|
Post by ralfy on Jul 22, 2023 3:10:26 GMT
I'm a young man (19) and I can say I have a strong preference as far as the liturgy is concerned for 1) reverent Novus ordo Masses celebrated in Latin and / or ad Orientem; 2) Traditional Latin Masses; 3) Masses of the Byzantine Rite and other liturgical rites of the Eastern Catholic Churches. When I became a practising Catholic at the age of 15, I was shocked by the difference between the liturgy as I read about it and watched online, and the liturgy as it was in the actual parishes I attended. For me, it led not so much to a crisis of faith, but a deep fear. Why was the liturgy I attended filled with so many abuses, when nobody in their right mind would want such a liturgy when they could attend one celebrated in accord with the rubrics? I simply could not comprehend it. As for language - I support a gradual return to Latin as the language used in most Masses of the Latin Church. One idea is to have the Canon in Latin, in addition to the Credo, Gloria, Psalm, etc, and the rest in the vernacular. This is most in accord with the wishes of Vatican II, because it literally says that Latin is to preserved as the main language of the liturgy in the Latin Church. At my parish, at the main Sunday Mass, we have the introit processional chant, the Gloria, the Gospel acclamation, the Psalm, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Pater noster, the Agnus dei, the communion chant, the post-communion hymn, and the exit processional in Latin. The Kyrie is, of course, in Greek. The rest of the Mass, including the Canon is in English. I'd also like to add that Church Slavonic is almost exclusively used by the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches in the liturgy, except in the diaspora. One of the benefits of this language is that I understand Slavs find it easy to pick up most of the words used during the liturgy because although not mutually intelligible with most Slavic languages, it is easy to process after a period of time. Latin, of course, is much more distant unless you speak Italian, French, etc. Church Slavonic on the other hand is not very hard to understand if you know the liturgy as a Slav. Patriarch Pimen, in his final testament before his death in 1990, said that the Russians must always preserve Church Slavonic as the language of prayer, as the language of the liturgy. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Church seem reluctant to move away from Church Slavonic precisely because there is little need for it. The UOC does allow parishes in hold the liturgy in Ukrainian if two thirds of the parish vote for it, but I understand there are not many such parishes.
The trick in doing this is to use Latin regularly at home and in school, or to come up with the equivalent of the madrasa, where the language is learned.
The problem for the Church is that it does not even have the resources to set up enough schools to teach just reading, writing, and math, and in vernacular languages. It even doesn't have enough clergy, Churches, chapels, Bibles, missals, and more in many parts of the Catholic world.
Add to this ignorance among the faithful concerning even some of the basic points about Catholicism, or even the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 22, 2023 4:22:17 GMT
You are wise to stay out of the debate, it resolves nothing and I'm just about done with it myself, though I shall devote my energies, as long as I have life in me, to standing up for the Traditional Latin Mass whenever I can, without debating it with those who wish to defend the past 60 years of the Church and all that entails. My point here, if it was always so obvious that the faithful have to understand the Mass in its entirety and actively participate in it after the fashion of an acolyte --- I've been getting the "vibe" here lately that either the Church just naively thought everyone understood Latin all those centuries (something about needing to see statistics on precisely when that knowledge ceased to be), that the Holy Ghost certainly wouldn't have deprived the faithful of that understanding that is necessary to their holiness and spiritual growth ( is it necessary?), or what is more reasonable, that the Church hierarchy just didn't think it was necessary for the faithful to understand (those dirty birds!) --- where was the Holy Ghost until Vatican II?
Anyone?
I believe that the Holy Spirit told the Church to help the faithful by giving them the Mass, the Bible, the Catechism, and others in languages that they understood. Similar happened during Pentecost, where the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, began to speak in different languages.
