For example people like Pater Ignotus and others think that the congregation really needs to hear and understand all liturgical prayers uttered at Mass by them or the priest, when in fact all prayer in Latin whether aloud or silent is directed to God by the Church, it is the Church's prayer, not just individuals' prayers and pious sentiments, including the ordained priest, which is directed to God, not to us! And have we forgotten that God understands our prayers all of them even before we offer them and even when we ourselves can't understand what we need to ask or what we are saying? And does this mean that praying in tongues and quiet, silent contemplation is forbidden too?
For yet another example, as sad as it is, our recent Bishops' meeting in Baltimore raised issues facing the Church today, not the least of which is the HHS mandate, homosexual marriage and the like and the bishops focus on all these problems and the capitulation of Catholics toward these sociological and government trends not from the religious point of view of these Catholics losing their eternal salvation and being condemned to the everlasting fires of hell, but purely from a sociological point of view and what life in this world will be like if we abandon our Catholic moral teachings. What the hell is going on here when even our bishops don't get it or do not communicate it, a grotesque failure of communication in fact, first about the Church's responsibility out of the love of God and for sinners to keep Catholics and the world from going to hell?
We need to teach what the Church teaches about morality and that the Church's teaching on homosexuality is not as radical as the far left or the far right and that what is taught is based upon the love of the sinner, to help him or her to fare well at the hour of death and his/her personal judgment which will culminate ultimately in either heaven or hell. Out of love for the sinner, we must teach the four last things, death, judgment, heaven and hell. (Heaven presumes purgatory for anyone in purgatory goes to heaven never to hell and purgatory is a pit stop not a final destination).
This video is quite good. Fr. Dawid and I have encounter some the the attitudes this priest has encountered in teenagers, college students and older:
You can go directly to their website for more INFORMATION, HERE.
The priest in the video asks that we hand on the truths of the Church "Before it is too late?" But he doesn't explain what "too late" means--before we lose all our Catholics to secular humanism or before we lose all our Catholics to eternal damnation? I would suggest that this priest and his film crew make the four last things, death, judgement, heaven and hell abundantly clear otherwise there is a failure to communicate!
So much of the discourse on morality, any type of morality, today focuses purely on the here and now. Most people, including most Catholics, approach morality on the basis on narcissism. What's in it for me. How can my life be happier? If no one appears to be hurt, why not do it. Why pick up the cross and follow Jesus, that's too much trouble and sometimes it hurts.
So we have conspicuous consumption to the point that we have a new cottage industry of warehouses for our stuff, buildings we can rent to put our things that won't fit in the basement or attic. Then we forget about these things all the while paying rent on these public storage places.
We promote pro-choice ideologies and the control a woman should have over her body and no interference from anyone about these kinds of highly personal decisions, which is a fiercely highly individualistic approach to morality to say the least.
We tell kids that homosexual sex is on an even par with heterosexual sex and the goal of both is to have fun; it is a form of recreation and release. Since so many sexual encounters are recreational it too focuses on selfish needs. That's what happens when Divine law discovered through natural law, Scripture and Church teaching are thrown out the window even by Catholics unfortunately
But here's the problem. If Church teaching was just about making a person feel good about themselves and to help them to live a libertarian life in this world with nary a thought on the four last things, death, judgement, heaven and hell, what then is the point of the Church's moral tradition? We might as well capitulate to trends and fads and join the rest of society in setting ourselves up as god and forgetting about eternal salvation and taking advantage of all there is in this world to make life like Utopia, after all, all there is, is death after this life, no judgment, heaven or hell. This is practical atheism. If I believed that about the after life, I'd leave the Catholic Church, do what I wanted and if I wanted to help others, I'd become pink lady or join some service organization that does some good works, but I'd live my life with reckless abandon but never really intentionally try to hurt anyone. Sounds like fun to me, until I begin to wonder if the Church's teaching about judgment, heaven and hell is true, which then makes me wonder if I shouldn't take a more conservative approach to my moral choices.
