Have Catholics become whining pundits? I can remember the day when Catholics didn't complain for they knew a complaining spirit was not of the Holy Spirit, so they usually brought it to confession and the seal of confession.
I've heard or read where some priests so dislike the new English translation that they find it a burden now to celebrate Mass! I wonder what the laity think about a priest who feels that way. Is he committing the sin of idolatry? Has he made the words of the Mass into a god or the form of the Mass into a god?
I wonder what the laity who struggle to put food on their table, support and educate their children, sacrifice for them with more than one job and try to keep a roof over their heads and support that priest and his parish with their sacrificial time, talent and treasure feel about whining priests and the Mass and the burden it is for them to celebrate it! I want to puke myself as I write this!
Any Mass that is validly celebrated no matter the vocabulary, language or style of celebration is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one Sacrifice of our crucified, Risen and Ascended Lord is made present to us on every Catholic altar in the world, in the Eastern Rite and Western Rite and all the Eastern Orthodox Churches and even in schismatic Churches which retain valid sacraments. The Body and Blood of our Crucified, Risen and Ascended Lord is received as we "symbolically" eat and drink what we receive, which is not bread or wine but the Body and Blood of our Risen Lord which we can only recognize through the eyes of Faith at the "Breaking of the Bread."
So to all you liturgical whiners, are you also idolaters? Just asking!
37 comments:
AMEN!
~SL
That is not a fair assessment, Father. While I understand that you're entitled to your opinion, your opinion is wrong by my estimation.
Here is why.
There is more to the Mass than validity. There is also the matter of being licit. When a Mass is licit the graces imparted are at their greatest, because it is at that point the Sacrament is being confected in a manner which is consistent with the AUTHENTIC magisterium of the Church. However, when the Mass is not celebrated in a licit manner, then the graces are reduced and the subjective error of the self becomes more important (to a greater or lesser degree) than the objective truth of the Rite.
So, when those of us clamor, lobby and complain that the Mass is not being celebrated properly, we are clamoring, lobbying and expressing our wishes that we are given what is our right (and it is our right). Namely to have a Mass celebrated not as the individual priest sees fit, but rather as the Church sees fit.
It is a gross mischaracterization to simply say that those who are calling for the valid AND LICIT form of the Mass to be celebrated as "whining pundits."
So, to answer your questions, I will do so now:
"Is he committing the sin of idolatry?"
--No. But he is breaking liturgical law and therefore should amend his action to conform to the authentic magisterium. The Mass is his, but only insofar as he celebrates it, the actions by which he celebrates it are very defined. Or at least they should be.
"Has he made the words of the Mass into a god or the form of the Mass into a god?"
--Again, NO. But since he is acting outside the authentic magisterium, he is acting in a manner which is contrarian and spiteful, even if unintentionally so.
The real question isn't what you're asking. The real question is why are priests so disobedient? And the bigger question is, why aren't the bishops doing anything about it, by and large.
Good Father - Describing those who do not share your ebullient joy regarding the new translations as "whiners" is more than a bit self-serving. But that's become, alas, the M.O. in our public discourse these days.
Many of these folks know far more than you or I about translation, the history of liturgy, psycho-linguistics, etc. They are not "whiners," but Catholics who care as much (or maybe more) about the Sacraments of the Church and the people served by those Sacraments.
It is easy to dismiss those who disagree with you. It is far harder, at times, to present a cogent, convincing argument in your own favor.
Far from self-serving, I'm calling for humility and the fact of the matter is that those who have translated the Mass into English which we are currently using are academics and linguists too. I recognize that there are many ways to translate from one language to another and I understand that very well as it concerns Italian. But I know that the best way to preserve the Italian language ethos is to do it as literally as possible and not in an equivalent way, although that is possible but usually far from what the Italian means.
And Bishop Brom's comments about what was a "burden" to many of the priests in his diocese you have misrepresented, also in a self-serving way.
Report: Brom "...concluded by saying that before any discussion of a revised Liturgy of the Hours, the missal had to be re-visited since, he claimed, his own priests found it “more of a burden than a blessing.”
The translation, not the celebration of mass, is mentioned as a burden.