So why did it take until the 1960s where the Mass was concerned? Yes, there were scattered vernacular translations of the Mass in a few areas, but why not universally?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 22, 2023 4:33:10 GMT
When I am elected Pope, you're going to be on my speed dial. Heck, I might even change Canon Law and make you a Cardinal. So be ready. Seriously, though... what you say, as happens so often, makes perfect sense. The Church could have said something like "okay, we're rolling out Mass in the vernacular, and we're going to make some tweaks here and there to make it more 'user-friendly', and you know how the acolytes have done the back-and-forth thing, well, now you're all going to be able to do that --- but we also recognize that this isn't for everyone, that some people like it 'the old way', and there is a place for you, too, so we'll leave that intact, at least in certain places at certain times --- so while we encourage 'active participation' in the fashion of the earliest Christians, we recognize that there have developed various traditions, and it is all equally Catholic". The Anglican communion has a wide spectrum of "low", "broad", and "high" Church, and nobody disrespects anyone else for preferring this or that. And Protestants of all stripes basically seek out the type of worship that suits them best. I have mused before that the Church might be willing to consider the TLM as a kind of "contemplative rite" for those of a quasi-monastic bent, those who are just naturally quiet and ethereal in their spirituality. Some people are just more sedate and contemplative by nature, and not everyone wants to be in some kind of big communal event. There are all different personality types. And there are people on the autism spectrum who simply can't handle a lot of noise and interpersonal back-and-forth. Their numbers are not insignificant. As things stand now, though, especially in the wake of TC, the Church is essentially saying "we were wrong for a thousand or more years". And I don't think she wants to say that.
TC fulfilled what Pope Benedict XVI wanted. That was explained to you several times in various threads.
I well remember your explanations. I just question whether Benedict wanted all of the things that TC called for (new priests having to secure permission directly from Rome, a permission that is being routinely denied in actual practice, the suppression of the EF in parish churches, and so on). You have also constructed this logical framework, proceeding from the major premise that all Masses must be understood in their entirety by everyone who assists at them, that Latin Masses may only be attended by those who are fluent in Latin and use Latin as one of their everyday languages. The Church has never said that, and that requirement has never been imposed in any of the relevant documents, not even Traditionis custodes.Francis's "long game" (a strategy that he will probably not live to see realized entirely) seems to be to relegate the EF to the FSSP (and, one assumes, similar entities such as the St Jean Vianney prelature in Brazil, possibly the ISCRR, and so on), and possibly to bring about a de facto merger of the FSSP and those in the SSPX who desire full communion. (The FSSP originated as a kind of "safe haven" for SSPX adherents in the first place.) This would be the creation of a new rite in all but name, or an entity similar to the Anglican Use vicariates, with separate parishes and so on. If that's the way things rattle out, that's fine with me, perhaps I can eventually relocate somewhere near an FSSP center or a similar entity. Sadly, not everyone has that kind of flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 22, 2023 4:35:50 GMT
As for language - I support a gradual return to Latin as the language used in most Masses of the Latin Church. One idea is to have the Canon in Latin, in addition to the Credo, Gloria, Psalm, etc, and the rest in the vernacular. This is most in accord with the wishes of Vatican II, because it literally says that Latin is to preserved as the main language of the liturgy in the Latin Church. At my parish, at the main Sunday Mass, we have the introit processional chant, the Gloria, the Gospel acclamation, the Psalm, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Pater noster, the Agnus dei, the communion chant, the post-communion hymn, and the exit processional in Latin. The Kyrie is, of course, in Greek. The rest of the Mass, including the Canon is in English. I'm on your page entirely. I think I'd like your parish.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 23, 2023 3:16:42 GMT
I believe that the Holy Spirit told the Church to help the faithful by giving them the Mass, the Bible, the Catechism, and others in languages that they understood. Similar happened during Pentecost, where the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, began to speak in different languages.
So why did it take until the 1960s where the Mass was concerned? Yes, there were scattered vernacular translations of the Mass in a few areas, but why not universally?
I'm guessing that national front movements and other events worldwide not only during the 1960s but even earlier, i.e., after WW2, when decolonization and proxy wars became prominent, made the Church realize that it was encountering a very different world, and had to engage with it in a different way, too. It's also seen in the surprising reactions participants from different countries had when they met each other during VII.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 23, 2023 3:17:39 GMT
TC fulfilled what Pope Benedict XVI wanted. That was explained to you several times in various threads.
