Against vernacular language in the Christian liturgies

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
Pro-vernacular people (especially after Vatican II) argue that we should conduct the liturgy in modern language to accommodate the common people.

Semi-woke people argue that we should conduct the liturgy in a holy language (Latin, Koine Greek, Slavonic, Aramaic), even if we do not understand it, so that we can decouple from modern delusions and temporal trends. For example, "Balaam saddled his ass" sounds terrible in modern English, but in Latin there is no pun or wordplay that ruins the verse. ("Surrexit Balaam mane, et strata asina sua profectus est cum eis.")

Even this semi-smart, anti-vernacular argument isn't the best, which is why it alienates so many people. There's no need to force ourselves to listen to boring Latin that we can't understand. Actually, the best argument is that we should conduct the liturgy in a holy language, which we understand properly, because we received it as part of our education, giving us access to timeless universal truths from the ancients.

It's an extreme injustice that contemporary Americans don't know and don't care about learning Latin, which is the language of the Roman Christian civilization which provided the first education to the British. Even the Germans (who are recently producing some of the most heretical priests) have 100s of years of legacy of Latin education.

Japanese people are taught from an early age to read ancient Chinese and ancient Japanese in order to understand the old culture. This is a standard practice for any country. So why aren't Americans learning Latin? When someone suffers from a disease, we should cure the disease, not lower our standards for healthy people.
 
Last edited:

Aboulia

Woodpecker
The King James Bible was written during the Protestant deformation and its spiritual fruit was the modern day Anglican religion. At the time that this transmission was commissioned 100% of educated British people understood Latin.
"Unfortunately", Christ didn't come for just the educated.

Edited to avoid doublepost.

Christ preached to people in a manner they'd understand. He didn't sit and demand people to learn Latin/some other liturgical language to understand his teachings. He strongly emphasized that the spirit was greater than the law. The understanding of the words, is far more important than the words themselves.

Americans (and Canadians) don't have a ruling class that actually cares to have an educated population. The majority of the "education" is read, and repeat style nonsense. The ruling class would rather the average person be entirely ignorant, blown about by media opinions.

The only benefit to learning Latin from an English speaking perspective that I could imagine would be for purposes of etymology, as words are greatly twisted to mean things entirely different from their intended context.
 
Last edited:
It isn't so much that I don't like the vernacular, it is that more often than not, at least in my experience in America, that Masses in the vernacular are UGLY. What I've seen is unfitting for the Unbloody Re-Presentation of Calvary. I'm not just talking about "clown masses" or even "liturgical dancers" that everyone knows and hates. I'm talking about priests ad-libbing the prayers of the Mass, to the point where some of them being almost invalid.

I've been to reverent and serious Masses in the vernacular, they've been few and far between, but they happen.

I don't blame young people for leaving the Church. After 15-18 years of listening to the songs they sing, and the bland homilies they have to sit through, and total lack of Catechesis, I'd leave the Church the first chance I got too. Who the hell wants to be martyred for Fr. Smith and his jokes during the homily? Or an overweight "sister" droning on about BLM and fighting systemic racism?

The vernacular fosters a sense of "casualness" that is inappropriate for The Mass. "Sacred" ultimately means "Separate." The Bible is "Sacred" because there is something that "Separates" it from all other books. The Crucifix I wear around my neck is "Sacred" because something "Separates" it from anything else I could wear. The Mass is "Sacred" because it is "Separate" from anything else I could participate in. Latin is "separate" because it was one of the languages hung on The Cross. Latin is also "separate" because no one speaks it anymore. Neither conservatives nor liberals can "mess" with it, like with the vernacular Masses, Latin is "above" our petty squabbles.

Not to mention that The Mass isn't for "Bible Study" so having all the readings with the three year cycle isn't appropriate as well (I once heard someone have an awkward pause during the OT reading at "God made them male and female..." like they didn't expect to see a note that read "Skip this part." and didn't know what to do for a moment, and skipped it. Went back and confirmed it in the audio recording.), but that's for another time.

If the priest celebrating it is wearing the local sports team's jersey, or talks about the liberal outrage of the week in the prayers of the faithful, then The Mass isn't separate from the rest of the world, it is a part of the world, no different that my 9-5 job, or taking out the trashcan once a week.

With the Latin Mass you know what you're getting. It is also beautiful, and people, even homeless people, have the right to beautiful things such as The Mass. The Ultimate Act of Love (The Crucifixion of The Lord) deserves nothing less.

