From: waldbill1981@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: Altar girls and millstones
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:22:23 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <MepPYiO_NU00Q6q=tJ@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com>, Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM> writes:
> Excerpts from catholic: 9-Oct-92 Re: Altar girls and millstones David
> Jansing@ORION.SPD. (4859)
> 
>> >Back in the 1940s and 50s some Catholics thought that the sacrifice
>> >of the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular rather than in
>> >Latin.  This was a legitimate desire.  The requirement that the Mass
>> >be celebrated in Latin was entirely a matter of Church law.  The
>> >first Masses had been said in Aramaic, which was the vernacular of
>> >the Apostles.  Masses were then offered in Greek and other vernacular
>> >languages, including Latin, which was the vernacular in Rome.  Be-
>> >cause Latin was the common language of the Western Church it became
>> >the common language of worship.  Vernacular liturgies were tradition-
>> >ally used in some of the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. Wheth-
>> >er it was desirable to change from Latin to the vernacular in the
>> >Latin rite was a matter of opinion.  Many Catholics who supported the
>> >change formed organizations to promote it.  They wrote books and
>> >articles advocating it. They had meetings and conferences to discuss
>> >and advocate the use of the vernacular.  At those meetings the
>> >priests in attendance celebrated Mass in Latin.  The change they
>> >wanted had not yet been approved so they properly and obediently
>> >followed the rules then in effect.
> 
>> Latin was not the venancular in places like England or (what is today)
>> Germany.  Latin was forced upon the Church by an overbearing Roman
>> Empire. When the Empire fell, Latin remained mainly for the Church.
>> When the Council of Trent came along Latin was by far NOT the venacular
>> for the Western World.  There were many other languages, depending on
>> the area of Europe that you were in.  The Church basically went to Latin
>> to prevent any
>> such heresies creeping into the faith via the venacular.  The common
>> people then were uneducationed and uninformed.  The Church was acting in
>> their own
>> best interest.  500 years later, the Church made a conscious effor to
>> include the people of in the Liturgy, which meant (among other things)
>> changing the text of the Mass from Latin (not even close to the
>> venacular) to English (at least for the US).  Your "facts", Marty are
>> shaky andill-informed at best.
> 
> 'Scuse me Mr. Know-It-All, but I hardly find any conflict between what
> you said and what Marty said.  Both are entirely correct, I fail to see
> how you have "disproven" him.  There was in fact a time period when
> Latin _was_ the language of the Western church, like in the 4th and 5th
> centuries -- Marty never said that at the Council of Trent it was this
> way.
> 
>> >You ask if altar girls are against the rules.  Yes, they are.
>> >Someone else on the list recently said that he could provide documen-
>> >tation proving this fact.
> 
>> Then I say, "Put up, or shut up!"
> 
>> Once again, share these theological reasons, their sources, and their
>> agreement with Rome with the rest of us.  Again, "Put up, or shut up."
> 
> Seeing that you cannot come up with evidence to support your own view,
> except your dubious opinion, I would offer the same words of wisdom to
> you.  People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
> 
>> >God's law can be changed only by God.  He made some changes when He
>> >became a man in Jesus Christ, fulfilled the Old Covenant and founded
>> >the New Covenant which shall last until He returns at the end of the
>> >world.  Disobeying His commandments is a direct defiance of God.  God
>> >founded the Catholic Church to teach in His name, to administer His
>> >sacraments, etc.  Disobeying the rules of His Church is an indirect
>> >defiance of God because it defies the legislative authority He gave
>> >to the Apostles and their successors.
> 
>> Your weak arguments are made even weaker by your insistance of this
>> paragraph.  If you wish to follow the Old Testament God, the God of
>> punishment and anger, then do so in your own space and time.  Don't
>> inflict it on me or the Church.  We are Catholics and Christians.  This
>> means we follow the message of Christ!  This is a message of Love and
>> Forgiveness, not of punishments for "direct defiances" and "disobeying."
>>  And if you are so up on Church Law, let me ask you this:  Can women be
>> appointed as Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist?
> 
> In case you didn't know, Mr. Expert, it is a heretical position to claim
> that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New
> Testament.  It is QUITE heretical to even SUGGEST that the Old Testament
> is invalid, so don't impose your heretical views on us!  Catholic
> Christianity has ALWAYS believed the Old Testament to be equally
> inspired, equally inerrant, and equally valid with the New Testament.
> Not only that, I cannot even understand what the heck you are referring
> to in his paragraph.  Not only are you behaving arrogantly and
> self-righteously, you aren't even making any logical sense (never mind
> advocating condemned heresy).  This Catholic and Christian follows the
> God of the Old Testament and the New Testament, which are one in the
> same God, always have been, always will.  Don't start calling Gnostic
> heresies "Catholic and Christian."  Get YOUR facts straight.
> 
> Flame off,
> Eric


We need to get one fact straight.  Latin is the language of the Roman Catholic
Chruch.  This is a fact.  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.  This is not part of our tradition in the LATIN Rite of the
Roman Catholic Church.  
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).
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.

Latin is part of the tradition of the Church.  It remains the language of the
Church today.

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."


In Pax et Veritas Christi,

Brian T. Waldbillig
Petrus Romanus



Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic