Dr Taylor Marshall will host a live WEBINAR on Monday night at 7pm and go over 4 Latin prayers: the sign of the cross, Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory be, and table blessing (“Bless us O Lord”) in Latin.
Dr Marshall will also explain the difference between Classical and Ecclesiastical (Church) Latin pronunciations. This event is LIVE and chat will be open and moderated. If there is time, Dr Marshall will take Q&A.
Please don’t miss this LIVE webinar event. Click subscribe and “notify” on this page so that you don’t miss it.
Check out Patreon Patron Benefits for Donating to Dr Taylor Marshall’s Show!
All these video discussions are free. Do you want to recommend a show, get signed books, and show support? Here’s how: click on Patreon Patron link:
Become a Patron of this Podcast: I am hoping to produce more free weekly podcast Videos. Please help me launch these videos by working with me on Patreon to produce more free content. In gratitude, I’ll send you some signed books or even stream a theology event for you and your friends. Please become one of my patrons and check out the various tier benefits at: https://www.patreon.com/drtaylormarshall
Most nerds go to comic book conventions or role playing events in which they dress up as characters from Star Trek. Catholic nerds do something similar – but they go entirely medieval. Let me explain:
It’s Spring Break and I’m doing something that is simultaneously nerdy and fantastic: Biduum Latinum Oklahomense 2013. It’s going to be great. We will be living, eating, and learning on the grounds of Clear Creek Abbey, a Benedictine foundation of the Congregation of Solesmes. The monks dedicate themselves to prayer through the cultivation of Latin and Gregorian Chant and to work at their farm, vineyard, dairy, smithy, and carpentry shop.
What is it? It’s a workshop for those who know Latin, but want to develop an active command of Latin as a spoken language. That’s right, we’ll be at a wonderful Benedictine Abbey were the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Divine Office are exclusively in Latin, and in the meantime, we’ll be learning the basics of how we can re-cultivate Latin as a spoken language.
Please say an Ave Maria for us, and if you’re interested in this kind of thing, please sign up for next year’s event. Alright, I’ve got to get in the mini-van and roll out of Dallas. Have a great Spring Break!
We need to address both of these objections. I think you’ll be satisfied with the answers – and see that neither objection holds water:
First Objection: Cardinal Burke will not be elected because he doesn’t know Spanish. He knows English, Latin, French, Italian, but not Spanish, they say. Folks are rightly claiming that it is inconceivable for a Pope to be ignorant of Spanish given the growing importance of Latin America in the third millenium of the Catholic Church.
Answer to First Objection: Cardinal Burke is able to speak and write in Spanish and has delivered many bilingual homilies at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Just ask the folks who have served with him. He may not be an expert in Spanish, but he can manage to preach and write in Spanish.
Second Objection: Cardinal Burke is American and the Cardinals know that the world will resent a Pope from the world’s leading super power – the United States.
Answer to the Second Objection: People aren’t thinking clearly about this. Cardinal Burke would be the perfect Pope, precisely because the global tribe looks at America with suspicion. Cardinal Burke is an American who vocally disapproves of America.He isn’t wining and dining with President Obama, Joe Biden, are the other power players of Washington DC and New York. As I wrote yesterday, Cardinal Burke has called President Obama “anti-life and anti-family.”
Cardinal Burke isn’t going to pander to America’s claims of greatness and superiority. Rather, His Eminence would attack and destroy those claims.
In fact, Cardinal Burke is the cardinal with the clearest voice speaking against the crimes of the United States. Is America an emerging super Evil Empire spreading porn, abortion, materialism, perverse marriages, and filth all over the globe? Yes.
Would a Third World Pope know how to stand down this First World evil? Most likely not. Would a Third World Pope be taken seriously be First World powers? Probably not.
You need a holy American who is not afraid to speak out against his homeland. Which American Cardinal has the hardest words for America? Cardinal Burke.
This last objection actually becomes one of the best arguments for Cardinal Burke.