I am a firm believer in "lex orandi lex credendi lex vivendi." (loosely translated) "How you pray is how you believe is how you live."

People I've seen and met who regularly attend the Latin Mass actually believe. You have to go out of your way to find a Latin Mass.

"Illiterate Medieval peasants figured this out 1000 years ago, so how hard can it be?" I asked myself before getting into the Latin Mass. It took me about 3 months of attending the Latin Mass every Sunday, and other days when I had the time, to really "get it." You have to actually "want it" to understand the Latin Mass. You can simply sit down and read what the priest is saying, and see the translation next to it, it isn't that hard.

With any luck, in the time-honored tradition of iconography of Saints depicting them holding the instruments of their martyrdom (St. Peter and an upside-down Cross or St. Paul holding a sword) I'll have a stained-glass window of me holding my Missal in one hand, and predator drone with a hellfire missile in the other because the demonic forces of globohomo needed to use a multimillion dollar piece of hardware to take me out while attending the Latin Mass in the middle of nowhere.

Just my thoughts, sorry for rambling on...
 

lskdfjldsf

Pelican
Gold Member
Holy languages are less of a barrier than they are a protective shield. Islam is an example of this; you can be a Turk and only speak Turkish or a Persian and only speak Farsi, but the Koran is recited in the original, unchanged Arabic. There's no room for interpretation, nothing lost in translation, it remains consistent throughout the ages. It's the same for Jews with Hebrew.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
"Unfortunately", Christ didn't come for just the educated.

Edited to avoid doublepost.

Christ preached to people in a manner they'd understand. He didn't sit and demand people to learn Latin/some other liturgical language to understand his teachings. He strongly emphasized that the spirit was greater than the law. The understanding of the words, is far more important than the words themselves.

Just wondering, are you Catholic?

This type of argument is actually against the practical reality. You say that "Christ didn't come for just the educated", but wait a second, how many times have you seen a farmer or a peasant that rebels against traditional religion? It seems to me that vernacularization of the Church was actually the most harmful for educated and semi-educated people! How many Italian wheat-farmers were able to go to heaven, compared to pseudo-philosophers and merchants who have condemned themselves to hell?

It is possible to teach the masses without translating the entire liturgy and the entire Bible. If you've attended a Latin Mass before, the liturgy is entirely Latin (extremely beautiful when done correctly) while the homily is in vernacular, in my experience with the priest giving a line-by-line commentary on the scripture and explanation.

In the pre-modern world, all citizens were on a spectrum ranging from "zero Latin knowledge" to "full Latin knowledge". For semi-educated middling people, like merchants, they would certainly have had a partial command of Latin without being fully fluent. Vernacularization basically allows these semi-educated midwits to wrongly absorb the Bible without fully being initiated.

The intellectual foundation of the Protestant deformation was a result of midwit semi-intellectuals. The great scholars knew the truth of God, and the humble peasants were obedient to God, but the midwits who felt they deserved to read the entire Bible without proper training caused a disaster for many generations.

Americans (and Canadians) don't have a ruling class that actually cares to have an educated population. The majority of the "education" is read, and repeat style nonsense. The ruling class would rather the average person be entirely ignorant, blown about by media opinions.

I agree, which is why we should teach the population about Latin Classics.
 
Last edited:

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
The vernacular fosters a sense of "casualness" that is inappropriate for The Mass. "Sacred" ultimately means "Separate." The Bible is "Sacred" because there is something that "Separates" it from all other books. The Crucifix I wear around my neck is "Sacred" because something "Separates" it from anything else I could wear. The Mass is "Sacred" because it is "Separate" from anything else I could participate in. Latin is "separate" because it was one of the languages hung on The Cross. Latin is also "separate" because no one speaks it anymore. Neither conservatives nor liberals can "mess" with it, like with the vernacular Masses, Latin is "above" our petty squabbles.

Exactly, this "separation" is actually the spiritual circumcision (distinguishing the holy from the unholy, cutting things in two with a sword).

"Illiterate Medieval peasants figured this out 1000 years ago, so how hard can it be?" I asked myself before getting into the Latin Mass. It took me about 3 months of attending the Latin Mass every Sunday, and other days when I had the time, to really "get it." You have to actually "want it" to understand the Latin Mass. You can simply sit down and read what the priest is saying, and see the translation next to it, it isn't that hard.