So, today because our current ecclesial fads have focused more on the things of this world than on the four last things, as well as Divine law discovered in natural law, Scripture and Tradition, our Catholics are now pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage, materialistic, believe in euthanasia or at least are pro-choice there too and use Church like they use drugs, sex and alcohol, but usually abstain from Church unlike drugs, sex and alcohol.
And our Catholic kids think the Church to be a bigoted, out of date institution when it comes to homosexuality and artificial birth control because they don't believe in judgment, heaven or hell or they think salvation is automatic regardless of their life choices in religion, politics or morality.
It is our job as leaders in the Church to teach the truth and to prepare each and every Catholic for death, judgment, heaven or hell. Technically the choice between heaven and hell is ours and it actually begins in this life. Heaven and hell are a continuation of what we prefer in this life as evidenced by our free will, full consent of the will to choose hell over heaven by choosing evil over God and God's ways revealed in natural law, Scripture and Tradition.
23 comments:
"For example people like Pater Ignotus and others think that the congregation really needs to hear and understand all liturgical prayers uttered at Mass by them or the priest, when in fact all prayer in Latin whether aloud or silent is directed to God by the Church, it is the Church's prayer, not just individuals' prayers and pious sentiments, including the ordained priest, which is directed to God, not to us!"
Good Father, I do believe that the people should be able to hear and understand the prayers directed by the Church to God during the mass.
So does the Church. So do you.
You favor the revised translations. Does God need better translations? No. We do. Is it our intention to "help" God better understand the sacred mysteries we celebrate by giving God revised translations? No. The intention is to give us better understanding. (It is arguable whether this goal has been achieved.)
There is a time for praying in tongues and for quiet, silent contemplation, but that time is not during the communal celebration of the mass.
The liturgy has two essential purposes: Giving praise to God, and communicating the saving mysteries of Jesus Christ to the People of God.
Both are essential. Balance is needed.
The question, whether it is good for people to understand the prayers offered to God on their behalf, is a classic straw man. Of course, this is good. Who would doubt it? The real question is how this end is best reached.
I myself speak as one to whom this understanding is so important as to, every single day, in private in preparation for Holy Mass and otherwise, parse for understanding and contemplation all of the propers for both the OF and the EF, comparing carefully the Latin originals and their English translations.
We all know that these propers--either tuned out completely, or going in one ear and out the other--make little impact on most OF Mass attenders. (Try asking people on the way out if they can recall a single fragment of any of these prayers they've just heard in their native tongue.)
Doubtless, those people who attend a Mass (either EF or OF) in Latin or any other language, profit more if they follow them in their own language in a hand missal or missalette with propers leaflet, as do most people at an EF Mass nowadays. Whereas, as for instance at a bilingual English-Spanish Mass, no one pays any attention to the prayers in the "other" language. Unless, that is, they follow them in written form in their own language, which is rare at OF Masses nowadays.
In any event, I recall a legal proceeding at which I was represented by an attorney. The arguments were made in camera before the judge. The interested parties watched as their lawyers spoke to the judge, but only he and the nearby court stenographer could hear what they were saying. It was, of course, important to me to understand the plea on my behalf which we had planned in advance, but the precise words used, or in what language they were spoken, was unimportant.
I do believe that the people should be able to hear and understand the prayers directed by the Church to God during the mass. So does the Church.
Oh really? Where is that teaching of the Church?
You are conflating understanding the Mass with understanding the words used in the Mass. There is no need (and no historical basis) for the laity to be able to undestand the particular words used in the Mass. Communicating the Sacred Mysteries does not mean literally telling the people about those Mysteries. It means a demonstration of those Mysteries, in a mystical way.
During the Mass, we are at the foot of the Cross as participating spectators. We do so by our silent, awe-filled prayer. But, mostly by watching attentively and uniting our hearts to that of the priest and The Priest. In that way, the Saving Mysteries are communicated to us, not by vernacular explication.
I feel like they should have taught you this in seminary at some point...