May I suggest to you both, good Fathers, that the time for learned discussion of competing translation theories has come and gone. As has the time for either positive or negative criticism (as such) of our new English translation of the Missale Romanum 3e.
Whatever merits it has or lacks, it is now the missal that Holy Mother Church has given us for the celebration of the Mass in English. Plainly, this translation will be with us for the foreseeable future--for the rest of the lives of most of us--perhaps for the biblical period of forty years that the previous translation survived, even though it was originally intended as an interim translation, and with its severe deficiencies that were apparent from the beginning to many in most camps (from conservative to progressive).
A couple of generations of usage likely will provide adequate perspective for the proper evaluation of this translation. In the meantime, does it not behoove everyone in the Church to work--without contention or argumentation on either side, however personal opinions may differ--to best use the Church's new English missal to the glory of God and our worship of Him?
Why translate the Mass at all? What is wrong with Latin? Where is the disconnect and what is the malfunction when it comes to celebrating the Mass in the universal language of the Church?
If the Mass is celebrated in one language, Latin; then there is the elimination of the majority of this discussion. The language is static, therefore the meaning is clear for each word. The words of the Mass itself are of little consequence to be heard in the vernacular tongue, so that is a non-starter. The use of a central language, Latin; allows for the universal complementarity, equity, and consistency necessary to bring the Rite back to a center position.
What we have witnessed by the "splitting" of language, is the very same thing we saw in the episode of the Tower of Babel. Often times it is wondered, why not return to one language and make all of mankind unified...I've heard that preached more than once...the same applies to the celebration of Holy Mass.
Many of the issues you list would be alleviated by the return to the liturgical language and the abandonment of the vulgar (or profane).
It should also be remembered that for most of the history of the Church the role of the priest was primarily cultic. He could do those things which a layman, whowever pious, couldn't do. The pastoral side of things was the responsibility of the Christian community. In the more complex nature of the modern world the priest has obviously to become more pastoral, but it should not be at the expense of his first responsibility.
You can learn how to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass in an afternoon, although it takes a bit more study to learn how to sing it. What annoys me most as a layman is the priest who wilfully or not demonstrates that he cannot celebrate competently. In any other walk of life such incompetence would result in dismissal.
This is why I take issue with Pater Ignotus who is basically saying "We priests can do what we want. We can inflict on you bad music, idiosyncratic celebration, liturgical abuses (Redemptionis Sacramentum - what's that?) and you will have to put up with it, and pay for it, because it is a mortal sin not to do so (by the way, we don't talk of mortal sin in any other context because we're soooo spirit of V2 ...)"
It won't do.
John, the priest, as you know, still has the ability to do what no layman can do.
I agree with that the attitude is the most distressing thing about NO priests, in most cases. Even the most ignorant laity can tell when something is not required or optional. They, we, will avoid any extra work when we can, so if the priest gives the impression that something is not important, we happily latch on to that. And we will not respect something that is simply busy work and resent anyone who tries to make us do it.
Yet, as John points out, in other lines of work there are rituals that actually mean something: putting on a helmet or goggles and gloves to work on high voltage equipment, for example. To the uninitiated it looks like a pain in the neck. But when they are educated, they will seek out the equipment before messing with the high power outlets.
Andy: What's wrong with Latin? 99% of the people reading/hearing it do not understand Latin.
Latin is not the universal language of the Church. In the Catholic universe, 99% of Catholics do not understand Latin.
Latin is not static. Latinists work every day adding new Latinized words to keep up with new words in other languages. As with any language, those who do understand it (the 1%) can and do interpret the words in various ways.
I do not agree that "the words of the mass are of little consequence." Were that so, why did we go through a re-translation of the words of the mass? Why are we discussing the words of the mass now?
Latin is not a "central language" for the 99% reason stated above.
There was never a time when all people spoke one language.
John - I have never suggested and am not now suggesting that "We priests can do what we want."
But, Pater, there is no history in the Church until recently of translating the Mass just because 99% of the laity don't understand Latin. Why? Because it really doesn't matter if the laity understand the words of the Mass.
For example, in our time, we can hear the words of the Mass in our own language. Yet, understanding of the Mass is likely at an all time low insofar as people no longer understand it to be a propitiatory sacrifice, which is its principal quality.
