Cardinal Robert Sarah given appointment by Pope Leo XIV

[Valletta]

In St Teresa of Avila's time, translation of Sacred Scripture into anything but classical Latin was prohibited in Spain.

This meant that St Teresa could only hear what priest shared Sacred Scripture. St John of the Cross, being a priest
was trained in Latin and could read it.

There was indeed local banning of Bible and other books by Protestants and Catholics in the roughly 2000 years of Christianity. Some were much concerned about heresy by personal commentary being added that was against their religions, not because they in any way were negative on the Bible. It is true that she could not read the Latin for herself, but instead St. Teresa turned to the Lord in prayer. Perhaps that was the Lord's plan. Again remember that for most of the history of Christianity the majority of Christians alive, including many saints and martyrs, were illiterate and did not have a Bible to read. But they could pray. This is from her book which ended up as being a book on how to pray: "When I began to take the first steps toward founding this monastery, it was not my intention that there be so much external austerity. At that time news reached me of the harm being done in France and of the havoc the Lutherans had caused and how much this miserable sect was growing. The news distressed me greatly, and, as though I could do something or were something, I cried to the Lord and begged him that I might remedy so much evil. It seemed to me that I would have given a thousand lives to save one soul out of the many that were being lost there."
The Way of Perfection by St. Teresa of Ávila, published in 1583 after her death.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I'm not sure how we got on the subject of Latin as an ecclesiastical language from Cardinal Sarah promoting ad orientem, but while we're here, a few things to note:

• Scott Hahn goes to a TLM.
• Converts before 1970 all heard a Latin Mass and converted anyway.
• The Novus Ordo causes plenty of other potential converts to walk away wondering about the lack of liturgical seriousness compared to a traditional Protestant service.

From the article in the OP it sounds like the current Pope doesn't see it that way.

Converts heard the Mass in the vernacular before 1970.

I was there and remember the change in the Mass in the 1960's.

Scott Hahn attending the TLM came later as the Franciscan University of Steubenville began
to celebrate the TLM. I read his book, "The Lamb's Supper," and he immediately saw the Mass
as the Mass celebrated in the Book of Revelation, which he was an expert on.
The Mass he attended was the NO in English. Would he have understood what was taking
place at that Mass if the priest had his back to the people and said the Mass in mumbled Latin?
I doubt it! He was still a protestant and attended the Catholic Mass in order to put together a
liturgy service for his religion, the Presbyterians. It's why led to his conversion and eventually
his wife's.

 

[jas3]

Would he have understood what was taking
place at that Mass if the priest had his back to the people and said the Mass in mumbled Latin?
I doubt it!

And yet, that's exactly what converts did prior to the introduction of the vernacular. Not that the Latin vs. vernacular issue has anything to do with the celebration of the liturgy ad orientem or versus populum; you could have a Mass in the vernacular celebrated ad orientem, as is done in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Divine Liturgies.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And yet, that's exactly what converts did prior to the introduction of the vernacular. Not that the Latin vs. vernacular issue has anything to do with the celebration of the liturgy ad orientem or versus populum; you could have a Mass in the vernacular celebrated ad orientem, as is done in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Divine Liturgies.

You could, but why? God dwells in us, and the celebrant, is In Person Christi and faces
the people as Christ did. God isn't just out somewhere in the cosmos, but everywhere
as He is omnipresent.

Anyway, the Church makes the decision, not me. Currently in my dioceses, the Bishop
follows the norms set by the USCCB and the Vatican.

 

[RileyG]

Constantine was Roman Emperor from 306AD to 337AD, that's the 4th Century. He issued the Edict of Milan
which gave the Christian Church freedom to worship. He also gave Roman Government buildings to the Church
which they used. Before that, the Mass was celebrated in various ways but mostly in secret, often in the homes
of Christians. Do you think they pushed the kitchen table against the wall so the celebrant could have his
back to the people?

Which way did Jesus face when he instituted the Eucharist? The priest is Christ, "In Persona Christi," when
he celebrates the Mass and faces the people where God is dwelling within them. The priest doesn't need
to worship God out in the cosmos somewhere, but where God is, and that is among us all at Mass. God
is "omnipresent" and is always among us.

FYI, the spiritual assistant of my OCDS group, who has a PHD on Liturgical History and
Spirituality which he received in Rome, gave a talk on the history of the Mass and Confession.
I know the history of the Church and know how the Mass developed over the centuries, and
why Vatican II sought to bring it back to be not only closer to the early Church, but to have
greater spiritual meaning for Catholics.

Very nice! Thanks for the info!

Blessings!

 

[RileyG]

You could, but why? God dwells in us, and the celebrant, is In Person Christi and faces
the people as Christ did. God isn't just out somewhere in the cosmos, but everywhere
as He is omnipresent.

Anyway, the Church makes the decision, not me. Currently in my dioceses, the Bishop
follows the norms set by the USCCB and the Vatican.

It’s my understanding he faced the altar because he was facing Christ with the people. That changed after Vatican II. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

I still love the TLM, but haven’t attended in a very long time. I go to novus ordo.