Pater,
Does the average layman _really_ understand the depth and meanings of the various prayers in a NO Mass? The centuries-old meanings of the epiclesis and minor elevation, why the fraction rite is exactly where it is, the correct theological meanings of the words "one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic," why the bread must be unleavened, the scriptural references of phrases such as "Lamb of God" (Exodus, John the Baptist, Revelation) and "Lord, I am not worthy?"
My guess is that you're not a fan of Scott Hahn, but some of his descriptions of his first Mass made me realize how many Old Testament references in the NO I was completely ignorant of--it took a Protestant scripture scholar to point them all out. And I've been studying Christianity on the graduate level for a quarter century now.
My point being--in case I haven't made it clearly enough--is that just because it's in English doesn't mean that people can or do understand it.
In a Tridentine Mass, I understand that the priest, acting in persona Christi, is re-enacting and making present the one true sacrifice of Christ in order to make sanctifying grace available to me. What more do I really need to know?
A5 made the point I was trying to make, but did so much more effectively and concisely...
Thanks, A5!
Fr. McD asks (pardon the cut and paste caps) "IF LOVE OF GOD DOESN'T MOTIVATE CATHOLICS WILL FEAR OF HELL?"
Flannery O'Connor answers "She would have been a good woman if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life." Perhaps not a nice way to spend one's life, waiting to be shot, but at some point we all need a gun in our face to get our attention, no?
Fr. McD writes "But here's the problem. If Church teaching was just about making a person feel good about themselves and to help them to live a libertarian life in this world with nary a thought on the four last things, death, judgement, heaven and hell, what then is the point of the Church's moral tradition?"
One could take this further and ask why these people go to church at all. The answer, I think, is that they're trying to delude themselves into thinking that God approves of a selfish and self-indulgent life and that such a life _is_ moral. This, I think, is why the Leftist dissenting so-called Catholics rage so much against the Church: at some deep level, they acknowledge the Church's authority and want her to tell them that what they're doing is OK. And though individual priests and even Bishops might, the Magisterium won't, an it makes them crazy, since they thus unconsciously realize that what they're doing is wrong.
It would be a lot easier and more intellectually honest for Pelosi, Biden, and pro-abort Catholics in the pews to say that they won't be part of a Church that enslaves women's bodies (in their perverted view). Instead they proudly proclaim their Catholicism every chance they get. Obviously they're trying to pester the Church into agreeing with them and approving their actions (and the bishop's silence shows that they're being successful to a degree).
Anon5: "In a Tridentine Mass, I understand that the priest, acting in persona Christi, is re-enacting and making present the one true sacrifice of Christ in order to make sanctifying grace available to me."
I assume you understand that also in a Novus Ordo Mass. Even if the typical EF Mass is a more effective channel of that grace than the typical OF Mass nowadays.
My name was supposed to be attached to the preceding anonymous reply to Anony5.
Most people, Catholics included, live as if here is no God.
Ignotus sounds like a Baptist. I suggest that, from now on, we call him "Reverend Billy Bob." Besides, Pater Ignotus, his chosen incognito, is Latin. Nobody understands Latin.So, instead of pater ignotus, we should say, "whatsisname" when we are not calling him Reverend Billy Bob. Or, since he is Irish, we might simply refer to him as "Mick.'
Thank you Henry, Marc and A5. I'm glad Pater Ignotus posts his views on this blog and is prepared to engage in dialogue with those who disagree with him. When as a teenager I became seriously concerned with what was happening to the liturgy, no priest I approached was prepared to discuss it. Quite honestly, I didn't give a fig for the documents of Vatican II; teenage boys have more pressing concerns. But to be told that you needed to worship in a completely different way offended me in a lot of respects, not least in that I was embarking on a life-long study of history.
Pater Ignotus is a product of a certain time which is increasingly seen as an aberration. The fact that he refers to the mass rather than the Mass and argues that there is no place for contemplation within this 'communal celebration' shows a lack of understanding of liturgy which is probably not his fault but that of his liberal seminary directors. Perhaps in time he will wake up and smell the coffee.
