www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall More Ordinariate Disappointment

The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, was compiled as a reform of the Roman rite with the intention of recovering its "pristine state" (whatever that might be)--

The point is that either or both are open to the same criticism based on the modern way of thinking that says nothing sacred can ever be made too naked. The point is that Eastern Christians, with their wall, ought to be able to see this.

Tell me more about this "modern way of thinking."

It sounds to me like the lack of catechesis that Stuart mentions, and doesn't really have much to do with equating an iconostasis with using Latin.

I see what you're trying to do, it just isn't working.

No it isn't, and I tried again with little luck. In any case, it's a photo taken, I would guess, in the late 50s and shows four vested priests with their servers, offering the Latin Mass on four separate altars fixed against an absolutely barren wall in a completely unadorned room with old classroom type light fixtures above their heads. It is all too real for me and I do not miss it, nor do I miss the strange sacramental theology that lay behind it. It was even worse on All Souls Day! So much for Trent. Perhaps someone can correct the link for me. I'm too old to figure it out.

You're aware of no controversy over minimalist screens, or open doors, or microphones, or curtains? None of these?

Most of all, I am deeply amused to hear Eastern Christians talk about the barrier to understanding created by Latin ("Nobody understands and nobody can follow along"). This, from people whose priests celebrate the Divine Liturgy behind a wall and have, literally, to come out periodically to tell everyone to stand up and pay attention to the next part.

And you've noticed no tendency in these times to strip and profane sacred things? Not been in a shopping mall lately?

Of course I have. You still need to demonstrate how these things equate to the use of a dead language.


You are saying that the use of a dead language is equally impenetrable as characteristics of the Divine Liturgy. In order for you to understand and penetrate those aspects of the Divine Liturgy, you would need proper catechesis, and the "barrier" would vanish.

I, on the other hand, would have to learn how to speak and understand Latin to some degree, but this is not much of a barier. Children can do it. It's much easier than understanding much of the theology of the Eucharist that we are

You genuinely see no difference?

As the subject of the language of worship was discussed in the Council hall over the course of several days, I followed the process with great attention, as well as later the various wordings of the Liturgy Constitution until the final vote. I still remember very well how after several radical proposals a Sicilian bishop rose and implored the fathers to allow caution and reason to reign on this point, because otherwise there would be the danger that the entire Mass might be held in the language of the people-whereupon the entire hall burst into uproarious laughter.

I could therefore never understand how Archbishop Bugnini could write, regarding the radical and complete transition from the prescribed Latin to the exclusively vulgar language of worship, that the Council had practically said that the vernacular in the entire Mass was a pastoral necessity (op. cit., pp. 108-121; I am quoting from the original Italian edition).

To the contrary, I can attest to the fact that regarding the wording of the Council Constitution on this question, in the general part (art. 36) as well as in the special regulations for the Sacrifice of the Mass (art. 54) the Council fathers maintained a practically unanimous agreement-above all in the final vote: 2152 votes in favor and only four against. In my research for the Council decree about the Latin language, I became aware of the concurring opinion of the entire tradition: up to Pope John XXIII, a clearly unfriendly attitude had been taken toward all preceding efforts to the contrary. Consider in particular the cases of the statement of the Council of Trent, sanctioned by anathema, against Luther and Protestantism; of Pius VI against Bishop Ricci and the Synod of Pistoia; and of Pius XI, who deemed the Church's language of worship as "non vulgaris." Yet this tradition is not at all a question only of ritual, although that is the aspect always emphasized; rather, it is important because the Latin language acts as a reverent curtain against profanation (instead of the iconostasis of the Easterners, behind which the anaphora takes place) and because of the danger that through the vulgar language the whole action of the liturgy might be profaned, which in fact often happens today. The precision of the Latin language, moreover, uniquely does justice to the didactic and dogmatically precise contents of the liturgy, protecting the truth from obfuscation and adulteration. Finally, the universality of Latin both represents and fosters the unity of the whole Church.

And you've noticed no tendency in these times to strip and profane sacred things? Not been in a shopping mall lately?

Using the vernacular is not a profanation.

Remember, you said that the iconostasis is a "barrier to understanding" akin to the use of Latin.

Using the vernacular is not a profanation.

Remember, you said that the iconostasis is a "barrier to understanding" akin to the use of Latin.

I have not said it is equally impenetrable at all. I haven't even said it is impenetrable. Neither is. That was the point all along.

And you wouldn't need to learn to speak and understand Latin any more than I must understand Ukrainian to sing and mean "hospodi pomilui" (which maybe I have misspelled. More to the point).

They're doing more than speaking English in the shopping malls, Friend. Remember that you requested an explanation of what I described as a modern tendency to strip and profane sacred things. I maintain that the Roman liturgy has fallen victim to the same currents that have destroyed modesty in our young people.

And anyway. An icon screen obscures the view of the laity and prevents them from collecting all the information about the liturgical action that they otherwise might. Is this a problem? I don't think so, but then, I have no problem with Latin, or Ukrainian.

That there is a difference between ideas doesn't mean they are not related and connected.

I'm not much sympathetic to the "verbal iconostasis" argument, the fact that Latin can and should be learned to a high level by priests and by many of the Latin rite faithful argues against it. But it would be better to argue against it rather than to meet it with derision.

It's not a profanation in the sense of a desecration and a sacrilege, but the switch from what was widely believed (correctly or not) to be sacral language to a vernacular one is a profanation in some sense. If, as you maintain, there is the removal of an extraordinarily difficult barrier to understanding, you are hoist by your own petard if you try to then argue that there is no "unveiling" in the switch to the vernacular.

I would be willing to explore if there is a relation, but that's not what JDC is saying. He is saying that the use of one is equivalent to the use of the other