Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: MaterDominici on November 30, 2008, 09:28:49 PM
-
Taking the short answer, I will say that the language used is one of the LEAST concerns of most traditionalists.
It is true that holding to Latin has advantages such as uniting a world-wide church under a single tongue as well as the inability of meanings to change over time since Latin is a dead language.
However, the list of differences between the old and new missals is long and the change in language is NOT the most significant change ... it's only the most obvious.
-
The Pius X and John XXIII Missals Compared
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=18&catname=6 (http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=18&catname=6)
-
I will add that most good critiques of the Novus Ordo Mass -- such as that done by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacchi (very famous -- feel free to google it) -- focuses on the BEST-CASE SCENARIO of the Novus Ordo. Namely, in Latin (which glosses over problems that often occur with translations), done in a reverent manner (which passes over all the myriad abuses out there in the real world), etc.
Even when analyzed in that generous a manner -- the Novus Ordo comes up very short. It makes things ambiguous that were once clear and certain, removes mention of "sacrifice", and in general follows the pattern laid down in the "Anti-liturgical heresy" written by Dom Gueranger (google it).
Matthew
-
-
-
I laud such informative works as The Ottaviani Intervention, because they attack the essence of the problem, and not some rogue priest who does a silly Halloween march while dressed up as Barney the dinosaur. (Yes, that's actually happened. I saw the video!)
Not all priests do such foolish things, so it's best to keep the argument (against the Novus Ordo) focused on the essentials. All the abuses, real-world situations, etc. are just "icing on the cake" as it were.
Matthew
-
Besides it not being in Latin...no big deal to me seeing that the original words of God were not written in Latin either. Since when is Latin the only offical word of the Bible/Missal/Mass?
I was once a STRONG sede but am now comming full circle
I don't quite understand how you were a strong sede without knowing these things - not to be critical, but what were your original beliefs based upon? I just don't understand b/c being sedevacantist kind of implies a choice against the modern Church, but a choice made without any sort of study or research into why doesn't really make any sense to me. So, if you are going from one side to another, is it b/c you never knew why you were sede in the first place (just raised in it or something?) or what? It's not of real concern to me, I guess I just find it a little surprising. However, if you are serious about having your question answered the previous posts are an excellent place to start.