Pope Francis: Regain a Sense of the Sacred
#21
(02-10-2014, 03:53 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: He says the right things sometimes. Now's the time for him to demand a restoration of a sense of the sacred. TLM everywhere, in all parishes, sacred music, sacred art, sacred architecture, Catholic devotions, sound teaching, emphasizing conversion of the heart, focusing on acts of charity and evangelizing. These are what are needed.

The TLM has been made available worldwide to those who want it and request it, but it seems like many who want it already have it in groups like SSPX and Sede Vacante sects. I would like to see SSPX be a movement within the Church to implement the TLM in dioceses across the world. Though I doubt the willl be in full communion with the Church anytime soon. But also, I do not think it's a good idea to to do away with the Novus Ordo mass, but rather to transform the average N.O. liturgy into a more reverent mass. Not everyone wants to use a Latin missal, or to have the liturgy 100% in Latin, and that is okay, as even Pius XII supported the idea of increasing the use of the vernacular

I have been to beautiful and reverent N.O. masses, thus I think the pope's words get to the heart of the matter, which is to regain a sense of the sacredness when receiving the Eucharist, regardless if one is receiving communion in a beautiful cathedral at the TLM or not.  But some things that I've seen at some N.O. parishes which has made a huge difference, is a return of the use of the altar rail to receive the host, and a change to sacred music.
Reply
#22
(02-10-2014, 10:16 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: Three words:

Beach ball -- altar.

Surely somebody HAD to say it.
After his arrival at Ciampino airport, the Holy Father chose to stop at the Basilica of Saint Mary Major to offer a brief prayer to the Blessed Virgin for World Youth Day.  Seeing the Pope as he entered the Basilica, a group of young people approached him and offered him a T-shirt and a ball. Pope Francis later offered the gifts to the Madonna.
Reply
#23
(02-10-2014, 06:36 PM)Heorot Wrote: I believe the Eastern Rites have always celebrated in languages vernacular, or close to vernacular. Would we say that they are not so reverent in their glorious rites? I know we're Roman-rite Catholics, but it seems somewhat strange to me to focus entirely on the Latin rite as if it's the be-all, end-all.

With regards to change vs. tradition (i.e. banality vs. reverence), Gregory the Great removed the Great Litany from the Mass and replaced it with the 9-fold Kyrie. We don't consider him an irreverent liberal, even though that was a gigantic change to make.

Anyway, good thoughts. :)

The Eastern Churches are very particular, very tied to geography. The Roman Church, the "mission Church," has to deal with people all over the world who speak hundreds of different languages. Latin allowed us all to worship as One. A man from China and a man from Africa could meet up in a Church in Detroit and attend the same Mass they'd have attended back home.

There's also the problems that arise from clerics no longer speaking Latin. How are they supposed to get on with the business of Conclaves and Councils of they can't understand each other?

I agree with those who've posted that Latin allows for a sense of Mystery that the vernacular doesn't. It's what we in the Roman Church have done for two thousand years, and changing it was a hideous mistake that's opened the liturgy up to linguistic problems that lead to problems in transmitting the Faith. Political correctness, evolving languages (e.g., "gay" no longer means "happy" in English any longer) --- all the endless discussions about this stuff could've been obviated if they'd left well enough alone -- and by "well enough," I mean a Mass that served countless saints (and Saints) in the Church for two millennia. Hearing Latin at Mass evokes eons and ancestors and gives people a sense of being firmly rooted in History.

Getting rid of Latin has been a stupid, tragic mistake. It opened the door to playing with the liturgy in terms of language, which leads to playing with it in other ways, which, in the end, gives us this:


Latin is our heritage, keeps us unified, eliminates the problems of changing languages and political correctness, allows clerics to get on with the Church's business, is more beautiful, is ancient, and screams "Mystery." No good at all has come from using the vernacular.

Reply
#24
Th Bishops have been the greatest opposition to the TLM everywhere. They refuse to let it grow.

tim
Reply
#25
(02-10-2014, 06:36 PM)Heorot Wrote: I believe the Eastern Rites have always celebrated in languages vernacular, or close to vernacular.

The Greeks pray in Koine, the ancient form of Greek. It's no different than being Italian/Spanish/French/etc. and being able to understand bits and pieces of Latin. The Slavs use Church Slavonic which is an entire study in itself. The Old Testament Jews also worshiped in Hebrew even though it stopped being their vulgar tongue. The Muslims worship in 8th century Arabic, completely alien to the various Arabic languages.

The future saint John XXIII said it perfectly, as someone just quoted:

Quote:Immutable

Furthermore, the Church's language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority.

