Vincent Vega Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' post='1903301' date='Jun 28 2009, 12:29 AM']God doesn't create languages Res, they come about through intellectual evolution and the neccesity of our ancestors to express themselves. From there they adapt to their particular cultural and historical environment.[/quote] This. I tried to think of something to respond to that quote, but couldn't think of anything. Props on the wording.
Resurrexi Posted June 28, 2009 Author Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) [quote name='OraProMe' post='1903301' date='Jun 27 2009, 11:29 PM']God doesn't create languages Res, they come about through intellectual evolution and the neccesity of our ancestors to express themselves. From their they adapt to their particular cultural and historical environment.[/quote] When did I ever say that certain languages are holy in and of themselves? I believe that Latin, Greek, and Hebrew are holy because those were the languages on the titulus that was hung over our Lord's head while he suffered for our salvation. I hold that Coptic, Ge'ez, Syraic, etc. are sacred because they have been set aside by the Church for liturgical use. Edited June 28, 2009 by Resurrexi
kafka Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1903289' date='Jun 28 2009, 12:22 AM']In Hebrew the word holy means "set aside." Certain languages are set aside for use in the celebration of the Mass and the administration of the Sacraments. The fact that they are set aside by the Church is what makes them holy.[/quote] the Church doesnt have the authority to set aside a language for the celebration of the Liturgy. There is no command from God to do this, and there is no ritual or example of this anywhere in Scripture that I am aware. Plus language is not an 'object' which can be made holy. It is a symbol. For example Scripture is Sacred because of the truths infallibly and inerrantly being expressed by God. The language used by God is not sacred in itself (strictly speaking). Plus the Church has grown and evolved She has used many languages for the celebration of the liturgy. I guess I have to study this more, but those are some of my seminal thoughts about this matter. I get the sense that the rad-trads tend to over-exalt the Latin language. Edited June 28, 2009 by kafka
OraProMe Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1903304' date='Jun 27 2009, 11:31 PM']When did I ever say that certain languages are holy in and of themselves? I believe that Latin, Greek, and Hebrew are holy because those were the languages on the titulus that was hung over our Lord's head while he suffered for our salvation. I hold that Coptic, Ge'ez, Syraic, etc. are sacred because they have been set aside by the Church for liturgical use.[/quote] I was replying to you saying: I also agree with Pope John VIII that God "created the three principal languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin." Also, I read this post before you changed created to holy, you little sneak >>
Resurrexi Posted June 28, 2009 Author Posted June 28, 2009 [quote name='kafka' post='1903309' date='Jun 27 2009, 11:34 PM']the Church doesnt have the authority to set aside a language for the celebration of the Liturgy. There is no command from God to do this, and there is no ritual or example of this anywhere in Scripture that I am aware. Plus language is not an 'object' which can be made holy. It is a symbol. For example Scripture is Sacred because of the truths infallibly and inerrantly being expressed by God. The language used by God is not sacred in itself. Plus the Church has grown and evolved She has used many languages for the celebration of the liturgy. I guess I have to study this more, but those are some of my seminal thoughts about this matter. I get the sense that the rad-trads tend to over-exalt the Latin language.[/quote] The Church certainly has the authority to set aside a language for the liturgy. For centuries, the Latin Church used exclusively Latin. During the time before the Old Covenant was fulfilled, did not the the People of God use Hebrew for their liturgical services, even after Hebrew was no longer the vernacular?
Resurrexi Posted June 28, 2009 Author Posted June 28, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' post='1903310' date='Jun 27 2009, 11:34 PM']I was replying to you saying: I also agree with Pope John VIII that God "created the three principal languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin." Also, I read this post before you changed created to holy, you little sneak >>[/quote] God guides the activity of all creation by His Providence. I think it can be correctly stated that God created Hebrew, Greek, and Latin in the sense that he guided their evolution.
