Latin Mass

[ICTHUS]

I understand why, say, in St. Augustine's time, Mass was in Latin - Latin was the [i]lingua franca[/i] of the people. However, why, in the 16th Century (indeed, before) did the Roman Church keep its liturgy in Latin when it knew full well people wouldn't be able to understand it. Remember the Day of Pentecost? The apostles preached in [i]tongues known to the people[/i]. Why should not the modern Church do likewise by conducting its liturgy in a known tongue?

[Guest Aluigi]

Christianity, following the tradition of the Jewish religion that predated it, set aside a language as sacred, one not spoken in the streets but spoken in the Church. I contend that people that went to mass at least once a week as required they would understand what was happening, they would recognize the latin phrases and what they meant even if they didn't speak latin.

[JP2Iloveyou]

I want to make a quick point and then ask a quick question and then go to bed!

First, after being in Italy for a couple of months now and hearing Mass in Italian much more than in English, I have realized how important it is to be able to understand what is going on in Mass, especially the readings and the homily. That being said, I love the Novus Ordo in Latin. I've never been to a Tridentine Mass.

My question is specifically for Catholics who go to the Tridentine Mass that is in union with the Church and for "Catholics" who go to the Tridentine Mass that is not in union with the Church. If you are searching for traditionalism in the liturgy, why are you not Syro-Malabar? That rite has remained virtually unchanged from the way St. Thomas the Apostle set it up nearly 2,000 years ago. The Tridentine Rite only dates from the 1500s. The only reason I ask is because a lot of "traditional" Catholics somehow see us NO people as being "progressive," "liberal," "heretical," and really bad for the Church. The arrogance is really disheartening. So, if you want tradition, why not go to the most traditional rite there is?

[Guest Aluigi]

because we're Roman Rite Catholics. rituals are not judged merely on how historical they are, but on which gives more reverence to God. Edited November 27, 2004 by Aluigi

[Balthazor]

Sometimes it is useful to have ONE language in which to speak.....perhaps the people did not speak latin day to day, but latin provided one clear and univeral language in which the Church could communicate in.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Nov 26 2004, 08:05 PM'] I understand why, say, in St. Augustine's time, Mass was in Latin - Latin was the [i]lingua franca[/i] of the people. However, why, in the 16th Century (indeed, before) did the Roman Church keep its liturgy in Latin when it knew full well people wouldn't be able to understand it. Remember the Day of Pentecost? The apostles preached in [i]tongues known to the people[/i]. Why should not the modern Church do likewise by conducting its liturgy in a known tongue? [/quote]
Without a sacramental view of the Church, you will not understand it.

[quote]That rite has remained virtually unchanged from the way St. Thomas the Apostle set it up nearly 2,000 years ago. The Tridentine Rite only dates from the 1500s.[/quote]

You need to study your liturgical history. If you think the Roman Rite dates only to the 1500's you have much to learn.

[quote]why are you not Syro-Malabar?[/quote]
Because I'm not Indian. I'm a Latin Rite Catholic. I go the Traditional Mass of the Latin Rite as it has been offered (in all it's essentials) for no less than 1600 years.

[cmotherofpirl]

All Masses are the same in the essentials.

[JP2Iloveyou]

thank you cmom. Popestpiusx, the Tridentine Mass was outlined at the Council of Trent, hence the name, Tridentine. Up until that time, different places in the world were doing many different things in the Mass and there was no uniformity, so the Tridentine Rite as it is currently celebrated, licitly by people such as FSSP and illicly by people such as SSPX, dates to the 1500s. I don't care if you go to the Tridentine Rite. It's fine with me. In fact, I would consider asking my bishop, should I be ordained one day, to grant me faculties to celebrate the Tridentine Rite. I'm just very disturbed by the arrogance coming from many people in your movement that the rest of us NO people aren't really Catholic.

[Chanman450]

Did somebody say Latin Mass?
|
|
|
|
|
|
\ /


(Sorry, but I am quite proud of my sig )
BTW, who is SSPX?

Edited November 27, 2004 by Chanman450

[Guest Aluigi]

sspx is the society of st. pius x, left full communion with the Catholic Church.