Like most of you, I have enjoyed reading the Holy Father’s thoughts on the liturgy and the Holy Mass over the years. Pope Benedict was undeniably prolific in his theological reflection on Liturgy and the Eucharist prior to his election as Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. Even before I became Catholic, I was impressed by his forthrightness and clarity on what constitutes genuine and God-honoring liturgy.
These are only the tip of the iceberg. I’d encourage you to read the books when you have time. Tell then, here goes:
Ratzinger on the Liturgical Reformers Creating a ‘Fabrication, Banal Product’ The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)
Ratzinger on Those Who Appreciate the Latin Mass being Wrongly Treated Like ‘Lepers’
“For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 [the older Latin Mass] should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way?” (Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000)
Ratzinger on the Degeneration of Liturgy and ‘Liturgical Fabricators’
“[W]e have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims. Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the ‘doing’ becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.” (Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to the French translation of Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, 1992).
Ratzinger on the ‘Disintegration of the Liturgy’
“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” (Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977)
Ratzinger against ‘Homemade Liturgy’
“It is also worth observing here that the ‘creativity’ involved in manufactured liturgies has a very restricted scope. It is poor indeed compared with the wealth of the received liturgy in its hundreds and thousands of years of history. Unfortunately, the originators of homemade liturgies are slower to become aware of this than the participants…” (Feast of Faith p. 67-68)
Ratzinger on the Latin Mass as the ‘Holiest and Highest Possession’
“I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.” (Ratzinger Salt of the Earth (1997)
Ratzinger on the Danger of Creative “Presiders” at the Mass
In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest — the “presider”, as they now prefer to call him — becomes the real point of reference for the whole Liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing.
Ratzinger on the Danger of ‘Creative Planning of the Liturgy’
Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the “creative” planning of the Liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, “make a contribution of their own”. Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a “pre-determined pattern”. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)
Ratzinger on Why the Priest Should Not Face the People During Mass
The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is locked into itself. The common turning toward the East was not a “celebration toward the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian Liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord”. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)
Ratzinger on the Priest and People Facing the Same Direction
On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)
Ratzinger on the ‘Absurd Phenomenon’ of Replacing the Crucifix with the Priest
Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than Our Lord? (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)
In the 1960s, there was a movement to translate the Latin words “pro multis” into the vernacular not as “for many” but “for all.” Pope Benedict XVI has explicitly stated that all vernacular translations should be rendered as “many” and not the universal “all.” He is referring to biblical translations, but more importantly, the consecration of the chalice in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it: for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and *for many* for the forgiveness of sins.
Prior to the current revised English Missal, you may remember that this was translated as “for you and for all.”
This controversy over “many” or “all” became a rallying point of traditionalists who objected to “all” as a liturgical novelty. On the other hand, liturgical progressives celebrated the “for all” translation as being inclusive.
Regrettably, the liturgical radicals won the day back in 1970. The Novus Ordo of the 1970s and until recently, in certain vernacular translations (eg, English and German), translated the words of consecration as “poured out for you and for all.” Pope Benedict, however, has put his foot down. The translation “for all” is not considered a correct translation.
Pope Benedict, in his recent letter to the German bishops (March 15, 2012), writes:
This exegetical consensus has know shattered; it no longer exists. In the German translation of Sacred Scripture the account of the Last Supper states: “This is my Blood, the Blood of the Covenant, which is shed for many” (Mark 14:24, cf. Matt. 26:28). This indicates something very important: The rendering of “pro multis” with “for all” was not a pure translation, but an interpretation, which was and remains very reasonable, but is already more than translation and interpretation.
Pope Benedict has noted that “many” is a Hebrew expression derived from the Old Testament Scriptures. It refers to the faithful remnant of Israel. At the Last Supper, Christ our Lord was referring to Himself as the Suffering Servant that justifies “many.”
“Because his soul hath laboured, he shall see and be filled: by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities” (Isaias 53:11).
The dissenting argument that this “many” necessarily entails “all” has been, as Benedict puts it, shattered. Christ’s death does not justify all human beings unconditionally. Christ’s death justifies the many that receive Him by faith and preserve the bond of charity.