[Comment: Many protestant sects and heresies have been created solely because of the evolution of the English language (e.g. Pentecostals "speaking in tongues")]

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure ... of incomparable worth."11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church's teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

The majority of Amero-Rhine bishops are anti-progressive establishment types. Most of them are baby boomers aka "Generation Pride and Selfishness". They're like the Obama's or the Clinton's in the Church, the people that rebelled in their youth are now running things. They may have power but they don't have vocations, more and more young priests are wearing cassocks, by 2025 the JPII/Ratzinger era priests will be in positions of power and some sanity sanctity will return in those countries/dioceses that suffered after the council. The children of culture Catholics are apostatizing (i.e they're not even baptizing their children let alone going to Church twice a year). Guess who's gonna be left in 2025? The people who bow instead of shaking hands, the people who take communion on the tongue, the people who say Holy "Ghost" instead of Holy "Spirit", the people who start fundraisers for rebuilding altar rails at their diocesan Cathedral, the people who bring back the tabernacle to the middle of the altar during Church renovations, the people demanding Latin, the people with pigmentation in their hair!

This video sums it up perfectly:


The only OF parishes we have left are those that are dieing/aging and those that are getting more traditional/conservative. The Church will be radically different in 10 to 15 years once Generation Pride dies out. The only problem is that we're going to have a huge "culture war" within the Church during this papacy that will bring out this change. We have a powerful faction in one corner, which is being driven to desperation because it's literally dieing. In the other corner we have a powerless but empowered youth (and some oldies) who've seen all their friends/family apostatize and are getting reactionary. World War Vatican II: The Vulgars vs The Latins. Next stop: Liturgical Stalingrad.




Reply
#26
(02-10-2014, 10:42 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(02-10-2014, 06:36 PM)Heorot Wrote: I believe the Eastern Rites have always celebrated in languages vernacular, or close to vernacular. Would we say that they are not so reverent in their glorious rites? I know we're Roman-rite Catholics, but it seems somewhat strange to me to focus entirely on the Latin rite as if it's the be-all, end-all.

With regards to change vs. tradition (i.e. banality vs. reverence), Gregory the Great removed the Great Litany from the Mass and replaced it with the 9-fold Kyrie. We don't consider him an irreverent liberal, even though that was a gigantic change to make.

Anyway, good thoughts. :)

The Eastern Churches are very particular, very tied to geography. The Roman Church, the "mission Church," has to deal with people all over the world who speak hundreds of different languages. Latin allowed us all to worship as One. A man from China and a man from Africa could meet up in a Church in Detroit and attend the same Mass they'd have attended back home.

There's also the problems that arise from clerics no longer speaking Latin. How are they supposed to get on with the business of Conclaves and Councils of they can't understand each other?

I agree with those who've posted that Latin allows for a sense of Mystery that the vernacular doesn't. It's what we in the Roman Church have done for two thousand years, and changing it was a hideous mistake that's opened the liturgy up to linguistic problems that lead to problems in transmitting the Faith. Political correctness, evolving languages (e.g., "gay" no longer means "happy" in English any longer) --- all the endless discussions about this stuff could've been obviated if they'd left well enough alone -- and by "well enough," I mean a Mass that served countless saints (and Saints) in the Church for two millennia. Hearing Latin at Mass evokes eons and ancestors and gives people a sense of being firmly rooted in History.

Getting rid of Latin has been a stupid, tragic mistake. It opened the door to playing with the liturgy in terms of language, which leads to playing with it in other ways, which, in the end, gives us this:


Latin is our heritage, keeps us unified, eliminates the problems of changing languages and political correctness, allows clerics to get on with the Church's business, is more beautiful, is ancient, and screams "Mystery." No good at all has come from using the vernacular.


So, because 0.01% of the people may travel to another place and not understand the Liturgy as it is spoke, the other 99.99% of the people shouldn’t understand the language either ??? 

Slavonic was invented by Cyril and Methodius specifically to convert the Slavic peoples and so they understood the liturgy.  It worked so well they converted almost the entire Slavic peoples without an issue.  They did so because the Koine Greek was not effective.  So, in this day in age, how exactly is Latin going to convert the masses?
Reply
#27
(02-11-2014, 01:38 PM)AxxeArp Wrote:
(02-10-2014, 10:42 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(02-10-2014, 06:36 PM)Heorot Wrote: I believe the Eastern Rites have always celebrated in languages vernacular, or close to vernacular. Would we say that they are not so reverent in their glorious rites? I know we're Roman-rite Catholics, but it seems somewhat strange to me to focus entirely on the Latin rite as if it's the be-all, end-all.

