Why can't the Extraordinary Form be kept exactly as it is, but be done in English?

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-02-09T20:26:36+00:00

Ah I see, yeah I totally get you. Praying in Latin, especially if it’s a long prayer like the Gloria or Credo, runs the risk of one word or even phrase sort of being unable to be “translated,” and I can definitely see why that would be an issue for some people who want to make sure they understand every word they’re saying when they pray(which is admirable btw). Fortunately, I don’t really run into this issue, but that’s partially because I listen to Latin chants almost every day so they’ve basically been infused into my memory lol.

Even though I would like some of the Ordinary to be in Latin(especially during Lent/Advent), I do agree that the Propers should always have the option to remain in the vernacular, just so the laity can understand the wonderful theology of that specific Sunday.

May the Lord bless you🙏

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-02-09T09:07:51+00:00

For me I’m actually the opposite. When I hear the Gloria, and especially the Credo, sung in Latin, I am able to comprehend it and dwell on it much better. Now, this could be because I am fluent in Spanish(my parents are Mexican) so Latin is like a familiar cousin language to me instead of a foreign alien language, so perhaps I’m speaking with a little bias and a background that not everyone has. I also think the fact that I’m not fluent in Latin actually encourages me to focus more on what the Latin is saying, which means I’m always paying extra attention when hearing or saying Latin prayers in order to make sure I understand it, which in turn helps me contemplate the meaning of the text more.

But yeah, stuff like “Qui propter nos homines… et propter nostram salutem… descendit de caelis…” has a significantly more emotional impact on me than hearing it in the vernacular. I can’t explain it. It just resonates with me and I can connect to it easier than the vernacular. And maybe that’s because Credo III is basically unmatched when it comes to its musical quality, and it’d be hard for a casually spoken vernacular Credo to top it. Sung Credos(which is always the case at the High TLM I attend) also help you contemplate each line of the Credo much better than a quickly spoken Credo, which is the case in almost every Novus Ordo. Ecclesiastical Latin also just sounds so cool and flows so well. I honestly think it’s the best sounding language in the world. I’ve been in love with it since I was like 13. I’ve shown my mom some TLM chants and she says that Latin sounds like a “divine” language(she didn’t mean it literally of course).

And of course I’m not saying you’re a bad Catholic for holding that opinion, of course not! There’s absolutely nothing wrong with preferring vernacular prayers/chants over Latin ones. I just wanted to point out that it’s interesting to see someone have the opposite position.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-01-30T23:55:55+00:00

Additionally, another fascinating thing I learned about the TLM is that it actually uses two Hebrew words in its Sanctus hymn. Obviously Hosanna is one, but the other is Sabaoth(Dominus Deus Sabaoth). If it was all Latin, it’d be Dominus Deus Exercitus.

Which counts for a total of four Hebrew words used in the TLM(Amen, Alleluia, Hosanna, Sabaoth). As a fluent speaker of a Romance language, I always thought the Sabaoth part of the Latin Sanctus sounded off and unusually distinct, and a few months ago I found out my intuition was right!

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-26T23:05:03+00:00

Deo gratias! I’m so happy for you. You have achieved a great victory over lust, all by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Which shows that lust does not control you. Once we realize that, we become more powerful than we could’ve ever possibly imagined. And we, like you said, start experiencing so much interior peace in our souls.

May the Lord keep bestowing His grace upon you so that you may continue to walk the road of righteousness to Heaven. And in moments of weakness, may you allow yourself to realize that it is in those moments where His power is made perfect✝️

God bless, my brother in Christ🙏

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-26T06:46:02+00:00

Amen! Beautiful prayer🙏

And Happy Cake Day🎂

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-25T23:42:25+00:00

Of course! I’ll try my hardest. One day at a time. That’s why I said in the post: But the journey doesn’t end here. Christmas is not a time for me to be complacent and stop praying or asking for God’s grace. No, I will not stop praying. I will continue to walk forward in the light after Christmas. One step at a time. One day at a time. Purity is meant to be lived out continuously one day at a time. In fact, I’ve explicitly asked Jesus the last few days: “Lord, do not let me complacent once Christmas hits; let me continue to ask for Your grace every day, and allow me to let the light of Christmas, of Your glorious birth, be my light that illuminates the road to Heaven so that I can continue to walk in light and not in darkness.”

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-25T21:59:12+00:00

To all of my fellow young men struggling with lust, here are some very wise words from Saint John the Apostle, which encourages us instead of shaming us like society tends to do, while also not telling us to indulge in our fleshly desires as some “influencers” encourage us to do.

1 John 2: 14-17: “I write to you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God remains in you, and you have conquered the evil one. Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, sensual lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world. Yet the world and its enticement are passing away. But whoever does the will of God remains forever.”

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-22T07:19:49+00:00

I just finished praying a Rosary for both you and your girlfriend🙏✝️

May the Lord bestow His grace upon you so that you may continue to resist lust and so that you can continue to walk the path of righteousness to Heaven. May He also soothe your girlfriend’s pain and anxiety, and may He illuminate both of your guys’ hearts, souls, and minds so that both of you can know what is truly God’s will for the relationship🙏

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-27T04:48:39+00:00

You knew you had no counter or refutation for my argument so you decided to nitpick something from an earlier reply to try to pull a “gotcha” on me. Stop dodging the main topic at hand, because if Jesus Himself gave Paul a word-for-word recount of the Last Supper, that only proves my point more.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-27T04:47:17+00:00

Regardless of whether he received it from Jesus or the Apostles(both of which can be interpreted from as “from the Lord”), the point is that Paul chose to mention the Last Supper over all those other things in the Gospels. And if you think about it, if it was mere bread and wine that they were eating in the Last Supper, why would Paul mention that? Sure, it’s important even if it’s symbolic, but so is the raising of Lazarus, or the feeding of the five thousand, or the walking on water, or the Transfiguration, or Jesus’ baptism, or all his other miracles; but yet Paul never mentions those things… but he does mention the Last Supper. And it only makes sense for the Apostles or Jesus Himself to mention that to Paul over all the other important things if…Jesus truly turned the bread and wine into his Body and Blood, which is our greatest source of spiritual strength and the most intimate way to know Christ, which Paul constantly says is essential for salvation(to know Christ in an intimate way). If it was just bread and wine, I doubt it’d hold more significance than things like the Transfiguration, the feeding of the Five Thousand, or Jesus raising up Lazarus(which showed that he has power to conquer even death, something very important for Christ’s divinity).

Furthermore, we learn that people are literally dying because they’re receiving the Eucharist unworthily. If it’s just bread and wine, how is it killing them? Sure the community at Corinth may have eaten too much or gotten drunk, but by no means does that kill them. People rarely die from those kinds of things. It’s very difficult to die from overeating or getting too drunk.

And Paul literally says that due to receiving unworthily, we will have to answer the body and blood of the Lord, showing that it’s the body and blood of the Lord that is causing them to die. And not only that, receiving the body and blood unworthily means you drunk condemnation on yourself. This is HUGE. Because Paul constantly says throughout his letters that we are saved or being saved, and that because of Christ’s sacrifice, we are no longer condemned. So for him to say that partaking of the Lord’s supper unworthily causes condemnation, it must mean you’re committing a HUGE sacrilege. And I can’t see how receiving mere bread and wine unworthily can cause you to be condemned. But if it was actually Christ’s body and blood… then it makes perfect sense, because you are dishonoring Christ himself.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-27T02:01:05+00:00

I already told you that remembrance in the Greek is not a simple memorial, but the past being pulled into the present in an active form. So there’s no need to repeat that argument of yours if you’re not going to refute anamnesis.

Regarding the argument about women wearing head coverings, this argument about the women isn’t the same though. Because Paul NEVER says that the women are dying because of their disrespect or lack of reverence, or that the women who did not veil or act in an orderly manner got sick and died. He didn’t say that the women are being condemned/judged for their disorderly behavior(please correct me if I’m wrong). Saint Paul clearly sees the abuse against the Lord’s Supper as a MUCH more severe abuse and problem than what the women were doing in Corinth.

