Why you may ask?
Simple.
It does not give room for their liturgical innovations or their "expertise" or...well, it does not make them the center of the celebration.
I like what Fr. Zerrudo said. A lot of our teens enjoy Korean pop songs that most do not understand, but they like it. And I have even learned through my nieces and nephews that some of these youth would go at great lengths to study Korean just so they could understand what the songs are all about.
Then, who the heck the says nobody understands Latin?
See those who were at the Mass?
Mostly the youth.
So, out with the nostalgia charge of Chupungcan liturgists.
Why are you afraid of this Mass?
What is it in this Mass that freaks you out?
I'll get back to what I said earlier.
It does not give room for their liturgical innovations or their "expertise" or...well, it does not make them the center of the celebration.
Right Jeff Velasco?
A Blessed Feast of the Nativity to all!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Vatican II, contrary to popular impressions NEVER removed nor sidelined the Latin, the Gregorian Chant, and the Organ as a musical instrument of the Liturgy.
---------------------------------------------
Here are excerpts from Sacrosanctum Concilium...
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
---------------------------------------
Second, had Latin stayed as the ORDINARY Language, with the vernacular as the extraordinary language, then
+ we would have the facility of attending Mass everywhere and be able to understand it, whether we attend in China, Cebu, Manila, Italy, USA, France etc...
+ we (the Roman Church) would not have lost our Roman identity as did the Byzantines, the Melchite, the Maronites, the Armenians who all have preserved their liturgical languages and thus retained their cultural religious identity.
+ there would have been little room for nuances and improvisations that has greatly destroyed the Universal nature of the Roman Liturgy.
By Latin in the Mass here, I do not mean the Tridentine Rite alone (which is equally beautiful and solemn) but the use of it in the Novus Ordo.
As a consequence, even some priests frown at the sound Latin, for the simple reason that they know and practise very little Latin these days. It actually is not a dead language, but a MURDERED language, intentionally put into the backburner which (had it been put as the Norm) would have been otherwise been very fit, beautiful, traditional for the Roman Church's liturgy.
Sit nomen Domini, verbi caro factum pro nostram salutem, benedictum semper et ubique.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete