Mass in Latin again

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Hi Thomas

I had no idea you were a writer or tempted in that direction, must just be something about the way your posts come across.

Oh, I've been a scribbler since I was 16.

I am currently researching the development of Trinitarian doctrine, which brings in a lifelong interest in metaphysics and philosophy ... and the evolution of language to try and cope with expressing something that is essentially a Mystery.

The big area at the moment is in the definition of terms, "ousia", 'hypostasis", "prosopon" and their Latin near-equivalents, "substantia", "essentia", "subsisteria" ... and a raft of others ... a theological lexicon, in fact.

It's still an open question, the definitions varying, depending upon how we understand the terms.

This, for me, is made all the more interesting by the theological wranglings from the 3rd-7th centuries, a succession of theological 'heavy-hitters' that stride through the pages of history, plus some later figures that cannot be ignored, so we have the Catholic A-Team: Athenasius, Augustine and Aquinas, plus others from Irenaues (2c) to John Henry Newman (19c).

When it's written, it'll make Harry Potter look like a pamphlet, the Jew will say, "He's got a point, you know," the Orthodox will rush to Rome with open arms, and the Moslem will cry with delight, "You do believe in One God, just like us!"

Get your orders in now. A bargain at £3m — signed by the author, too!

Thomas

[flowperson]

Hi Thomas...As one writer to another...you have my sincere condolences, but I wish you well.

If I were you, and it's probably a really good thing for both of us and the rest of the world that I'm not, I would do some reading in the physical sciences on issues having to do with concepts of "time" and how they are bound up with the fabric of the universe. Lisa Randall's recent book, Warped Passages, is especially informative for the lay person. It gives one a good sense of where physics has been and where it might likely go in the future.

My belief has always been that the "trinitarian" concept has its roots there, and that it naturally arose over the centuries based upon human observations related to time and its effects upon life. The birth, death, rebirth thingy y'know.

Write on !

flow....

[InLove]

Hey Thomas

Originally Posted by Thomas

I remember watching 'Babylon 5' on TV and an episode in which a super-advanced species, who seemed to be all energy, and who occupied something akin to a sarcophagus to enable them to communicate with the various other species, were seen outside its casing...

and ... you guessed it ... each species saw an angelic image of its own kind. A wonderfully cheesy moment, but we are human, after all.

+++

It suddenly struck me ... opera! I happen to know a real East End Londoner who is an opera fan, loves it, goes often. Does he speak Italian, or whatever? Not a word. Should it then all be sung in English for him? I would think he would say no.

Funny, you should bring this up, as only a couple of days ago, I was thinking about this thread and I also thought of opera. Good example!

I also thought about one of my favorite films, "Life Is Beautiful". When I first saw this movie, I recommended it highly to several of my friends, but when they tried to watch it, they came back with ambivalent reviews. I asked them why, and they each said something along the lines of "It was just too confusing with all the subtitles...now, if it were in English, I might like it better." To which I responded, "Oh no, no, no!!! It would not be the same!" Nevertheless, when the English version became available, some of them gave the story a second chance, but again, the reports were not so great. Of course, this did not surprise me at all, and I wanted to say, "I told you so, " and keep pushing the original film in Italian, but I like my friends and decided not to harp anymore about it. Later, I happened to run across the English version on the telly--and....lol... "No, no, no! It just wasn't the same!" And I'm not just being a romantic, either--the story really does lose quite a bit in the translation process, especially since the original also contains some German and some English. It just doesn't work so well.

However, I will say that whether it is an opera or a “foreign” film, or perhaps even a Latin mass—it really is helpful to have some idea of what is being said (as in subtitles, a program, etc.). By this, I don’t mean that there is not intrinsic value in any of these, even without the “story line”. (I am being a bit clumsy again with my language here, I know.) And even though I was being a little sarcastic with my allusion to the Pentecost, I don’t disregard the mystical element that may actually be there for someone who doesn’t understand the Latin, yet is open to whatever blessing may be received. And I do appreciate a service anywhere that places the emphasis on the message rather than the priest, pastor, or singers. I have always been so much more comfortable and especially more focused when I know that people are closing their eyes or studying the cross at the front of the sanctuary instead of looking at what I am wearing (or not wearing, as I prefer to remove my footwear whenever possible!) or the expression on my face.