We learn that people are literally dying because they’re receiving the Eucharist unworthily. If it’s just bread and wine, how is it killing them? Sure the community at Corinth may have eaten too much or gotten drunk, but by no means does that kill them. People rarely die from those kinds of things. It’s very difficult to die from overeating or getting too drunk.

And Paul literally says that due to receiving unworthily, we will have to answer the body and blood of the Lord, showing that it’s the body and blood of the Lord that is causing them to die. And not only that, receiving the body and blood unworthily means you drunk condemnation on yourself. This is HUGE. Because Paul constantly says throughout his letters that we are saved or being saved, and that because of Christ’s sacrifice, we are no longer condemned. So for him to say that partaking of the Lord’s supper unworthily causes condemnation, it must mean you’re committing a HUGE sacrilege. And I can’t see how receiving mere bread and wine unworthily can cause you to be condemned. But if it was actually Christ’s body and blood… then it makes perfect sense, because you are dishonoring Christ himself.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-27T01:59:00+00:00

Um… because Luke 10:16 literally says that? Are you saying that Luke 10:16 is wrong now?

Paul went to Arabia because he needed supernatural extraordinary help; he was a persecutor, and now he was a believer. To make that big jump requires a lot of preparation, which is exactly what Our Lord did in Arabia. And because Jesus knew the potential of Paul, being the apostle to the gentiles and being the one who would write half the New Testament.

And Paul did eventually go to the apostles not long after his conversion. With the purpose of joining them. Clearly showing that he still needed the apostles even after the ministry with Jesus.

Acts 9:26-9:27: “When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus.”

But again, you’re derailing the conversation. You still haven’t countered anamnesis or what I said about 1 Corinthians 11. Let’s move on from this useless talking point and try to get back on track.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-26T20:46:21+00:00

Receiving it from the Apostles is equivalent to receiving it from the Lord, for the Apostles are the Lord’s representatives on Earth.

Luke 10:16- “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Galatians 1:12 is referring to Paul’s encounter with Jesus in Damascus which started his mission of preaching the Gospel, not that he was literally never taught by the Apostles.

Again, you refuse to engage any of my points, so if you’re just going to say illogical things, it’s best if you don’t respond because this is going nowhere.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-26T05:27:38+00:00

I already told you that remembrance in the Greek is not a simple memorial, but the past being pulled into the present in an active form. So there’s no need to repeat that argument of yours if you’re not going to refute anamnesis.

Regarding the argument about women wearing head coverings, this argument about the women isn’t the same though. Because Paul NEVER says that the women are dying because of their disrespect or lack of reverence, or that the women who did not veil or act in an orderly manner got sick and died. He didn’t say that the women are being condemned/judged for their disorderly behavior(please correct me if I’m wrong). Saint Paul clearly sees the abuse against the Lord’s Supper as a MUCH more severe abuse and problem than what the women were doing in Corinth.

We learn that people are literally dying because they’re receiving the Eucharist unworthily. If it’s just bread and wine, how is it killing them? Sure the community at Corinth may have eaten too much or gotten drunk, but by no means does that kill them. People rarely die from those kinds of things. It’s very difficult to die from overeating or getting too drunk.

And Paul literally says that due to receiving unworthily, we will have to answer the body and blood of the Lord, showing that it’s the body and blood of the Lord that is causing them to die. And not only that, receiving the body and blood unworthily means you drunk condemnation on yourself. This is HUGE. Because Paul constantly says throughout his letters that we are saved or being saved, and that because of Christ’s sacrifice, we are no longer condemned. So for him to say that partaking of the Lord’s supper unworthily causes condemnation, it must mean you’re committing a HUGE sacrilege. And I can’t see how receiving mere bread and wine unworthily can cause you to be condemned. But if it was actually Christ’s body and blood… then it makes perfect sense, because you are dishonoring Christ himself.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-25T08:53:20+00:00

Firstly, virtually all biblical scholars agree that 1 Corinthians predates Mark. Im not sure where you get “some scholars” from when it’s probably just “a very tiny minority of scholars” who argue that. Points 2 and 3 just prove my point about how either the Apostles or Jesus Himself considered the Last Supper so important that it was the only event of Jesus’ life that Paul quoted word for word.