Moreover, you are simply wrong as Latin is the language of the Roman Church. How do we know that? Here's Pope St. Pius X: "The language of the Roman Church is Latin." That's pretty clear, I'd say.
You're other points appear accurate, at least. But, they are the sort of arguments that fail with a brief look at history. It is simply foreign to the Roman Rite for the Mass to be in the vernacular - a fact emphasized by the Council of Trent: "If anyone saith... that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only... let him be anathema." Arguing from the proposition that the Mass should be in the vernacular in order for the people to understand it is foreign to the Roman Rite.
These facts demonstrate that whether Latin is static or not is of no consequence as it was surely not static for a number of centuries of use in the Mass.
And finally, those who attend the Mass in Latin do, in fact, have a pretty good working knowledge of the Latin used in the Mass. And that knowledge comes pretty quickly. So, even if understanding the actual words used is important, Latin presents a small barrier for most laity. In fact, it would likely present less of a barrier than the average parish Spanish Mass, where half the laity will not understand. The use of Latin means everyone can understand at the very same Mass, thus eliminating the segregation of the local parish.
Pater, I was not quoting you directly, but you have given the impression that the poor old laity have to put up with innumerable liturgical horrors under pain of mortal sin. Your comments on Latin are perverse. When, at the end of the fourth century, the language of the western Church changed from an elevated form of Greek to an elevated form of Latin, it was not the vernacular even of the West. Yet Latin is the sacred language of the Church, and was also able to convey theological concepts that were beyond the scope of barbarian tongues. John XXIII (Veterum Sapientia, 1962) made it quite clear why Latin is important, and Vatican II ruled that it should be maintained in the rites of the Western Church.
The idea of celebrating the sacred mysteries in a babel of tongues (including semi-literate dialects such as pidgin English) is a modern idea, dating only from the seventh decade of the 20th century, and is the greatest single factor in the degradation of the liturgy to the extent that it's hardly worth getting up for (Cardinal Danneels's sentiments, not mine - a pity he didn't do something about it when he had the chance).
PI, why wouldn't the catechsis of the Mass include explaining what is being said in Latin and why?
Henry Edwards makes a good point, but there are still very vocal priests whining about the translation, at least when they're around other priests. It gets irritating. And the ones I hear are indeed whining, not offering logical arguments.
I've heard bishops say that the relatively new translation of the lectionary is still subject to change, and that the bishops are interested in feedback about it. So, I suppose there may still be some room for intelligent reflection on the missal translation.
What I want to know is when will the USCCB finish the Spanish translation? The Misal Romano I use is falling apart, but I don't want to buy a new one from Mexico if I'll have to replace it in a year or two with a US one. I suspect it will produce a little less whining!
I am going to ask a very naïve and basic question for which I am sure there is a very good answer. I just don’t know what it is: What is the relevance, if any, of the Day of Pentecost to this discussion? Thanks in advance for assistance.
PaterIgnotus:
So what? What did Vatican Council II say about Latin? I do believe and I quote, " Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Sacrosanctum Concilium 36.1)
It goes on to say that the limits may be extended to some of the prayers including the readings, but nowhere does it speak of the vernacular being the normative language. So, if we are truly to be a "Vatican II people," then we are at odds with your response to me.
Regarding understanding the language, well, what does the Church say about that? It says and I quote, "...Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them." (Sacrosanctum Concilium 54)
So, Father, if the faithful cannot understand Latin, it would seem that you, priests, have failed the faithful. Because it was incumbent upon you to teach.
Latin is a static language. We can go on and on arguing this, but in reality the meaning of the words don't change and are not dynamic as they are in English or some other modern language.
Oh, the words of the Mass are of little consequence to the faithful. The meaning behind the action is what is important. The language is important, the conistency is important, but the words themselves, save the words of consecration, well....not so much, at least according to the liberals who are changing things. Also, to say "look at the changes in the English..." Poppycock. That is a change in translation to be more faithful to the actual words which are in LATIN.
Latin is a central language. If it weren't then the Holy See would have abandoned it. Vatican City would have abandoned it. The Holy Father would have abandoned it.