To be honest, I really don’t know what to make of this particular Pope. But then, I would not be the person to ask about that office, anyway, no matter who occupies it. All I know is that John Paul II would be a tough act to follow, as he was truly so well-liked. Benedict is obviously dedicated to reform, and reformation is hardly ever a simple task. I just think it would benefit him as well as many people around the world if he were a bit more tactful. I don't mean any disrespect to him--it is just the personal observation of an "outsider" looking on. After all, as you have pointed out, the Latin does take a great deal of study to understand, and the average person simply does not have the luxury of all that free time, even if it might be a very worthy endeavor.

And as has been discussed at length here, there are those in the media and elsewhere who feel they must stir up trouble in order to keep their own positions. But let’s be fair—the issue is without a doubt newsworthy! I am just glad to see that most of the Jewish responses do not seem angry, but moderate and flavored with that all-important grain of salt. There is much to be applauded in this regard.

Well, on that note, I wonder what Wordsworth would write about Dallas? Would he find the beauty in the midst of all the corruption and greed? Would he find the blg, blue sky that hides in the smog and the stars that are eclipsed by all the flourescent and neon? I dunno…

It might be a s-t-r-e-t-c-h.

InPeace,
InLove

[Thomas]

Hey InLove —

I nevver went to a Catholic junior school as a kid, so I missed out, but most Catholics would have learnt the Latin Mass at school, so would be expected to know, or at least have a vague recollection, of what's going on.

I admit now that many wouldn't have a clue.

Probably the basis of a whole new thread, but Catholics regard the Liturgy not as the product of theological reflection, but properly the object of theological reflection ... for which reason I am very glad the Liturgy is in English, it means I don't have to learn Latin, for a start.

+++

Re Dallas — I remember seeing in the TV listings that Philip Glass had written the score for a film called The Thin Blue Line, and thought any film that Glass has written for is worth a look.

The opening shot was at night, across what looked like dry prairie, to walls of glass that rise suddenly out of a desert, as if there was no interim, one step on sand, the next step into the reception of some steel-and-glass skyscraper. Fantastic image from the word go. I would recommend the film on the strength of that shot alone...

Pax tecum,

Thomas

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The rest of us have a diminished amount of certainty with regards to our relationship with God since we are much more fortunate than those people.

Salaam Saltmeister

I have to agree with you here. I have met such a wide variety of people in my life but never have I met anyone as poor as my in-laws. Yes my mother in law never fails to give a few piasters (egyptian money) to anyone less fortunate than herself. Yes, I give charity but I know my deed is less than hers because she has so little to spare.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

That puts me in the middle, rather than being one of the first, into the kingdom of God.

This is where I have trouble with such discussions. How can any of us guess whether we will do enough, given our circumstances, to even get in, let alone be one of the first. Should we not assume that we are not doing enough and try harder? Would that not make the world a better place, rather than saying I am in the 'in' crowd and lording it over others (not a reference to you personally, just a general one).

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Never mind if I got it wrong. The important thing is whether you knew what I was hinting at.

Message received and understood.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Their "sins" do count, but not as much. The conventional Christian (and from my impression, perhaps even the Muslim, correct me if I'm wrong) perspective is that God judges people only by their deeds, but not the deeds of others done to them, or the way others have treated them. My suggestion in the last one or two posts was that maybe God doesn't just look at our deeds, but also the way people have treated us and our social standing.

For me that is a little too black and white. Certainly for Muslims no-one will be able to speak for us on the Day of Judgement and we will not be able to speak for anyone else. However, our personal deeds will be judged. So I believe that if I am a selfish, arrogant person that will reflect in the way I am treated by others. Whereas if I am a good person and treat others with decency then again that will reflect in others.