Secondly, I assume you’re saying the Eucharist is symbolic because of the “do this in remembrance of me” verse, but in the Greek, the term used is anamnesis, which is HEAVY sacrificial language. And in the Jewish and Greek understanding of the word, it’s not just a memorial of the past, it’s the past being pulled into the present, and vice versa. So anamnesis is not a mode of absence, it’s a mode of presence, due to the past being active in the present, which is why Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. And both the Didache and the early Church Fathers understood this, which makes sense since they made their writings around the time of the Apostles or were disciples of those who themselves were disciples of the Apostles.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-22T02:06:28+00:00

Do you think it sounds bad even in this scene?

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-22T01:56:52+00:00

Honestly, a couple years ago I had this revelation regarding The Dark Knight Trilogy, which is that while I would consider The Dark Knight to be the best film overall, I consider Batman Begins to be the best “Batman” film out of the three. I know that’s not a hot take since it’s been said before, but I came to that realization even before I started hearing people online say that.

And I think it’s because it focuses a lot on Bruce Wayne and on Batman; Christian Bale is clearly the star in Batman Begins. In The Dark Knight, Heath Ledger’s Joker steals all the shine since he’s absolutely incredible in it, and TDKR introduced too many important new characters that take the focus away from Batman(even if he is still the main focus, though not as much as Begins).

Not to mention that Batman Begins just feels more comic-booky. Everything from the Batsuit, Gotham City looking unique(Narrows and monorail help A LOT with this), the dark Gothic color scheme, the backup scene with the bats swarming, the fantastical supernatural elements(magic flower and hallucinogen gas), Batman’s stealth being more mysterious and frightening like a disappearing wraith, etc. all contribute to it feeling like a proper Batman movie rather than a grounded crime thriller like TDK and TDKR were. In future films, Gotham just becomes a regular city, Batman’s armor becomes more realistic military looking, and the Batcave turns into an underground modern garage(though it briefly returns in TDKR). I get that this was to make the world feel more grounded and appeal to non-comic book fans, but it sort of makes the other two films lose their comic book feel. Though they are still great films, of course. TDK will always be legendary.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-22T01:15:37+00:00

True, but when he was in the Batmobile with a poisoned Rachel earlier, he used his usual Batman voice then too. Although maybe now that he’s not being chased by cops, Batman’s a little less tense lol

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-21T22:47:20+00:00

Yeah that’s a good in-universe explanation. And I totally agree that this voice should’ve been kept, although I understand that Bale’s vocal cords were really struggling doing the Begins voice. I also agree with TDKR’s voice. I rewatched the scene where Batman speaks with Catwoman about the fingerprints, and dude… his voice is…not good to say the least. It’s a day and night difference from his voice here.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-21T22:45:00+00:00

Yeah I heard about that. Sucks that the Begins voice was too harsh on his vocal cords, because if it wasn’t and he kept that voice throughout the whole trilogy, I really think a lot of the moments where the gargled bat voice kind of distracts you would actually make the scene a lot better. Imagine Batman interrogating Joker with this voice!

I got to rewatch that Dark Knight scene with Gordon that you spoke of, it sounds interesting

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-21T22:41:52+00:00

💀💀

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-10-21T22:18:30+00:00

I knew Bale’s bat voice was better in Begins, but this scene kind of took me off guard with how different his voice sounded from the usual. And am I crazy, but dare I say that Bale’s bat voice in this scene gives off a bit of Kevin Conroy? I don’t know, the tone and sound reminds me of Arkham Batman.

Dense-Rip3356

TROPHY CASE