You're right, there never was a time, since Babel where we have spoken one language. But the Church speaks in one language and we should all be able to worship in that language. It is what Vatican II wanted after all....
John - The key phrase in your post is, "Yet Latin is the sacred language of the Church, and was also able to convey theological concepts that were beyond the scope of barbarian tongues."
How does one convey a theological concept to a people that does not understand the language in which the concept is supposedly conveyed?
Marc - In the same way in for the same reasons you misunderstood the meaning of the words of Quo Primum, you so do with the words of Trent regarding mass in the vernacular.
And I would disagree with you when you say " it really doesn't matter if the laity understand the words of the Mass."
rcg - Mass is not catechesis.
PaterIgnotus;
"How does one convey a theological concept to a people that does not understand the language in which the concept is supposedly conveyed?"
They learn the language.
Why do you have this aversion to Latin? Do you think the faithful too stupid to learn it? Or is lowering everything to the lowest common denominator just the most convenient way to promote the faith in your eyes?
Please excuse my frankness, but I really don't understand why a Latin Rite priest would have such an aversion to Latin?
Actually, I understand the words of Trent pretty well regarding Mass in the vernacular. Thanks.
And you can disagree with me on whether the people need to understand the words of the Mass. You're wrong in so doing. But, you're free to disagree.
As you pointed out in your first comment to this post, there are people who know more about the history of the liturgy and other things liturgical than you do. I do not count myself as one of those, but many of our others commenters are clearly more knowledgable than you on this subject. Yet, you seem unable to have the same humility toward their correction as you suggest Fr. McDonald should demonstrate.
It is easy to dismiss those who disagree with you. It is far harder, at times, to present a cogent, convincing argument in your own favor.
Ignotus, It does not matter, theologically, if people do not understand Latin. The Mass was said in Latin for centuries and believers received comfort, succor, and the Graces contained therein whether they understood it or not. It matters to YOU because you are a spoiled, egocentric, mod Priest who thinks the Mass is all about him, anyway.
Pater Ignotus
You ask "How does one convey a theological concept to a people that does not understand the language in which the concept is supposedly conveyed?" The point is that educated people even in what we call the Dark Ages wrote, spoke and thought in Latin, which apart from Greek was the only language capable of dealing with abstract theological concepts.
There is an interesting parallel with what happened forty years ago. Those responsible for translating the liturgy opted for a basic chopped-up English which would immediately be understood by children and the simple-minded. As a result even concepts such as sanctifying grace were scrupulously avoided, and Catholics who were used to praying (in the Angelus) "pour forth, we beseech thee, O Lord, thy grace into our hearts" found the same passage (Collect, Advent IV) rendered as "Lord, fill our hearts with your love". The theological and scriptural impoverishment of the old 'translation' was only rectified last year.
I started learning Latin at school when I was 11. By that time, I had been serving Mass for three years, knew the responses by heart, could easily follow the Mass in my missal, and like everyone else, knew that when I sang the Salve Regina at Benediction it was the Hail Holy Queen we recited in English after every Low Mass.
Carrington, a First World War officer, as his battalion was about to go 'over the top' on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, recalled his surprise at hearing a private soldier, ill-educated and invariably coarse of speech, singing a hymn to the Virgin in Latin. He shouldn't have been surprised.
John - Anyone with a functioning brain can memorize the mass responses or the Regina Coeli in Latin. I can pray the Hail Mary in five languages. Memorizing prayers does not constitute knowing a language. And having memorized a prayer in an unknown tongue does not mean that one understands the prayer.
Marc - No, you make the same error regarding Trent's language that you made (make ?) regarding Quo Primum's language. You quote a passage out of context, assuming that that passage constitutes the entire thinking of the Church on the matter of using the vernacular in liturgy. It does not.
You assume that some posters here are more knowledgeable than I not because they are, but because they agree with you. Think about that tortured reasoning a bit.
John - What percentage of the people who attended mass in the Dark Ages were educated enough to speak and think in Latin? I suspect it was minimal. What percentage went to school or were trained in Latin? You cannot convey meaning in a language those hearing the language do not understand.