OraProMe Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 So by that logic are you implying that he guided only the evolution of those three languages but not the rest? Why those three? Nahhhhhhh man. PS. From ages ago, you said you'd want the Roman Canon at the OF Mass. Me too. The "I confess" too. I'm not sure what the rules are in America but over here the priests can replace it with their own little creation. Horrible. I just wish all the options in the Novus Ordo would be taken away.
kafka Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1903316' date='Jun 28 2009, 12:38 AM']The Church certainly has the authority to set aside a language for the liturgy. For centuries, the Latin Church used exclusively Latin. During the time before the Old Covenant was fulfilled, did not the the People of God use Hebrew for their liturgical services, even after Hebrew was no longer the vernacular?[/quote] I erred a bit, She has the temporal authority to decide what languages are to be used for the Liturgy. Now the way you are wording it is more all encompassing, as if the whole language is made holy because the Church uses it in the liturgy. In any case you see the points I am trying to make. And using your logic, the English language is holy since the Church in the U.S. and England and Australia uses it for her liturgy.
Resurrexi Posted June 28, 2009 Author Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) [quote name='OraProMe' post='1903321' date='Jun 27 2009, 11:42 PM']So by that logic are you implying that he guided only the evolution of those three languages but not the rest? Why those three?[/quote] What I am saying is that God guided the evolution of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin in order to make them what Pope John VIII would call the "principal languages." God decided by His Providence that these would be the most important languages in 1st Century Palestine and thus the languages on the titulus of His Cross. Because of this close association with our Lord's passion and death, I hold them to be the principle languages of the human race. [quote name='OraProMe' post='1903321' date='Jun 27 2009, 11:42 PM']PS. From ages ago, you said you'd want the Roman Canon at the OF Mass. Me too. The "I confess" too. I'm not sure what the rules are in America but over here the priests can replace it with their own little creation. Horrible. I just wish all the options in the Novus Ordo would be taken away.[/quote] I wish the OF were abrogated and replaced with the EF. [quote name='kafka' post='1903323' date='Jun 27 2009, 11:42 PM']I erred a bit, She has the temporal authority to decide what languages are to be used for the Liturgy. Now the way you are wording it is more all encompassing, as if the whole language is made holy because the Church uses it in the liturgy.[/quote] I think the Church's understanding that her liturgical languages are holier than others in a certain since was displayed by her marriage rites for centuries. To show her disapproval of mixed marriages, the Church did not permit the use of her liturgical language, Latin. Only the vernacular could be used in the celebration of a mixed marriage. [quote name='kafka' post='1903323' date='Jun 27 2009, 11:42 PM']In any case you see the points I am trying to make. And using your logic, the English language is holy since the Church in the U.S. and England and Australia uses it for her liturgy.[/quote] I would say that English is not holier than any other language since it was not the language in which the official edition of the[i] Missale Romanum[/i] was promulgated. Edited June 28, 2009 by Resurrexi
OraProMe Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) Ahhh Res, You shouldn't follow so blindly. One day you're going to come to a crisis or and no amount of ecclesial documentation will help you. I really hope as you mature your faith does too. Edited June 28, 2009 by OraProMe
Resurrexi Posted June 28, 2009 Author Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) [quote name='OraProMe' post='1903360' date='Jun 28 2009, 12:08 AM']Ahhh Res, You shouldn't follow so blindly. One day you're going to come to a crisis or and no amount of ecclesial documentation will help you. I really hope as you mature your faith does too. [/quote] I have asked this question before, but I will ask it again. How are we to understand Catholicism if not by the teachings of the Magisterium? Edited June 28, 2009 by Resurrexi