 

[RileyG]

And yet, that's exactly what converts did prior to the introduction of the vernacular. Not that the Latin vs. vernacular issue has anything to do with the celebration of the liturgy ad orientem or versus populum; you could have a Mass in the vernacular celebrated ad orientem, as is done in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Divine Liturgies.

Correct, I’ve been to an eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy twice. It’s always celebrated ad orientem.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It’s my understanding he faced the altar because he was facing Christ with the people. That changed after Vatican II. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

I still love the TLM, but haven’t attended in a very long time. I go to novus ordo.

Christ dwells within us and facing the people is facing God.

 

[RileyG]

Christ dwells within us and facing the people is facing God.

Amen. I agree, for those in the state of grace.

 

[jas3]

God dwells in us, and the celebrant, is In Person Christi and faces
the people as Christ did. God isn't just out somewhere in the cosmos, but everywhere
as He is omnipresent.

Alright, so we come back to the question you didn't answer earlier: where was this reasoning for, by your count, the last 1,700 or so years? Why did nobody think this change was necessary until the 1960's?

 

[Lost4words]

Latin is not a must like some suggest. Or the priest facing away from the people....

No, the celebrating of the 'mass' itself is the most important thing....

Many get hung up on Latin and facing away from the people....

Jesus never turned His back on us...

 

[RileyG]

Latin is not a must like some suggest. Or the priest facing away from the people....

No, the celebrating of the 'mass' itself is the most important thing....

Many get hung up on Latin and facing away from the people....

Jesus never turned His back on us...

Both Masses are valid, not to mention the many Eastern Divine Liturgies. All are beautiful and nourish us, in my opinion.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Alright, so we come back to the question you didn't answer earlier: where was this reasoning for, by your count, the last 1,700 or so years? Why did nobody think this change was necessary until the 1960's?

Once the Church got in bed with the empire, there was much corruption involved throughout its history
and much of the teachings of Christ were not revealed to the populace.
The persecution of the saints over the course of history is a case in point. Just about every saint was
persecuted by Church officials at some point. Keeping the populace obedient, was the main goal of
the Church. Vatican II ended up providing answers to the questions the faithful had over the centuries.
The main one, which I have addressed time and time again is the direction the priest faces while saying
Mass. Vatican II, showed that the Church believes that Christ is among us, dwelling inside every person,
and there was no need for the celebrant to offer the consecrated host to God who was somewhere out
in the cosmos.

Also, the history of the priest raising the host above his head, had nothing to do with
offering it up to God, but so the poor, who could not buy seats up front, could see the host.
The wealthy who paid for seats had them reserved up toward the front of the Church.

As it is, when the priest does face the people in the NO, he's not supposed to raise the host above
his head. This was told to me by my priest friend who said that the "son" the priest, (in Persona Christi,)
doesn't raise himself above his own head. Today I often see the celebrant raising the host above his
head. My friend has a PHD in Liturgical History and gave my OCDS group talks on the history of the
liturgy. I trust he knows what he was talking about.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Both Masses are valid, not to mention the many Eastern Divine Liturgies. All are beautiful and nourish us, in my opinion.

Both Masses are valid, but the NO is the ordinary and should be celebrated by the Church throughout the world.
The TLM is the extraordinary and can only be celebrated in certain areas approved by the Vatican and local Bishop.

 

[Valletta]

Once the Church got in bed with the empire, there was much corruption involved throughout its history
and much of the teachings of Christ were not revealed to the populace.

This is right out of the anti-Catholic playbook. There is no proof whatsoever that Jesus or the rest of His Church got "in bed with the empire" and "much of the teachings of Christ were not revealed to the populace." I have already taken the time to correct you on your story about Bible translations by the Catholic Church, I would bet you get your material from the same or similar sources. The truth is there is very little historical documentation that survives from the time of Constantine. For example, we are not sure if Constantine even converted to Christianity. Before Constantine Catholics were in hiding, they could not practice their religion freely, and many popes over those centuries were martyred. What evidence do your sources provide that the teachings of Jesus were suddenly withheld from the people under the reign of Constantine? Which specific teachings?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is right out of the anti-Catholic playbook. There is no proof whatsoever that Jesus or the rest of His Church got "in bed with the empire" and "much of the teachings of Christ were not revealed to the populace." I have already taken the time to correct you on your story about Bible translations by the Catholic Church, I would bet you get your material from the same or similar sources. The truth is there is very little historical documentation that survives from the time of Constantine. For example, we are not sure if Constantine even converted to Christianity. Before Constantine Catholics were in hiding, they could not practice their religion freely, and many popes over those centuries were martyred. What evidence do your sources provide that the teachings of Jesus were suddenly withheld from the people under the reign of Constantine? Which specific teachings?

Then there was no need for God to call the saints forward to reform the Church.

Yes, the Church did indeed get involved with the political monarchies in the course of history.

Kings Courts had cardinal's, bishops and priest and they made church rules which
governed the people according to the wishes of the monarchy. There was also nepotism by
Popes making relatives cardinals and bishops. Was Christ part of the Sanhedrin or the Roman Empire?
Read about the Pope Alexander VI and the Borgia family involvement in Church politics,
if you doubt me.

