Mass in Latin again

[InLove]

HI All--Peace....

Thomas, when I posted that BBC article, I did realize that it could be somehow biased, but I wasn't sure. I am still not too familiar with the political leanings of news organizations around the world--I've only recently been able to sort out the U.S. sources and identify which elements they endorse (the way news is reported today is a sad thing, for the most part,IMO. There is always an agenda of some kind, it seems, and I am so sorry to hear about the nun who was murdered as a result of this sort of mindset.) The article is about 3 months old, as well, so I know that the debate has progressed, hopefully toward the point of reconciliation. And I noticed that the message board comments after the article were mostly pretty negative and perhaps I should have done a cut and paste or something in order to leave those out. They don't represent my views.

I think that the mass should be conducted in Latin because there are elements contained therein which I imagine cannot be fully expressed in another language. However, as you pointed out, there is also a great value in observing and participating in the service in the vernacular. Everyone is different, and some have the need to hear the words in a way they can better understand. (I think I am being rather clumsy about expressing my thoughts this morning--need coffee, maybe--but hopefully you understand what I mean. ) And I think it is so encouraging that there seems to be a willingness to edit some things in the Latin for the sake of harmony, brotherhood, and Truth.

By the way, your comment regarding the fact that the people and the clergy all faced the Tabernacle in the Old Style really hit home with me, even though I could not be considered a Catholic by Catholic standards. But in my experience in the music ministry of several Protestant Traditions, I have come to appreciate it when I am not "center stage". In some denominations, the singers and/or musicians deliver the music from a balcony in the back of the church or sometimes from behind a partition of some kind. I love this approach when available. It really does help me focus on God, and the people in the congregation aren't distracted by anything I might do (and I can take off my shoes and cause no controversy! ). Well, I could talk all day about this, but I will spare you the ramble.

InPeace,
InLove

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I had no particular view about the subject, I was just surprised when I heard it on the news, as so many men died trying to translate mass so the 'ordinary' people could understand it and feel more a part of their faith. So I suppose it saddened me as it felt like a step backward for the 'common man'.

Hi Muslimwoman — I think that is the line promoted by propagandists — no-one died for translating the mass, and the translation of Scripture was rarely done so people could 'feel more a part of their faith'. The agenda was political and nationalistic.

Interestingly, when the Protestants took control, altars and churches were stripped, and the net outcome was a outbreak of pagan practice across the Protestant continent. People like to portray the Catholics as the villains in this case, but in fact the statistics show that far more women were burnt for witchcraft in Protestant states than in Catholic ones.

When the ban on stripped churches was lifted briefly, all the sacred relics, ritual items, altar cloths, sculptures, paintings, hangings etc., miraculously re-appeared — they had been stored away by the faithful in the hope of a return. When the ban returned, they vanished away again.

Meanwhile in Switzerland, heart of Protestant Calvinism, a woman was burnt to death for placing flowers on her husband's grave.

When the Protestants came to power, the last thing they had in mind was the rights of the common man — look up Martin Luther's savage repression of 'the peasant's revolt'.

There are many who would view the step as backwards, not forwards. Before the Reformation the 'common man' held some certainty in his faith, after it everything he held sacred was torn from his grip and thrown away.

We can all look back in hindsight, and judge the actions of the 1500s by the morality of today — but if one looks objectively, and openly, the picture is radically different, and as ever, the 'common man' suffered most.

No doubt my view is pro-Catholic, and so should be received as such, but people rarely bother to question where their 'assumed knowledge' comes from, and the Protestant PR machine has had centuries to insinuate its own innocence and catholic guilt.

Thomas

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

For realz.....? Heh...

yeah it was the first recorded incident of a happy slapping, captured on an early moby.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Curiously, I read most of the contrary comments on this thread as ignorant of the reality, and therefore reactionary, especially when many aren't Catholic, and haven't even bothered (like Dauer) to understand the issue. The BBC insinuate triumphalism, and everyone takes the bait.

Hi Thomas,

Personally, I took the reference to triumphalism from dauer, not the BBC, so I don't think I was taking any bait. I also do not see my comment therefore as being "reactionary."