Along these lines, I think half-hearted theology is totally evil. Either we should be as peasants, and humble ourselves before God, or we should become true scholars, reading the theology with very deep fervor and intensity. But we should not have half-assed theology which leads to partial understanding and the creation of delusion.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Just wondering, are you Catholic?

Nope, Orthodox. Along my long road to Christ from being an atheist, I first became attracted away from Protestantism towards Catholicism from reading EMJ's books, I was attending TLM for a little less than a year, in which I was learning Latin as I went, I was reading some other Catholic literature (Archbishop Fulton Sheen's Life of Christ among other things) and there was something unsettling that I couldn't put my finger totally on, part of the problem was probably due to the pro-Catholic bias in many of the works I was reading, and the religion just seemed too "mechanical" to me, like salvation was an input -> output mathematical equation. That if somehow I just connected all the dots "sufficiently" then my soul = saved.

My experience at mass wasn't bad, there were 2 priests, they usually alternated weeks, one rushed the mass, and made it feel as though he was just doing it to "satisfy" a requirement, and the other was a pious man, who was very reverent in his action. His homilies were the best part of mass. What really killed me was the catechesis, it felt as if I was being bludgeoned through a cookie cutter, with the same sort of read/regurgitate "teaching" you find at any western public education institution.


This type of argument is actually against the practical reality. You say that "Christ didn't come for just the educated", but wait a second, how many times have you seen a farmer or a peasant that rebels against traditional religion? It seems to me that vernacularization of the Church was actually the most harmful for educated and semi-educated people! How many Italian wheat-farmers were able to go to heaven, compared to pseudo-philosophers and merchants who have condemned themselves to hell?

I guess Thomas Muentzer lead a highly educated group of people then. ;) All jests aside, whether people went to hell or not is not my jurisdiction to make comment, but I can strongly doubt that it was solely due to a language change. God is not an arbitrary tyrant, he will judge us according to our knowledge, according to the state he finds us in.


It is possible to teach the masses without translating the entire liturgy and the entire Bible.


I don't know about post schism Catholic missionary work, but there are pre-schism, and Orthodox saints who codified entire languages, and translated service books to hold them in the native tongue of the people whom they were converting. Whether it's a common tongue or not matters little, the mindset, understanding, and morality of the populace is far more important than the container used to transmit the information.

I'm not disagreeing that Vatican II is a disaster for the Roman church. But reverting to Latin Mass will not fix the issue of people not taking a faith seriously. For the Roman hierarchy doesn't even seem to take it that seriously,

I agree, which is why we should teach the population about Latin Classics.

If you can get them to turn off the TV long enough, be my guest.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
Since canon law states, and as Aboulia points out, the history is of Saints bringing Christ and the teachings of the Church to people in their own language (and not ethnophyletism, a heresy). I think the real issue is ecumenism, which usually is the kind of thing that goes hand in hand with lukewarm attendance (in all aspects, physical, mental, spiritual). While I have my sins, I can still perceive that we have emotionalized and watered down the strictness and appropriate attentiveness to the liturgy in order to accommodate people instead of demanding more from them, for fear of emotional rebellion of sorts. I am convicted that if we had a type of exclusivity in requiring quite a bit from those who attend, instead of just hoping that if you let xyz slide maybe somebody "will come back to the church later in life" we wouldn't currently have modern day gestapos worrying about enforcement of mask rules, sickness in church or with the holy mysteries, etc. The issue at hand isn't language. Perhaps not understanding the liturgy and the teachings of the church, in actuality, is. After all, don't we want serious and devoted people who make it a priority to be in church and adherent to principles to be the ones that are by our sides? I wouldn't want a guy who doesn't train with the team to compete against another team alongside, nor would I go to war with those who didn't sacrifice and pull in the same direction, as should always be the case.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
Alright, my Orthodox friends, I am curious what you think about the Greek Gospel Riots of the 20th century, in which the New Testament was translated into modern Greek, and the faithful Orthodox protested it severely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_riots

The Gospel riots (Greek: Ευαγγελικά, Evangelika), which took place on the streets of Athens in November 1901, were primarily a protest against the publication in the newspaper Akropolis of a translation into modern spoken Greek of the gospel of St Matthew, although other motives also played a part. The disorder reached a climax on 8 November, "Black Thursday", when eight demonstrators were killed.[a][1]
In the aftermath of the violence the Greek Orthodox Church reacted by banning any translation of the Bible into any form of modern demotic Greek, and by forbidding the employment of demoticist teachers, not just in Greece but anywhere in the Ottoman Empire.