I do see what you are saying and of course G-d doesn't miss a trick about us. So yes, I should think our relationships will count because they are a reflection of who we are. Some would say I am a bad Muslim, or even not a Muslim at all, because I do not share their views but only G-d knows what is in my heart and only He can judge me. However, even if the whole world declares me to be the vice president of hell, that does not make it true and G-d will know and judge me accordingly. I believe you are right, in that if I am declared the VP of hell then this would naturally change my behaviour, as others would treat me differently and G-d will know this. He tells us that He will judge each of us fairly and I for one believe Him.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Moreover, I disagree with the idea that the whole world is a court-room and that the sole purpose in life is to earn points or commit misdeeds just so that we can get a shower of hot coals over our heads and get slammed in the divine court-room.

Why do people always refer to hell? Why see G-d as this big meany that will judge us harshly and punish us needlessly? I do believe my life is a big court room but I see it as an opportunity to learn and grow, to defend myself, to vindicate the trust G-d put in me. He has given me the free will and the tools so that I can choose. He never said "one tiny sin and it's off to hell", I have the opportunity to sin and be forgiven, to ensure my good deeds outweigh my bad. I for one am happy for the opportunity to prove to G-d that I am worth saving and He is ever merciful, not petulant and unfair. Yet people choose to sin and then try to 'blame' G-d for an unfair system.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Thomas

When it's written, it'll make Harry Potter look like a pamphlet, the Jew will say, "He's got a point, you know," the Orthodox will rush to Rome with open arms, and the Moslem will cry with delight, "You do believe in One God, just like us!"

Get your orders in now. A bargain at £3m — signed by the author, too!

Salaam Thomas

If you could do this and stop all the squabbling it would be worth a lot more than £3m (just wish I had that much, then I would give it to you to prove this).

[InLove]

Hi Everyone--

I've been following along about whether how others treat us because of our lowly social status, particularly when due to our real or perceived transgressions, somehow figures into our salvation. My thinking is that what may count most in these situations is how we learn to react to this treatment. It makes sense to me that if we desire forgiveness for ourselves from God, then we should find out what it is to forgive others--even if they do not appreciate nor understand it. While none of us knows exactly what happens after we leave this existence, would it not be the best we could do to have given freely of that for which we hope?

InPeace,
InLove

[Muslimwoman]

Excellent point InLove.

What is your take on the verse about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven? I feel sure it doesn't mean you have to be financially poor to enter heaven but never sure if it is talking about greed or humility.

Salaam

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What is your take on the verse about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven? I feel sure it doesn't mean you have to be financially poor to enter heaven but never sure if it is talking about greed or humility.

That's an interesting observation, Sally. I have often thought about greed in reference to this passage, but not much about humility. I think it means either, actually.

I have heard several interpretations. I even heard a sermon one time about the "eye of the needle" being the literal meaning of the name of a narrow and treacherous mountain pass in the ancient mideast somewhere. Don't know if that is true, but if it is, perhaps it was a colloquialism employed by Jesus which, when all is said, means about the same as it does for us today--that being that money and power can be a huge obstacle in our spiritual development if we let it. I don't think this means that because a person has money or social position, he or she is automatically condemned, but simply that it is something that merits a vigilant self-watch. And if it causes us to sin, then we should find why and do something about it. If your right hand offends....

InPeace,
InLove,
Deb

[Muslimwoman]

I have just been thinking about this verse a lot lately Deb. Being back in the UK and seeing the capitalist greed here made me think of it. I just wonder what we will all say on the Day of Judgement when we are shown how much we actually had and then asked why we allowed people to starve to death. How could we ever answer that?

There is simply no excuse to my mind, if each person with 'more than necessary' helped just one person with 'not enough' then the world would be a different place. I have been thinking recently about the meaning of 'rich man' in this verse. We tend to think of a rich man as someone with more than us but in reality if we have more than we actually need then surely we are rich too?

If one man has 1 kg of rice and another has 2 kg, is the second man rich in the eyes of the first?

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What is your take on the verse about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven? I feel sure it doesn't mean you have to be financially poor to enter heaven but never sure if it is talking about greed or humility.

Salaam

it has to do with needs. a rich man has already attained wealth--they are not hungry, they have a home, cars, good health care, money in the bank, etc., and because of that, there is less chance that they have need for god in their life; they have already attained success without god--they rely on themselves but they are spiritually bankrupt if all that they do is not for the glory of god. a poor person or one who has nothing is more likely to accept god and the promise of a better eternal life in heaven since this life is temporal and they got the short end of the stick, and although life may be hard, god is worshiped even when all is lost because they need to believe, and because of that the last shall be first, and the first shall be last; and the lowly will be exalted, and they self-exalted will be lowered.