I well remember your explanations. I just question whether Benedict wanted all of the things that TC called for (new priests having to secure permission directly from Rome, a permission that is being routinely denied in actual practice, the suppression of the EF in parish churches, and so on). You have also constructed this logical framework, proceeding from the major premise that all Masses must be understood in their entirety by everyone who assists at them, that Latin Masses may only be attended by those who are fluent in Latin and use Latin as one of their everyday languages. The Church has never said that, and that requirement has never been imposed in any of the relevant documents, not even Traditionis custodes.Francis's "long game" (a strategy that he will probably not live to see realized entirely) seems to be to relegate the EF to the FSSP (and, one assumes, similar entities such as the St Jean Vianney prelature in Brazil, possibly the ISCRR, and so on), and possibly to bring about a de facto merger of the FSSP and those in the SSPX who desire full communion. (The FSSP originated as a kind of "safe haven" for SSPX adherents in the first place.) This would be the creation of a new rite in all but name, or an entity similar to the Anglican Use vicariates, with separate parishes and so on. If that's the way things rattle out, that's fine with me, perhaps I can eventually relocate somewhere near an FSSP center or a similar entity. Sadly, not everyone has that kind of flexibility.
Pope Benedict XVI made it clear that he allowed it for those who grew up with it. Given that, Pope Francis is following such.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 23, 2023 3:19:58 GMT
As for language - I support a gradual return to Latin as the language used in most Masses of the Latin Church. One idea is to have the Canon in Latin, in addition to the Credo, Gloria, Psalm, etc, and the rest in the vernacular. This is most in accord with the wishes of Vatican II, because it literally says that Latin is to preserved as the main language of the liturgy in the Latin Church. At my parish, at the main Sunday Mass, we have the introit processional chant, the Gloria, the Gospel acclamation, the Psalm, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Pater noster, the Agnus dei, the communion chant, the post-communion hymn, and the exit processional in Latin. The Kyrie is, of course, in Greek. The rest of the Mass, including the Canon is in English. I'm on your page entirely. I think I'd like your parish.
The problem is that most people don't understand Latin, whichis why even though Latin is the base language of the Church vernacular languages are used not just for Mass but even for encyclicals, the Bible, the Catechism, and so forth.
Even the readings and sermons in Masses that use Latin are given in the vernacular.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2023 4:04:43 GMT
As for language - I support a gradual return to Latin as the language used in most Masses of the Latin Church. One idea is to have the Canon in Latin, in addition to the Credo, Gloria, Psalm, etc, and the rest in the vernacular. This is most in accord with the wishes of Vatican II, because it literally says that Latin is to preserved as the main language of the liturgy in the Latin Church. At my parish, at the main Sunday Mass, we have the introit processional chant, the Gloria, the Gospel acclamation, the Psalm, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Pater noster, the Agnus dei, the communion chant, the post-communion hymn, and the exit processional in Latin. The Kyrie is, of course, in Greek. The rest of the Mass, including the Canon is in English. I'm on your page entirely. I think I'd like your parish. You may well like it. And our organisation of altar boys is under the patronage of Pope Saint Pius X. It is called "The Guild of Pope St Pius X". By the way - at the solemn Mass on Sunday, we don't have altar girls. The priest in charge of altar servers said that altar girls can serve at any of the other three Masses on Sunday, but at the main Mass only men are allowed to serve. Father received some flack for this but in the end it worked well, I think. Most of the TLM-supporters of our diocese go to my parish because although it is a Novus ordo parish, it is the most traditional parish in the diocese and the only one that uses a great deal of Latin and Gregorian Chant. The Bishop-elect of Palmerston North is a strong supporter of the TLM and celebrates it regularly at his current parish. It is believed he plans to re-establish the regular TLM in the diocese. Palmerston North is only two or so hours from here so I hope to perhaps make it to Palmerston North once a month for the TLM if that is the case. We haven't had a regular TLM in the Archdiocese of Wellington since 2016. We had in our diocese three TLMs last year, celebrated with the permission of His Eminence John Cardinal Dew. The previous year, an elderly priest ordained in 1960 celebrated a TLM which I attended. This was about a week after Traditiones custodes was released. He used to celebrate it regularly but due to ill health was unable to continue.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 28, 2023 6:58:05 GMT
In their minds, they translate the words from Latin to English. That's because they're not thinking in Latin, and they're not because it's not even a second language to them.