Heck at one time, a 12-year-old, Benedict IX, was named Pope.

Benedict IX (died 1055/56, Grottaferrata, Papal States [Italy]) was the pope three times, from 1032 to 1044,
from April to May 1045, and from 1047 to 1048. The last of the popes from the powerful Tusculani family,
he was notorious for selling the papacy and then reclaiming the office twice.

Benedict IX | Reign, Papacy & Controversy | Britannica

Benedict IX was the pope three times, from 1032 to 1044, from April to May 1045, and from 1047 to 1048. The last of the popes from the powerful Tusculani family, he was notorious for selling the papacy and then reclaiming the office twice. The son of Count Alberic of Tusculum, he was the nephew of

www.britannica.com

A priest friend of mine (RIP) told me that none of these popes changed the dogmas
of the Church. God was still in charge here.

It's better to acknowledge that the Church had its dirty laundry than to sweep in under the rug.

 

[Valletta]

Then there was no need for God to call the saints forward to reform the Church.

Yes, the Church did indeed get involved with the political monarchies in the course of history.

Kings Courts had cardinal's, bishops and priest and they made church rules which
governed the people according to the wishes of the monarchy. There was also nepotism by
Popes making relatives cardinals and bishops. Was Christ part of the Sanhedrin or the Roman Empire?
Read about the Pope Alexander VI and the Borgia family involvement in Church politics,
if you doubt me.

Heck at one time, a 12-year-old, Benedict IX, was named Pope.

Benedict IX (died 1055/56, Grottaferrata, Papal States [Italy]) was the pope three times, from 1032 to 1044,
from April to May 1045, and from 1047 to 1048. The last of the popes from the powerful Tusculani family,
he was notorious for selling the papacy and then reclaiming the office twice.

Benedict IX | Reign, Papacy & Controversy | Britannica

Benedict IX was the pope three times, from 1032 to 1044, from April to May 1045, and from 1047 to 1048. The last of the popes from the powerful Tusculani family, he was notorious for selling the papacy and then reclaiming the office twice. The son of Count Alberic of Tusculum, he was the nephew of

www.britannica.com

A priest friend of mine (RIP) told me that none of these popes changed the dogmas
of the Church. God was still in charge here.

It's better to acknowledge that the Church had its dirty laundry than to sweep in under the rug.

You picked up on fabricated information regarding the history of the translation of the Bible and posted it and now you have done the same with Constantine. The prudent and responsible course it to take the time to check your facts rather than throw out new accusations. The Encyclopedia Britannica, by the way, has a history of anti-Catholic bias.

Exodus 23:1 You shall not utter a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man, to be a malicious witness.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You picked up on fabricated information regarding the history of the translation of the Bible and posted it and now you have done the same with Constantine. The prudent and responsible course it to take the time to check your facts rather than throw out new accusations. The Encyclopedia Britannica, by the way, has a history of anti-Catholic bias.

Exodus 23:1 You shall not utter a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man, to be a malicious witness.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.

Fact, many Church officials were in bed with the monarchs throughout history in Europe.

Heck St Francis of Assisi was called by God to reform the Church, as it had gone astray from the Gospel.

St Thomas Moore was originally in King Henry VIII's court and hunted down heretics and
had them put to death. Ironically, he himself ended up beheaded for opposing the
King's oath mandate.

St Joan of Arc, was another, tried and burned at the stake after being convicted
by the court in Burgundy, with Catholic clergy in agreement.

Please, don't quote Exodus in your attempt to condemn me and deny this took place.

It'd be akin to denying that we lived through the sex abuse scandal that took place.
It happened!

As I said earlier, until you can accept that there were times in the Church which were not good
you will only fabricate things in order to defend the religion. However, Christ reformed the Church
at various times throughout her history. This is how Christ said that the gates of hell would
not prevail over it.

 

[jas3]

Once the Church got in bed with the empire, there was much corruption involved throughout its history
and much of the teachings of Christ were not revealed to the populace.

That is... quite a take. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that from a Baptist or SDA, but never would have thought a Catholic would believe this. I second @Valletta's question, what evidence do you have that this occurred under Constantine? You responded to him with examples from the 15th and 11th centuries.

 

[Valletta]

That is... quite a take. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that from a Baptist or SDA, but never would have thought a Catholic would believe this. I second @Valletta's question, what evidence do you have that this occurred under Constantine? You responded to him with examples from the 15th and 11th centuries.

I gave him a link so he could see for himself that Biblical text was translated into English by Catholics before Tyndale and Wycliffe. Next he came out with the Constantine story, and I am familiar enough with the period to know there is little historical documentation from that time and his story was a fabrication that is spread on staunch anti-Catholic sites. I hope he looks for himself at documentation from the time of Constantine. Obviously his sources are bad, I think that it is important he become aware of this and of the tactics of some of these bad actors, we've all been fooled at one time or another. So I too would like to know his source of information--and how he came across it. The tactic of using multiple false accusations, moving on to the next once you prove it wrong or starting with a huge number that would take forever to properly answer is the bread and butter of those who hate Catholics.