Catholics can believe a Tridentine Mass has superior rituals so long as the sacramental aspects are all deemed equal. for instance, a confession with a priest who gives you a lot of advice on how to avoid the sin in the future can be deemed superior to a confession where the preist simply hears your sins and absolves you, but both absolutions are equal. Likewise, a Novus Ordo Missae with an insightful intriguing and interesting sermon that is completely faithful to Church Teaching can be deemed superior to a Novus Ordo Missae with a boring irrelevant sermon. I believe a Tridentine Mass is superior in rituals to a Novus Ordo Mass, both consecrations are equal, the sacrament is equal, but I am free to believe and assert that the rituals are better (unless you can show me Church teaching that says Novus Ordo rituals are superior and/or equal to Tridentine Rituals) but must admit both as valid and equal sacramentally. We are not allowed to debate that topic, but I must insist insist insist that one who believes the Tridentine Mass to be superior is not in need of correction according to Catholic Teaching. A Catholic may even go so far as to believe the Tridentine Mass ought to be restored and the Novus Ordo abolished if he so think. They are only in need of correction if they say the Novus Ordo is invalid or that the Tridentine Mass ought to be celebrated outside of the communion of their bishop and the bishop of Rome.

the Tridentine Mass existed before the 1500's, however in the 1500s it was made uniform to the whole west. it was already predominant, though having some variations that Quo Primum put a stop to through uniformity. rites more than 200 years old were kept, but the minimum number of those rites should be indication enough alone that the tridentine rite was predominate even before Quo Primum.

[cmotherofpirl]

Al its not the belief itself, but the arrogance that goes along with it that is the problem.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 27 2004, 08:29 AM'] Al its not the belief itself, but the arrogance that goes along with it that is the problem. [/quote]
YES!!! It's the arrogance that is difficult for me to overcome in even considering attending another Latin mass... While I realize that it is my hurdle to overcome someone else's arrogance, lifting the hurdle doesn't make it any easier...

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 27 2004, 02:33 AM'] All Masses are the same in the essentials. [/quote]
Let me clarify then. There is that which is intrinsic to the Mass itself (essential for validity). This is what you are referring to and on that level I do not disagree.
There is also that which is essential to the ritual, which, if changed or removed, creates a new ritual. It is on this level that I am referring when I say that the Traditional Latin Mass was essentially the same for no less than 1600 years. I actually wrote an article on this topic but I don't think I'll post it here.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Nov 27 2004, 09:53 AM'] YES!!! It's the arrogance that is difficult for me to overcome in even considering attending another Latin mass... While I realize that it is my hurdle to overcome someone else's arrogance, lifting the hurdle doesn't make it any easier... [/quote]
I have found the same arogance among Novus Ordo Catholics who tend to look at Traditionalists like myself as un-enlightened dinosaurs, stuck in the dark ages of Catholicism. Would it be legitimate if I judged the N.O. based on the arrogance of those that attemd it? Of course not. All things stand or fall on their own merit.

[cmotherofpirl]

All Masses follow the same basic format, so it depends on what you define as esential to the ritual.

You can send it to me to read.

Edited November 27, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Chanman450' date='Nov 27 2004, 03:18 AM'] Did somebody say Latin Mass?
|
|
|
|
|
|
\ /


(Sorry, but I am quite proud of my sig )
BTW, who is SSPX? [/quote]
Where is your sig from?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Nov 26 2004, 05:05 PM'] I understand why, say, in St. Augustine's time, Mass was in Latin - Latin was the [i]lingua franca[/i] of the people. However, why, in the 16th Century (indeed, before) did the Roman Church keep its liturgy in Latin when it knew full well people wouldn't be able to understand it. Remember the Day of Pentecost? The apostles preached in [i]tongues known to the people[/i]. Why should not the modern Church do likewise by conducting its liturgy in a known tongue? [/quote]
The use of the Latin language in the Roman rite at the time of the Reformation was simply a custom, and one which the Church could dispense with if she wanted to, but the Fathers of Trent, for whatever reason, decided not to do that and their judgment was binding at that time. Since the Second Vatican Council the use of the vernacular in the Roman Rite, and in all the Eastern Rites in communion with Rome, has been permitted by the Magisterium and this judgment is binding except in those cases determined by particular law (e.g., the indult Mass). It should also be borne in mind that the Roman Rite liturgy celebrated according to the Missal issued by Pope Paul VI may be celebrated in the Latin language at any time without any dispensations needing to be granted.

