|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 14, 2023 15:34:16 GMT
www.ncregister.com/blog/3-reasons-why-young-catholics-love-latin-massAt our diocesan TLM, you have people from all walks of life. A ponytail on a man, or a "man-bun", is far from an unusual sight. In fact, there are very few people there, who grew up with the TLM when it was the only Mass there was. Anyone who grew up in that time would be over 70 years old.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Jul 14, 2023 16:43:27 GMT
Their kids or grandkids will want the geetars and the Folk Mass back.
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Jul 14, 2023 18:15:57 GMT
Probably, these things are circular.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 18, 2023 6:56:53 GMT
The points raised are similar to those raised in different threads.
For example, it's "beautiful". I've heard Catholics say similar about Orthodox services, but those aren't in Latin. Also, ask Catholics about what's "beautiful" in different countries and you get various answers.
Second, it's "rebellious against the modern age." It's like people who want to dress in a classy manner and then imagine that by doing so they're no longer part of the modern age.
The third example is notable: it's a "shortcut to an enthusiastic faith community." If any, not only is that point spot-on but is actually a modernist view. I wonder, though, if the writer or her readers even realized the irony of that statement.
|
|
bluekumul
Full Member
Christian humanist, democratic socialist, world citizen
Posts: 199
|
Post by bluekumul on Jul 18, 2023 11:38:14 GMT
For example, it's "beautiful". I've heard Catholics say similar about Orthodox services, but those aren't in Latin. Also, ask Catholics about what's "beautiful" in different countries and you get various answers. I agree, beauty really is in eyes of the beholder. Modernity is populist, practical and future-oriented, so both dressing in a classy manner and attending Latin Mass go against modernist values. Communitarianism is definitely not modernist. Modernist ethical egoism prefers associations based on shared self-interests. Maybe the idea that people should be allowed to join a community if they like it is modernist. In traditional cultures community is based on kinship and joining it is very difficult for outsiders.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 19, 2023 4:30:09 GMT
For example, it's "beautiful". I've heard Catholics say similar about Orthodox services, but those aren't in Latin. Also, ask Catholics about what's "beautiful" in different countries and you get various answers. I agree, beauty really is in eyes of the beholder. Modernity is populist, practical and future-oriented, so both dressing in a classy manner and attending Latin Mass go against modernist values. Communitarianism is definitely not modernist. Modernist ethical egoism prefers associations based on shared self-interests. Maybe the idea that people should be allowed to join a community if they like it is modernist. In traditional cultures community is based on kinship and joining it is very difficult for outsiders.
The EF itself is actually part of modernism, i.e., standardization given several ancient liturgies using various languages that more did not understand, like common Greek and Aramaic.
Meanwhile, communitarianism is also part of the same modern world, e.g., communities in traditional cultures speaking different languages, employing practices that are not only communitarian but several even connected to kinship, and obviously connected to self-interests.
|
|
bluekumul
Full Member
Christian humanist, democratic socialist, world citizen
Posts: 199
|
Post by bluekumul on Jul 19, 2023 7:58:47 GMT
The EF itself is actually part of modernism, i.e., standardization given several ancient liturgies using various languages that more did not understand, like common Greek and Aramaic. According to Wikipedia the standardized form of Latin Mass was introduced in 1570. Did modernism even exist back then? (Sometimes I wonder if Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy isn't proto-modernist, so this isn't a rhetorical question)
Classic tribalism - communitarian from insider, self-interested from outside. However Jesus made it clear that the Church should "make disciples of all nations". Is it modernism?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 19, 2023 14:29:43 GMT
The EF itself is actually part of modernism, i.e., standardization given several ancient liturgies using various languages that more did not understand, like common Greek and Aramaic. According to Wikipedia the standardized form of Latin Mass was introduced in 1570. Did modernism even exist back then? (Sometimes I wonder if Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy isn't proto-modernist, so this isn't a rhetorical question)
Classic tribalism - communitarian from insider, self-interested from outside. However Jesus made it clear that the Church should "make disciples of all nations". Is it modernism? Not to "white knight" here, but it sounds like the suggestion is that the EF (viz. the Pian Missal, or even earlier Roman Rite missals) were at one time "modern", in that they replaced liturgies in Greek and Aramaic that had been understood at one time but were no longer. "Modernism" is not being used here --- correct me if I'm wrong, anyone --- in the sense, capital letter M, of the heresy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, condemned by Pope St Pius X in the 1907 encyclical Pascendi Domenici gregis. The term "modernism" (small letter M) can also be used to describe movements in art, literature, and so on, but its use as a precise theological term is what is understood by educated, informed Catholics when they hear the term. The average layperson in the pew, who generally, and sad to say, is neither educated nor informed about the Faith, would have no earthly idea what it means in that context. Go up to a Catholic at random, coming out of Mass on any given Sunday, and ask them "hey, what's Modernism?", and you'll see what I mean.
|
|
bluekumul
Full Member
Christian humanist, democratic socialist, world citizen
Posts: 199
|
Post by bluekumul on Jul 19, 2023 14:54:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 20, 2023 6:02:09 GMT
The EF itself is actually part of modernism, i.e., standardization given several ancient liturgies using various languages that more did not understand, like common Greek and Aramaic. According to Wikipedia the standardized form of Latin Mass was introduced in 1570. Did modernism even exist back then? (Sometimes I wonder if Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy isn't proto-modernist, so this isn't a rhetorical question)
Classic tribalism - communitarian from insider, self-interested from outside. However Jesus made it clear that the Church should "make disciples of all nations". Is it modernism?
