and use the vernacular, with the latter acceptable because you want more silence during Mass. Meanwhile, Pope Benedict XVI and others reveal otherwise, showing that ancient practices have included not only the use of the vernacular but even communal practices. Recall, too,that you defend the EF using aesthetic and romantic reasons based on, among other things, the use of Latin, but now you're willing to see that let go. Meanwhile, you make references to using old versions of the Bible (in Latin or using the vernacular, too?) and even of the Catechism for the same strange reasons.
If any, these are the reasons why we're going nowhere in our discussions. You need to make up your mind about what you want, and then figure out how you can argue your case rationally and without contradicting yourself.
About suspending the OF in Latin, first we want to figure out why a group wants it in Latin. If they're familiar with the language and can even read the Bible in Latin and listen to homilies using the same language, then there's no point in suspending such. But if not, then what's their reason for insisting on doing so? Is it part of the constitutional formation of their organization, which is the case for the FSSP, or did they offer it because a few requested for such? If so, what are their reasons?
For the Churches you mentioned earlier, they have a very long tradition of using older languages and continue to retain such. For the Roman Church, there's a very long tradition of using Latin but also not doing so, and multiple examples have been given, and not just for Mass but even for the Bible.
Finally, what about prayers and hymns in Latin? If the congregation can follow and say the prayers aloud, why not? But if they can't, then what's the point of doing them in Latin? I'll make it simpler for you following your own line of reasoning: if there are Catholic schools in the area that are teaching Latin and adults studying it in various classes, then that's a very valid reason to have an OF Mass in Latin. Otherwise, what's the point? More will be asking for copies of the Missal with translations, which is what happened from the nineteenth century onward in the states, after which more will be asking for the Mass in the vernacular for various reasons.
Which brings us back to where we started!
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 26, 2023 6:17:45 GMT
Not that close. Here's the Our Father in OCS: otĭče našĭ Iže jesi na nebesěxŭ. Da svętitŭ sę imę tvoje da pridetŭ cěsar'ĭstvije tvoje da bǫdetŭ volja tvoja jako na nebesi i na zeml'i. hlěbŭ našĭ nasǫštĭnyi daždĭ namŭ dĭnĭsĭ i otŭpusti namŭ dlŭgy našę jako i my otŭpuštajemŭ dlŭžĭnikomŭ našimŭ i ne vŭvedi nasŭ vŭ iskušenije nŭ izbavi ny otŭ neprijazni. And in Slovak: Otče náš, ktorý si na nebesách, posväť sa meno tvoje; prid' kráľovstvo tvoje, bud' vôľa tvoja, jako na nebi, tak i na zemi. Chlieb náš vozdajší daj nám dnes, a otpusť nám naše viny, jako i my odpúšťame našim vinníkom. A neuvod' nás v pokušenie, ale zbav nás od zlého. They're further apart than Latin is from Italian, Spanish, French, or Portuguese. I wouldn't have a clue about Ge'ez and Amharic, so I'm not going to venture a guess. I have considerable familiarity with Slavic language patterns due to my knowledge of Polish and some Russian. Actually, both Byzantine and Ethiopian Christianity (especially the former) have spread to parts of the world outside Eastern Europe and Greater Ethiopia respectively. I attended a Byzantine Slovak parish (Ruthenian) for about a year in suburban Northern Virginia, and continued to go there from time to time afterwards. Vernacular translations, such as you note, were done for pastoral reasons (Croatia, China, the Mohawk nation, possibly elsewhere) prior to the post-Vatican II changes. If the Church had responded to calls from the faithful for a vernacular Mass (not sure how widespread this desire was, but I'm assuming it did exist in some form) throughout the entire Western Church by translating the 1962 Missal straight into a dignified, literary form of the vernacular (such as may be found in bilingual hand missals such as Lasance and Stedman), leaving the Mass itself otherwise unchanged, I would have no real objection to that, as long as Latin were retained for some Masses for those who prefer it. But Bugnini et al went far, far beyond that. As I said, I am done discussing the EF/OF thing in our exchanges, there is nothing left to say, so I'll leave it at that. One more question, alluded to above: since nobody speaks Latin as a vernacular language, nor as their primary language, and relatively few people understand it, would you support the suspension of OF Latin Masses altogether (aside from perhaps places such as seminaries and monasteries)? They are not common, but they do exist, a Latin OF is offered once a week (weekday Mass) in our downtown church in a mid-sized Southern US city. Should this stop too? And what about the Agnus Dei and the Sanctus in Latin at vernacular OF Masses, which is fairly common? (For that matter, what about the Kyrie eleison? Does anyone, aside from hellenophones and liturgy buffs, know what that means unless they are told? Ironically enough, it appears in the eponymous song by the pop group Mr Mister.)