Were they wrong? I wonder what was going on in their minds, that they protested this concept which seems so "obvious" to us modern vernacular readers, to the point that eight people lost their lives over it.

Why were 99% of translations of the Bible suppressed for hundreds of years, even before the East-West Schism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_the_Bible -- Were those people wrong too?

You know, you can read the Bible as a Latin/Greek text, with annotations and commentary in the vernacular, under the guidance of a spiritual father, within the context of a living faith tradition, surrounded by friends and loved ones, outside of the privacy of your hidden room. You can do this without allowing the vernacular to usurp (in almost Luciferian manner) the rightful honor of the liturgical language.

"Not without reason has it pleased Almighty God that Holy Scripture should be a secret in certain places, lost, if it were plainly apparent to all men, perchance it would be little esteemed and be subject to disrespect; or it might be falsely understood by those of mediocre learning, and lead to error."

Christ preached to people in a manner they'd understand. He didn't sit and demand people to learn Latin/some other liturgical language to understand his teachings.

Hi @Aboulia . Is Christ accessible in today's world in the exact same manner as He was in the time of the Romans? Christ did not have ecumenical councils either. Should we get rid of those? Christ also did not tell us about the Nicene Creed. Should that be done away with? I think it's easy to imagine that, as the bridegroom has physically departed us, returning (in silence) in the sacrifice of the Mass, with the Holy Spirit breathed onto the scriptures, our mode of conduct should be different now, in this different age of history. Reading the Bible by yourself in a dark room is different from listening to the direct words of Christ, as He was in person, as a son of man on earth.

Furthermore, Christ did not speak to people in a manner that they plainly understood. He deliberately cloaked his meanings in parables so that only some may know, and others (hard of heart) would not know. "Do not cast pearls before swine, do not give holy things to the dogs."

Also, I sympathize with your experience with bad Catholic teachers :) The institutions have been under attack for quite some time these days.
 
Last edited:

DanielH

Pelican
Alright, my Orthodox friends, I am curious what you think about the Greek Gospel Riots of the 20th century, in which the New Testament was translated into modern Greek, and the faithful Orthodox protested it severely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_riots



Were they wrong? I wonder what was going on in their minds, that they protested this concept which seems so "obvious" to us modern vernacular readers, to the point that eight people lost their lives over it.

Why were 99% of translations of the Bible suppressed for hundreds of years, even before the East-West Schism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_the_Bible -- Were those people wrong too?

You know, you can read the Bible as a Latin/Greek text, with annotations and commentary in the vernacular, under the guidance of a spiritual father. It doesn't mean everything is translated and acting as a substitution (in an almost Luciferian manner) of the original.
Catholics lashing out, looking for an answer to how their church became a hollowed out shell. Maybe the solution is the language? No, the root of the problem goes beyond that.

The apostles were understood in the native tongues of those they were speaking to. They didn't force Indians, Britons, or Ethiopians to learn Greek or Hebrew. Saints Cyril and Methodius highlighted the importance of bringing the vernacular to the people. We don't need to answer for a peasant riot 120 years ago which probably was more about protecting their culture than anything biblical. I know many people who have left their church because they don't speak Greek or Slavonic. Should Christianity just be a religion for the educated, those of us trained in a niche language with no real modern day use?

Are the traditional Latin Catholic churches making new converts? Or are they just peeling away the conservative minded members of the rest of the Roman Catholic Church? Can you walk into a Latin church with 40-60% converts like your average ROCOR, OCA, or Antiochian Orthodox parish which uses the vernacular?
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
Catholics lashing out, looking for an answer to how their church became a hollowed out shell. Maybe the solution is the language? No, the root of the problem goes beyond that.

The apostles were understood in the native tongues of those they were speaking to. They didn't force Indians, Britons, or Ethiopians to learn Greek or Hebrew. Saints Cyril and Methodius highlighted the importance of bringing the vernacular to the people. We don't need to answer for a peasant riot 120 years ago which probably was more about protecting their culture than anything biblical. I know many people who have left their church because they don't speak Greek or Slavonic. Should Christianity just be a religion for the educated, those of us trained in a niche language with no real modern day use?

