Why the Latin Mass?
Message 967 TCC
From: heloisejmj
Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 8:06 pm
Subject: Consecration
I have a question for this learned group.
Why isn't the Consecration in Aramaic? If the exact words of Christ are necessary for the Consecration, why was it permissable to translate into Latin?
AND-if it was permissable to translate His words into Latin and still be valid, why isn't it permissable to translate them into English and still be valid?
I would really appreciate it if someone could answer this or tell me where I can find a good answer.
Oremus
Message 968 TCC
From: heloisejmj
Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 8:12 pm
Subject: Consecration
One more addition to my question--at least, I would think, the Canon would be said in Greek, the original language of the Gospels.
So, my question is--why isn't the Mass said in Greek or Aramaic? Why was it translated into Latin? It would seem that we would want the EXACT words of Christ as much as possible. AND--if it can be translated into Latin and still be valid, why can't it be translated
into English?
Thanks again for your answers.
Message 974 TCC
From: "Tom Vick" <tomv@p...>
Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 10:49 pm
Subject: Consecration
I will try to answer both of your questions here, from my point of view.
1. Why isn't the Consecration in Aramaic?
It is, in certain Rites/Liturgies. Other than that, Latin is (IS) the official language of Holy Church, and having the Western Liturgy (TLM) in Latin is both logical and beneficial (since Latin is a "dead" language, and the words don't change their meaning, with the passage of time), Holy and timeless.
2. If the exact words of Christ are necessary for the Consecration, why was it permissible to translate into Latin?
Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition gives us the EXACT Words of Christ, in the institution of the Holy Eucharist. Holy Tradition (Trent) also gives us the assurance that the TLM is "pure from every error". Modern languages "evolve". Latin, Aramaic, Ancient Greek, etc., are "dead" languages, and don't "evolve". See below for reference to Trent, as well.
3. AND-if it was permissible to translate His words into Latin and still be valid, why isn't it permissible to translate them into English and still be valid?
It is, IMO. It is one thing to translate, faithfully, the TLM into English (or other 'vulgar'); it is QUITE ANOTHER thing to re-write the Mass, AND to put words into our Lord's mouth, which is what the NOM is and does.
4. Why isn't the Mass said in Greek or Aramaic?
It is, in certain Rites/Liturgies. Same as #1 above.
5. Why was it translated into Latin?
See above. Look . . . . how many times has Rome sent back the English translation of the NOM, telling the ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy) that they need to get it right, for a change. 2? 3? 4 times? If this were simply a case of faithfully translating, to English (or other 'vulgar') the TLM, there would still be errors in the translation, no doubt.
It's really similar to many ancient (dead) languages, in that, those 'tongues" are very difficult to translate into today's vulgar. That has always been the case. That is why Trent proclaimed the TLM "so pure from every error". Latin, especially Church/Ecclesial (sp?) Latin, hasn't changed in meaning or intent for, roughly, 2000 years.
Your words, "It would seem that we would want the EXACT words of Christ as much as possible." are right on target. The ICEL can't get the translation of the NOM right, and cannot be expected to get the "EXACT" words of our Lord right, using English or any vulgar, mainly BECAUSE they are LIVING languages...
CHANGING languages. IMO, the only way to INSURE that the WORDS are correct (Christ's words, from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition), in INTENT and REALITY, is to use the Sacrifice of the Mass declared by Trent to be "so pure from every error".
We've had an English translation of the TLM for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. Pick up a pre 1962 missal and see. Latin on one side, English on the other side. Also, re-read Vat2 documents. Even if one accepts Vat2 as a valid council, nowhere is there any declaration to "build" a new mass. Nowhere. Is there a NEED to improve on perfection (see Trent)?
That reminds me of a quote - "If it is not necessary to change, then it is necessary not to change." (I wish I could remember who said this).
Another quote I really enjoy - ". . . . . With reason, therefore, are the words 'for all' NOT used." [my imphasis]
PAX
Message 985 TCC
From: joy peterson <frawri@y...>
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 2:48 am
Subject: Consecration
HI Tom: I like how you state your thoughts. Where do you get this info from if I may ask? I have many people ask me these same exact things. So it is nice to have it put down so well. I will just copy, paste and send this info to them. So much easier, so thanks for putting it down so well. Have you found that more people who go to the N.O. always want to put our beliefs down to
just that we want the Mass in Latin. Not that the words of the Consecration is change so much that it can't be valid any more. I try to get them to see that the Latin was important because of what you stated. Not because we just want the language to stay the same.
Well keep up the good work, bye for now.
May God bless you and may Mary keep you safe!
Francine
Message 986 TCC
From: heloisejmj
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: Consecration
Since both Aramaic and ancient Greek are "dead" languages also, it would have made more sense to keep the words of the consecration in one of these languages instead of translating it into Latin, since Christ did not speak Latin nor were the Gospels written in Latin.
I cannot see where the consecration can be valid being translated into Latin, but not valid being translated into English. I see both as compromising the true words of Christ since no translation, no matter how accurate, can be the EXACT words of Christ.