Part of modernism is standardization.
Being a disciple didn't involve having the same Mass or using Latin. In several cases, members of the Church even fought over whether to follow things like Mosaic laws, and several argued that Gentiles were not required to do so.
The implication is that they shared religious beliefs but not necessarily other practices, including language.
Some more points:
I think many of the early disciples spoke Aramaic, with Greek used for commerce, etc. Latin came only later, and then was eclipsed by regional languages, several ironically stemming from corruption of Latin.
Things like the Gallican Rite had to be translated into Latin because most did not understand Semitic languages or Greek.
Later, from 1570 onward, missionaries translated the Mass and more into other languages because more disciples in those nations didn't understand Latin, either.
Meanwhile, efforts were being made to translate the Bible into English and other vernacular languages, and many of the faithful used these because they no longer understood Latin.
Finally, many of these points were raised several times in various threads in this forum.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 20, 2023 6:05:23 GMT
According to Wikipedia the standardized form of Latin Mass was introduced in 1570. Did modernism even exist back then? (Sometimes I wonder if Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy isn't proto-modernist, so this isn't a rhetorical question)
Classic tribalism - communitarian from insider, self-interested from outside. However Jesus made it clear that the Church should "make disciples of all nations". Is it modernism? Not to "white knight" here, but it sounds like the suggestion is that the EF (viz. the Pian Missal, or even earlier Roman Rite missals) were at one time "modern", in that they replaced liturgies in Greek and Aramaic that had been understood at one time but were no longer. "Modernism" is not being used here --- correct me if I'm wrong, anyone --- in the sense, capital letter M, of the heresy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, condemned by Pope St Pius X in the 1907 encyclical Pascendi Domenici gregis. The term "modernism" (small letter M) can also be used to describe movements in art, literature, and so on, but its use as a precise theological term is what is understood by educated, informed Catholics when they hear the term. The average layperson in the pew, who generally, and sad to say, is neither educated nor informed about the Faith, would have no earthly idea what it means in that context. Go up to a Catholic at random, coming out of Mass on any given Sunday, and ask them "hey, what's Modernism?", and you'll see what I mean.
Seeing the OF in light of modernism (i.e., referring to heresy from the 19th century onward) makes no sense because according to Pope Benedict XVI it's based on ancient liturgies. Meanwhile, practices like using vernacular languages and even Communion in the hand are also not modern practices.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 20, 2023 6:08:29 GMT
Interestingly enough, many of the points raised in that can be seen in the Renaissance, where reason first dominated, and from which the Age of Enlightenment emerged.
But signs of that modernism can also be seen in the Middle Ages, via scholasticism and recovery of the ancient world thanks to Islamic scholars.
|
|
bluekumul
Full Member
Christian humanist, democratic socialist, world citizen
Posts: 199
|
Post by bluekumul on Jul 20, 2023 7:23:21 GMT
I agree with Dave Armstrong from Patheos when he states:
I don’t believe an argument can be made for one way being intrinsically superior to another. It is culturally relative to some extent, but ultimately comes down to the attitude in one’s heart: the interior disposition, leading to reverence or not, whatever our posture.
Standardizing the Mass probably is a proto-modernist concept and it could be seen as a part of Counter-Reformation.
As for Latin, I don't believe that the use of Latin is modernist because it was considered the universal language by medieval Christendom. It also has parallels in other traditional cultures such as Arabic in the Islamic domain and Sanskrit in India. The argument for Latin is weaker though, because Jesus or His disciples never used it and no Biblical texts are written in it. I'm curious why Hebrew was never used as a sacred language in Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Jul 20, 2023 13:35:21 GMT
I'm curious why Hebrew was never used as a sacred language in Christianity. Because if you want your religion to spread, you use languages that large groups of people understand, such as Greek, Latin, and Church Slavonic. You don't use the language of some little insular subgroup who don't even like or support your religion.
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Jul 20, 2023 22:32:04 GMT
It would have been foolish to use Hebrew anyway. Even in the time of Christ, it is thought that it was not generally used as the daily means of communication by most Jews and it became a purely literary and ceremonial language for quite a long time. Christ of course is generally considered to have spoken Aramaic which is related to Hebrew but by no means the same thing.
After the destruction of the Temple and the Bar Kokhba revolt Jews were forcibly removed from the area and scattered and Hebrew remained a language with a particular role for Jews but wasn't spoken on a daily basis all that much in normal life.
|
|