Will we ever see this sort of a foretaste of the majesty and princeliness of heaven on earth again? Don't ever give up hope, as our Holy Father tells us in his Assumption Mass today:
Proclamatio Dogmatis Assumptionis Beatæ Mariæ Virginis (A. D. 1950)
12 comments:
From Lesson vi (2nd Nocturn) of today's Matins, the actual proclamation of Pius XII:
"Wherefore, having offered to God continual prayers of supplication, and having invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, to the glory of Almighty God who hath enriched the Virgin Mary with his special favour; in honour of his Son, the immortal King of ages and victor over sin and death; for the increase of the glory of the same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the whole Church, by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that: The Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, was, at the end of her earthly life, assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."
Rather different papal language than what we typically hear nowadays.
These are different times. Why would anyone expect to hear today the language of a by-gone time?
Would you expect 10th century syntax? 15th century punctuation? 17th century capitalization.
The language is not the problem. The unrealistic expectations are.
Anonymous, RE: different times: I mean, like, Anonymous, I'm like totally confused, dude. I mean, I'm cool with Mary bein' God's baby mama and all that. Whut you talkin' 'bout?
I wonder, Anonymous, which particular words or phrases of Pius XII illustrate in your view "the language of a by-gone time". Of what he says, what might be said differently or better today?
Perhaps you can help us to understand better what you mean. I myself am intrigued by your reference to 10th century syntax, of which nothing in Pius XII reminds me. And his punctuation and capitalization do not seem all that far removed from the wonderful new translation of the Roman missal, which has been so well received here in the 21st century (as I was reminded by the reverent demeanor of the substantial congregation at the 6 am OF Mass of the Assumption that I attended this morning).
1950 is really a "different time?" It's kind of sad that we have violently raped our culture repeatedly to the point of somehow not being able to understand the word choice and syntax of 63 years ago.
Henry - You said it was language we don't hear "nowadays."
It isn't language we hear from some future time, is it?
Therefore, you have said it was from times gone by.
I think Henry may have been referring to the clarity and forthrightness of the papal pronouncement, not the syntax, punctuation, and capitalization.
Perhaps our anonymous commenter prefers popes whose pronouncements are "messy."
Anonymous, I originally said:
"Rather different papal language than what we typically hear nowadays." (emphasis added to help you understand it)
And, though I'll not repeat them also, my questions to you remain as yet unanswered. Wouldn't you like to provide some answers so our inquiring minds can understand what you're trying (thus far without much success) to say?
The matter at hand here--both in my original remark and in my questions of you--is not one of era, but of the difference between careful precise language on the one hand, and informal off-the-cuff language of uncertain meaning on the other.
Henry and marc, You are engaging in a battle of intelligence with an unarmed man...
Modernists, who normally bob, dodge, and weave when it comes to language, are perfectly capable of becoming literalist hypercritics of language when it suits their purpose. In this case a reasonable person would know full well what Henry meant by "language"--he meant it as Marc has described. But to deflect attention to the merits of Henry's statement, Anon went all Derrida on us and started arguing about the shape of the linguistic table.
Just another example of why it's so hard to have any meaningful discussion on this blog.
What should Pope Francis declare, on his own authority, to be divinely revealed?
That Gregorian Chant must be used? Nope, that can't be done.
That Mass must be celebrated ad orientem? Nope, that can't be done.
That the so-called Benedictine Altar Arrangement is to be employed? No, that's not God's revelation either?
That nuns must wear habits and priests wear cassocks 100% of the time? No.
That all non-Catholics are going to hell, that anyone who votes for a Democrat is consigned to eternal flames, or that no elements of Truth exist outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church (watch the Orthodox matter here)?
Nope, none of these CAN be so pronounced?
What should the pope so declare?
There's a bit of hyperbole here suitable to PI. He can't make infallible decisions concerning discipline or eternal judgement of damnation and of those for sure in heaven, he can make infallible statements at the canonization of such.
But as supreme legislator, he can required the Benedictine Altar Arrangement or leave the GIRM as is in this regard, he can require a habit of some kind for priests and religious and he can require ad orientem.
Now will he? More than likely not.
Post a Comment