I'd say close enough as they're from the same language group. Now, Latin and other vernacular languages, like several from Africa and Asia?
The next point is critical: would those Churches insist on using the same languages for evangelization, or would they try to translate the Mass and anything else to languages that others can understand?
Notice, too, that you keep wavering in your views: retain the EF and require Latin or allow the EF and use the vernacular, with the latter acceptable because you want more silence during Mass. Meanwhile, Pope Benedict XVI and others reveal otherwise, showing that ancient practices have included not only the use of the vernacular but even communal practices. Recall, too,that you defend the EF using aesthetic and romantic reasons based on, among other things, the use of Latin, but now you're willing to see that let go. Meanwhile, you make references to using old versions of the Bible (in Latin or using the vernacular, too?) and even of the Catechism for the same strange reasons.
If any, these are the reasons why we're going nowhere in our discussions. You need to make up your mind about what you want, and then figure out how you can argue your case rationally and without contradicting yourself.
About suspending the OF in Latin, first we want to figure out why a group wants it in Latin. If they're familiar with the language and can even read the Bible in Latin and listen to homilies using the same language, then there's no point in suspending such. But if not, then what's their reason for insisting on doing so? Is it part of the constitutional formation of their organization, which is the case for the FSSP, or did they offer it because a few requested for such? If so, what are their reasons?
For the Churches you mentioned earlier, they have a very long tradition of using older languages and continue to retain such. For the Roman Church, there's a very long tradition of using Latin but also not doing so, and multiple examples have been given, and not just for Mass but even for the Bible.
Finally, what about prayers and hymns in Latin? If the congregation can follow and say the prayers aloud, why not? But if they can't, then what's the point of doing them in Latin? I'll make it simpler for you following your own line of reasoning: if there are Catholic schools in the area that are teaching Latin and adults studying it in various classes, then that's a very valid reason to have an OF Mass in Latin. Otherwise, what's the point? More will be asking for copies of the Missal with translations, which is what happened from the nineteenth century onward in the states, after which more will be asking for the Mass in the vernacular for various reasons.
Which brings us back to where we started! I'm not wavering, I simply try to be as tolerant as I can be, and both listen to, and find merit in, various points of view. When I say that the pre-Vatican II Mass could be offered in the vernacular --- as has been done, there is precedent for it --- I am merely responding to this supposed need for people to hear Mass in their own language. I am, if anything, more concerned with maintaining the integrity of the 1962 Missal, keeping all of the prayers intact, than with the language in which it is celebrated. I value both, but if I had to choose between the 1962 Missal in the vernacular, or the OF in Latin, I'd choose the former. Elimination of Latin in the Mass for all but rarefied circumstances, such as in seminaries and for highly educated groups who have a good knowledge of Latin, seems to run counter to certain portions of Sacrosanctum concilium. Vatican II called for both retention of Latin and making Mass available in the vernacular, either in whole or in part, depending upon circumstances. SC certainly didn't foresee wholesale jettisoning of Latin. Finally, this portion of SC is baffling: For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary. [emphasis mine] So what we have here is this: Pope St Pius V promulgated the 1570 Missal, and then there were virtually no changes until 1965, and SC appears to be saying, in so many words, that PSPV was wrong, that he kept in place all of these "elements", that he should have gotten rid of the very additions, duplications, accretions, and so on, that he saw fit to include in the 1570 Missal to begin with. That all doesn't add up. It seems as though those in charge of liturgical change had some sort of "end game", where various changes, both rubrical and otherwise, would be introduced a little at a time, one by one. First there was the transitional 1965 Missal, then the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969/1970, then sometimes-radical renovation of the churches (removing communion rails, relocating the tabernacle, having a free-standing altar, and so on), then the introduction of EMHCs, then the introduction of communion in the hand, and so on. Why not do it all at once? Cynics would point to the analogy of the frog in the pot that is warmed slowly, such that the frog doesn't realize he's being cooked until it's too late.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jun 27, 2023 0:55:35 GMT
I'd say close enough as they're from the same language group. Now, Latin and other vernacular languages, like several from Africa and Asia?
The next point is critical: would those Churches insist on using the same languages for evangelization, or would they try to translate the Mass and anything else to languages that others can understand?
