Transitioning to Tridentine Rite

[archangel04]

Man this as gone off topic. But I still love to see some of the "secret haters" of the Latin mass. lol

[Marie5890]

Originally Posted by archangel04

Man this as gone off topic. But I still love to see some of the "secret haters" of the Latin mass. lol

Secret haters? Do people hate the EF? Do people hate the OF? Do those attitudes exist amongst devout Catholics, hatred of the Mass in it's different forms?

[Diana Catherine]

Originally Posted by Marie5890

I understand that there for many there is a preference for the EF over the OF. Understand that completely.

I do have a question.

Is there ever a thought or an attitude within the community of those who prefer the EF that some how the EF is more efficacious, more powerful, than the OF? That somehow the Lord is more pleased with the EF than the OF? That He accepts it as a more acceptable offering and sacrifice over the OF?

Do those attitudes exists in the EF communities?

I ask this sincerely, not to be provocative.

Thanks.

I think you will find that if someone preferes one over the other that their reasons are that their preference is the one the Lord is more pleased with.

I don't think it would be fair to say that attitude is only in those who prefer the EF.

[floresco]

Originally Posted by Sirach2

While I had no further intention of responding to Floresco's posts, I believe after prayer today that the Lord does not want me to leave the impression that I was posting nonauthoritive information. Therefore, for the sake of those who followed this thread and whom I may have misled by my silence after her taunting challenges, I need to make a final statement.

There is no higher office, other than the Pope himself, than the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of Sacraments. When the Prefect delivers a response in the name of the Church, it is authoritative and official. Please note the opening words in the referenced statement:

You quoted from two different entries in Notitiae - this one, which is indeed authoritative and an editorial which is a non-authoritative opinion of an individual. I accept and whole-heartedly agree with the official statement from the Prefect of the CDW. It, however says nothing about versus populum being the preferred position. It is an answer to the question of whether ad orientem has been forbidden. The answer is no. You have quoted from some of the explanation behind this ruling.

The editorial is the article whose author thinks that versus populum should be the preferred position. I disagree with him and I am free to do so, as he is not speaking for the Church. I apologize if I have written anything to contribute to the confusion between these two articles.

Originally Posted by Sirach2

Every trick in the book has been devised to negate and undermine an official statement made by the Church. It is authoritative and was signed by the Prefect, then Card. Estevez. There was also an attempt to infer that the Notitiae is merely unofficial commentary ... according to Wikipedia and Fr. Z,, who are seemingly more of an authority than the CDWDS. Yet the red bolded part above states otherwise.
If the Cardinal did NOT intend to reference the Notitiae as part of his response, it would not have been included as basis for his decision and clearly referenced with page numbers in his statement.

Notitiae is a publication which contains both official and unofficial material. There is no controversy around this and it is very easy to ascertain. The Cardinal's response appeared in Notitiae. It was official and nobody questions that. The editorial also appeared there. It is not official and nobody knowledgeable would question that. Being alluded to in an official statement does not make it official. All it means is that the Cardinal agreed with one point made in the editorial.

Originally Posted by Sirach2

These negative slurs on the Church serve only to rupture the unity that should co-exist among our members here and it creates doubts where only truth should serve our faithful. When documents of the highest authority are demeaned as though irrelevant, false, nonauthoritative, purely commentary, etc., it is a sorry day for Catholics.

I am not making negative slurs on the Church. I am saying that you have misunderstood Church teaching. It is precisely because I hold the Church in such esteem that I am concerned to see you misrepresent her teaching.

[floresco]

Originally Posted by Marie5890

I understand that there for many there is a preference for the EF over the OF. Understand that completely.

I do have a question.

Is there ever a thought or an attitude within the community of those who prefer the EF that some how the EF is more efficacious, more powerful, than the OF? That somehow the Lord is more pleased with the EF than the OF? That He accepts it as a more acceptable offering and sacrifice over the OF?

Do those attitudes exists in the EF communities?

I ask this sincerely, not to be provocative.

Thanks.

Yes those attitudes exist. It is likely that anyone expressing those attitudes here will be banned, no matter how sincere your question. If you would like to PM me, I can give you a link to an article on this subject by a priest (in good standing).

[floresco]

Originally Posted by floresco

If I correctly understand the nature of what Cardinal Estevez was writing, he was not speaking in the name of the Church.

This is wrong. I was confusing the article by Cardinal Estevez (which is speaking in the name of the Church and is authoritative) with the non-authoritave editorial in the same publication. My comment applies to the editorial. I apologize for the error and any confusion I may have caused.

[TrueLight]

Originally Posted by floresco

Yes those attitudes exist. It is likely that anyone expressing those attitudes here will be banned, no matter how sincere your question. If you would like to PM me, I can give you a link to an article on this subject by a priest (in good standing).

Yes, that would be called "pitting the EF against the OF".

[Splagchnizomai]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

One may chew gum in church, but if I feel it will divide us like Spanish vs English vs Polish does, I certainly will toss the gum.

Bizarre comparison!