Dissenting theologians would like for us to believe that an abstract “Cosmic Christ” justifies all human persons and that all religions are transcendental appropriations of this “Cosmic Christ.” Our Holy Father is highlighting that the true Catholic Church is in fact a remnant just as the true Israel of the Old Testament was a remnant. It is like the yeast that is spread through the lump of dough or the seeds that are buried in the earth.
Moreover, the Eucharist is offered to all, but it is not to be received unconditionally “for all.” All are invited to the Sacrificial Banquet of the Lamb, but only those who are baptized, hold the entire Catholic Faith, are in a state of grace, and have kept the Eucharistic fast are allowed to partake of Christ the Lord.
Pope Benedict concludes:
We are many and we stand for all. In this way both words, “many” and “all”, belong together and relate to each other in responsibility and promise.
Here the Holy Father sums up the distinction beautifully. The faithful partakers of the Eucharistic Lord are “the many” described by Isaiah and applied to Himself by Christ. Yet, the Catholic Church “stands for all” and offers to the Gospel of Christ to all. No one is excluded from this invitation. However, each person excludes himself by lack of faith, hope, and charity. It’s a careful nuance with a critical distinction.
If you read Greek or the Latin Vulgate, you may have noticed various spellings of the word Jerusalem.
The spelling of Jerusalem with the y (Jerosolym) is found only in Greek texts of the Sacred Scriptures. The Hebrew texts preserve Jerusalem. In the Greek New Testament you’ll notice both – same with the Vulgate New Testament. Also, in some of the Deuterocanical books in the Septuagint and Vulgate, you’ll see Jerosolym.
Within the Deuterocanonical and New Testament Scriptures, both are used by the sacred authors. The y spelling (Jerosolym) derives from the Greek Hierosolym, which includes the Greek root for sacred cultic words. Hiereus is priest. Hieron is temple. The Greek writers made a Greek play-on-words to denote Jerusalem as a Hierosolym (a “temple” city).
Here are the status for Jerusalem:
Here are Jerosolym variants:
I mocked up these charts with Logos Bible Software. If you’d like to purchase this software, you can receive a 15% discount by mentioning my name. Use MARSHALL as the code in your check out.
My suspicion is that Jerosolym refers to a geographical location of the Old Testament temple, but that Jerusalem has spiritual significance. In Christian literature, Jerosolym is slightly polemical. Jerusalem, on the other hand, can refer to Heaven itself.
Saint Paul, in Galatians, refers to meeting Peter in geographical Jerosolym (Gal 1:17); however, in the same epistle he uses Jerusalem when referring to “that Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother.” (Gal 4:26)
Likewise, Saint John uses only Jerosolym in his Gospel (13 times), and he uses only Jerusalem in the Apocalypse (3 times). In his Apocalypse, Jerusalem always refers to the Holy City, which is Heaven.
If you are interested in learning more about Judaism, Saint Paul, and Catholicism, please take a look at Dr. Marshall’s books. Available in Paperback and Kindle format:
Catholics sometimes make the claim that while Christ “ascended” into Heaven, our Blessed Mother was “assumed” into Heaven. The difference, they say, is that Christ ascended by His own divine power; but that Mary was raised by the power of God. The apologist using this argument usually seeks to show Protestant objectors that Mary’s assumption is categorically different than Christ’s ascension.
Such an argument is fundamentally correct and in accordance with orthodox theology, but the vocabulary isn’t correct. As a result, the argument can be a little confusing.
The Language of Ascension and Assumption The Greek and Latin used in the Gospels (and Acts) employ the terminology of “assumption” for the ascension of Christ. First let us examine three verses that describe Our Lord’s ascension in terms of assumption, and then describe the theological significance.