Notice, too, that you keep wavering in your views: retain the EF and require Latin or allow the EF and use the vernacular, with the latter acceptable because you want more silence during Mass. Meanwhile, Pope Benedict XVI and others reveal otherwise, showing that ancient practices have included not only the use of the vernacular but even communal practices. Recall, too,that you defend the EF using aesthetic and romantic reasons based on, among other things, the use of Latin, but now you're willing to see that let go. Meanwhile, you make references to using old versions of the Bible (in Latin or using the vernacular, too?) and even of the Catechism for the same strange reasons.
If any, these are the reasons why we're going nowhere in our discussions. You need to make up your mind about what you want, and then figure out how you can argue your case rationally and without contradicting yourself.
About suspending the OF in Latin, first we want to figure out why a group wants it in Latin. If they're familiar with the language and can even read the Bible in Latin and listen to homilies using the same language, then there's no point in suspending such. But if not, then what's their reason for insisting on doing so? Is it part of the constitutional formation of their organization, which is the case for the FSSP, or did they offer it because a few requested for such? If so, what are their reasons?
For the Churches you mentioned earlier, they have a very long tradition of using older languages and continue to retain such. For the Roman Church, there's a very long tradition of using Latin but also not doing so, and multiple examples have been given, and not just for Mass but even for the Bible.
Finally, what about prayers and hymns in Latin? If the congregation can follow and say the prayers aloud, why not? But if they can't, then what's the point of doing them in Latin? I'll make it simpler for you following your own line of reasoning: if there are Catholic schools in the area that are teaching Latin and adults studying it in various classes, then that's a very valid reason to have an OF Mass in Latin. Otherwise, what's the point? More will be asking for copies of the Missal with translations, which is what happened from the nineteenth century onward in the states, after which more will be asking for the Mass in the vernacular for various reasons.
Which brings us back to where we started! I'm not wavering, I simply try to be as tolerant as I can be, and both listen to, and find merit in, various points of view. When I say that the pre-Vatican II Mass could be offered in the vernacular --- as has been done, there is precedent for it --- I am merely responding to this supposed need for people to hear Mass in their own language. I am, if anything, more concerned with maintaining the integrity of the 1962 Missal, keeping all of the prayers intact, than with the language in which it is celebrated. I value both, but if I had to choose between the 1962 Missal in the vernacular, or the OF in Latin, I'd choose the former. Elimination of Latin in the Mass for all but rarefied circumstances, such as in seminaries and for highly educated groups who have a good knowledge of Latin, seems to run counter to certain portions of Sacrosanctum concilium. Vatican II called for both retention of Latin and making Mass available in the vernacular, either in whole or in part, depending upon circumstances. SC certainly didn't foresee wholesale jettisoning of Latin. Finally, this portion of SC is baffling: For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary. [emphasis mine] So what we have here is this: Pope St Pius V promulgated the 1570 Missal, and then there were virtually no changes until 1965, and SC appears to be saying, in so many words, that PSPV was wrong, that he kept in place all of these "elements", that he should have gotten rid of the very additions, duplications, accretions, and so on, that he saw fit to include in the 1570 Missal to begin with. That all doesn't add up. It seems as though those in charge of liturgical change had some sort of "end game", where various changes, both rubrical and otherwise, would be introduced a little at a time, one by one. First there was the transitional 1965 Missal, then the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969/1970, then sometimes-radical renovation of the churches (removing communion rails, relocating the tabernacle, having a free-standing altar, and so on), then the introduction of EMHCs, then the introduction of communion in the hand, and so on. Why not do it all at once? Cynics would point to the analogy of the frog in the pot that is warmed slowly, such that the frog doesn't realize he's being cooked until it's too late.
Recall in other threads you kept insisting on the use of Latin. Also, the use of "supposed" sounds absurd: people don't mind attending a Mass in a language that they don't understand?
Even this recent post shows that self-contradiction, as your second paragraph essentially contradicts your first paragraph: your choice of the EF in the vernacular runs counter to the SC, etc.
The point about the promulgation was already addressed and explained to you in another post, and with no counter from you.
This is getting weird: you keep posting the same wrong points in new threads even though they've been countered in previous ones, and keep contradicting yourself in every turn. The metaphors (like that of the frog) sound hysterical, too, like the claim that without the EF the Church will fall apart.
