Mass in Latin again

[flowperson]

Here's an opinion article from the NY Times that speaks to the non-obvious issues here. This also seems related to what I posted on the "What's happened to Islam" thread last week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/op...c36&ei=5087%0A

flow....

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Thomas

It's a BA in Catholic Theology (what else?) And the concensus is that the exams were tough.

as salaam aleykum Thomas. Always a delight when I see you have had time to post. I wish you well and hope that you did well in your exams. When will get the results?

Your answers were, as usual, self explanatory but you know me I am left with just a couple more (hope I am not boring you yet).

Originally Posted by Thomas

Contrary to common opinion, there is nothing 'new' in Catholicism, only a greater depth and precision of explanation.

There must surely come a time where the traditional faith does not have an obvious answer, I am thinking of human cloning as one example. So where does the Church go with an issue such as this? I am assuming (always a bad sign) that the Pope and Cardinals decide where the morals of the Church lie on the issue. This troubles me, as in Islam we use this 'method', which is strictly human and therefore fallible.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Today people claim that anybody can read a bit of Scripture, and declare Christ to be whatever or whoever they like, and they are right, because they are infallible when it comes to such matters. No-one can tell anyone that how they interpret Scripture might be wrong.

You have confused me here, we sem to have jumped from requiring the traditional interpretation to everyone is infallible, therefore can make their own interpretations (or was sarcasm creeping in ).

Originally Posted by Thomas

I know. But I have also heard the angelic laughter of children as they were torturing an animal to death ... we have to beware of sentimentality.

Hmm, yes very good point, I shall take that one back. My rose coloured glasses in operation again.

So big question, what is the Catholic view of the soul of a child that dies? Do they go straight to heaven because children are innocent or are they judged like every soul? Can children truly commit a sin? (I am thinking about the killers of Jamie Bulger (sad how the name stays with you) whose killers were also children).

Originally Posted by Thomas

Sentimentalism again, I think. No. Animals don't wonder about God.

You sound so sure about that, why? Are animals not G-d's creatures. Did he not save them during the floods. I don't think they contemplate G-d in the way we do but we have no idea what goes on in the mind of an animal or even if they possess a knowledge of G-d we have lost or never had.

Hey I like a bit of sentimentality, I think it keeps me sane and humane.

Salaam
Sally

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Here's an opinion article from the NY Times that speaks to the non-obvious issues here. This also seems related to what I posted on the "What's happened to Islam" thread last week.

The Pope Reopens a Portal to Eternity, via the 1950s - New York Times

flow....

Excellent link, thank you Flow. This is sort of where I was going when I started the thread. The question in my mind was, is it taking the faith back into the clergy to the exclusion of the followers? From this piece I would say the answer is individual, depending upon what each person is looking for.

Sometimes I do wish there could just be a bright flash of light and the answer to faith written in the sky for all to see. Although I bet it would be a much briefer statement than mankinds like to make it.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

When will get the results?

September.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

There must surely come a time where the traditional faith does not have an obvious answer, I am thinking of human cloning as one example.

Or as one of our theology tutors asked — "Is it a sin to ride a bicycle? Scripture says nothing about bicycles, how do we know?". Actually it is very simple.
Human Life is sacred, and is a gift, so is not ours to dispose of as we will, hence the line on birth control/abortion/cloning/stem cell research etc., — contrary to common opinion, it's not a case of being for or against science, but against the diminution of the worth of human life.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

So where does the Church go with an issue such as this? I am assuming (always a bad sign) that the Pope and Cardinals decide where the morals of the Church lie on the issue. This troubles me, as in Islam we use this 'method', which is strictly human and therefore fallible.

But, on the other hand, who sets the moral standard? They don't just pop out of the blue.

Western culture is steeped in materialism and consumerism which every day erodes the meaning and value of human existence. Left to market forces, the spiritual life of man would be shut down entirely, we would be what they world is trying to make us, units of production whose intrinsic worth is an equation, balanced between what we produce and what we consume. As soon as we consume more than we produce, we would be disposed of.

