I would dare to venture that there would not be so many liturgical enthusiasts - nay, even traditionalists - if it were not for the use of the vernacular in the last 50 years. In hearing the liturgy in their own language, so many have gained a deeper understanding of the liturgy in which they participate, and this has spurred them on to learn more and more.

Well in one way you are correct thanks to the vernacular liturgy, we have gained many Traditionalists. They have looked at the 3 old women acting out a scene from MacBeth, and decided to leave!

I can't think of any traditionalist that was inspired by the vernacular N.O. Liturgy, to deepen their understanding of Liturgy. We also have the next generation that have never attended the vernacular Liturgy, I have not been for 25 years or so and my 8 children have never been to the vernacular liturgy.

If you are interested in Liturgy you have most likely gained it from attending the TLM.

If you are interested in Liturgy you have most likely gained it from attending the TLM.

Not I! I was taught about the liturgy in the 1950s, and I served Mass weekly until 1963. But it was not until vernacularisation that I could listen to the prayers. And the three/two year cycle of readings opened up the scripture amazingly. It is one thing to be taught about typology, and the way in which the Gospel authors, and the liturgy, deploy it. Quite another to hear the Old testament and relate it directly to the New.

Charles,

I recognize the temptation to cynicism, but I don't think at least parts of what you say in this most recent post constitute cynicism. It might be bad history, just as the "mute spectators" canard is, but when modern man is distractable in a superlative degree -- and has been trained to be so, mind you -- it wouldn't be surprising if many people had their minds elsewhere.

and this has spurred them on to learn more and more.

Apparently by attending Mass less and less, according to Pew and our Bishops.

most folks attending the TLM before it became anything extraordinary" had little or no awareness of the Mass texts

And, gee, lots of them earned salvation--which is the principal goal, amiright?

Imagine that!! They did it without the vernacular, without singing, without stand/sit/kneel/jump........

Huh.

Trent left it to the Pope to permit the vernacular, and it was done in Bohemia for a while.

I had never realised that, as Liam asserts, Trent left the vernacular matter up to the pope. I do know that there were many bishops from all over, particularly the Germanies, and quite a few even in Italy, who wanted vernacular and the council just wouldn't hear of it - and probably wouldn't have heard of it even if it hadn't been dismissed as a Protestant thing. People in those days were burned at the stake even for translating the Bible into various vernaculars. It may seem at times that the Church has always had an existential and aristocratic aversion to 'the people' knowing too much or being too literate in scriptural and doctrinal matters. This persists even today, even after the glorious Vatican II, as evidenced in the sort of music that 'the people' have been force fed since the council (since 'the people' were now expected to 'participate' in the mass they were given junk to participate in) - not to mention the poor catechesis and often heresy in and out of seminaries. At no time in history would any such music and liturgy have been countenanced. But I will repeat yet again that this is not the council's fault, but that of those who left the council and had no intention of obeying its precepts.

Thanks for the corrections.
I should have taken such into mind.
Actually, I have always wanted a copy of Bede's translation.

MJO

The relevant canons from Session XXII of Trent in 1562 were more limited than is often remembered:

"Although the Mass contains much instruction for the faithful people, it did not seem to the Fathers expedient, however, that it be celebrated indiscriminately/everywhere in the vernacular.” [That is not a prohibition on the vernacular being permitted discriminately, as it were.]

And the Council only anathematized anyone maintaining that “the rite of the Roman Church, in which part of the Canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low voice, is to be condemned, or that the Mass *must be celebrated only* in the vernacular.” [emphasis added - in other words, what's anathematized is (a) condemnation of the then-current Roman Rite Mass, and (b) the assertion that the Mass cannot be celebrated in Latin]

I think with some Trads today, the language, vestments, gestures serve to make them feel special and elite. It isn't about worship. Exceptions abound, but I think all true with too many.

Hmm... thinking of Peter Kwasniewski? I did.

If a trad disparages the Novus Ordo and Vatican II, that's a dead giveaway for me.

If someone prefers the TLM, fine. If someone thinks the Novus Ordo is going to die out, I think he's wrong. If someone thinks the Novus Ordo and Vatican II were in themselves errors that need to be reversed, I think he's borderline schismatic.

Charles, the Church has named hundreds of pre-Vat2 saints, for starters. I would suggest that there are more who earned salvation besides those--but none who are Greek Ortho. come to mind.

I have a long list of petitions to send you to take up with Him. ;-) ;-)

I'll consider it. How much cash can you send?

How many are even paying attention now?

Percentage-wise, the same number as were paying attention then. The nature of humanity never changes.

I'll consider it. How much cash can you send?

I will send your name to the President since he seems to be in a giving mood at the moment.

I would suggest that there are more who earned salvation besides those--but none who are Greek Ortho. come to mind.

Before the 11th century, all the eastern saints are recognized both east and west. Even today, the west generally accepts the saints of the other churches without question. And they were not even Trads! Go figure.

In England the civil law De Haeretico comburendo of 1401 provided for the burning of heretics. The ecclesiastical law of the Province of Canterbury was amended in the 1407 Constitutions of Oxford, to make reading (without authorisation from your bishop) a vernacular translation of the Bible a mark of heresy.

I will send your name to the President

Acquaintance with me will earn you a visit from the FBI. Then you'll blow your "stimulus" on bail.

Actually, anyone sainted before 1100 AD was--emphatically--a Trad. That would be about...what....865 years prior to The Troubles.

Sorry, but I must express some nuance to the 'reasons... which pile higher and deeper daily'.
I know that I will represent a minority view of this on our Forum, but there is more to this rebellious so-called 'revolution' than meets the eye or has ever been reckoned with. I'm sorry to ruffle feathers, but below the surface is a lot of ugliness in not-so-pure motives.