Perhaps the bishops will follow your direction rather than Vatican II? Especially concerning gum chewing, that is.

[choliks]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

I wish I could agree with that but I once attended a Vietnamese wedding thinking it to be Catholic. It was most embarrassing to find out later it was Baptist and on top of it, the bridegroom presented this big tirade against Catholicism. I wish all Catholic services would have just a fair amount of Latin in them; then I wouldn't worry about whether they were Catholic or not.

That's really odd. When my baptist brother-in-law was married, not a single moment of it was identifiably Catholic, except maybe the stole (much to my chagrin) that the minister wore.

What if a liturgical protestant community suddenly adapts Latin in their liturgy? Won't that negate ONE of the reason for using Latin: to make the liturgy distinctly Catholic?

[Deus_lo_vult]

Originally Posted by Cat

I'm so glad that the Mass is in my own dear language! I like being able to understand what's going on. I don't like having to check out a translation on a sheet of paper--that detracts from my ability to concentrate on the Lord Jesus.

In this day and age, when rebellion abounds throughout the world, I don't think that a "language" would stop someone from rebelling against the Church and introducing irregularities into the Mass form. We need to examine and deal with the reasons why there are abuses, and these are not because of the language, but because of the stubbornness, pride, and rebelliousness of the human heart. A foreign language would make it even easier for rebels to introduce an irregularity or variation, because so many of us wouldn't recognize it.

Although the OP certainly has the right to attend which form of the Latin rite that is most edifying to them personally, I think the OP should take care and be diligant not to set themselves up as an authority over the bishops. The Church does not approve of any abuses, but the Church does clearly approve of the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Do any of us have the right to distrust this and sow seeds of distrust and conflict among other believers? How does this look to the non-Catholics, especially non-Catholic Christians?

Last Thursday, our priest's homily was about unity in the Church. He stressed that unity is so important for us to be able to deal with and conquer evil in the world. (Our parish is hosting a Rally against the HHC policy next week, so that's why he was talking about defeating evil in the world.)

Perhaps some Christians believe that the form must be uniform in order for there to be unity in the Church, but this isn't true. There are so many other rites of Catholicism, but we are still one with these Catholics. And although there is separation between Catholics and Protestants and a vast difference between how they worship and how we worship, we still recognize them as Christians by virtue of baptism--there is a unity between all Christians, not because of something we humans do, but because of Jesus Christ baptizing us all into One Spirit.

I hope this post is helpful and encouraging to the OP and others.

I don't presume that I have greater authority than the Bishops. My allegiance is to the Bishops in their totality as a magisterial teaching office. The Bishops, as a BODY, are preserved from doctrinal error, but as individuals they can, and sometimes do, become heretics themselves.

However, that does not negate my cognizance of the humanity of every servant of God. Though the bishops are preserved from error in certain contexts, they are human, and can and do sin against the Church they were appointed to serve. Indeed, St. Thomas Aquinas is careful to note in the Summa that at certain points in the Church's history individual Bishops have lapsed into heresy; consider the great heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism were introduced and adopted by individual Bishops. At certain points it was even left to the laity to lawfully intervene in cases in which the particular Bishop lapsed into heresy. This doesn't mean that the laity can renounce the authority of a Bishop as and when they wish, however, in cases in which individual Bishops teach heresy, it is entirely lawful for the laity to rebuke him. Anyway, I digress.

The recommendations of Vatican II were supposed to provide a vernacular form of the Mass in cases in which there was a popular demand. The Novus Ordo was never intended to completely replace the Tridentine Rite, which it virtually has in most parts of the United States. In most parts of the country the traditional Mass is virtually inaccessible to parishioners and this was done on the orders of individual Bishops who co-opted their instructions from Rome to implement the Ordinary Form in places in which there was a demand from parishioners. This was done with an eye toward "modernizing" celebration of the Mass.

Now the Ordinary Form is imposed on many traditional Catholics who would prefer to worship as their forefathers did. There is something to be said for Tradition, and as a Catholic you ought to know that, with the special honor that is accorded to Tradition in our faith. Our adopting the traditions of the Church Fathers is what bridges the gulfs of time and space between us and the Church Fathers.

Secondly, I also don't presume that there's anything invalid about the Ordinary Form. Indeed, the graces imparted by the sacraments and the Mass are not tempered in any way by the dispositions of those through whom they are administered, eg Bishops, priests.

While I won't go as far as to name names or point fingers, what I do know is that the Ordinary Form has often been the toy of modernists bent on conforming the Church to the world around. This is intuitively evident in the relative scarcity of traditional forms of Catholic worship.

George Weigel wrote a brilliant piece on just how informal the Novus Ordo Mass has become, in part due to what he calls "clerical narcissism."

[Credo in Deum]

Originally Posted by Splagchnizomai

Bizarre comparison!

Perhaps the bishops will follow your direction rather than Vatican II? Especially concerning gum chewing, that is.

Whats funny is Vatican II states that Latin should hold pride of place in the Liturgy and that it shouldn't be removed if at all possible; the same goes with Gregorian Chant.