The problem with Convertodox is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have Protestantism but you also want an apostolic blessing. You want to have individualism, where a single ecclesiastical province has multiple "Orthodox" bishops outrageously fighting over the same territory, but you also say that you are "one apostolic church".

What is the fruit of Saints Cyril and Methodius? The result is that the Russian Church and the Greek Church are essentially divided from each other. How is that "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?" Meanwhile, any Catholic in any part of the world can go to any Latin Mass in any province and, through practice, attain 100% comprehension of the ceremony.

If you want to cast your lot with the vernacularists, don't pretend that you are part of Cyril and Methodius -- they created translations in Church Slavonic, which essentially has been unchanged throughout centuries even as the Bulgarians, Russians, and Ukrainians ceased to understand one another in the common tongue. Your heritage, in this modern English speaking world, is fundamentally entangled with Protestantism, the French Revolution, and all of its evils -- individual interpretation, vernacularism, and self-doctrine. A simple glance through the history of Bible translation is all you need to understand this. I guess you can call yourself "catholic" too, since you are automatically lumped in with the revolutionary subversives of Vatican II, who made vernacularism one of their key agendas.

Anyone who speaks English and lives in the aftermath of Henry VIII, King James, Martin Luther, and the French Revolution must fundamentally de-Protestantize themselves if they wish to be part of the True Church. Unfortunately, almost all convertodox do not succeed at this. And yes, we all know that the Protestants and their descendants have been most successful at creating converts and filling their churches :)
 
Last edited:

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
The problem with Convertodox is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have Protestantism but you also want an apostolic blessing. You want to have individualism, where a single ecclesiastical province has multiple "Orthodox" bishops outrageously fighting over the same territory, but you also say that you are "one apostolic church".

As I'm fond of pointing out, the conflict between Moscow and Constantinople over Ukraine is political, not theological, in nature. Despite their CIA-funded politically motivated blunders Constantinople is still fundamentally the same faith as that of Moscow. It's an unfortunate situation, and though the Ecumenical Patriarch might dip his toes in the waters of seeking Pope-like supremacy, the rest of the Church doesn't have to go along with it, and the divergence in beliefs, if you can call it that, is unbelievably minor compared to pre and post Vatican II, or differences dividing protestant denominations.

Provide evidence that I "want to have Protestantism" and "individualism." I don't want either of those. I want to have the same beliefs as the Church Fathers, to change my mind from the western paradigm and interpret Scripture and Christian spiritual practice as they did. Any of the "converts" I know would tell you the same thing. It sounds like you're just spouting epithets about some vaguely-defined group of Orthodox people you dislike and making silly generalizations.

What is the fruit of Saints Cyril and Methodius? The result is that the Russian Church and the Greek Church are essentially divided from each other. How is that "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?" Meanwhile, any Catholic in any part of the world can go to any Latin Mass in any province and, through practice, attain 100% comprehension of the ceremony.

This is total non-sequitur. Please provide evidence that the difference in language has anything to do the Moscow-Constantinople conflict.

If you want to cast your lot with the vernacularists, don't pretend that you are part of Cyril and Methodius -- they created translations in Church Slavonic, which essentially has been unchanged throughout centuries

Wrong. Church Slavonic has developed and been revised over time, hence the distinction between it and Old Church Slavonic. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia explains this.

I do think it would make sense to revise Slavonic to the vernacular, but it's generally far more comprehensible to Russians and Eastern Europeans than Latin would be, and as an American it's not my business to tell them what style of language to use. Also not terribly relevant since I doubt anybody here is demanding all their services be in Slavonic anyway.

Your heritage, in this modern English speaking world, is fundamentally entangled with Protestantism, the French Revolution, and all of its evils -- individual interpretation, vernacularism, and self-doctrine. A simple glance through the history of Bible translation is all you need to understand this. I guess you can call yourself "catholic" too, since you are automatically lumped in with the revolutionary subversives of Vatican II, who made vernacularism one of their key agendas.

You're just throwing everything against the wall looking for an accusation that sticks. The Orthodox Church has always supported the vernacular, if you bothered to read the history of St. Herman of Alaska and other Orthodox missionaries, they taught the faith in the native language. Just the other day we commemorated St. Stephen of Perm, who evangelized the Zyrians of Eastern Russia and translated the Scriptures and liturgy into their language and even invented an alphabet for them, all the way back in the 14th century. Since this was going on centuries ago, accusations of "individualism" and "self doctrine" seems like a serious leap in logic to me, since empirically this did not happen in the Orthodox Church.