[Thomas]

Hi all —

Discussions between Saltmeister and Muslimwoman highlighted issues I had not picked up on before (are we off topic or what?), and I was thinking last night about the questions that have been raised.

Does it seem naive to suggest Christ's Second Commandment applies here?
Love thy neighbour as thyself.

There's a telling discourse in Matthew 25:36-40
"Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me ... Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."

In line with discussions, Jesus does not condemn anyone for being poor, hungry, thirsty, a criminal ... nor does He make a virtue out of poverty ... but He does condemn a culture (the cult) that mistreats the unfortunate.

Society has the right to limit the freedoms of those who abuse those freedoms, but in so doing society does not have the right to abuse the abuser, and when such happens, society is no better.

Society also needs to be vigilant, as Deb says, with regard to the question of whether it is serving or failing its members.

I am reminded of the fuss when Lord Longford chose to visit Myra Hindley, 'The Moors Murderer' ... he was part of the prisoner visitor system, but society has determined that some crimes (according to its own self-determined values) lie outside the pale of Christian charity.

From my perspective, Scripture posits transcendentals, or rather Christ utters absolutes, and we play with fire when we seek to relativise what He has stated as the case. In other words, Jesus says, 'Love thy neighbour,' and we say 'OK, but not him, surely?'

To be 'blessed of my Father' to be lesser, to be more hungry, more thirsty etc., than anyone else ... this is too often a cause of pseudopiety and is questionable from a number of psychological viewpoints, but too often becomes a 'virtuous sign' — I consider the guru who wraps himself into contorted knots, or buries himself in a hole, equally as pointless in action as the stylite or the flagellant.

The parable of the widow's mite, and especially of the rich man and the publican in the temple, provide a commentary here.

With regard to the eye of the needle:
"And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?" Matt 19:24-25

I have always found their response intriguing. If by 'riches' Jesus means material wealth alone, then what's their problem? They are poor fisherman, who've given up everything to follow Jesus — they are surely living examples of the very point He's making, but they don't see it that way.

I think Jesus weas not talking of material wealth, but talking of the material self — we have to give ourselves up to God, and our neighbour, without reserve. But, in so doing, we don't have to give ourselves over to abuse. Everyone remembers 'turn the other cheek', but rarely as often do they recall 'cast not your pearls before swine' or 'give not that which is holy to the dogs'.

The social dimension needs constant vigilance, and as society becomes more comfortable, the degree of vigilance declines ... that's the direction the West is currently headed.

Thomas

[Thomas]

I think there is much in what Salmeister says, but I cannot accept his idea of vindication v redemption, as it seems to simply reverse the issue ... it's again deciding who is justified, and who isn't ... it is discriminatory, whereas the message of Christ is universal — He addresses human nature, not the accidents of circumstance.

But the issues raised are real, and relevent, and if I were to come up with one word, as I did last night, then it would be 'complacency' — perhaps the counterpoint to InLove's 'vigilance'.

By the close of the 1st Christian century, the church in Rome, subject to periodic persecution, was supporting over 1500 widows, orphans, etc., in short society's dispossessed, in a civilisation that had no mechanism to care for the underdog, and saw no need for one. The idea of social inclusion was revolutionary, and it was one of the reasons for Christianity's epidemic spread ... Christians cared for the wellbeing of their neighbour. It has been recorded that in Liturgical celebrations, slaves would stand alongside senators, equal in status in their religious community, although worlds apart, outside it. A Roman Senator berrated the Senate for failing the population, and said in exasperation, "why, even the Christians take better care of their people than we do!"

Many would like to present Christ as little more than a social reformer, a champion of the underdog who was killed by the state. If such alone was the case, one would have to acknowledge that He failed miserably. But that was not His mission, the social dimension follows from the spiritual, and if the spiritual is ordered properly, the social will naturally follow.