If any, those are the real reasons why this discussion is going nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 27, 2023 1:32:24 GMT
I'm not wavering, I simply try to be as tolerant as I can be, and both listen to, and find merit in, various points of view. When I say that the pre-Vatican II Mass could be offered in the vernacular --- as has been done, there is precedent for it --- I am merely responding to this supposed need for people to hear Mass in their own language. I am, if anything, more concerned with maintaining the integrity of the 1962 Missal, keeping all of the prayers intact, than with the language in which it is celebrated. I value both, but if I had to choose between the 1962 Missal in the vernacular, or the OF in Latin, I'd choose the former. Elimination of Latin in the Mass for all but rarefied circumstances, such as in seminaries and for highly educated groups who have a good knowledge of Latin, seems to run counter to certain portions of Sacrosanctum concilium. Vatican II called for both retention of Latin and making Mass available in the vernacular, either in whole or in part, depending upon circumstances. SC certainly didn't foresee wholesale jettisoning of Latin. Finally, this portion of SC is baffling: For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary. [emphasis mine] So what we have here is this: Pope St Pius V promulgated the 1570 Missal, and then there were virtually no changes until 1965, and SC appears to be saying, in so many words, that PSPV was wrong, that he kept in place all of these "elements", that he should have gotten rid of the very additions, duplications, accretions, and so on, that he saw fit to include in the 1570 Missal to begin with. That all doesn't add up. It seems as though those in charge of liturgical change had some sort of "end game", where various changes, both rubrical and otherwise, would be introduced a little at a time, one by one. First there was the transitional 1965 Missal, then the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969/1970, then sometimes-radical renovation of the churches (removing communion rails, relocating the tabernacle, having a free-standing altar, and so on), then the introduction of EMHCs, then the introduction of communion in the hand, and so on. Why not do it all at once? Cynics would point to the analogy of the frog in the pot that is warmed slowly, such that the frog doesn't realize he's being cooked until it's too late.
Recall in other threads you kept insisting on the use of Latin. Also, the use of "supposed" sounds absurd: people don't mind attending a Mass in a language that they don't understand?
Even this recent post shows that self-contradiction, as your second paragraph essentially contradicts your first paragraph: your choice of the EF in the vernacular runs counter to the SC, etc.
The point about the promulgation was already addressed and explained to you in another post, and with no counter from you.
This is getting weird: you keep posting the same wrong points in new threads even though they've been countered in previous ones, and keep contradicting yourself in every turn. The metaphors (like that of the frog) sound hysterical, too, like the claim that without the EF the Church will fall apart.
If any, those are the real reasons why this discussion is going nowhere.
I don't recall making any such claim. Sacrosanctum concilium insisted upon the use of Latin, at least in some parts of the Mass, and in some circumstances. I am just echoing that.There is nothing further to discuss. The EF in the vernacular (aside from pastoral provisions for it in past ages) is a hypothetical that is not going to happen. I think it would have been a good idea at least to give it a chance, again, to cater to those who might have desired the vernacular, but things didn't turn out that way. The Anglican Use, which is in English, is very close to what a vernacular EF could have been. I shall leave it to the readers here, to read my comments, and to read your comments, and decide for themselves where the merits and demerits lie in each.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jun 28, 2023 4:57:24 GMT
Recall in other threads you kept insisting on the use of Latin. Also, the use of "supposed" sounds absurd: people don't mind attending a Mass in a language that they don't understand?
Even this recent post shows that self-contradiction, as your second paragraph essentially contradicts your first paragraph: your choice of the EF in the vernacular runs counter to the SC, etc.
The point about the promulgation was already addressed and explained to you in another post, and with no counter from you.
This is getting weird: you keep posting the same wrong points in new threads even though they've been countered in previous ones, and keep contradicting yourself in every turn. The metaphors (like that of the frog) sound hysterical, too, like the claim that without the EF the Church will fall apart.
If any, those are the real reasons why this discussion is going nowhere.
I don't recall making any such claim. Sacrosanctum concilium insisted upon the use of Latin, at least in some parts of the Mass, and in some circumstances. I am just echoing that.There is nothing further to discuss. The EF in the vernacular (aside from pastoral provisions for it in past ages) is a hypothetical that is not going to happen. I think it would have been a good idea at least to give it a chance, again, to cater to those who might have desired the vernacular, but things didn't turn out that way. The Anglican Use, which is in English, is very close to what a vernacular EF could have been. I shall leave it to the readers here, to read my comments, and to read your comments, and decide for themselves where the merits and demerits lie in each.