This also explains why the readings are not in Latin but in English, together with the sermon. Even anything like personal intentions are in English.
During the nineteenth century, some were requesting for at least translations of the Mass to be put side-by-side with the Latin in the Missal. That way, they could at least understand what they were saying aloud by looking at the translation on the side.
Later, a full translation of the Mass was made available, and I think more requested for more of that, i.e., not a Missal with a side-by-side translation but the Mass in the vernacular.
Meanwhile, the Church was realizing that the faithful had to know more about the Bible, and it called for that plus more Bible scholarship and better translations. It also helped that more had been using translations of the Bible for hundreds of years, and that's because most of them didn't understand Latin.
The same applied to the Catechism and other Church documents. At the same time, more discoveries were made about ancient liturgies and practices, like communal activities, Communion in the hand, and so on. I even recall one article that mentioned how early Christians who were offered unused Roman facilities did use them, but they had tables attached to the walls. Was one that one reason why the priest faced the altar? One imagines that in the Last Supper Jesus faced the apostles.
There's also the detail about them likely using Aramaic, the Pentecost and the apostles suddenly speaking in tongues, and so on. I'm guessing all of these plus the point that more no longer took Latin even in Catholic schools overwhelmed by what would later become known as Baby Boomers, i.e., high numbers of enrolling students forced schools (even public ones) to teach only the basics, and in the most efficient way possible.
In which case, if one insists on bring back Latin for Mass, then better start using it for everyday conversation, and beyond. Otherwise, stick to what makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 28, 2023 17:23:08 GMT
In which case, if one insists on bring back Latin for Mass, then better start using it for everyday conversation, and beyond. Otherwise, stick to what makes sense. Actually, many educated people do use Latin words and phrases in their speech, especially if they are talking to other people who are similarly erudite and understand these. "Mutatis mutandis", for instance, sums up a concept that would take one or two sentences to convey in English. Someone with at least a rudimentary background in classics will just smile knowingly when someone else says forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.The Church, though, never required any particular knowledge of Latin for the faithful to assist at Mass, nor does she now. Your line of reasoning seems to be based upon a selective reading of Sacrosanctum concilium that called for wider use of the vernacular. That same document also called for Latin to be retained in the liturgy to a greater or lesser degree as the case might be. If absolute comprehension of each and every word of the liturgy is required, the Church in her various disciplinary documents (including Traditionis custodes, which was silent on this) needs to mandate this, and to direct that TLM adherents begin studying Latin. To assert as well that the TLM is intended only for those who grew up with it (and for some reason cannot learn the Novus Ordo, which would not be true of a single person on this planet, but I'll leave that part aside here) also seems to indicate that newcomers should not even be allowed admittance --- "you didn't grow up with this, this isn't for you" --- lest they become enamored of a form of the liturgy that is, one assumes, detrimental to their spiritual life that should subsist in their own vernacular. I've also had to wonder how you keep TLM adherents from procreating (which they're pretty good at, traditionalists tend to have larger families, sometimes very large ones) and raising their own children with the TLM, who will then have children of their own. I have a hard time understanding why the Church fears the TLM so much. (Well, actually, I have my ideas, but not to muddy the water with my own speculations.) Maybe allow it freely, admit that she "threw the baby out with the bathwater", and allow the Holy Ghost to take it from there?