“Et Dominus quidem Jesus postquam locutus est eis, assumptus est in cælum (He was assumed into Heaven), et sedet a dextris Dei.” (Mark 16:19, VGCLEM)
“usque in diem qua præcipiens Apostolis per Spiritum Sanctum, quos elegit, assumptus est (He was assumed)” (Acts 1:2, VGCLEM)
“qui et dixerunt : Viri Galilæi, quid statis aspicientes in cælum ? Hic Jesus, qui assumptus est (Who was assumed) a vobis in cælum, sic veniet quemadmodum vidistis eum euntem in cælum.” (Acts 1:11, VGCLEM)
For our Greek scholars, the Greek word here in Mark and Acts is the aorist passive form of ἀναλαμβάνω. It corresponds to “taken up” or “assumed.”
The conclusion is that Scripture uses the language of ascension and assumption for Our Lord’s transition into Heaven. (Saint John’s Gospel frequently uses the language of ascension.)
The Theology of Ascension and Assumption
The obvious difference between the terms is that to ascend is active and to be assumed or to be taken up is passive. Ascension denotes an agent going up by his own power. The hiker ascended the mountain. Assumption denotes that an object was moved by an agent. It’s passive. The office of captain was assumed by a lieutenant.
Now Our Lady’s body did not go to Heaven by her own natural power. Hence, we usually refer to her transition to Heaven as an assumption. Christ actively raised her to His right hand. However, Christ’s bodily transition was both an ascension (active) and an assumption (passive).
With regard to the activity of His divinity, Christ’s body ascended. With regard to humble obedience of His human soul, He was assumed into Heaven.
According to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Christ possesses two wills – the divine will of the Holy Trinity and His created human will corresponding to His created human soul. When we remind ourselves of this mystery, we can see more clearly how Christ both ascended with divine power and willed to be received and elevated by the Father. Hence, both Saint Mark and Saint Luke use the language of assumptus est to describe the ascension of Christ.
Happy Feast of the Ascension! We have a High Priest in Heaven who intercedes for us from His Sacred Heart at every second of the day.
Which Latin Vulgate should you buy? Not every Latin Vulgate is really a Church approved Latin Vulgate. There are three different versions out there and you need to make an informed decision before you lay down the money. A reader asks:
Hello Dr. Marshall,
I am looking into getting a physical copy of the Clementine Vulgate, and was wondering if you had any recommendation, perhaps obtainable on Amazon or a similar place. A facsimile of a historical version would be great, but I haven’t found any of those, so a modern edition would suffice. Thanks!
The ‘Three’ Vulgates
In previous posts, we have examined that not everything labeled “Latin Vulgate” is truly the traditional Vulgate. Buyer beware. Essentially there are three Vulgates: the classical Clementine Vulgate used in traditional Gregorian chant (by the way, just say no to the Pian Psalter).
Second, there is the common Stuttgart Vulgate which is an academic critical edition with variant readings.
Third, there is the “New Vulgate” or Nova Vulgata, which was produced in the 1970s. You don’t want that either. So you want to get the Clementine Vulgate which stands as the basis for traditional liturgy and traditional chant. There is an easy test to figure out which edition a Lating Vulgate is.
Turn to Genesis 3:20 and look at the name of Adam’s wife:
1) If it’s spelled Heva: Clementine Vulgate (1592) – the standard printed Latin Vulgate of the Catholic Church for Scripture and Liturgy until the Nova Vulgata (1979)
2) If it’s spelled Hava: Stuttgart Vulgate (1969) – a scholarly critical edition of the Latin Vulgate from the German Bible Society, not used in the liturgies of the Catholic Church. This is an academic Vulgate with a critical apparatus – it often includes the Pslater iuxta Hebraeos.
3) If it’s spelled Eva: Nova Vulgata (1979) – the official Catholic edition of the Latin Vulgate currently used in the ordinary liturgies of the Catholic Church (i.e. Missale Romanum 1969 & Liturgia Horarum)
I’ll close by saying that it’s NEVER too late to learn Latin. Even if you are 70 years old, go for it. Take an online course or sign up for a local class. It’s fun, challenges the mind, and unlocks a wealth of Catholic and historical resources. It’s one of the best things that you can do.
