The Novus Ordo Missae

[zunshynn]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='13 December 2009 - 02:09 AM' timestamp='1260695364' post='2019602']
I think it's interesting that

- The Traditional Mass is prayed in Latin, Greek and Hebrew
- In Catholic theology the Mass is the renewal of Calvary
- The three languages proclaiming Jesus as King of the Jews on the cross were Latin, Hebrew and Greek.
[/quote]

I heard it said once that those languages were made sacred by the fact that the Blood of Christ touched the words on the sign saying "This is the King of the Jews. Another time I heard someone say that Latin was more sacred than the others because it was closest to His head and was touched with more of the Precious Blood. Interesting thought, in any case.

Apo, I'm curious, why do you think that it would be good for the vernacular to be used in the Western Church but not the Eastern Church?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='13 December 2009 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1260735873' post='2019751']
I heard it said once that those languages were made sacred by the fact that the Blood of Christ touched the words on the sign saying "This is the King of the Jews. Another time I heard someone say that Latin was more sacred than the others because it was closest to His head and was touched with more of the Precious Blood. Interesting thought, in any case.
[/quote]

Pope John VIII wrote (with my emphasis added):
"We rightly praise the Slavonic letters invented by Cyril in which praises to God are set forth, and we order that the glories and deeds of Christ our Lord be told in that same language. Nor is it in any wise opposed to wholesome doctrine and faith to say Mass in that same Slavonic language, or to chant the holy gospels or divine lessons from the Old and New Testaments duly translated and interpreted therein, or the other parts of the divine office: for He who created [b]the three principal languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin[/b], also made the others for His praise and glory" (From the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Slavonic Language and Liturgy").

So it seems like he is saying that, though it is indeed acceptable to celebrate the Liturgy in vernacular translations (with the approbation of ecclesiastical authority of course), celebrating the Mass in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin is more "ideal" in a sense.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Resurrexi

[zunshynn]

By the way... I voted that it would be better if it had not been promulgated simply because I don't think that it's really benefited the Church, overall, and because Sacrosanctum Concilium stated that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from the forms already existing" (23). I don't think the argument can legitimately made that the Church really required the whole Novus Ordo. Perhaps there could have been slight changes to the Mass of John XXIII that would have been beneficial... such as some use of the vernacular, which SC 36 mentions... but I don't really see how it could be argued that Vatican II was calling for the creation of an entirely new liturgy. And I think its effects on the Church since its implementation have been a manifest sign that it was not the best thing. Don't get me wrong, there can be beautiful NO masses... but even if it is beautiful, was it, overall, a "necessary" innovation?

But at the same time, like SMM said, it happened, we have to deal with it, speculating whether or not it "should" have happened is relatively futile.

Edited December 13, 2009 by zunshynn

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='13 December 2009 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1260735873' post='2019751']
Apo, I'm curious, why do you think that it would be good for the vernacular to be used in the Western Church but not the Eastern Church?
[/quote]
I never said that the vernacular should not be used in the Eastern Churches. Both the Ruthenian Church, which I initially joined when I changed [i]sui juris[/i] Churches, and the Melkite Church, which I now belong to, use the vernacular.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 December 2009 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1260736764' post='2019760']
I never said that the vernacular should not be used in the Eastern Churches. Both the Ruthenian Church, which I initially joined when I changed [i]sui juris[/i] Churches, and the Melkite Church, which I now belong to, use the vernacular.
[/quote]

Apotheoun, it seems as if you think the Latin Church should use the vernacular because the Eastern Churches do so. Using the vernacular in the Mass is no more a tradition of the Latin Church than using Latin in the Divine Liturgy is a tradition of the Eastern Churches. Would you like it if I suggested that all Melkites should celebrate their Liturgy in Latin? Easternization of the Roman Liturgy is just as unbeneficial as Latinization of the Byzantine Liturgy.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 December 2009 - 01:46 PM' timestamp='1260737177' post='2019767']
Apotheoun, it seems as if you think the Latin Church should use the vernacular because the Eastern Churches do so. Using the vernacular in the Mass is no more a tradition of the Latin Church than using Latin in the Divine Liturgy is a tradition of the Eastern Churches. Would you like it if I suggested that all Melkites should celebrate their Liturgy in Latin? Easternization of the Roman Liturgy is just as unbeneficial as Latinization of the Byzantine Liturgy.
[/quote]
The Latin Church switched to the vernacular in the West during the 4th century (i.e., Latin), and I think the vernacular is appropriate in the liturgy today.