There is no other reason for you to keep talking about the EF, the Baltimore Catechism, Vatican II, and more except that. There are even threads where you talking about European civilization and compared Europeans with people from the Third World. I'm certain of this because I responded to each point you made.
About SC,
In short, the Church wisely pointed out that what prevails is what will ensure "great advantage to the people." That's also why the idea of the EF in the vernacular being hypothetical has been negated for centuries:
This is also what I mean when I argue that you can't remember what was shared in various threads, even in those in which you participated, and then post the same wrong points repeatedly in new threads.
Finally, what about the Anglican Use? This ironically proves my point, too, as it involves former Anglicans. That's why an exemption for using the EF applies to those who are used to it and have difficulty following the OF.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 28, 2023 16:26:01 GMT
I don't recall making any such claim. Sacrosanctum concilium insisted upon the use of Latin, at least in some parts of the Mass, and in some circumstances. I am just echoing that.There is nothing further to discuss. The EF in the vernacular (aside from pastoral provisions for it in past ages) is a hypothetical that is not going to happen. I think it would have been a good idea at least to give it a chance, again, to cater to those who might have desired the vernacular, but things didn't turn out that way. The Anglican Use, which is in English, is very close to what a vernacular EF could have been. I shall leave it to the readers here, to read my comments, and to read your comments, and decide for themselves where the merits and demerits lie in each.
There is no other reason for you to keep talking about the EF, the Baltimore Catechism, Vatican II, and more except that. There are even threads where you talking about European civilization and compared Europeans with people from the Third World. I'm certain of this because I responded to each point you made.
About SC,
In short, the Church wisely pointed out that what prevails is what will ensure "great advantage to the people." That's also why the idea of the EF in the vernacular being hypothetical has been negated for centuries:
This is also what I mean when I argue that you can't remember what was shared in various threads, even in those in which you participated, and then post the same wrong points repeatedly in new threads.
Finally, what about the Anglican Use? This ironically proves my point, too, as it involves former Anglicans. That's why an exemption for using the EF applies to those who are used to it and have difficulty following the OF.
This discussion has gone as far as it can go, and neither one of us is budging. My concerns are not only with the suppression and would-be almost-total elimination of the TLM. You like the Church exactly the way it is in the present moment, I see deep problems, and I am far from the only person who shares my concerns, and I am far from the most conservative or the most strident. As traditionalists go, I am on the more liberal side of the spectrum. I would not swear my life or my soul that Francis is a valid Pope --- he may have fallen into heresy, and he may have lost his office (if he ever had it in the first place), schools of thought vary (Bellarmine, Suarez, et al) but sedevacantism would be too easy. I can't make that call. Some perceive that they can. To repeat, I shall leave it to the readers here, to read my comments, and to read your comments, and decide for themselves where the merits and demerits lie in each.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jun 29, 2023 4:07:42 GMT
There is no other reason for you to keep talking about the EF, the Baltimore Catechism, Vatican II, and more except that. There are even threads where you talking about European civilization and compared Europeans with people from the Third World. I'm certain of this because I responded to each point you made.
About SC,
In short, the Church wisely pointed out that what prevails is what will ensure "great advantage to the people." That's also why the idea of the EF in the vernacular being hypothetical has been negated for centuries:
This is also what I mean when I argue that you can't remember what was shared in various threads, even in those in which you participated, and then post the same wrong points repeatedly in new threads.
Finally, what about the Anglican Use? This ironically proves my point, too, as it involves former Anglicans. That's why an exemption for using the EF applies to those who are used to it and have difficulty following the OF.
This discussion has gone as far as it can go, and neither one of us is budging. My concerns are not only with the suppression and would-be almost-total elimination of the TLM. You like the Church exactly the way it is in the present moment, I see deep problems, and I am far from the only person who shares my concerns, and I am far from the most conservative or the most strident. As traditionalists go, I am on the more liberal side of the spectrum. I would not swear my life or my soul that Francis is a valid Pope --- he may have fallen into heresy, and he may have lost his office (if he ever had it in the first place), schools of thought vary (Bellarmine, Suarez, et al) but sedevacantism would be too easy. I can't make that call. Some perceive that they can. To repeat, I shall leave it to the readers here, to read my comments, and to read your comments, and decide for themselves where the merits and demerits lie in each.
I will not budge because my arguments are backed by the Church.
I "like the Church exactly the way it is in the present moment" for the reasons I've given across several threads. I don't ignore "deep problems" involving sex and financial abuse, but I reject what you think are "deep problems" but affect only a minority of traditionalists who base their arguments on irrational grounds, i.e., using aesthetic or romantic reasons.