Now why if Vatican II states this are so many people who are often seen saying "I follow the advice of the Popes" now not following the advice of the Popes?

From what I can see in the state of the Liturgy today is an inch was given to accommodate the faithful but instead of respecting this inch; they took a mile.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by choliks

What if a liturgical protestant community suddenly adapts Latin in their liturgy? Won't that negate ONE of the reason for using Latin: to make the liturgy distinctly Catholic?

Fair point. Latin wouldn't make a liturgy more valid than it is. Or, for that matter, make a US dollar bill Catholic. Cicero wasn't even a Christian; yet we've adopted his moral code into our Western law and even our early Church fathers (St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas et al) were impressed with some of his writings, particularly "De Officiis" ("On Duties.") (It still is an excellent read, by the way.)

But the other way to look at it is this. Take Shakespeare, for example. Its translation into Chinese would still be Shakespeare to someone knowing only Chinese but would he be able to capture the true nuances of the Shakespeare language? Or its sounds or "vibrations" (a very popular term in the 60's)? Of course not, and an oscilloscope would show that the sounds are different.

Same thing with translations of the ancient liturgy, no? Where is the preservation of the Christian Latin nuance? Modern languages simply can't do it. There was a good reason why Trent condemned the vulgar tongue everywhere and Vatican II insisted on preserving Latin.

[TimothyH]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Fair point. Latin wouldn't make a liturgy more valid than it is. Or, for that matter, make a US dollar bill Catholic. Cicero wasn't even a Christian; yet we've adopted his moral code into our Western law and even our early Church fathers (St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas et al) were impressed with some of his writings, particularly "De Officiis" ("On Duties.") (It still is an excellent read, by the way.)

But the other way to look at it is this. Take Shakespeare, for example. Its translation into Chinese would still be Shakespeare to someone knowing only Chinese but would he be able to capture the true nuances of the Shakespeare language? Or its sounds or "vibrations" (a very popular term in the 60's)? Of course not, and an oscilloscope would show that the sounds are different.

Same thing with translations of the ancient liturgy, no? Where is the preservation of the Christian Latin nuance? Modern languages simply can't do it. There was a good reason why Trent condemned the vulgar tongue everywhere and Vatican II insisted on preserving Latin.

Yet the Biblical texts we use at the Mass were written or spoken in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The Psalms were written in Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek.

How is this "Christian nuance" retained when going from Hebrew and Greek to Latin but lost when going from Latin to English.

Or does an oscilliscope render Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin all the same?


-Tim-

[Cat]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Fair point. Latin wouldn't make a liturgy more valid than it is. Or, for that matter, make a US dollar bill Catholic. Cicero wasn't even a Christian; yet we've adopted his moral code into our Western law and even our early Church fathers (St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas et al) were impressed with some of his writings, particularly "De Officiis" ("On Duties.") (It still is an excellent read, by the way.)

But the other way to look at it is this. Take Shakespeare, for example. Its translation into Chinese would still be Shakespeare to someone knowing only Chinese but would he be able to capture the true nuances of the Shakespeare language? Or its sounds or "vibrations" (a very popular term in the 60's)? Of course not, and an oscilloscope would show that the sounds are different.

Same thing with translations of the ancient liturgy, no? Where is the preservation of the Christian Latin nuance? Modern languages simply can't do it. There was a good reason why Trent condemned the vulgar tongue everywhere and Vatican II insisted on preserving Latin.

What I hear you saying is that Latin has something inately "heavenly" or "spiritual" about it, something that other languages do not posses.

Am I interpreting you correctly? Or am I reading something into your post that you don't intend?

If I'm reading you correctly, then I'm really not sure that this is true. It seems like a real stretch to me.

Is there a lot of scholarly work that backs this up?

Is it just spoken Latin that is more "spiritual?" Or does this also apply to written Latin?

And how does this gel with the non-liturgical use of Latin, e.g., in science? Is it wrong the science is using Latin for "profane" purposes?

I can certainly understand that the Church wants Latin in the liturgy preserved for reasons of accuracy of transmitting the faith, and also for honoring tradition. But does the Church really teach that the speaking of Latin is somehow more "sacred" then the speaking of other language?

[Deus_lo_vult]

Originally Posted by TimothyH

Yet the Biblical texts we use at the Mass were written or spoken in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The Psalms were written in Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek.

How is this "Christian nuance" retained when going from Hebrew and Greek to Latin but lost when going from Latin to English.

Or does an oscilliscope render Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin all the same?


-Tim-

Three points:

1. As you know the the Douay Rheims was revised by Bishop Challoner to remove Latin terminology that was simply lost in the translation from Latin to English. You might argue that, although the Douay Rheims is the most accurate English translation, there might have been some meaning or feeling lost as a result.

2. Latin reminds us where we came from, it reminds us to have contempt for many aspects of modernity.

3. Latin was the language (among also Greek and Aramaic to a lesser extent) of the Church Fathers. The more we can emulate their example, the better.