Argument over the use of Latin
#21
(06-11-2017, 06:34 AM)MichaelNZ Wrote:
(06-10-2017, 05:23 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote:
(06-10-2017, 04:07 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: My mind has changed a lot on this over the years. I am more in favor of the vernacular than I used to be, but I still think Latin has its place. I think arguments about "universality" or some intrinsic sacrality in Latin are dubious at best and border on magical thinking. His comment about Eastern Catholics puts the lie to the "universality" claim - indeed, Latin is not part of their patrimony at all.

So how to argue for Latin? I think the biggest single argument in favor of Latin is Church music. Whatever the utility of the vernacular, and I do believe there is quite a bit, it is apparent to anyone with sense that there has been ZERO ecclesiastical music produced in the vernaculars that even approaches the sublimity of Gregorian chant. Even if I am exaggerating (and I'm sure I am), 50 years of new compositions simply cannot compete with centuries of sacred music. One weakness of this argument is primarily that in arguing for traditional music we're talking about sung or high Masses, not low Masses, which is what a lot of people attend, and they often have vernacular hymns anyway. But I do think the utter dearth of lasting service music in the vernaculars is a major point in favor of Latin.

The Latin Church makes up most of the Church, so would it not be more uniform for the Roman Rite to be celebrated in Latin, rather than the vernacular? It's true that Eastern Catholics generally opt to use the vernacular, but just cuz the Eastern Catholics do it doesn't mean Western Catholicism should assimilate to Eastern ideas. The Eastern Catholics use leavened bread, should we not also use leavened bread? There's no reason to discard lowercase t tradition (and our use of unleavened bread for example); the same is true with Latin. You're right that there's no intrinsic sacrality to Latin. But I do think it adds a sense of holyness and dignity to the liturgy compared to mundane use of the vernacular. Although I agree with you in regards to Church music.

That said I'm not vehemently opposed to the use of the vernacular either. Most of the Masses I attend are English OF Masses, and I find that they still are reverent, even with common trad objections such as EMHCs. I think it's prudentially unwise to replace Latin totally with the vernacular, nonetheless the vernacular is not bad in and of itself.

How many Eastern Rite churches use the vernacular for the service (not the sermon)? I thought that most Byzantine Rite churches would use Slavonic or Byzantine Greek, the Coptic church uses Coptic and Greek (possibly with some vernacular Arabic), the Ethiopian church uses Ge'ez, the Maronite church uses Syriac, as does the Chaldean church. I do know the Syro-Malabar church in Christchurch uses Malayalam, but I don't know if it's the vernacular or an older form of the language.

Most of the Eastern Catholics, not just the Byzantine Rite, use the vernacular to a decent degree. The historic liturgical language may be used in certain prayers, but most make use of the vernacular.
Reply
#22
The death of Our Lord was the first mass ( offering up the body blood soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ ) since then the church honored the mass by vestments adding to the calendar, the missal, the prayers , the sermons the alter boys. Everything was a step forward. Taking the church back to a common language , taking out prayers to shorten no Gregorian chant no high mass and making the whole mass seem less formal is a step backwards . I have never attended and Novus Ordo mass that even compares. However it is still the sacrifice of  Jesus so I will still receive communion kneeling down on the toungue by the priest as was always the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#23
(06-11-2017, 01:09 PM)birdy_b_sweet Wrote: The death of Our Lord was the first mass ( offering up the body blood soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ ) since then the church honored the mass by vestments adding to the calendar, the missal, the prayers , the sermons the alter boys. Everything was a step forward. Taking the church back to a common language , taking out prayers to shorten no Gregorian chant no high mass and making the whole mass seem less formal is a step backwards . I have never attended and Novus Ordo mass that even compares. However it is still the sacrifice of  Jesus so I will still receive communion kneeling down on the toungue by the priest as was always the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice of the cross since the Victim and principal Priest (Jesus Christ) are the same in each, but the Sacrifice of the Cross was not the first Mass. As the Baltimore Catechism says:
Quote:362. Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass?
The manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the cross Christ physically shed His blood and was physically slain, while in the Mass there is no physical shedding of blood nor physical death, because Christ can die no more; on the cross Christ gained merit and satisfied for us, while in the Mass He applies to us the merits and satisfaction of His death on the cross.

For we know that Christ, having risen from the dead, dies now no more, death shall no longer have dominion over him. (Romans 6:9)

And also:
Quote:365. Who said the first Mass?
Our Divine Savior said the first Mass, at the Last Supper, the night before He died.



Reply
#24
For me (one clueless Catholic with no theological training)

when I heard Fr. Amorth, former chief exorcist of the Vatican, state that satan hates Latin, and that when he speaks Latin to satan, satan responds in Italian, I knew the importance of retaining Latin.

Anything that satan hates I LIKE!  :P
Reply
#25
Question:  Was the "Latin Mass" ever officially banned?

Why was a moto proprio necessary for the FSSP to say the Traditional Mass?
Reply
#26
(06-12-2017, 04:24 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Question:  Was the "Latin Mass" ever officially banned?

Why was a moto proprio necessary for the FSSP to say the Traditional Mass?
1. No.

2. It wasn't necessary, per se, as far as I know, but it freed up a lot of priests to say the TLM who would have otherwise been forbidden to by their very misguided bishops.
Reply
#27
(06-11-2017, 01:09 PM)birdy_b_sweet Wrote: I have never attended and Novus Ordo mass that even compares. However it is still the sacrifice of  Jesus so I will still receive communion kneeling down on the toungue by the priest as was always the way.

Not to be nitpicky but that wasn't always the way. People used to receive standing and in the hand in the Latin church, people still receive standing and by intinction in orthodox and eastern Catholic churches. Of course I still personally believe kneeling and on the tongue to be superior to the common NO practice.

Reply
#28
(06-12-2017, 03:27 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: For me (one clueless Catholic with no theological training)

when I heard Fr. Amorth, former chief exorcist of the Vatican, state that satan hates Latin, and that when he speaks Latin to satan, satan responds in Italian, I knew the importance of retaining Latin.

Anything that satan hates I LIKE!  :P

Don't let Vox hear you say that, lol. :P
Reply
#29
You are arguing past one another. The person you are arguing with is making an argument which states that it is permissible to use the vernacular; you are making the argument that, while permissible, it is less preferable to use the vernacular. You should point out to the person you are arguing with that you acknowledge the authority of the Holy See and of the local Ordinary to state their preference for the Vernacular being used in liturgical actions, but that you disagree with the decision and think it would be better (but not any more or less licit or valid) to use Latin wherever possible.
Reply
#30
(06-12-2017, 09:42 AM)Dominicus Wrote:
(06-11-2017, 01:09 PM)birdy_b_sweet Wrote: I have never attended and Novus Ordo mass that even compares. However it is still the sacrifice of  Jesus so I will still receive communion kneeling down on the toungue by the priest as was always the way.

Not to be nitpicky but that wasn't always the way. People used to receive standing and in the hand in the Latin church, people still receive standing and by intinction in orthodox and eastern Catholic churches. Of course I still personally believe kneeling and on the tongue to be superior to the common NO practice.

Holy Communion was received in the palm of the hand in the early Church, but the distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more restricted from the time of the Church Fathers in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. As it says on the Vatican's website: "The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist." It became the norm in the Latin Church to receive Communion kneeling as well.

To receive the Eucharist in Eastern churches I believe the communicant must stand in a line, arms crossed and wait for the priest to use that spoon-like instrument to dispense a Blood soaked leavened Host into the mouth of the communicant. In the Western Church, however, kneeling has been the prevailing sign of adoration and humility for centuries.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)