Without the Church, and even with it, the moral standards of the Wset are determined by the media. In the UK, this means effectively Richard Murdoch. I'd rather an outspoken philospher any day.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

You have confused me here ... or was sarcasm creeping in ).

Yes it was. The assumption is illogical.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

So big question, what is the Catholic view of the soul of a child that dies? Do they go straight to heaven because children are innocent or are they judged like every soul? Can children truly commit a sin? (I am thinking about the killers of Jamie Bulger (sad how the name stays with you) whose killers were also children).

This is a deep question, made deeper because even we are uncertain of what motivates those, such as you mention.

My answer:
Every soul is judged, not only for what they have done, but whether they can be held responsible for what they have done — so the 'grace' we extend to children, I will also extend to adults, in certain situations, including, for example, the suicide, which is considered a mortal sin, or those suffering from mental disorders ... or even those victims of a given sociological situation ... however I balance that between an inherent idea of what is right and what is wrong ... murder is wrong ... so the case recently of a refugee who murdered a woman in cold blood, and whose defence said he was innocent because of the violence of the society from which he had fled, I consider insufficient... but I am open to discussion.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

You sound so sure about that, why?

Because they would build altars?

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Are animals not G-d's creatures.

Yes. But they are what they are. God asks nothing other than that they be themselves. They don't know God as we do, but they were not made to know God as we do.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Hey I like a bit of sentimentality, I think it keeps me sane and humane.

I like the saying "I wish I was half the man my dog thinks I am."

Celtic Christianity has many animal stories, some apocryphal, some unique. My argument is actually in favour of the integrity of the flora and fauna kingdom, I do not believe that animals have to be like us to be happy, or be perfect.

A few years ago there was a string of documentaries to show how wonderful meerkats are, almos like us, in caring for the young, and acting with an advanced community spirit.

Later, long-term and indepth work painted a different picture. In one social unit, the top meerkat, a female, systematically killed the daughters of her nearest relatives, to ensure her own daughters had the pick of the best males in the group. Her three sisters united to oust her, whilst the naturologist knew what was going to happen — once the queen was out of the way, the strongest of the three sisters then disposed of the other two. This was neither 'good' nor 'evil', simply survival instinct at work — there were no moral issues at play.

I have also watched films of dolphins playing volleyball with seal pups off the coast of Scotland ... same thing, just honing certain skills ... I have also watched a dolphin fight a shark for hunting rights in a given patch of water, and win ... the shark is a natural fighter, but the dolphin is a clever one (or perhaps malevolent, but I don't think so), he was certainly equally as ruthless ... continually out-turning and ramming the shark in its gills.

Nature is indeed red in tooth and claw.

Pax tecum,

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Here's an opinion article from the NY Times that speaks to the non-obvious issues here. This also seems related to what I posted on the "What's happened to Islam" thread last week.

The Pope Reopens a Portal to Eternity, via the 1950s - New York Times

flow....

If it takes a generation or two for an error to come to light, then maybe it's gonna take a generation or two to fix it?

Perhaps it's the generation of your correspondent and his ilk that we must wait to pass, before things will be restored? Because left to the likes of them, we'd have empty churches.

The stats speak for themselves ... the vernacular mass led to an exodus from the church, the Latin Mass sees numbers growing against the trends.

Today the Orthodox is growing even faster, with Old Greek ... or perhaps the Orthodox faithful are different, better equipped to follow a Mass which takes 3 hours (not 45 minutes) — whilst we in the fast-food, instant-gratification West continue to erode our powers of concentration ...

... but then, let's not even suggest the problem might lie with us, and not with the Church at all ...

"Unless the church, which once had a problem with the law of gravity, can repeal inertia, too, then silent, submissive worship won’t go over well. Laypeople, women especially, have kept this battered institution going in a secular, distracted age."