I do not think that the Western Church will ever return to the use of the Latin language alone, even though that would make a small number of people happy.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 December 2009 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1260737580' post='2019777']
The Latin Church switched to the vernacular in the West during the 4th century (i.e., Latin), and I think the vernacular is appropriate in the liturgy today.[/quote]

Thank you for informing me of a fact I already knew. Even though Latin was the vernacular in the 4th century, it should be noted that the language of the Canon was to the 4th century Roman much like the language of the King James Bible is to us. It should also be noted that for more than 1000 years, Latin has not been the vernacular in the West, yet it was the sole language of the Roman Liturgy.

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 December 2009 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1260737580' post='2019777']
I do not think that the Western Church will ever return to the use of the Latin language alone, even though that would make a small number of people happy.
[/quote]

I don't think either of us know what the future holds.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 December 2009 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1260737932' post='2019780']
Thank you for informing me of a fact I already knew. Even though Latin was the vernacular in the 4th century, it should be noted that the language of the Canon was to the 4th century Roman much like the language of the King James Bible is to us. It should also be noted that for more than 1000 years, Latin has not been the vernacular in the West, yet it was the sole language of the Roman Liturgy. [/quote]
Actually that is not correct. The canon is not in classical Latin. It is in ecclesiastical Latin. Now certainly over time one can say it has become somewhat archaic, but it was composed in Latin as that language was used at the time in the 4th century.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 December 2009 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1260737932' post='2019780']
I don't think either of us know what the future holds.
[/quote]
Of course, any number of things could happen. The Latin Church could readopted Greek as it liturgical language.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 December 2009 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1260738181' post='2019785']
Actually that is not correct. The canon is not in classical Latin. It is in ecclesiastical Latin. Now certainly over time one can say it has become somewhat archaic, but it was composed in Latin as that language was used at the time in the 4th century.
[/quote]

I never claimed that the Canon was in Classical Latin. I was just trying to get across that the Latin used in the Canon was loftier and more elevated and poetical than the language used by common people in every day life.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 December 2009 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1260738280' post='2019786']
Of course, any number of things could happen. The Latin Church could readopted Greek as it liturgical language.
[/quote]

And the Melkie Church could adopt Latin as its liturgical language.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 December 2009 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1260738590' post='2019789']
I never claimed that the Canon was in Classical Latin. I was just trying to get across that the Latin used in the Canon was loftier and more elevated and poetical than the language used by common people in every day life.
[/quote]
It was the common tongue of the 4th century West. The Greek of the New Testament is the same . . . just the common language of the 1st century.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 December 2009 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1260722209' post='2019659']
It has been the case for more than 1500 years. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Only because at one time, Latin was the common language in the West. Had it been Greek, we would
never have seen a Latin Mass until Vatican II, and if there happened to be cultures that spoke Latin. Then
they could hear the Mass in their vernacular.


I grew up in the Pre-Vatican II times where the TLM was the norm.

It wasn't as great as many young Catholics, who are too young to have experienced the Church
prior to the changes, think it was.



Jim

[OraProMe]

Jim,

What was it?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='13 December 2009 - 06:08 PM' timestamp='1260745726' post='2019892']
Only because at one time, Latin was the common language in the West. Had it been Greek, we would
never have seen a Latin Mass until Vatican II, and if there happened to be cultures that spoke Latin. Then
they could hear the Mass in their vernacular.[/quote]

Nearly every liturgical language in nearly every religion was at one time a vernacular. That's how one gets a liturgical language: the cultures surrounding a religious rite change, but the rite itself remains intact. If I'm not mistaken, Christ participated in Hebrew synagogue services, even though Hebrew has ceased to be the spoken language in Palestine long before the Incarnation.

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='13 December 2009 - 06:08 PM' timestamp='1260745726' post='2019892']
I grew up in the Pre-Vatican II times where the TLM was the norm.

It wasn't as great as many young Catholics, who are too young to have experienced the Church
prior to the changes, think it was.



Jim
[/quote]

Actually the ancient Roman Rite [i]is[/i] just as great as I think it is, if not greater. I have been attending Mass according to the 1962 Missal nearly every Sunday for five years. I probably have just as much experience with that form of the Roman rite as you do.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Resurrexi