Given that, I support what the last three Popes said about the EF and will follow their advice, which is sound: let those who are not familiar with the OF use the EF, and seek approval from the Church.
I don't have to "swear my life or my soul that Francis is a valid Pope" because he is the Pope, whether I swear to that or not. Also, to argue that "he may have fallen into heresy" is a very serious accusation and must be made with much care and not frivolously. Are you prepared to do that?
Finally, I don't see the logic behind leaving to to readers to "decide for themselves where the merits and demerits lie in each." Either you can defend your arguments or you can't.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 29, 2023 4:25:44 GMT
This discussion has gone as far as it can go, and neither one of us is budging. My concerns are not only with the suppression and would-be almost-total elimination of the TLM. You like the Church exactly the way it is in the present moment, I see deep problems, and I am far from the only person who shares my concerns, and I am far from the most conservative or the most strident. As traditionalists go, I am on the more liberal side of the spectrum. I would not swear my life or my soul that Francis is a valid Pope --- he may have fallen into heresy, and he may have lost his office (if he ever had it in the first place), schools of thought vary (Bellarmine, Suarez, et al) but sedevacantism would be too easy. I can't make that call. Some perceive that they can. To repeat, I shall leave it to the readers here, to read my comments, and to read your comments, and decide for themselves where the merits and demerits lie in each.
I will not budge because my arguments are backed by the Church.
I "like the Church exactly the way it is in the present moment" for the reasons I've given across several threads. I don't ignore "deep problems" involving sex and financial abuse, but I reject what you think are "deep problems" but affect only a minority of traditionalists who base their arguments on irrational grounds, i.e., using aesthetic or romantic reasons.
Given that, I support what the last three Popes said about the EF and will follow their advice, which is sound: let those who are not familiar with the OF use the EF, and seek approval from the Church.
I don't have to "swear my life or my soul that Francis is a valid Pope" because he is the Pope, whether I swear to that or not. Also, to argue that "he may have fallen into heresy" is a very serious accusation and must be made with much care and not frivolously. Are you prepared to do that?
Finally, I don't see the logic behind leaving to to readers to "decide for themselves where the merits and demerits lie in each." Either you can defend your arguments or you can't.
I've defended my arguments abundantly throughout many threads. WRT Francis and heresy, I am not making those charges, but others have, in the well-known "open letter to the bishops". Here's a link for whomever cares to read the letter: onepeterfive.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic-2019.pdf
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jun 30, 2023 1:25:22 GMT
I will not budge because my arguments are backed by the Church.
I "like the Church exactly the way it is in the present moment" for the reasons I've given across several threads. I don't ignore "deep problems" involving sex and financial abuse, but I reject what you think are "deep problems" but affect only a minority of traditionalists who base their arguments on irrational grounds, i.e., using aesthetic or romantic reasons.
Given that, I support what the last three Popes said about the EF and will follow their advice, which is sound: let those who are not familiar with the OF use the EF, and seek approval from the Church.
I don't have to "swear my life or my soul that Francis is a valid Pope" because he is the Pope, whether I swear to that or not. Also, to argue that "he may have fallen into heresy" is a very serious accusation and must be made with much care and not frivolously. Are you prepared to do that?
Finally, I don't see the logic behind leaving to to readers to "decide for themselves where the merits and demerits lie in each." Either you can defend your arguments or you can't.
I've defended my arguments abundantly throughout many threads. WRT Francis and heresy, I am not making those charges, but others have, in the well-known "open letter to the bishops". Here's a link for whomever cares to read the letter: onepeterfive.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic-2019.pdf
I would counter every argument you make in a thread, after which you abandon the thread, create a new one, and then proceed to post the same arguments. Also, the example that you gave has nothing to do with the EF.