Henry,
Misplaced modifier. "When I am at a Iridentine Mass I understand" as opposed to "I understand that [only] at a Tridentine Mass." I meant the first.
John, I assume that you like me know good priests who went to bad seminaries. And others who are just as bad as the seminaries they attended.
Surely all of us have taken university courses that were full of rubbish. And know the difference between the students who swallowed it whole and those who had the sense not to.
That is, garbage in, garbage out.
Marc - Yes, really.
The intention of the Church regarding the new translation of the Roman Missal can be found in Liturgiam Authenticam [LA]. "25. So that the content of the original texts may be evident and comprehensible even to the faithful who lack any special intellectual formation, the translations should be characterized by a kind of language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves these texts' dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision."
The Church does not share your view that there is "no need for the laity to be able to understand the particular words used in the Mass." I stand with what I was taught in seminary and with what the Church contiunues to teach.
I don't make this stuff up, really.
Anon 5 - I suspect there is a great continuum of understanding among the faithful in any congregation. I would agree that use of the vernacular will not guarantee better understanding of the mysteries. But if you use a language that the congregation doesn't understand, you guarantee they will never understand and be drawn into the mysteries communicated by and in the words of the texts.
What "else" do you need to know? Maybe that a bishop is granted a "divine commission" (Eucharistic Prayer for the ordination of one bishop), that we may "always trust without hesitation" God's fatherly providence (Collect, mass for use 'In Any Need'), or that "when seized by death according to our sins" we can trust in the redemption won for us by Christ (Preface Five for the Dead).
I find myself in agreement with Pater Ignotus to a certain extent. There is a tendency to regard Latin as something obfuscatory in itself, like the iconostasis in the Eastern rite, or the curtains drawn around the altar in the early basilicas, or for that matter the 'silent' Canon. All these say something important about what is happening in the liturgy at this point, but the point of Latin is to clarify, not obfuscate.
As someone who sings Gregorian Chant I know that understanding of the text is vital. You do not have to be an expert Latinist; I regard myself as being Latin-literate but do not have the same facility with the language as I do with (say) French or German. The importance of Latin is a) It is universal. There is a strange American conceit that the only language is English, unless you for reasons of political correctness want to include Spanish for the benefit of the wetbacks who can't be bothered to learn the language of their host country. b) It is a sacred language, like Hebrew or Greek, as a result of its use in the Western Church for more than 1600 years. c) The Church's most authentic music (ie Chant) developed with the Latin liturgy in the first millennium and cannot be separated from it.
Another point which Ignotus might like to ponder. Any exorcist will tell you that the Devil hates Latin.
Wetbacks. Wow.....
Yeah, Ignotus, wetbacks...you know, those Beaners who sneak into the country illegally and drain us of resources, drive without licenses, trash the landscape, commit various crimes, and generally degrade the quality of life everywhere they go. Wetbacks...that really bothers you doesn't it...LOL!
But, moving on, nothing, nothing in the entire drama of Salvation History or the Mass is predicated upon our understanding of it.God comes to us in spite of our pitiful understanding, and His action is in no way tied to or comprehension. After all, we do call it a "Mystery." He has chosen to reveal himself to us in a manner in which we can receive Him and, therefore comprehend, but human knowledge and the active understanding is not determinitave of any of His graces or effects. Let's see, Ignotus, that is Theology 101, I believe...
John, I agree with your point. My point is simply that one need not understand the meaning of particular words in order to understand the meaning of the whole.
In fact, the meaning of the whole is arguably more important than the meaning of the particular words.
Pater appears to be conflating the two, which is the basis for vernacular translation as a necessity. That necessity is easily overcome by proper catechesis on the meaning of the whole. But, with the advent of vernacular, the whole is seen as explained by the particular words and catechesis abandoned for the most part.
This is what I am reacting against in Pater's posts. I am not a "Latin is magical" sort of fellow. I think the 1962 Missal in English (the sort of English used in the old "unofficial" translations in the hand Missals) would be great. In fact, those translations are great-- it's amazing how good those groups could do compared to how badly the official translators screwed it up (and continue to do so).