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Jul 28, 2023 18:06:21 GMT
In which case, if one insists on bring back Latin for Mass, then better start using it for everyday conversation, and beyond. Otherwise, stick to what makes sense. Actually, many educated people do use Latin words and phrases in their speech, especially if they are talking to other people who are similarly erudite and understand these. "Mutatis mutandis", for instance, sums up a concept that would take one or two sentences to convey in English. Someone with at least a rudimentary background in classics will just smile knowingly when someone else says forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.The Church, though, never required any particular knowledge of Latin for the faithful to assist at Mass, nor does she now. Your line of reasoning seems to be based upon a selective reading of Sacrosanctum concilium that called for wider use of the vernacular. That same document also called for Latin to be retained in the liturgy to a greater or lesser degree as the case might be. If absolute comprehension of each and every word of the liturgy is required, the Church in her various disciplinary documents (including Traditionis custodes, which was silent on this) needs to mandate this, and to direct that TLM adherents begin studying Latin. To assert as well that the TLM is intended only for those who grew up with it (and for some reason cannot learn the Novus Ordo, which would not be true of a single person on this planet, but I'll leave that part aside here) also seems to indicate that newcomers should not even be allowed admittance --- "you didn't grow up with this, this isn't for you" --- lest they become enamored of a form of the liturgy that is, one assumes, detrimental to their spiritual life that should subsist in their own vernacular. I've also had to wonder how you keep TLM adherents from procreating (which they're pretty good at, traditionalists tend to have larger families, sometimes very large ones) and raising their own children with the TLM, who will then have children of their own. I have a hard time understanding why the Church fears the TLM so much. (Well, actually, I have my ideas, but not to muddy the water with my own speculations.) Maybe allow it freely, admit that she "threw the baby out with the bathwater", and allow the Holy Ghost to take it from there? It is a fairly bold assumption that just because a child is raised going to TLM that they will continue to prefer the TLM, much less remain active in the Church. History says you are wrong in that assumption. Who said the Church fears the TLM? That is your take due to your preference of the TLM, not anything that the Church has stated. Using that logic, any time the Church has made changes in the past they would have feared what came before the changes. What the Church may be against, which doesn't mean fear, is segments within the Church which feel they know better than the Church herself. She is right to take that position. The Church is looking for unity. Allowing the Holy Ghost to take it, is precisely the reason why there are untold numbers of Christian religions. Well, not so much the Holy Ghost, but various people's idea of where the Holy Ghost was leading them. All of which led away from unity.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 28, 2023 23:01:34 GMT
Actually, many educated people do use Latin words and phrases in their speech, especially if they are talking to other people who are similarly erudite and understand these. "Mutatis mutandis", for instance, sums up a concept that would take one or two sentences to convey in English. Someone with at least a rudimentary background in classics will just smile knowingly when someone else says forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.The Church, though, never required any particular knowledge of Latin for the faithful to assist at Mass, nor does she now. Your line of reasoning seems to be based upon a selective reading of Sacrosanctum concilium that called for wider use of the vernacular. That same document also called for Latin to be retained in the liturgy to a greater or lesser degree as the case might be. If absolute comprehension of each and every word of the liturgy is required, the Church in her various disciplinary documents (including Traditionis custodes, which was silent on this) needs to mandate this, and to direct that TLM adherents begin studying Latin. To assert as well that the TLM is intended only for those who grew up with it (and for some reason cannot learn the Novus Ordo, which would not be true of a single person on this planet, but I'll leave that part aside here) also seems to indicate that newcomers should not even be allowed admittance --- "you didn't grow up with this, this isn't for you" --- lest they become enamored of a form of the liturgy that is, one assumes, detrimental to their spiritual life that should subsist in their own vernacular. I've also had to wonder how you keep TLM adherents from procreating (which they're pretty good at, traditionalists tend to have larger families, sometimes very large ones) and raising their own children with the TLM, who will then have children of their own. I have a hard time understanding why the Church fears the TLM so much. (Well, actually, I have my ideas, but not to muddy the water with my own