jeffpugh Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 [quote name='kafka' post='1903082' date='Jun 27 2009, 09:11 PM']weak argument. Sounds more like an excuse to me in favor of your preference. I would even wager that if the EF had the sort of diversity of readings of the OF back to the Council of Trent, you would think it fitting and perfectly sensible. I served at the EF everyday for about five straight years, and I decided that the repetitiveness was absurd only after I started attending OF daily. Plus in the OF each day there is a little theme or nuance of the Faith, and it even spills into the Office prayers. It is edifying for the Faithful to be exposed to more Sacred Scripture than less.[/quote] I agree with the variance on the OF. I've been pleasantly surprised about the relation with the OF office and sacred liturgy in all their respective propers. [quote name='Church Punk' post='1903205' date='Jun 27 2009, 10:59 PM']Hands down Extraordinary, I like genuflecting, bowing, silence, Gregorian chant, incense and kneeling at mass. Its more fitting actions for when Jesus real presence is brought right before us.[/quote] This can all be achieved in the OF, only if the priest wasn't in such a hurry to get the mass done and if people stopped being hippies (I'm talking of extreme cases here). Do the [b][color="#FF0000"]red[/color][/b], say the [b]black[/b]. That includes all the black that is left out such as the introit, the communion, etc. Sacrosanctum Concillium even tells us to retain Latin. That would be best done in the ordinaries, I'm sure. [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1903232' date='Jun 27 2009, 11:27 PM']Sacred Scripture has its greatest effect when it is chanted liturgically by a cleric [s]in a sacral language. [/s][/quote] Fixed it for ya. Chanting scriptures is a dying art. I want to learn it so it may be introduced into the ordinary form. Okay, overall thoughts on the poll. I nulled. It's at 4/4 right now. I have fallen in love with both forms. Frankly, a seminarian friend once said that he hopes that both the ordinary and extraordinary will soon be gone, and a new, beautiful, organic liturgy will be born from both. Call it blasphemy from your various camps, but I'm starting to like the idea. Another friend of mine who almost became a seminarian, but felt called to marriage (he is still very avid in studying the faith and liturgical matters... maybe he'll serve in the diaconate some day ) said that maybe the OF will disappear. I dunno. Maybe as we know it now. Personally, other than the "new" English translation which fixes the paraphrasing (which could be remedied for now by saying the Latin), I think the OF would benefit from having the first chapter of John said at the end! I loved that about the EF.
Resurrexi Posted June 28, 2009 Author Posted June 28, 2009 [quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1903363' date='Jun 28 2009, 12:11 AM']I agree with the variance on the OF. I've been pleasantly surprised about the relation with the OF office and sacred liturgy in all their respective propers.[/quote] [quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1903363' date='Jun 28 2009, 12:11 AM']This can all be achieved in the OF, only if the priest wasn't in such a hurry to get the mass done and if people stopped being hippies (I'm talking of extreme cases here). Do the [b][color="#FF0000"]red[/color][/b], say the [b]black[/b]. That includes all the black that is left out such as the introit, the communion, etc. Sacrosanctum Concillium even tells us to retain Latin. That would be best done in the ordinaries, I'm sure.[/quote] You are correct that Latin, incense, chant, etc. can be found in the OF, and I do appreciate it when priests do include this things in the OF, but the fact is that they are not found very often. My biggest problems with the OF, however, are that Communion is permitted to be distributed in the hand and that EMHCs are permitted at normal Sunday Masses. These things will probably not be fixed without legislation from the Holy See. [quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1903363' date='Jun 28 2009, 12:11 AM']Okay, overall thoughts on the poll. I nulled. It's at 4/4 right now. I have fallen in love with both forms. Frankly, a seminarian friend once said that he hopes that both the ordinary and extraordinary will soon be gone, and a new, beautiful, organic liturgy will be born from both. Call it blasphemy from your various camps, but I'm starting to like the idea. Another friend of mine who almost became a seminarian, but felt called to marriage (he is still very avid in studying the faith and liturgical matters... maybe he'll serve in the diaconate some day ) said that maybe the OF will disappear. I dunno. Maybe as we know it now. Personally, other than the "new" English translation which fixes the paraphrasing (which could be remedied for now by saying the Latin), I think the OF would benefit from having the first chapter of John said at the end! I loved that about the EF.[/quote] As I have said before, I do have an appreciation for the OF celebrated correctly (by correctly, I mean as much like the EF as is permitted by the rubrics), but there is not a single change that I like. If feel that some things, like Communion in the hand and [i]versus poplum[/i], have been detrimental to the way many people understand the Mass. Ideally, I would like an EF missal with some new saints added to replace the OF.