Andy - I don't presume anyone is stupid - until they give evidence of it, of course. I don't have an "aversion" to Latin. I simply think it is unnecessary and unhelpful in making us more Christ-like in our behaviour.
The passage from Vat 2 regarding Latin is incomplete. There are further implementation guidelines that also are part of the idea. You need to be aware of those as well.
Pater - I make no such error regarding the quoted statement from Trent. You assume I am making an error, or you paint it in that light, because it disagrees with you version of Catholicism.
And it is clear to all that the other posters are vastly more knowledgeable than you on these liturgical subjects because they have actual facts and references from history, tradition, and doctrine to back up their comments while you have your own sentiments backed up by nothing other than your ego and condescension.
Moreover, the other posters do not necessarily agree with my view. For example, John Nolan supports the use of the OF and thinks it can be properly modified to eliminate its problems. I disagree strongly with him on that. But, I defer to his vastly superior knowledge of liturgical history and liturgics because he has demonstrated his superior knowledge and deserves our respect and deference on these things. You refuse to defer to his knowledge because you disagree with him and the Church, instead substituting your own idea of what the Mass should be, which appears to be rooted in your erroneously assuming the laity are simpletons. Again, this demonstrates your egoism and condensing attitude. In fact, it is the worst sort of clericalism.
Pater Ignotus;
"I can pray the Hail Mary in five languages. Memorizing prayers does not constitute knowing a language. And having memorized a prayer in an unknown tongue does not mean that one understands the prayer."
Bono. Latine tecum loqui possum. Non puto parum fraudare vos veraces. Quid incipit disperiet tamquam memoriali saepe ducam ad intellectum. Rursus, si magnum uult intellegi, sic tamen haud diutius in sermonibus est?
" I don't have an "aversion" to Latin. I simply think it is unnecessary and unhelpful in making us more Christ-like in our behaviour."
An quod sis Ecclesiae latinae, ubi necesse non ostendunt? Ego sum curiosus ad tuam cognoscere ratiocinando.
And just think, I'm a layman who thinks that the Church's view is more important.
My reason for learning Latin was to better understand the Church. Go figure.
Pater Ignotus
Memorizing a prayer even in the language one uses every day does not mean one understands it. I did not 'know' Latin at the age of eight - I was puzzled why the word endings in the first part of the Confiteor differed from those in the second - but I knew what I was saying. When, three years later, I was taught about case endings, that puzzlement was resolved.
You signally fail to address the main part of my argument. Has the dumbed-down English of the last forty years enhanced people's understanding of the Mass? Were people like me who were born and brought up in the 1950s poor benighted dumb dogs who understood neither the liturgy nor the Faith which the liturgy proclaimed? Answers please, and preferably honest ones.
PaterIgnotus;
What memorization does is to make it easier to recognize patterns, which in turn aids in understanding. Whereas, Father, you might not have understood the Ave in said languages, you do now. Why? Because you were able to memorize the Hail Mary and apply it to the other languages.
The same applies to liturgical Latin. No one has said that one must have a scholarly understanding of Latin (as I have, through 15+ years of study), but one can understand that the Gloria is the Glory to God. That the Pater Noster is the Our Father, that Te igitur starts the Canon (assuming that you adhere to the usage of the Roman Canon), that the Confiteor is the Penitential Confession, etc...
There is nothing which prohibits one from memorizing the prayers first then coming to understand them later. As a matter of fact, isn't that how the Church assumes that man will come to know his faith? That man will assent his will first, then come to understand it? I believe it is.
To simply dismiss Latin as unnecessary and unhelpful, when EVERY SINGLE saint assisted at Holy Mass in this manner is naive, uninformed and to a certain degree ignorant of the importance of Latin and the universality of it.
Ignotus says that Latin is not necessary to make us become more "Christ-like" in our behavior. Ah, here is the crux of the issue, and it reveals much about Ignotus' theology, or lack thereof.
It is pretty basic Christian and Catholic theology and dogmatics that belief is primary. There is an order of theological priority. First and primary is belief, or acknowledgement of Christ's redeeming sacrifice and God's Incarnational initiative. This belief and acknowledgement leads to praise and worship (the Mass), which together with belief is what the Mass is all about. The Mass itself is an act (on our part) of self-denial, humility, and awe before God's sacrificial and saving act.It has nothing to do with "becoming more Christ-like." The Mass may, indeed, lead us to try and live better lives, change our bad behavior, and help the poor...it certainly should. However, that is not the theological priority of the Mass.