Pater says: "But if you use a language that the congregation doesn't understand, you guarantee they will never understand and be drawn into the mysteries communicated by and in the words of the texts."
Wow, I guess the Church really blew it by using Latin for all those centuries, then. How lucky we are that The VII generation came along and saved us.
Pater says: "What "else" do you need to know? Maybe that a bishop is granted a "divine commission" (Eucharistic Prayer for the ordination of one bishop), that we may "always trust without hesitation" God's fatherly providence (Collect, mass for use 'In Any Need'), or that "when seized by death according to our sins" we can trust in the redemption won for us by Christ (Preface Five for the Dead)."
None of that stuff is important, like all the stuff that was removed for the NO. I think we need to be even more reductionist--just cut out everything but the words of consecration. Short, easy to understand, and still valid. It would still be the traditional Mass, after all. :-) And in all serious, I don't "need" to know it. I don't even need to know that the Mass is sacrificial. This emphasis on the laity's subjective need for knowledge is an infection of Enlightenment-era egalitarianism.
Anon 5- You assume the people who "heard" the mass "read" in Latin knew the mysteries of the faith. I suggest they did not. Latin prayers then and now don't exactly lend themselves to the comprehension and understanding the Church - yes, the Church - desires and hopes to achieve.
I think that the truths I cited from the prayers of the mass are important. They are elements of the faith, and knowing them constitutes a well-informed and, potentially, more Christ-like Catholic population. It also provides them with a greater ability to engage in apologetics with those who question Catholic beliefs.
Hmm... So all those saints (literally all the saints from the western, Roman Church) got to heaven DESPITE not understanding the mysteries of faith?
You really think the laity are remarkably stupid don't you?
I don't speak Latin. I've never studied it. Yet, going to the Mass in Latin, learning the Rosary and some other prayers in Latin, I know enough to get by during Mass.
Pater,
My experience with run-of-the-mill Catholics (mostly only 8th grade graduates) in Latin Mass days was that most of them understood the mysteries of the faith far better than most ordinary Catholics do nowadays. Indeed, I believe this to be generalizable to most Catholics every in this country at that time, as I observed the same in Catholics in 4 different states in 3 different regions of the country, where I was very involved in my parishes, taught kids, etc.
An evident inference is that Catholics do not now and never have learned the mysteries of the faith principally from the words of the Mass, whether they be in Latin or in the vernacular.
Naturally enough, since the words of the Mass are directed to God, whereas the people have traditionally learned the mysteries of the faith from their catechism--except in recent decades when catechesis has collapsed.
Pater,
As a teacher, I assume nothing of the sort. I have had too many students who are officially presumed to know things that they are in fact ignorant of.
If laity attending a Tridentine Mass didn't know the basic truths I know when attending a Tridentine Mass, it's because they weren't taught well or because they didn't learn well. It isn't because of a defect in the Tridentine Mass. And we aren't talking rocket science here; the belief I stated is a very simple one. If people don't understand the basic meaning of the Mass, that failing is in spite of, and not because of, the Tridentine Mass.
And if you want to get into misunderstanding, I'll bet that the NO is more conducive to misunderstanding than the Tridentine is. E.g., the priest is talking to us and not to God during the Eucharistic prayer because he is facing us; the bread is just bread because it is referred to a the bread of life in a way that raises ambiguity as to whetyher this is metaphor; the wine is just wine because it is a "spiritual drink" (whatever that is); we haven't sinned since we don't have to say the Confiteor; etc., etc., etc. And that isn't even getting into the stuff that got revised last year.
Yet, despite this, by your silence, you do in fact seem to agree with my hyperbolic statement about the Tridentine Mass being a grave mistake that was fortunately corrected by the VII generation, which seems to know better than the previous 2000 years of hierarchy. Very few people, except for the members of that benighted generation, will be able to take that idea seriously--viz., that liturgically (and thus theologically) the Catholic Church was seriously screwed up for 99% of it's history until modern liturgists "saved" it.
Post a Comment