US Catholic Faith in Real Life

Primary tabs

Site Section: 
Topic (work in progress): 


Submitted by Qualis Rex (not verified) on

We do not know with 100% certainty, but we can make a strong hypothesis from scripture and historical sources that Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, some Greek AND Latin. The interchange of Our Lord with Pontius Pilate, a Roman governor who's first language and lingua franca would have been Latin gives us insight into this. So, you might consider investing your two cents wisely...

Submitted by maryb (not verified) on

i am a "vatican II baby", and i relish in being able to fully, actively participate at mass. something i couldn't do as a young girl, not knowing latin, and noone seeing the need for me to know, since i couldn't serve on the altar. i realize that there is a desire for some for the beauty of the prevatican II rite, however, the beauty of the rite is the presence of jesus in the word, sacrament, and assembly, not the language of choice. one well-meaning grandma a few years back even told her first communicant grandson that he wasn't really receiving the body of christ in our church because "the consecration can't happen unless the words are in latin" i think that the opponents of 'going back' are afraid of this kind of thinking, and of disenfranchising the folks we struggle to engage when they can understand and participate. i love the rituals of the church, the "bells and smells" of the past, but i don't think we need sacrifice the sense of truly being part of what is going on the vernacular gives us to experience and appreciate the mass

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

"something i couldn't do as a young girl, not knowing latin, and noone seeing the need for me to know, since i couldn't serve on the altar."
I understand that you did not know Latin. That probably had more to do with no one in your family or acquaintance giving you a Missal with the Mass in both English and Latin as a gift, on the occasion of any of your sacraments. A lack on your families or acqaintances part, not because you weren't a boy that could serve on the altar. That conclusion is yours based on your bias developed later. Interestingly you never took responsibility to seek out one for yourself either when you saw others using them. Blaming others for your situation is easier. At least victimhood makes you feel better.

Submitted by John XXIII Fan (not verified) on

Really? Your Grandma thought that Jesus spoke Latin at His Last Supper? Who's going to inform our Savior that the Institution of the Eucharist didn't really "count" because He spoke Aramaic???

Submitted by Eminem Recovery... (not verified) on

I have read through many of the comments to this article and to other articles, and have left comments myself.

The argument goes deeper than just about the translations. It's basically an argument about the way Liturgy should be celebrated.

But centuries ago, a dogmatic Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church settled many of these questions, once and for all. No Catholic in good conscience can dissent from these teachings.

And that's the heart of the problem, friends. Many dissent from infallible teaching. Many insist on endlessly reopening closed questions.

We must restore a Catholic understanding of the Mass.

Submitted by Eminem Recovery... (not verified) on

Quotes from Trent: 

If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema. 

If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema

If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema

If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.


Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

Sorry To Break Through De-Illusion.

Submitted by Henry Edwards (not verified) on

Vatican II explicitly reaffirmed the Council of Trent and all that it taught, just as the Catechism of the Catholic Church is built on and subsumes the Catechism of Trent.

One who does not know this -- and utters inanities about one council trumping another -- is too poorly informed to comment on any council.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

Its a play on words ... like a house of (cards) God ... Vat II is the last word - taking in and subsuming all that preceded it - on who we are as the People of God; guided by the Holy Spirit, the Body of Christ has literally and figuratively undergone metanoia and turned to embrace these times to inclusively be the Good News and Sacrament of God's Love to the Modern World. To turn back from The Way set forth is a diminishment of Church that excludes a fullness in the one - a loss from being made whole/holy.