This "Christ-like" behavior is not efficacious for salvation. It is a result of it. Sanctification, the fruit of our worship and the Holy Eucharist, is engendered by our response to Christ's Sacrifice. It is like the Mass is a mirror in which we view the Image of God as, at the beginning of our journey, distorted and broken but, as the journey continues, becomes more clear each time we step before the mirror.
We can never truly become "Christ-like" unless Jesus was just the "truly good man" and, therefore a mere model for human behavior. This is Pelagian, Arian, Gnostic and a few other things. That is why all this talk of a "Christian ethic," etc. is just so much nonsense. This is the danger of viewing the purpose of the Mass as "to become more Christ-like." It sounds nice, but is totally theologically wrong. The purpose of the Mass is to worship God in Spirit and in Truth, to participate in the Sacrifice that heals us from sin and establishes us as the Elect in His grace. To say otherwise is Pelagian.
Now, you see, I am suspicious of Ignotus, er... Rev. Billy Bob, because he and his ilk know this. All of their de-emphasis of the Sacrifice, the Priestly role (I mean as in the OT), and traditional symbols and ritual that focus on the Otherness of God and the Holiness of the Mass is deliberate. They are agnostic regarding eternal salvation and the primary need for repentance and salvation and, in stead, focus on the here and now, the so-called Christian life, social work, political action, and hymns to ecology, garbage disposal, and Left wing social ideology. Billy Bob knows damned well what he is doing and loves to flaunt it on this blog while pretending other motives. I trust him no further than I could throw him...although I would love to see just how far I could toss him...
PaterIgnotus;
"The passage from Vat 2 regarding Latin is incomplete. There are further implementation guidelines that also are part of the idea. You need to be aware of those as well."
Let's unpack that shall we? Good, we shall.
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
--Straightforward.
36. 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.
--May be...not should be, not will be, not even can be. MAY BE. In other words there is nothing mandatory about the use of the vernacular. But, this isn't really speaking just about the Mass, because we all know that the liturgy is more than just the Mass. What this is really talking about is the liturgy of the hours and the other liturgical events which happen in the Church. The Mass, save the readings, is to remain in Latin. Let's not forget that the norm is still Latin, not the vernacular.
(cont.)
36. 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.
--Again, all things being equal this isn't speaking about the Mass first, but rather it is speaking about the other liturgical functions and sacraments, save the readings....but what is all of this mumbo jumbo about Art. 22? Oh, that is that no priest may change any part of the Mass on his own accord. Good thing THAT was adhered to.
36. 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.
--Yet, 99% of of music was some sort of interpolation. The call and response Gloria's, the ad libbed Eucharistic Prayers and Opening/Closing prayers.
I can continue, but this doesn't bode well. The liturgical actions they speak of by and large mean things like baptism, confirmation, nuptial rites, funeral rites, exposition, etc...the Mass is specifically dealt with when it speaks about the Latin is to be retained save the readings and the ordinaries, but that was not what happened, was it?
(fin.)
Becoming Christ-like is no alien doctrine, nor do I suggest that we become more Christ-like by our own devices, which would be Pelagianism.
"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." John 15:12 (Loving others as Christ loves us makes us Christ-like.)
"The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." Irenaeus
"For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God." Clement of Alexandria
"For He was made man that we might be made God." Athanasius of Alexandria
The mass is praise and worship of God and the communication of the saving mysteries to the People of God. The communication of the saving mysteries is to effect our deification, our becoming Christ-like.
PaterIgnotus;
Those are all good quotes. And nobody said we shouldn't strive to be more Christ-like. We should, but that doesn't mean that we should abandon the tradition of the Church, including her language. If Christ is the head, then celebrating Mass in Latin is part of His Will.
Mass is the worship of God the Father, we agree. However, the communication isn't first by making sure the language is intelligible, but rather that the faithful know that something sacred is happening in the sanctuary which gives them cause to worship.