VeniteAdoremus Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 We have a couple of priests here who chant the Gospel. Always at Easter and Christmas, and sometimes through-the-year. It is teh awesome. They also sing the ...what comes between Offertory and Sanctus. I can't think right now (I just woke up and my dad is singing his Office next door... and he most definitely can't sing). Prefation! Sung prefation in Latin. Rocks. I was really surprised to read that Latin, incense, and silence are exclusive parts of the EF rite. That means I've been going to invalid OF masses for [i]years[/i]. Ouch! Res, communion in the hand and [i]versus populum[/i] are NOT essential to the OF. If you really want to compare the two, you would have the strongest arguments if you compared it against the best possible version. The main thing I don't like about the OF are the intercessory prayers. I have yet to encounter a set of prayers that aren't actually written or said for the people to listen to, instead of for God to listen to. I know a priest who can make reading from a milk carton sound prayerful, but even he has trouble with the intercessory prayers. It keeps sounding like either a shopping list or the action plan of the Christian Party. The main thing I like about the EF is that the laity have a different role than in the OF. In the OF, we're answering the priest and saying some prayers along, but in the EF we sing the Propers while the priest gets on with his stuff, and then we pray (and the priest doesn't talk through it... OF post-communion pet peeve). This is a wholly non-theological feeling. I just prefer the type of teamwork where everybody is doing what he's best at, instead of everybody doing more or less the same for the sake of equality. I understand that some people prefer the latter. I'm glad we get to have both
MIKolbe Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' post='1903360' date='Jun 27 2009, 11:08 PM']Ahhh Res, You shouldn't follow so blindly. One day you're going to come to a crisis or and no amount of ecclesial documentation will help you. I really hope as you mature your faith does too. [/quote] spot. on. good on you, OPM
OraProMe Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 Hey Resurrexi, It just occured to me that Latin isn't used in the Mass because its a sacred language but because it was the official language of the Roman Empire. Makes more sense than God guiding the evolution of a particular langauge, don't you think?
Resurrexi Posted June 28, 2009 Author Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) [quote name='OraProMe' post='1903502' date='Jun 28 2009, 09:04 AM']Hey Resurrexi, It just occured to me that Latin isn't used in the Mass because its a sacred language but because it was the official language of the Roman Empire. Makes more sense than God guiding the evolution of a particular langauge, don't you think?[/quote] You are correct that the historical reason that Latin is used in the Roman Liturgy is because it was the vernacular of the Western Roman Empire. (The Roman Liturgy was originally in Greek, actually.) Latin wasn't used in the Liturgy until about the 3rd century. As I have said before, Latin is regarded as holy not only because the Latin Church set it aside for liturgical use, but also because the titulus on the Cross was written in Latin (as well as Greek and Hebrew). As Christians, we should see God's providence in history. I believe that is was through the providence of God that the Latin Church adopted the Latin language, already consecrated through our Lord's passion, for liturgical use. Edited June 28, 2009 by Resurrexi
Resurrexi Posted June 28, 2009 Author Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) [quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1903446' date='Jun 28 2009, 02:31 AM']Res, communion in the hand and [i]versus populum[/i] are NOT essential to the OF. If you really want to compare the two, you would have the strongest arguments if you compared it against the best possible version.[/quote] Of course I know that that Communion in the hand and [i]versus poplum[/i] are not essential to the OF. When did I ever state that they were? One cannot deny, though, that those things are present in more than two thirds of the places where the OF is said, at least in the United States. Also, if you want to compare the most solemn OF to the most solemn EF, we would be comparing the OF to a Pontifical High Mass at the Throne, a Mass which is extremely rare. Edited June 28, 2009 by Resurrexi
OraProMe Posted June 28, 2009 Posted June 28, 2009 God doesn't care about human displays of grandeur. He created the entire universe, you really think some nice vestements, latin and incense is going to impress him? Like I said, IMO, the EF is good for me because it helps me realize how amazing God is, not because it gives greater glory to Him than an OF Mass like you said previously.
Resurrexi Posted June 28, 2009 Author Posted June 28, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' post='1903507' date='Jun 28 2009, 09:36 AM']God doesn't care about human displays of grandeur. He created the entire universe, you really think some nice vestements, latin and incense is going to impress him?[/quote] I do think that Latin, beautiful vestments, and incense are very pleasing to God because all beautiful things glorify God, their maker.
Recommended Posts