I am also happy to say that if I was a Catholic I think it would be good if I could attend Mass in my own language as well as in Latin.

s.

[Snoopy]

Duplicus postus erratum buggnum

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by InLove

when I posted that BBC article, I did realize that it could be somehow biased, but I wasn't sure. I am still not too familiar with the political leanings of news organizations around the world--I've only recently been able to sort out the U.S. sources and identify which elements they endorse (the way news is reported today is a sad thing, for the most part,IMO. There is always an agenda of some kind, it seems,

Hi InLove,

I’m reminded of a line from a song: “All print is propaganda.”

How about the notion that in order for “news” to exist, it has to be constructed, based on the values of the editor, owner or whoever? It is not self evident what is and what is not “newsworthy”, this is a subjective decision made by people. One person murdered on the other side of the world to me is not “news” according to the media that I have access to, if it is in my town then it’s local news, if they’re rich, famous or “important” it’s national news. Ten people blown up in London is “more” newsworthy today in the UK than 100 in Baghdad. Viewing the world from space, every moment countless “events” occur, but it is editors and their like who determine what is and is not “news” and the perspective it is to be given. If a giant volcano explodes it is certainly a major event in the world I guess, but if it doesn’t get reported ANYWHERE in the world then it is not “news.”

And then the other side of the coin, I as the viewer have my perspectives, views and bias. An objective view is a contradiction in terms. “The perfect view is no view.”

Relating to your comments above, the BBC has in the past been accused of right wing bias by the left wing party and of left wing bias by the right wing party. This bias apparently gets worse towards election time. So maybe the BBC has got the political element about right? I could say that the BBC news is shallow, timid and pro-Establishment but that might tell you more about the eyes that I view it through.

OK that’s enough of my propaganda.

s.

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Duplicus postus erratum buggnum

carpe loci

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Relating to your comments above, the BBC has in the past been accused of right wing bias by the left wing party and of left wing bias by the right wing party. This bias apparently gets worse towards election time. So maybe the BBC has got the political element about right? I could say that the BBC news is shallow, timid and pro-Establishment but that might tell you more about the eyes that I view it through.

Hi Snoopy —

Please don't be offended — I don't think I was having a go in particular, just 'sounding off' in general.

Actually I'm a staunch supporter of the BBC — I am notorious for having a limitless supply of trivia to hand, and all because of years spent listening to BBC Radio4! I still prefer radio news to the TV. Re politics, I think the BBC did a worthy job of presenting an 'opposition' to the Govt. when the supposed opposition parties were is disarray. If there's one thing bad for democracy, it's when one party has an overwhelming majority, or no opposition.

Of course, the Govt. has struck its blow in bitter spite, and heads rolled. Shame on the BBC for caving in, in my view. Shame on us for letting them get away with it.

Religious affairs is, of course, another matter, perhaps for another day.

Thomas

[Snoopy]

Hi Thomas,

Not offended just wanted to clarify. I agree with what you say here; Radio 3 and 4 are probably two of the best stations around the world I imagine (is the World Service still going?). I think Newsnight is good but the main BBC1 news I find very lightweight; only the ITV news makes it look serious. I'm a Channel 4 News man meself. I'd say Jon Snow should be knighted but I know he refused an OBE (and I'm against that whole thing anyway!). Maybe religion on TV might be a good thread, although could be difficult with us being spread around the world. Oh no I'm rambling now....

s.

[Jack Halyard]

Originally Posted by InLove

carpe loci

Carpe Piscis

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Jack Halyard

Carpe Piscis

Seize the fish ???!!!

You'll regret it!!!

s.

[InLove]

Oh no. Another fish discussion? And in Latin, too...

[Snoopy]

If it's in Latin, it'll be brief.

s.

[Thomas]

I'm a Pisces, yet out of my depth!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

(is the World Service still going?).

Yes it is and oh, the memories! How I used to dread the shipping forecast, and 'Sailing By' which meant end of transmission for the night.

I've just switched online. I'm listening to it right now. Tragically, a report of the the storming of the Red Mosque in Pakistan.

Thomas