Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:13:15 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Altar girls and millstones

Excerpts from catholic: 9-Oct-92 Re: Altar girls and millstones
waldbill1981@ISCSVAX.UNI (7337)

> We need to get one fact straight.  Latin is the language of the Roman Catholic
> Chruch.  This is a fact.

I never denied this.  I merely wanted to point out that vernacular has
ALWAYS been used by the Catholic Church in various places.  It is wrong
to both suggest that the Mass must be celebrated in the vernacular, and
to suggest that it cannot be celebrated in the vernacular.  Latin is the
official language of the Catholic Church, and the language of the Latin
rite.  But it is not the language of the Byzantine Rite, nor of various
other rites, and never has been.

>  The use of Latin in the liturgy is still supposed to be the norm.  Read
> Vatican II and Canon Law.  Latin unites us as Christ's Church.  Even
> today, all liturgical texts are translated from the Latin original to
> vernacular versions.  The intent of the Second Vatican Council was not
> to eliminate Latin, as has been done.  When one reads the Council
> documents, one will quickly note that there was no intent of a strictly
> vernacular litrugy.

Vatican II permitted vernacular liturgies, but, as you point out,
desired that Latin still be the primary language.

>  This is not part of our tradition in the LATIN Rite of the Roman
> Catholic Church.

There was an intense discussion on this on
catholic@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us, those who felt that the use of the
vernacular was a great blessing in evangelizing people and getting
people to understand their faith, and those who insisted that it was the
official language and should be used.  I am obviously on the former
side.  Latin was fine for liturgy when people spoke it.  No one speaks
it any more.  The fact that Latin is the official language of the church
is an artifact of history and not a matter of divine revelation.  I
respect and submit to the Church's decisions concerning its use; the
Church has the authority to mandate a particular language for
faciliating communication, and this is good.  But there seems to me no
divine revelation that says that liturgy must be celebrated in Latin.

> Also, if you know any Latin at all, you will quickly notice that the
> translation of Pope Paul's Novus Ordo Missae is not at all acurate.  Not
> at all.  Those who translated the Liturgy for us (ICEL) claimed to
> translate the New Mass not just in word accuracy, but also in the
> meaning.  They miserably failed.  What we hear in the vernacular isn't
> even Pope Paul's New Mass. Vatican II recommended the possibility of the
> use of the vernacular for the reading & Gospel and possibly for the
> Gloria & Credo (Credo means "I" believe, not "We" believe).

Excuse me -- this has been on my  mind for a long time.

HOW ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH IS ANYONE SUPPOSED TO RECEIVE THE WORD OF GOD
WHEN IT IS SPOKEN IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE?

I can understand speaking the liturgy in Latin, since it does not change
and it is easy to memorize what the responses mean.  But I cannot
BELIEVE that for umpteen hundred years, if I understand you correctly,
the Word of God (in the readings) was read to people in a language they
could not understand!!!  Did we really deprive people of the blessed
Word of God for some vain goal of internationalization?  St. Jerome
said, "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."  How could we
even THINK of keeping the faithful ignorant of Scripture by reading it
in a foreign language.

> I am not even going to get into the vicious controversy about the consecration
> of the wine ("pro MULTIS effundetur" not "pro omnibus"---there is a
> difference between the merits of Christ's Sacrifice and the fruits of
> Christ's Sacrifice). Gregorian Chant (in Latin) is also supposed to be
> the norm for the Church according to Vatican II.  This you will find
> with the Holy Father, but not with our many de facto excommunicated
> bishops in this country.

Failing to use the Gregorian Chant does not make one a schismatic or a heretic.

> I will leave with some thoughts from the Council of Trent:
> "If anyone says that the Mass must be said in the vernacular alone, let him be
> anathema."

The same could be said of Latin -- if anyone says that the Mass must be
said in Latin, let him be anathema.

> In Pax et Veritas Christi,

> Brian T. Waldbillig
> Petrus Romanus

In nomine Patri, Filii, et Spiriti Sancti,

Eric