God bless,
Todd

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 27 2004, 12:41 PM'] I have found the same arogance among Novus Ordo Catholics who tend to look at Traditionalists like myself as un-enlightened dinosaurs, stuck in the dark ages of Catholicism. Would it be legitimate if I judged the N.O. based on the arrogance of those that attemd it? Of course not. All things stand or fall on their own merit. [/quote]
Hey, I said it was my hang up. I don't have a problem with Latin or the Traditional mass... I'm not judging the mass or even those who attend it. To each his own...

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Nov 27 2004, 03:46 PM'] Since the Second Vatican Council the use of the vernacular in the Roman Rite, and in all the Eastern Rites in communion with Rome, has been permitted by the Magisterium and this judgment is binding except in those cases determined by particular law (e.g., the indult Mass). [/quote]
This statement doesn't make sense in light of the following:


[quote]It should also be borne in mind that the Roman Rite liturgy celebrated according to the Missal issued by Pope Paul VI may be celebrated in the Latin language at any time without any dispensations needing to be granted.[/quote]


What I don't understand is how the decision to permit the vernacular is binding when, as you said, it is just that: permitted (not required) and to use the Latin requires no special permission? What exactly is binding?

Edited November 27, 2004 by popestpiusx

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 27 2004, 02:06 PM'][quote name='Apotheoun' date='Nov 27 2004, 03:46 PM']Since the Second Vatican Council the use of the vernacular in the Roman Rite, and in all the Eastern Rites in communion with Rome, has been permitted by the Magisterium and this judgment is binding except in those cases determined by particular law (e.g., the indult Mass).[/quote]
This statement doesn't make sense in light of the following:

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Nov 27 2004, 03:46 PM']It should also be borne in mind that the Roman Rite liturgy celebrated according to the Missal issued by Pope Paul VI may be celebrated in the Latin language at any time without any dispensations needing to be granted.[/quote][/quote]
The statement makes perfect sense, because since the close of the Second Vatican Council the Magisterium has permitted the use of vernacular languages in the celebration of the Mass. The latin editio typica tertia of the Roman Missal of Paul VI is the normative text for the celebration of the Mass in the Roman Rite and all the various vernacular translations must be based upon it, and moreover, the vernacular translations must receive the [i]recognitio[/i] of the Holy See or they cannot be used at all. [cf. [u]Code of Canon Law[/u], Canon 838 §1, §2 and §3] Now when the Vatican gives its [i]recognitio[/i] to a vernacular translation of the Mass, it follows that it also gives binding force of law to the particular translations in question empowering them for use in the Church or Churches requesting that approval. In other words, by giving its [i]recognitio[/i] to the vernacular translations of the Mass, the Vatican has approved and confirmed as binding, the use of those vernacular translations for the celebration of the liturgy for the region indicated, but the approval of the various vernacular translations does not negate the right of priests to celebrate Mass using the latin editio typica tertia of the Roman Missal of Paul VI as approved and promulgated by Pope John Paul II.

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 27 2004, 02:06 PM']What I don't understand is how the decision to permit the vernacular is binding when, as you said, it is just that: permitted (not required) and to use the Latin requires no special permission?  What exactly is binding?[/quote]
It is binding because the Holy See has confirmed and approved the various vernacular translations giving them binding force in law within the particular Churches concerned. The use of the latin editio typica tertia of the Roman Missal of Paul VI requires no special permission because, as I indicated above, it is the official text from which all the vernacular translations must be made. Thus, it is the normative text for the Mass of the Roman Rite, but the vernacular translations are binding, albeit not in an exclusive sense, but only in the sense that no other vernacular text may be used in the region for which they are approved.

God bless,
Todd