Anyone who speaks English and lives in the aftermath of Henry VIII, King James, Martin Luther, and the French Revolution must fundamentally de-Protestantize themselves if they wish to be part of the True Church. Unfortunately, almost all convertodox do not succeed at this. And yes, we all know that the Protestants and their descendants have been most successful at creating converts and filling their churches :)

Are you actually trying to imply some connection between Orthodoxy and Protestantism? How silly. It's true that one converting must "de-Protestantize" but arguing that necessitates doing the liturgy in an ancient language is ridiculous and empirically false.

I don't really have a dog in the fight of traditional Latin mass vs. vernacular, since I'm not Catholic and don't really care to comment much on their issues. Perhaps serving the traditional Latin mass in the vernacular, similar to the Orthodox Western Rite's Liturgy of St. Gregory, makes the most sense, but again - not my church, not my problem to solve. I'm mostly responding here because of comments pertaining to Orthodoxy.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
@nagareboshi
Essentially you are just pointing out the particularities and peculiarities of man and his connections to this world, which include tribalism and politics. You make some good points but none will be solved, and your unity ironically (as is RC ecclesiology/theology) is political. @Hermetic Seal has it right.

For whatever the reason, I'm not really keen to argue these points. There won't be a solution or satisfying answer for you anyway, so let's just stress that orthodox have unity in doctrine and practice, period, not because some head of state says so, or because their "leaders" get along, or don't. Some of the greatest saints have been exiles, popes and patriarchs even persecuted them, etc

I have a feeling sooner or later none of this will matter, the technocrat surveillance and mark system seems to be approaching soon, or at least in most of our lifetimes. We've spoken of wheat and chaff before, let's see who is really on the side they've flapped their gums about for decades, when the divide truly comes and decision time is at hand.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
I don't really have a dog in the fight of traditional Latin mass vs. vernacular, since I'm not Catholic and don't really care to comment much on their issues. Perhaps serving the traditional Latin mass in the vernacular, similar to the Orthodox Western Rite's Liturgy of St. Gregory, makes the most sense, but again - not my church, not my problem to solve. I'm mostly responding here because of comments pertaining to Orthodoxy.

For whatever the reason, I'm not really keen to argue these points. There won't be a solution or satisfying answer for you anyway, so let's just stress that orthodox have unity in doctrine and practice, period, not because some head of state says so, or because their "leaders" get along, or don't. Some of the greatest saints have been exiles, popes and patriarchs even persecuted them, etc

Almost 100% of Western converts to Orthodoxy are entering into this faith from an ex-Catholic, ex-Protestant background, in a culture that has been torn apart from 100s of years of revolution, violent heresy, and liturgical disrespect. It is from this perspective that vernacularism has emerged and taken root in the modern people's minds. When a Greek or Russian Saint advocates for vernacular in the 15th century, he does so in a different way than a modern American, because the American is living and breathing the air of the French Revolution even when he doesn't know it. Again, it's obvious if you look at the history of who has translated the Bible, and for what reason. I would wager that if you asked the souls of these Saints what they thought about modern day religion, they would recant their vernacularist ideas.

The idea that the Bible and the Liturgy should actually be available in a vulgar tongue for every last person to consume is a false ideal from the Protestant Reformation / European Enlightenment. It basically posits that every man is free to read anything, at any time, for any reason, without initiation, and using his own will. It is Gnostic in the sense that "mystery" is the worst sinful offense -- everything must be easy to understand, everything must be naked, and dissected, in the spirit of science! There can be no silent beauty in this French Revolution religion. It is a dangerous idea which leads to so much trouble in history. Again, all of this is different from having liturgical pamphlets which are translated as an annotated supplementary substance, and it is also different from a spiritual father advocating for the religion in a vulgar tongue for the sake of evangelizing different peoples.

Not to mention that division of the liturgy into various tiny national tongues basically encourages ethnic tribal disagreements at the very structural level. If you have a small number of liturgical languages: that's it, there's just the one language; there's no arguing with it. But now, everyone is divided. That doesn't really seem like One Church to me.

And that's basically it. You guys are in a different church, and there's a reason you chose to convert to Orthodoxy and not Catholicism. People have different views on the nature of man and his understanding, and also the role of mystery in the sacred liturgy of religion. I wish the best for your church and that it always searches for the truth.
 