speculations.) Maybe allow it freely, admit that she "threw the baby out with the bathwater", and allow the Holy Ghost to take it from there? It is a fairly bold assumption that just because a child is raised going to TLM that they will continue to prefer the TLM, much less remain active in the Church. History says you are wrong in that assumption. Who said the Church fears the TLM? That is your take due to your preference of the TLM, not anything that the Church has stated. Using that logic, any time the Church has made changes in the past they would have feared what came before the changes. What the Church may be against, which doesn't mean fear, is segments within the Church which feel they know better than the Church herself. She is right to take that position. The Church is looking for unity. Allowing the Holy Ghost to take it, is precisely the reason why there are untold numbers of Christian religions. Well, not so much the Holy Ghost, but various people's idea of where the Holy Ghost was leading them. All of which led away from unity. (1) Some remain with the TLM, some don't. I don't have figures, but I do know that a family at our parish has several adult children, married, who have children of their own, and bring them to the TLM. All told, that's probably 25-30 souls. They are by no means the only family of their kind. You don't need a lot of families to grow a TLM community significantly. (2) Well, something drove Pope Francis to promulgate TC, to put a "rush" on it --- no customary vacatio legis --- right before he underwent anesthesia (which doesn't agree with him) for a dangerous operation. ( All body cavity operations when you're in your 80s are "dangerous", especially when you're obese with only one good lung.) He himself admits that the TLM movement is growing. Best spin you could put on it, he wanted to preserve the TLM for some folks (FSSP et al) and feared that his successor would place even more restrictions (or a total ban) than he did. But that's really a stretch. (3) You refer to people who are outside the Church. The Holy Ghost is reliable within the Church, outside the Church, that's another story. It is a great mystery how (or even if) the Holy Ghost can dispense enough grace to bring people ostensibly to Christ, yet not enough to "close the deal" and bring them into the one true Church. There may be "spirits" at work that are something else. All we hear today is "we are Church" and "we are walking together in a synodal Church", well, all right, then, doesn't that mean that those who find something they are looking for in the TLM, which existed in its basic form for well over a millennium within the Church, may be led by the Holy Ghost as well? TLM adherents are "Church" too.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 29, 2023 2:28:04 GMT
In which case, if one insists on bring back Latin for Mass, then better start using it for everyday conversation, and beyond. Otherwise, stick to what makes sense. Actually, many educated people do use Latin words and phrases in their speech, especially if they are talking to other people who are similarly erudite and understand these. "Mutatis mutandis", for instance, sums up a concept that would take one or two sentences to convey in English. Someone with at least a rudimentary background in classics will just smile knowingly when someone else says forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.The Church, though, never required any particular knowledge of Latin for the faithful to assist at Mass, nor does she now. Your line of reasoning seems to be based upon a selective reading of Sacrosanctum concilium that called for wider use of the vernacular. That same document also called for Latin to be retained in the liturgy to a greater or lesser degree as the case might be. If absolute comprehension of each and every word of the liturgy is required, the Church in her various disciplinary documents (including Traditionis custodes, which was silent on this) needs to mandate this, and to direct that TLM adherents begin studying Latin. To assert as well that the TLM is intended only for those who grew up with it (and for some reason cannot learn the Novus Ordo, which would not be true of a single person on this planet, but I'll leave that part aside here) also seems to indicate that newcomers should not even be allowed admittance --- "you didn't grow up with this, this isn't for you" --- lest they become enamored of a form of the liturgy that is, one assumes, detrimental to their spiritual life that should subsist in their own vernacular. I've also had to wonder how you keep TLM adherents from procreating (which they're pretty good at, traditionalists tend to have larger families, sometimes very large ones) and raising their own children with the TLM, who will then have children of their own. I have a hard time understanding why the Church fears the TLM so much. (Well, actually, I have my ideas, but not to muddy the water with my own speculations.) Maybe allow it freely, admit that she "threw the baby out with the bathwater", and allow the Holy Ghost to take it from there?
FWIW, most English words have Greek and Latin roots. In which case, one can argue for the use of Greek as well. But English is not the sole vernacular language of the Catholic Church, and borrowing from Latin doesn't make one a native speaker of Latin.