This country, which for going on three centuries has been a magnet for all those worldwide who seek 'the pursuit of happiness' and a more human life, literally would not exist or have been thought of but for England and European thought. It is notable that less than ten percent of the American colonists have been said to have supported or fought in the 'Revolution'. In spite of our highly sterilized view of our history, we shouldn't forget that among the reasons for the rebellion of 1776 and its lofty cries for 'freedom' was the dread fear of the talk in England of outlawing slavery (which it did decades before the US), the ravenous desire for commercial speculation of the vast Indian territories which laid beyond the Alleghenies, and more such travesties than have ever been taught with a guilty conscience in American history classes. These poor and abused self styled freedom heroes' first act was to appropriate the property of all who had been Tories and drive them in their thousands out to Canada, which, like Texas, they had a lust for and tried more than once to annex. The colonists constantly stirred up trouble with the Indians, trampled on treaties which England had made with them, and then thought it an outrage that they were expected to be taxed like everyone else to pay for the soldiers England had to send to put them down. It is also worthy of emphasis the the 'heroic' onward route from the Mississippi to the Pacific was littered with massacred and dispossessed Indians. Yes, there were a number of these Founding Fathers who left us with admirable texts about universal human rights (a concept the development of which was unique to the Catholic faith) based upon Classical, Humanist, and Enlightenment philosophy (all of which have their origins in Greek, Roman, and European thought), not to mention some peculiarly English traditions of government, but underneath was their brazen enslavement of Africans, their near elimination of the Amerind, its own overseas 'colonialism', its own annexations of the lands of its neighbors, and more. It is notable that this country was the very last great power to abolish slavery - and had to fight a civil war in order to do so. (To be fair, though, it was powerful African tribes' constant warring on weaker ones, who sold their neighbors into slavery to anyone - and Europeans and Americans were far from the only ones - who would buy them.)

Yes, the world would be a far more dangerous and less civilized, and less Christian place today if it weren't for the Pax Americana. It wouldn't have survived, though, had the Pax Britannica which preceded it not been there (warts and all) making the world safe for western civilization, the philosophy behind it, and (at least the notion of) universal human rights and the inalienable dignity of every human being to flourish.

I'm, as all of us are, thankful for all the cornucopia of good that the world receives from this great nation, but we should not deceive ourselves by ignoring the shameful aspects of our history and their whitewashed motivations - much of which infects our society to this day. Our own ancien regime is alive and well today in the minds of an astonishing number or our current population in and out of the south. One notes with disappointment that there are more than half a dozen countries - some of them monarchies! - that today rank higher on the democracy scale than our homeland. There is always work to do, always our own hearts to search.

Meanwhile, back to Vatican II and the floodgates.

Quite right, Charles!
I once read a doctoral thesis on the topic of the post civil war economy of the American south. Contrary to the existential fears of southerners, their economy flourished ten-fold after the abolition of the slaves which they thought that they couldn't live without. It was industrialization which brought this about. Still though, it is notable that to this day some of the poorest of our states are southern ones... our own anciem regime is far from dead, not only in the south, but elsewhere, in the minds of an astonishing number of our current population.

There is "benign" slavery and "malign" slavery. In fact, the term "slave" is often applied to man-servants who were rather well-taken-care of by their 'masters'--often these were foundlings who otherwise would die in the streets. That was in the Olden Times of Rome, Athens, and some parts of the Middle East.

It's complicated. There were a lot of slaves who fought FOR the South, which indicates that they were not totally unhappy there.

The offense lies mostly in the concept of chattel slavery--that is, property--which was predominant in the US.

I read recently that the majority of African slaves were sent to Brazil, not the U.S. One would think, given the current over-politicized hype, that the U.S. was the world leader in the slave trade.

Slaves were expensive. I have an old study from, I think, the University of Texas converting slave costs into 2009 U.S. dollar equivalents. Some skilled slaves could cost $50,000 or more. Then there were the costs for housing and feeding them. The multi-millionaire planters were about the only ones who could afford many slaves.

Jackson,

In Texas, is the Civil War the one which caused you to leave Mexico, or the one fought over whether the other Confederate States could leave the Union (since Texas wrote an escape clause into one of the drafts of its constitution (but I'm not sure if that dates from 1840s or not))?

we shouldn't forget that among the reasons for the rebellion of 1776 and its lofty cries for 'freedom' was the dread fear of the talk in England of outlawing slavery (which it did decades before the US), the ravenous desire for commercial speculation of the vast Indian territories which laid beyond the Alleghenies, and more such travesties than have ever been taught with a guilty conscience in American history classes.

So Original Sin was still in effect, having come over from England!

the ravenous desire for commercial speculation of the vast Indian territories which laid beyond the Alleghenies, and more such travesties than have ever been taught with a guilty conscience in American history classes.

I find the differences between the French and English significant. The French came to trade and had friendly relations with the Indians. The English came to stay and keep territory.

By the way, you also mis-read my comment. Should the Feebs find that you know me, YOU will become suspected of mal- or mis-feasance, or perhaps terroristic inclinations.

I have spent nearly 30 years employed by two federal agencies. I am still with one of them part-time. I know well how they operate and sometimes don't. LOL.

What were we discussing originally? LOL

Liam, that would be nice--if it were true.

Professor Ed Smith, director of American Studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam - the war's bloodiest battle. Mr. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity.

See: https://civilwarhome.com/blacks.htm

It's complicated, friend. Don't pretend otherwise.

dad29

Among other things.... https://deadconfederates.com/2012/06/20/stonewall-jacksons-regiment-of-free-negroes/

Meanwhile, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.