I agree, but I disagree about 'silent submissive worship' — it misses the point. And the noisy self-congratulatory celebrations, is that worship? Is that a sense of Mystery? I have my doubts, as do many others...

"Reasserting the unchallenged authority of ordained men may fit the papal scheme for a purer church. But to hand its highest form of public worship entirely back to Father makes Latin illiterates like me irate."

Actually, the vernacular Mass made the priest the star — he faces the audience, and they face him, he occupies center stage ... whereas the Latin Mass the priest led the congregation in prayer, all facing the same way.

It seems your correspondent thinks that silence signifies nothing going on, whilst noise, any noise ... indicates activity ...

Oh dear ... oh dear, oh dear ...

Here's a crazy notion ... why doesn't he make an effort to learn something? It's actually healthy, for both mind and body ... but if nothing else, it will help pass the time, and he can sneer knowingly at the ignorant, huddled, submissive plebs all around him, for whom he obviously has no empathy at all. He might even spot the priest make a mistake, and can berate him afterwards.

Just learn about the Mass, and stop asking for everything to be tailored to suit his own inertia.

Thomas

[flowperson]

Hi Thomas and Muslimwoman...salaam/peace:

I believe the point of the correspondent and the piece that I posted is that there is now, after the Pope's reinstatement of the Latin Mass, a split more prominently becoming and widening within the Catholic Church which has probably always been there, but will now be accentuated anew because of the regression of a portion of the faithful back to the formalities of the 1950's.

I am not disagreeing with anything that you say Thomas. I am merely stating the unfortunate reality that this splitting of the faithful within the Abrahamic Religions seems to stem from some fundamental change in the basic nature of believers after WWII. My personal belief that it has more to do with an evolutionary process within humanity triggered by the increasingly instant availability of desirable outcomes through the illusions of avaiability as presented in the media. This really started with radio in the 1920's, but really didn't become prevalent until visual illusions became a social standard with the advent of TV.

Yes, I do believe that the passing away of the desirability of delaying gratification is at the core of all this...but if we are evolving as a species in that direction, Papal proclamations and reversal of policies back to those of five decades ago will not begin to ameliorate the problem over the long haul. This all is also related, IMHO, to the increasing prevalence of psychological disorders in young people and the dreadful need to medicate teens and pre-teens in developed countries in order to make them able to function on a day-to-day basis.

flow....

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Thomas

September.

Please keep us posted (no pun intended).

Originally Posted by Thomas

But, on the other hand, who sets the moral standard? They don't just pop out of the blue.

I accept we must have moral standards and they must be set by someone, it just worries me how often this trust and authority is abused.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Because they would build altars?

I don't think they are that daft quite frankly.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Yes. But they are what they are. God asks nothing other than that they be themselves. They don't know God as we do, but they were not made to know God as we do.

I do not see animals in the same way as humans but I like to think they have a soul, live the life that G-d gave them and will return to G-d at the end of that life. As I believe this then it follows, for me, that they have some sort of spiritual connection with G-d, although I think not in a conscious level.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I like the saying "I wish I was half the man my dog thinks I am."

I have never heard that saying before but it now my screensaver.


May I ask about original sin? Is it true Catholics believe babies are born sinful or is that another misconception?

Salaam

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Yes, I do believe that the passing away of the desirability of delaying gratification is at the core of all this...but if we are evolving as a species in that direction, Papal proclamations and reversal of policies back to those of five decades ago will not begin to ameliorate the problem over the long haul. This all is also related, IMHO, to the increasing prevalence of psychological disorders in young people and the dreadful need to medicate teens and pre-teens in developed countries in order to make them able to function on a day-to-day basis.

flow....

Hi Flow

I had sort of assumed (there I go again) that a degree of consultation had taken place before this decision was made? If there is a percentage of the Catholic population that desire a return to the old ways, is this not perhaps a good sign? Does it not demonstrate that people are recognising the moral decay in our society and desiring a return to the bastion of the church, prior to what they may see as the onset of this decay?