I think the Church did not require more knowledge of Latin because it did not require more knowledge of the faith, or even encouraged the faithful to study the Bible, for centuries. It reversed both later.
The need to understand words that one uses for prayer, the Mass, song, Catechism, and the Bible does not need to be mandated because it's commonsensical. In which case, why didn't the Church do this except in far-off places? My guess is that it assumed that people were sufficiently familiar with Latin as it's part of European languages, and that that was good enough. Meanwhile, the Mass had to be translated by missionaries across centuries as they evangelized outside the West, and they did not speak European languages.
Meanwhile, translations of the Bible were being made and revised, so in order for the faithful and catechumens to understand what they were hearing at Mass either a translation of the readings had to be said aloud or the priest had to give his sermon in the vernacular. Everything else I said earlier follows from there.
Finally, if we allow the Holy Spirit to take it from there, then we should remember the Pentecost and the apostles speaking in tongues.
Additional points: about subsisting "in their own vernacular," I don't think Latin has been a vernacular language for centuries.
Likely, one of the languages that the apostles received from the Holy Spirit was Latin, and likely because their vernacular languages (also gifted to them) were probably Aramaic and Greek. One language lost to several of them was ancient Hebrew.
Later, Latin was used in place of Aramaic, Greek, etc., and in turn fewer used Latin as the centuries went by.
About fearing the EF, I think what the Church does not like is the use of the EF by conservatives who have irrational views, e.g., insisting on the EF and the use of Latin, the Baltimore Catechism, anything before Vatican II, older and even inaccurate translations of the Bible, etc. In online discussions, vblogs, etc., you already know what they're about to say before they do so.
That's why at best they will allow it only for those who, as the two previous Popes intended, grew up with such.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Jul 29, 2023 4:13:43 GMT
Went to a charismatic Mass with a rock band tonight.
Big crowd attended, especially for a Friday night with inclement weather outside, I'd guess 200-300 people. About 90 percent of them appeared to be 60+ (including the rock band). There could be many reasons for that including how it was promoted, but every time I go to any kind of more traditional Mass whether it's TLM, Ordinariate, Dominican, or a "reverent OF" with some Latin and chant, there's a lot more people aged 18-35 at those. It's just the trend now to be more conservative.
A lot of the young people know at least some Latin too and will throw it around in conversation just like me and my friends did in the late 70s/ early 80s. I was chuckling yesterday when I read an excerpt from the late Sinead O'Connor's memoirs and the opening quote was in Latin, a saying that was going around church musicians back then and she likely heard it just as I did.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 29, 2023 5:13:38 GMT
Went to a charismatic Mass with a rock band tonight. Big crowd attended, especially for a Friday night with inclement weather outside, I'd guess 200-300 people. About 90 percent of them appeared to be 60+ (including the rock band). There could be many reasons for that including how it was promoted, but every time I go to any kind of more traditional Mass whether it's TLM, Ordinariate, Dominican, or a "reverent OF" with some Latin and chant, there's a lot more people aged 18-35 at those. It's just the trend now to be more conservative. A lot of the young people know at least some Latin too and will throw it around in conversation just like me and my friends did in the late 70s/ early 80s. I was chuckling yesterday when I read an excerpt from the late Sinead O'Connor's memoirs and the opening quote was in Latin, a saying that was going around church musicians back then and she likely heard it just as I did. I am one of the oldest people at my TLM (62). It's ironic because I have no living memory of a TLM-only Church (i.e., Roman Rite), I first crossed the Catholic threshold in the mid-1970s when the ink on the Novus Ordo Missae was just beginning to dry. In fact, I was reading a news story just yesterday of the Methodist church I might have gone to a dozen times in my youth, they're debating the whole "Global Methodist" thing, whether to stick with the UMC or leave for the new denomination. I know of at least two people there who have practicing gay family members (I'm related to one of them), so I imagine there's a lot of soul-searching going on. The pastor alluded to as much.
|
|