|
|
|
Post by crusader on Jul 5, 2023 16:13:00 GMT
I’ve been following both of your posts for quite some time. Going as far back as our days on Catholic Answers. It’s not difficult to find both of your arguments compelling for very different reasons. Even though I am not the biggest fan of the Post Conciliar church, I like to think I have grown in my understanding of those supporters who don’t wish to see the Church step back into the days prior to Vatican II. I’m sure ralfy will correct me if I’m wrong, but it would appear that his views, and those who share similar beliefs, would argue that the EF does very little to grow the faith over what the OF can accomplish, except without all the reliance on those practices which have proven themselves to be antiquated at best. As is often argued, what good is the most reverent Latin prayer, if those hearing it cannot understand what is being said. Many Catholics who don’t have a problem with the EF going away, think along these lines because they believe that the EF offers only an emotional effect rather than an intellectual one. After all, they may argue, does praying the Hail Mary in Latin mean that one is more sincere in their faith over one who chooses to pray it in English? The problem isn’t merely the inclusion of the vernacular at mass. As we all know, the OF has been in place for over half a century and yet, nearly every poll shows that your average Catholic does not know their faith. At the same time that the Church was overhauling the Mass, we were introduced to numerous translations of the bible, each with the same goal in mine, to help Catholics better know their faith. Even with all these efforts put into action, the desired outcome was simply not achieved. I think it’s disingenuous to claim that our priests and bishops, in the decades after Vatican II, rose to the occasion and helped to educate the laity about why we believe what we believe. If we’re being honest, it wasn’t the clergy at all, who brought about greater understanding of the Catholic faith, at least not as a whole. It was our lay apologists who took charge and started pushing back against the anti-Catholic backlash by non-Catholics. People like Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin and many others. When Catholics, started rediscovering their faith and learned that we had answers to questions posed by Protestants, Mormons, JW’s etc., etc., we fought harder to defend it. And after our eyes were opened, we returned to the pews and found that what we read by these apologists, wasn’t always being taught at the pulpit. However, instead of the clergy embracing this knowledge by the laity, there appeared to be push back. We were being told that we were overzealous and overly critical of those in charge, which could be seen as being disobedient to the magisterium. After all, who were we to complain to the Bishop that Father so and so, was changing the rubrics or altering the prayers at mass. We were hit with the claim that we thought ourselves as more Catholic than they, or even more Catholic than the Pope. I don’t deny that there are those Catholics, who swung too far in any one direction and ended up doing more harm than good. Efforts to combat this thinking have been too generalized and instead of using a scalpel to address these issues, the Church used a broadsword. I do believe that many Popes have been biased in some form or another. Whether it was Pope Pius X or Pope Francis, they sought to lead the Church in the direction they believed would be best for the laity. The Mass is the greatest tool that affects Catholics and how we form our beliefs and practices. If one is unlucky enough to be under the guidance of a Father James Martin and that is all they know, then why shouldn’t they take up that banner and run with it. Especially when no formal condemnation is coming down from the hierarchy. Likewise, if one is blessed enough to be under the care of a Father Mike Schmitz, then why are they also condemned because they want to speak out against those same errors by the James Martins of the world? The problems within the Church are much larger than the EF vs the OF. It’s just unfortunate that the Mass has become the arena in which both sides chose to do battle.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Jul 5, 2023 16:47:29 GMT
The TLM has become the personal bugaboo of Pope Francis and a little cadre of people from his generation who like to blame it for everything wrong with the Church as a distraction from the much more significant problems, such as clergy sexual abuse, that these same clerics keep bungling. The latest such bungle being the one by the new head of the DDF.
Most people with a grain of common sense can see that it is more important that Catholics faithfully attend Mass than bickering about which type of Mass they will attend. Unfortunately, with this Pope in the Vatican, clerics who do have this common sense are unwilling to come out and say that the emperor has no clothes, in some cases because they know it would rebound unfairly and undesirably upon the people of their own dioceses who support the TLM and who have not been causing any dissension or trouble and indeed reliably fill a church or two each Sunday and in between.
We are dealing here with the ideological hangups and managerial incompetencies of a bunch of old men who can't grasp that the entire universe doesn't love their great liturgical experiments, and in any event will be moving along to eternity soon.
