SKL
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 14,647
Sure. I think I touched on it somewhere above, but it might bear some more elaboration. "Keeping people unable to question, etc." I would pretty much characterize as a Protestant canard. Yes, there was significant opposition in the Church to translation of Sacred Scripture into the vernacular, and, to be quite honest, not without good reason, especially in that era. Communication across Christendom was very slow and local power easily consolidated, so heretical sects could readily arise, viz. the Albigensians, based on false interpretations of Scripture, and a central authority was (and still is) needed to interpret Scripture to the layman. Individual interpretation of Scripture lends itself to having as many interpretations of Scriptures as they are individuals, and while this may fit in well with our subjectivist modern ideas about spirituality ("moralistic therapeutic deism" &c.) it is antithetical to the Catholic understanding of our spiritual and sacramental life as being grounded in Sacred Scripture. Now, by no means do I believe that the educated Catholic should be without Scriptural knowledge: much the opposite, but the exegesis had ought to be done under the guidance of the Holy Mother Church.
The Protestant response to this is more or less that the Holy Spirit will guide individual Protestants in forming their own exegesis, but the contrary is rather demonstrated by the history of Protestantism, i.e. ten thousand denominations mutually excommunicating one another and having their own varying interpretations of Scripture, and stepping back from excommunicating one another only in favor of accepting some sort of moral relativism. What's more, after the great break of historical continuity that occurred with Luther but especially with Calvin and his spiritual descendants in the West, it is very hard to define a standard Christianity by these standards. Who is to say that the Seventh Day Adventists, or the Armstrongists, or Watchtower, or perhaps even the Mormons (a religion which bears about as much a relation to Christianity as does Islam, but that is another topic) have not gotten at the truth by virtue of (their claim to) the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, if we are not to defer to some sort of Sacred Tradition? And if we do so, why should that Tradition make an abrupt break with a 16th century friar?
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. II Peter i, 20.
So the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition is in the hands of the Church, and has been handed down to us in a linear mode since time immemorial. Now, without a doubt, there have been dark periods in the history of the Church where truth would be threatened by falsehood and also the obscurantism to which you refer to above, but nonetheless, as Catholics we believe that. by Divine Providence, Sacred Scripture and Tradition have been preserved from their origins until this very day.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. Mt 24:11-13.
Now, as regards the Latin Mass ...
First of all, this being in contemporary times, when I attend a Mass in the usus antiquior, I bring a Missal that looks something like this:
Such that, while I have a little Latin, I can follow along even when my Latin fails me.
The Scriptural readings and the Homily are always given in the vernacular.
The bits that are in the Latin are probably in the bare textual majority repeated in each (or in the great majority) of Masses, and the Catholic who attends Mass regularly will, with or without an interpretation in the vernacular like the above, if properly catechized, will have a sense of what is going on. The Latin that is recited by the laity at Mass is mostly the same day to day, and forms the structure that is the backbone of the mass. Most of it is intelligible to speakers of European langauges even if they have no Latin proper. Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem, for instance. It would have been all the more intelligible to a Mass-goer who was steeped in Christian tradition in pre-Reformation times. The idea that the faithful were unaware of what was going on in the Mass due to not knowing Latin is patently false. They were catechized about the structure and meaning of the Mass, and beliefs around this were ubiquitous as Christian practice was wholly integrated into society at this time. Preaching in the vernacular was a common enough practice, especially with groups like the Dominicans, and while at times local priests were not particularly educated to do so or diligent in discharging this obligation, the Church or local ecclesiastical authorities did from time to time distribute sermons for the less learned clergy to pass on to their parishoners.
Also, above all, the Mass is not about reading the text or even necessarily gaining something from it in an exegetical sense, it is a sacrament with spiritual power imbued within it essentially. One does not need to comprehend the language being spoken in order to partake of the spiritual gifts. I could go to Mass in (say) Japanese, a language of which I have no knowledge, and not only would I be able to recognize what is going on, but in Catholic theological terms, I would reap the same spiritual benefits.
I hope this helps ...