(I realise I have no idea whatsoever what I am talking about, as I clearly know nothing of the Catholic faith - just trying to mentally feel my way around in the dark, so feel free to mock).

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Hi Flow

I had sort of assumed (there I go again) that a degree of consultation had taken place before this decision was made? If there is a percentage of the Catholic population that desire a return to the old ways, is this not perhaps a good sign? Does it not demonstrate that people are recognising the moral decay in our society and desiring a return to the bastion of the church, prior to what they may see as the onset of this decay?

(I realise I have no idea whatsoever what I am talking about, as I clearly know nothing of the Catholic faith - just trying to mentally feel my way around in the dark, so feel free to mock).

MW....salaam
I have seldom been a mocker, but have often been a mockee, so you're safe in that regard.

Yes, I agree with you that a decision to return to past practices in the mass is a reinforcement of traditional practice, and for those that see the world in that way it's decidedly a good thing. But those who took to the new directions pointed to in the 60's because of Vatican II, well they will inevitably feel a degree of abandonment in parishes that elect for the Latin Mass.

That's all I'm really saying. It all has the potential to aggrivate some of the divisions in the Church that are already apparent in some ways I believe. Perhaps it will bring more grey hairs back into the Church to experience what they remember from their youth, but there's little attraction in this move, it seems to me, for those young parishoners who seek comfort in their lives from the Church due to the everyday stresses of today's rapidly changing world.

By the way, I'm not a Catholic, although I sought and was given valuable spiritual support when I felt that I was under severe spiritual attack. My father was baptised in the Catholic Church. In fact I was more or less drummed out of a liberal denomination of mainline Protestantism because of what I wrote and said publicly.

flow....

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Sometimes I do wish there could just be a bright flash of light and the answer to faith written in the sky for all to see. Although I bet it would be a much briefer statement than mankinds like to make it.

"BE GOOD"

says it all really does it not?

Tao

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by flowperson

I believe the point of the correspondent and the piece that I posted is that there is now, after the Pope's reinstatement of the Latin Mass, a split more prominently becoming and widening within the Catholic Church which has probably always been there, but will now be accentuated anew because of the regression of a portion of the faithful back to the formalities of the 1950's.

As the Latin Mass is an option, something the media has ignored, and blown up out of all proportion, I can't agree. I do see it as an attempt to repair the damage done. Maybe late, maybe too late, but not to attempt it would be negligent.

Originally Posted by flowperson

My personal belief that it has more to do with an evolutionary process within humanity triggered by the increasingly instant availability of desirable outcomes through the illusions of avaiability as presented in the media. This really started with radio in the 1920's, but really didn't become prevalent until visual illusions became a social standard with the advent of TV.

I don't see that as evolution. but rather a regression, or perhaps a movement in an unfortunate direction. It is surrendering the self to media manipulation. That is not evolution to me, that's simply an addiction. It is conforming to the lowest common denominator ... evolution tends to draw the better from the best? This is heading in quite the opposite direction...

Originally Posted by flowperson

Yes, I do believe that the passing away of the desirability of delaying gratification is at the core of all this...but if we are evolving as a species in that direction, Papal proclamations and reversal of policies back to those of five decades ago will not begin to ameliorate the problem over the long haul. This all is also related, IMHO, to the increasing prevalence of psychological disorders in young people and the dreadful need to medicate teens and pre-teens in developed countries in order to make them able to function on a day-to-day basis.

Precisely. In short, if society chooses to go that way, we shall not go with you, but rather stand as exemplars of 'a better way'.

This is not just about the Mass, Flow, it's about the diminution of the human being, a reduction in status that will eventually rule out the spiritual as anything other than superstition. The Mass is ordered towards the spiritual, not the appetites and the need for instant, ephemeral and superficial gratification.