+++

Two thousand years later, I live in a country that professes, somewhat precariously, a Christian ethos. Personally I don't agree, this is a secular society, it tells itself its ethos is humanitarian, in actuality it is materiaistic and consumerist.

A couple of years ago, a tsunami struck the Far East one Boxing Day morning, and within hours, it seems, the British public had pledged something like £30m in donations ... the government was caught 'on the hop' — although it's not quite as simple for a minister to pledge government money as it is for an individual to reach into his or her pocket.

But the fact remains, to date not one government has ever given all the monies it had pledged to another in distress.

The simple answer is they lie. Politicians make noble statements, and grand promises, and it was all self-serving PR, in the full knowledge that the public will never bother to check.

The 'gifts' are tied up in conditions they know are beyond the capacity of the receivers to meet. We talk of 'democracy' and 'free election' and 'human rights' — but what we actually want is easy access to resources, open markets for our exports, and military installations to spy on our neighbours. The US pledges billions, on condition that the most part of that aid is spent in the domestic US market — in short, they're using national disasters to give the economy a shot in the arm (wars are another moneyspinner — as a US notable commented on Iraq, "when there's this much money to be made, we will always find a good reason to go to war").

UN observers have noted that First World countries make trillions of dollars out of Third World goods, but the revenues and profits go into First Word bank accounts.

+++

What has this to do with the Latin Mass?

A lot. It's the same problem ... complacency.

People, we are being told, don't want the Mass in Latin because they'll have to actually make an effort to understand something they never bother thinking about, and that, it seems, is asking too, too much of anyone ... God forbid that anyone should be required to exert their energies.

Did it ever occur to anyone this might be the ideal shot in the arm to make people ask themselves "What am I doing? What is this actually about?"

So they want the Mass the way they like it ... cosy, comfortable, not too long, not too challenging ... most of all they want to feel that for 45 minutes on a Sunday they are special ... go light on the mystery stuff, get rid of this solemnity ... we're here, aren't we, yeh! Good for us!!! Happy-clappy, let's have a song...

... Bear in mind we have 'Holydays of Obligation' which are days in the Liturgical calendar marking special events, when we are obliged to attend Mass. Recently one such day, traditionally a Thursday, has been moved to Sunday, because people now find it too difficult to go to mass midweek. This, I might add, was not the cry from people who have to walk miles to a church, or face oppression for their faith, but the affluent West, with their cars and microwaves and mobile phones ... 'Hi God? Yes, I've got a window in my filo on Thursd ... no, wait, Sally'll have the Beemer then, parking's a nightmare midweek anyway ... can we shift, say roll it into Sunday?'

+++

And as more than one theologian observed, over twenty years ago, there is the distinct impression that the celebration is somewhat self-congratulatory — and if and when that happens, it is no longer a Liturgy in any real sense, and it runs the very real risk of embodying those very criticisms that Saltmeister has laid against us, in a way that Latin Mass never could, it becomes a social marker.

And yes, I know, soon you'll hear them in the changing rooms at the health spa, "I go to the Latin actually, in town, they're Jesuits you know, they're very good... "

Kyrie eleison...

Thomas
(And the Moslems? Praying five times a day? Five! Are they mad? Have they nothing better to do with their time?)

[Thomas]

Hey, Muslimwoman —

Have a look round for 'Reza Shah Kazemi' – he's into serious and intelligent Interreligious Dialogue. And he's roughly in the Perennialist tradition, too, they like him a lot!

Online articles here:
Sacred Web: Sample Articles

Pax tecum,

Thomas

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Thomas

(And the Moslems? Praying five times a day? Five! Are they mad? Have they nothing better to do with their time?)

Hi Thomas

Forgive me, I don't have time to post tonight but I couldn't resist commenting on this.

The answer would be "do I have anything better to do with my time than pray to G-d. Erm, let me think, well now, perhaps, nah, maybe, probably not, so that would just be a definate NO then". LOL

It is one of the things I love about praying at home Thomas. There is none of this wearing your new clothes and polishing your new car before you go, to impress the other worshipers. It is very personal and the only being you are trying to impress is G-d (although I keep my fingers crossed that the angels recording my deeds are a little impressed too!).

Loved your posts, will try to get back tomorrow to comment.

Salaam
Sally