Also, I take issue withe the fact that you say we should "effect deification." That is not what Christ or the Saints assume. No. They don't expect us to be like Christ insofar as he is God the Son, but rather that we are Christ-like in striving to find a way to the Father through Him. We are not trying to be little gods, but rather we are striving to be good people.
Andy - Actually, Pin/Gene says that anyone who think we should be more Christ-like is a Pelagian or Arian or Gnostic heretic.
Pater Ignotus;
I didn't say that we should be more Christ-like, I said we should STRIVE to be more Christ-like. I know very well that we will always fall short in that endeavor.
Just a clarification.
Now, you see, Ignotus, there you go with another falsification of what I said and, once again, you completely miss the point. It is one thing to exhort others to certain moral behaviors as Christ and some of the others you mention have done. It is quite another to posit theological maxims (the purpose of the Mass is to make us more Christ-like)based upon a misunderstanding of those exhortations as you have done. For instance, you say, "loving others as Christ loved us makes us Christ like." No, it does not. It is an imitation of His behavior toward moral betterment. You want to focus on the behavioral aspect of the Faith to the diminishment of the Christology.
For instance, you quote Clement and Iraneus, who were highly Platonic in their theological understandings and both insist that we cannot know God but must rely upon imperfect understanding. It is their Christological understanding that is the key: any likeness to Christ that we have is due to His restoration of the imago dei in us, and even that is incomplete.
Athanasius is saying the same thing..."he was made man that we might be made God." That is an eschatological statement. Logically, we cannot be Christ-like if we cannot understand the Mystery of Christ. Clement, Athanasius, and Iraneus all say we cannot understand the Mystery. Ergo, we cannot be Christ-like except through His death and Resurrection and the gift of sanctification that brings...which Sacrifice we re-enact in the Holy Mass, not that we may be more Christ-like but that we may more perfectly glorify Him in obedience to His command and, thus, receive eternal life. Your theology is too facile.
Now, this business you said, "Pin says that anyone who says we should be more Christ-like is Pelagian, Arian, etc." is complete nonsense and you know it. I said that the implication of the "I wanna be like Jesus" crowd is that Jesus was merely the truly good man and, therefore, just a model for nice behavior. Some people don't know any better and are just careless in their statements. Others know better and imply these things on purpose while pulling the wool over the eyes of their parishioners. But, it is still Arianism/Pelagianism.
Pin/Gene - When we act as Christ acted, we become more Christ-like. This is caused by grace, the prime source of which is the celebration of the mass. In becoming more Christ-like our salvation is being affected. Not completed, but affected.
We are to become more Christ-like here and now, in this life. When we become more Christ-like the hungry are fed, the homelss are housed, the naked are clothed, the thirsty are given drink, the mourning are comforted, and the imprisoned are visited.
Because of grace we do what we are commanded to do. By being open to that grace we, in fulfilling the Gospel commands, are made mmore and more into the image of Christ.
Feed the hungry, house the homeless is not merely an "eschatological" dream, it is a command for life on this side of the tombstone.
And, if Matthew 25 is to be believed, it is the basis on which we will be judged.
(I take comfort in the fact that nowhere in the Gospel are we told we will be judged on a) our use of a maniple, 2) our use of Gregorian chant, or 3) the direction in which the priest faces at mass.)
Pater, here's a tip:
Hold down the "Shift" key and press the "M" button at the same time. Then, you can show a little more respect for the Sacred Liturgy and maybe we can take you at least a little more seriously.
Just got back to this after a busy week and I see lots of craters, so pardon me if I am derailing anything.
I'm ready to be taught: PI you said the Mass is not catechesis. In the sense of dialogue or peripatetic that is certainly so, but it is my understanding that the Homily does have a specific role in teaching, specifically, but not limited to, the Gospel. This can be extended to the various special prayers and seasonal readings. Because it does not allow for questions from the audience does not diminish that roll, but maybe enhances it as a teaching point of the Church and Her authority. Even in a evening Religious Instruction Class there is a time when the inquirer needs to digest what has been said in silent contemplation and prayer. This last point is to say that catechesis is not always dialogue.
Straighten me out.
Post a Comment