Oremus
Message 999 TCC
From: arul raj
Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 7:50 pm
Subject: LATIN & TridentineHOLY MASS
+ Ave MARIA IMMACULATA
Dear Friends,
I would like to say Religion is meant for practising and not for research.
One might seek as many clarifications and informations required, at the same time remembering, that our Religion is a supernatural one. Not every detail of it is explainable using mere human logic, understanding, faculty, insight, expression, etc.
Understanding of every detail is NOT mandatory for salvation but, Practising the simple teachings of the Church IS MANDATORY for our salvation.
We should feel content with the "Rome has spoken", and accept it wholeheartedly without unnecessary questioning. Certainly,here by Rome we mean "The Eternal-ROME" the Mistress of the Apostolic- TRADITION.
This is what our LORD meant when He asked us to accept the Kingdom of Heaven like children.
In every action of our Mother Church -- Her Language, Liturgy, prayers, vestments, etc., there is a mystical meaning which we are not expected to understand fully. But, we should accept and follow them that we may gain Graces from them.
On the Cross, the reason for our LORD's sentence( I.N.R.I) was written in Latin, Greek,Hebrew languages.
Our Lord cried out,"Eloye, Eloye..." in Greek.
Later, He directed the First Pope to reside in Rome and not in Jerusalem. (Remember that incident, when St.Peter was trying to flee Rome, Jesus appeared carrying the Cross and entered Rome.)
Thus, Latin and Rome became associated with the Church by Divine wish. It is very easy to understand this. Later, the Church when it codified the HOLY MASS it incorporated Latin. The "Kyrie..." of the Holy Mass is in Greek. All these have been done by the Church according to Divine inspiration.
Our LORD and our HOLY MOTHER who appeared so many times to the Saints in the last 20 centuries were only Pleased with the Tridentine HOLY MASS. This is only expected because it was Our Lord who established and said the first Mass. It was by the intercession of our Lady the First Pope St. Peter was inspired to say the first Holy Mass.
What do we have to complain about?
HOW can we think we could improve??? it? Isn't it an audacity on our part?
We should accept it with all humility that we can muster and say "DEO GRATIAS"
Absolutely, there is no room for even considering a thought of any change, for the HOLY MASS has been Canonised in 1570 A.D.
If one doesn't restrain his thinking, but only follows his reckless reasoning soon he will end up as a heretic and lose his Faith.
THE HOLY MASS:
# The New mass
* * * Why do we need to accept a "Protestant Formulation" directed by a FREE MASON??? That too against the Canonised HOLY MASS , and against the PERPETUAL ORDER enacted by the Pope St.Pius V? What about the punishment threatened in this order?
CONTRAST:
THE HOLY MASS:
According to the Teachings of thhe Council of Trent: (DZ -- represents "The Sources of Catholic Dogma" by Denzinger)
THE New mass:(From the definition of New mass - Institutio Generalis$7, of the Roman Missal,1969)
** Thus the New mass derives fundamentally from the teachings of Cranmer, Martin Luther and is close to the Calvinist mass.
** Deceitfully, none of the V--2 documents require the Priest to face the people, and conduct the proceedings in native language without Latin.
**It is Man-centred.
What graces can one hope to receive when the Sacrifice of Calvary is NOT re-enacted in this new formulation???
FRUITS:
V-2 provoked the greatest upheavel in the history of the Catholic Church.
Every aspect of the Catholic life has been overthrown and nothing remains stable. What are the fruits of the New mass?
1. How many new conversions did we have after the new mass?
2. Are the seminaries overflowing with vocations?
3. Has the discipline, obedience to the Vicar of Christ increased among the clergy?
4. Have the faithful turned saintly?
5. How many Saints have been raised because of the New mass after 1969??
*** ST. Padre Pio declined to say the new mass.
** According to Cardinal Ratzinger,the Prefect of the Congregation of Faith "...The New mass is fabricated, and is open to on the spot production."
* The New mass is a VEHICLE of HERESY,and the Holy Orders are in jeopardy!
'As time goes by,everyone will be able to say the new mass without ordination', according to the N.O.clergy
**** Now all of us must follow the example of St. Padre Pio ,the Saint of our Times singlemindedly. — Give up the futile research of V-2, its managers and spend our energies to secure our salvation, to re-build the Church.
*** The HOLY MASS has been saved from extinction according to Divine Providence, by the Archbishop Lefebvre. We must co-operate with SSPX so that Rome frees the Mass at the earliest, so that more souls are saved, — the souls of our dear ones, etc.
*** The HOLY MASS will certainly be freed since Our MOTHER promised at Fatima that HER IMMACULATE HEART will Triumph at the end.
However, this will happen only after the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the IMMACULATE HEART of MARY.
(i.e)The Pope has to order the Collegial Consecration, and consecrate Russia by name,as ordered by Our Lady.
Thus, the Church would once again acknowledge the Great DIGNITY of Our Heavenly MOTHER, and make up for the slights of V-2, and the insults of the modern age.
Now let us pray ,sacrifice and work that This Day is advanced, to our life times itself.
A.M.D.G.
R. Arul Gnanaraj