With regards to change vs. tradition (i.e. banality vs. reverence), Gregory the Great removed the Great Litany from the Mass and replaced it with the 9-fold Kyrie. We don't consider him an irreverent liberal, even though that was a gigantic change to make.

Anyway, good thoughts. :)

The Eastern Churches are very particular, very tied to geography. The Roman Church, the "mission Church," has to deal with people all over the world who speak hundreds of different languages. Latin allowed us all to worship as One. A man from China and a man from Africa could meet up in a Church in Detroit and attend the same Mass they'd have attended back home.

There's also the problems that arise from clerics no longer speaking Latin. How are they supposed to get on with the business of Conclaves and Councils of they can't understand each other?

I agree with those who've posted that Latin allows for a sense of Mystery that the vernacular doesn't. It's what we in the Roman Church have done for two thousand years, and changing it was a hideous mistake that's opened the liturgy up to linguistic problems that lead to problems in transmitting the Faith. Political correctness, evolving languages (e.g., "gay" no longer means "happy" in English any longer) --- all the endless discussions about this stuff could've been obviated if they'd left well enough alone -- and by "well enough," I mean a Mass that served countless saints (and Saints) in the Church for two millennia. Hearing Latin at Mass evokes eons and ancestors and gives people a sense of being firmly rooted in History.

Getting rid of Latin has been a stupid, tragic mistake. It opened the door to playing with the liturgy in terms of language, which leads to playing with it in other ways, which, in the end, gives us this:


Latin is our heritage, keeps us unified, eliminates the problems of changing languages and political correctness, allows clerics to get on with the Church's business, is more beautiful, is ancient, and screams "Mystery." No good at all has come from using the vernacular.


So, because 0.01% of the people may travel to another place and not understand the Liturgy as it is spoke, the other 99.99% of the people shouldn’t understand the language either ??? 

Slavonic was invented by Cyril and Methodius specifically to convert the Slavic peoples and so they understood the liturgy.  It worked so well they converted almost the entire Slavic peoples without an issue.  They did so because the Koine Greek was not effective.  So, in this day in age, how exactly is Latin going to convert the masses?

Hand missals.

----
For one, the banality of the vernacular and the problem of "relevant" translations is an issue.

People converted all the time before with no issue as concerns Latin. What you see now is division in the Body. Vietnamese to the Vietnamese Mass; Haitians to the Creole; Hispanics to the Spanish; etc.

It's a xenophobe's liturgical wet dream.

Reply
#28
Sorry if I came across as contrary... I pray the Latin hymns proper to each hour of the Liturgy of the Hours, and find that they always have clearer doctrine and greater poetic beauty than pretty much every vernacular hymn.

One thing that seems peculiar to me is the emphasis on Latin as unifying and somehow inherently sacred. Was there a "Latin Mass" in Rome before AD 180? If the Titulus above our Lord's holy cross consecrated three languages as holy, why are Greek and Hebrew only used once or twice, each, in the Mass? By this logic, it ought always to 1/3 each.

As for unity: if the Latin Mass kept us in such good order as opposed to the nationalist Eastern Churches, why did the spirit of Vatican II even take hold in the West? I mean, if Latin is so gloriously, infallibly sanctioned by Heaven forever, it has to have taken a pretty tremendous evil to have debased what is basically the highest form of worship in the Cosmos. If evil is that powerful, truly Dualism and Manichaeism have a chance, do they not? I don't believe that ... I'm just saying... :)
Reply
#29
I'll add two points to this conversation.

First, Latin is the official Language of the Latin Rite, that is even emphasized in the SC. Moreso the SC provides a convenient loophole for AxxeArp's point. Unfortunately this loophole been abused.

". 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...um_en.html

Second, I used to travel to Bangalore, India for work, Something we Westerners may not see as clearly as other folks is the need for a number of vernacular masses required for other countries. For example, take a look at the Mass Schedule for the Basilica where I attended Mass while in Bangalore.

http://www.stmarysbasilica.in/mass.htm

In fact, take it one step further and looks at all the Languages required for the Archdiocese of Bagalore

http://www.bangalorearchdiocese.com/?q=Mass_Timings1

Sure looks like it might be much more unifying and foster a more Catholic identity if there were a couple of Latin Masses rather than a bunch of masses in a bunch of languages....

After spending time there I can certainly say the priests and parish staffs time would be much better spent dealing with few Latin Masses during the week and tending to the mass [pun intended] of starving homeless people just outside the Church grounds...
Reply
#30
Wow, it's Babel all over again. Never mind vernacular, then. Latin is the way to go.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)