Last edited:

Fenaroli

Robin
When I was an R&R (Recognize and Resist) Trad Catholic of the Taylor Marshall variety, it was of the utmost importance to ape all aspects of pre-Vatican II Catholicism. Learn everything in Latin, aim for the large 20-child family, feel free in insulting the "pope" without theological fear because apparently the Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morality, and yet disagree with him when he is speaking on such matters on a daily basis: the most contradictory position of R&R.

I do think it's important for Catholics to read everything in Latin if you have the smarts. However, I don't think it's at all wrong to recite the prayers in a pre-Vatican II Catechism or Prayer book in English.

For much of Church history, there were plenty of illiterate faithful who listened to the Priest and followed along in Latin, who might not have understood the finer points of the exegetical theology. Nonetheless, they lived deeply devout Catholic lives and followed the priest's directions on living Catholic lives.

More important is to actually follow the Catholic lifestyle and faith in practice. So that means no ecumenism, no religious liberty which directly contradict the 1st commandment of the decalogue and deeply offend God.

I don't think it would matter if you prayed everything in Latin and then behaved like a Vatican II ecumenist: e.g helped build a Mosque for your Muslim neighbour, or prayed in a protestant or Orthodox ceremony. In the Traditional Catholic faith, that would be akin to praying with infidels, which would infuriate God.

So Catholics should completely reject Vatican II and return to the traditional Catholic Faith.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Hi @Aboulia . 1) Is Christ accessible in today's world in the exact same manner as He was in the time of the Romans? 2) Christ did not have ecumenical councils either. Should we get rid of those? Christ also did not tell us about the Nicene Creed. Should that be done away with? 3) I think it's easy to imagine that, as the bridegroom has physically departed us, returning (in silence) in the sacrifice of the Mass, with the Holy Spirit breathed onto the scriptures, our mode of conduct should be different now, in this different age of history. Reading the Bible by yourself in a dark room is different from listening to the direct words of Christ, as He was in person, as a son of man on earth.

4) Furthermore, Christ did not speak to people in a manner that they plainly understood. He deliberately cloaked his meanings in parables so that only some may know, and others (hard of heart) would not know. "Do not cast pearls before swine, do not give holy things to the dogs."

Also, I sympathize with your experience with bad Catholic teachers :) The institutions have been under attack for quite some time these days.


Added numbers to your post to address your questions

1)Obviously not.
2) Off the top of my head, the Roman Church disregards Canon XX of the First Ecumenical Council, and changed the Creed.
3) This statement has nothing to do with spoken form of language which is the sole issue, I really have no idea where you're going with this.
4) Are you really conflating parables and foreign language? That's like conflating encryption with programming languages.

The idea that the Bible and the Liturgy should actually be available in a vulgar tongue for every last person to consume is a false ideal from the Protestant Reformation / European Enlightenment. It basically posits that every man is free to read anything, at any time, for any reason, without initiation, and using his own will. It is Gnostic in the sense that "mystery" is the worst sinful offense -- everything must be easy to understand, everything must be naked, and dissected, in the spirit of science! There can be no silent beauty in this French Revolution religion. It is a dangerous idea which leads to so much trouble in history. Again, all of this is different from having liturgical pamphlets which are translated as an annotated supplementary substance, and it is also different from a spiritual father advocating for the religion in a vulgar tongue for the sake of evangelizing different peoples.


Protestantism is not Orthodoxy, there is no comparison, we don't do away with the entire liturgical structure, there is no free for all in doctrine in Orthodoxy, Orthodox worship is not Gnostic, it's all out there for everyone to see, but you won't see it if you don't pay attention. The same applies to people in the world, as they are "free" to read anything they wish (not without consequence), it doesn't mean they'll be paying enough attention to the text as a whole, and most often will project their sins onto the text. I can only agree to the point that the scriptures shouldn't be put into completely vulgar slang speak, or "pidgin" languages. But it is a good work to do a translation well, and some good translations of texts are continuing to be done at monasteries.

You're Japanese correct? Look into the man who spent his lifetime bringing Orthodoxy to Japan, St. Nicholas or Nikolai (Kasatkin). He translated the Bible + other liturgical texts into Japanese, and spent his life bringing Orthodoxy to Japan. You tell me if you believe that man deserves to be lumped in with Protestantism.

 
Top