The TLM survived during all the years it was per se prohibited, between 1969 and Summorum Pontificum. It's not going anywhere. Moreover, when congregations are now regularly dredging up even more obscure old rites such as the Carmelite and Dominican Rites on a regular basis, it's clear there is a demand for rites of Mass in addition to/ different from the OF.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 6, 2023 3:57:02 GMT
One claim is that Church attendance dropped after Vatican II, and some blamed the use of the OF. From what I remember, according to Pew and other sources, attendance in the U.S. started dropping a decade before Vatican II. Meanwhile, other studies show that attendance for other Christian groups in the U.S. also dropped slowly throughout the decades. Similar took place in Europe, but for Catholics only after 2000, or more than three decades after Vatican II. Meanwhile, attendance in places like the Philippines remained high, and by the 1980s was around 60 pct. By the late 1990s, it dropped to 40 pct, and has remained low since. The main driver for all these appears to be prosperity leading to more secularism, and it affects religion in general: www.cbc.ca/news/world/do-countries-lose-religion-as-they-gain-wealth-1.1310451That means the presence or absence of the EF, OF, etc., or the use of Latin, or becoming less "traditional," etc., are neither the main counters to or the main causes of decline. What about the EF being a cause of concern? I think it started with St. Pope John Paul II considering exemptions, then Pope Benedict XVI arguing the same, and finally Pope Francis making those exemptions operational. According to the one writer, the main source involves a minority of Catholics in the U.S., the UK, and France who have not only a traditional but also a European view of Catholicism, and that involves not only the use of the EF but also Latin, older versions of the Catechism and of the Bible, etc. Did the Church promote similar throughout? Not exactly. From the start, it was using whatever languages people used, used Latin because ironically more no longer understood Aramaic, Greek, etc., and then later switched to Romance languages that stem from Latin and more. Several even translated in order to evangelize peoples from different parts of the world who spoke none of those. And all that involves a religion that actually started as a breakaway group from Judaism, has Scriptures that come from different cultures, and combines aspects from the Middle East and the West. And that expansion continues. It was noted in another thread that Vatican II was dramatically different from Vatican I because of large numbers of people from Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and South America joining, and recent projections argue that soon they will dominate the Church: www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49564397In contrast is the view of that of a Church that's small and "pure": aleteia.org/2016/06/13/when-cardinal-joseph-ratzinger-predicted-the-future-of-the-church/www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/spiritual-life/the-church-will-become-small.htmlBut that point was made in the late 1960s and may go against the drive of goal of the Church to evangelize, i.e., evangelization involves saving more souls, and which makes it bigger. And what about "pure"? Does it refer to Latin, which a few want, or whatever language most know, or Aramaic, which Jesus and apostles spoke, or Greek, and more spoke because it was also the language of learning and commerce that time? And what about the Church call for reading more of the Bible, something which it went against centuries earlier, and even recently (one senior told me that when she was a convent school girl she and others were not allowed to read and study the Bible unless they were supervised by a nun or a priest)? Not only did the Church revise the Mass to allow for more readings from it, it also called for better translations and scholarship more than a century ago. And the Catechism? How do older ones address new discoveries in science and political and economic matters which affect those growing numbers of Catholics from different parts of the world?
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Jul 6, 2023 15:35:51 GMT
Folks are just looking for something to blame, and the OF unfortunately always takes the hit from a certain segment of the populus. There are many, many factors which have affected Church attendance. With almost certainty, progress made after WW1 and WW2 had as much to do with it as anything in the US. Suburban spread, loss of cultural pockets within cities, families moving farther from where they were born. The list can go on and on. But if some wish to blame it on the OF, so be it, but the data doesn't support their claims. Steep declines from 1955 to 1975, and then slowly ever since then. news.gallup.com/poll/232226/church-attendance-among-catholics-resumes-downward-slide.aspx
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 6, 2023 16:23:55 GMT
Folks are just looking for something to blame, and the OF unfortunately always takes the hit from a certain segment of the populus. There are many, many factors which have affected Church attendance. With almost certainty, progress made after WW1 and WW2 had as much to do with it as anything in the US. Suburban spread, loss of cultural pockets within cities, families moving farther from where they were born. The list can go on and on. But if some wish to blame it on the OF, so be it, but the data doesn't support their claims. Steep declines from 1955 to 1975, and then slowly ever since then. news.gallup.com/poll/232226/church-attendance-among-catholics-resumes-downward-slide.aspxNot to be neglected in all this, is the loss of a sense of sin, more particularly, the lack of awareness (or just denying it, or not caring) of the obligation to assist at Sunday/HDO Mass under pain of mortal sin, unless there is a legitimate reason for not being there. Far too many people simply do not believe that one single act, least of all something seemingly as benign as just not wanting to go to Mass on any given Sunday, could result in their eternal damnation. Many if not most people nowadays do not think it is possible for them to go anywhere but heaven when they die. "Either Mass or Hell" sounds pretty brutal --- in fact, I heard these exact words from the pulpit of a priest who offers both the TLM and the Novus Ordo, in perfectly good standing with his bishop --- but it's just reality. There should be all other sorts of good, positive reasons for going to Mass on Sunday, but when you strip all of that away, there is still the obligation binding under pain of mortal sin. People need to be reminded of this, and reminded of it often.
|
|