Thomas

[Thomas]

The point remains, and this is a statistical fact, that those churches who celebrate a Latin Mass attract more numbers than those who don't.

So I think all this talk of the Latin Mass by the media is hokum and typical trouble-making. It will not replace the vernacular mass, but will be offered alongside it, if the parish so chooses, and they are under no obligation to choose, so I fail to see how a widening of choice will cause more conflict.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

May I ask about original sin? Is it true Catholics believe babies are born sinful or is that another misconception?

Yes, it's a misconception.

Catholics believe babies are born human, and human nature is wounded, as a result of original sin.

The Orthodox believes in the damage of sin as passive, inherited, something like the transmission of a genetic disorder — "Adam sinned, and now I'm stuck with the consequence" — I have seen it described as something akin to being the family of someone who is a criminal ... but I think that's a poor analogy. It does create problems, as it would suggest that God punishes the child for the sin of the father, yet Christian Scripture states the contrary. As Orthodox theologians are not stupid, and know this, the doctrine must be somewhat more involved ... as I understand it however, I do think it is flawed, but that's a 2nd year theology student talking, so what the hell do I know?

(I spoke to a 90 year old Dominican priest recently, a real comedian and with wisdom beyond even his years — when he found out I was doing a BA in theology he asked, "Does that mean when you qualify you can write letters after your name and talk at great length about things you know very little about?" That put me in my place!)

The Catholic believes the child inherits an active disposition to sin — and as such ontologically shares with Adam in the error, rather than innocently under yet still condemned by it.

People don't understand the doctrine because they don't understand the nature of sin — it is by definition a moral fault, the freely-taken choice to do other than what one's conscience or one's religion requires — so children, or anyone incapable of making such a choice, cannot and is not held culpable for their actions.

Catholics believe that in Baptism the dispostion is 'healed', the pouring of the water signifies not only the cleansing of sin, but the uncovering of the imprint of the Divine Image in the soul ... but the 'habits' of the flesh remain ... and, heaven help us, we are creatures of habit.

Thomas

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

"BE GOOD"

says it all really does it not?

Tao

Brilliant Tao, thank you.

Only problem is of course, now people will all argue over interpretation. What does good really mean? When he says BE does he mean be or be? If you translate 'good' into satwanian, then entimini and back through portarian it means 'naughty'. You know the kind of thing, then the sects emerge, then the bombs ..........

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Yes, it's a misconception.

I am so ashamed that I have managed to get to such an age and still carry so many misconceptions in my head. Makes we want to go back to kindergarten and start all over again.

Originally Posted by Thomas

(I spoke to a 90 year old Dominican priest recently, a real comedian and with wisdom beyond even his years — when he found out I was doing a BA in theology he asked, "Does that mean when you qualify you can write letters after your name and talk at great length about things you know very little about?" That put me in my place!)

Hee, hee, my sides are physically hurting with laughter. I wonder why it is that so many old people of faith have such a wonderful sense of humour? Perhaps they have lived long enough to see the 'truth' and even the stupidity of us all?

Originally Posted by Thomas

The Catholic believes the child inherits an active disposition to sin — and as such ontologically shares with Adam in the error, rather than innocently under yet still condemned by it.

So in simple terms, each baby is born with the potential to sin in the future, as sin is in human nature?

Originally Posted by Thomas

Catholics believe that in Baptism the dispostion is 'healed', the pouring of the water signifies not only the cleansing of sin, but the uncovering of the imprint of the Divine Image in the soul ... but the 'habits' of the flesh remain ... and, heaven help us, we are creatures of habit.

Sorry I need more of an in depth explanation here. So at baptism the disposition is healed, which would suggest you cannot sin but we know that Catholics do sin. Or are sins and bad habits different things? Surely adultery is a sin and some baptised people commit adultery (although I imagine some think of it just as a bad habit).

Salaam