Answer: Because it is the future.
The sudden, powerful, self-propelling movement within the Church to limit, to disparage, to counteract, curtail or even stamp out, in places, or in parts of the Church, the Traditional Latin Mass is laced with fear not that the past is a threat to the present, but that it is what informs the future. The present can be so easily altered, the past can be so easily brushed aside, or erased, by those who wish to erase it, but when the memory and tradition of the past enters afresh once more into the present - and is suppressed, or feared, we can be sure that what is at stake is the future.
A contributor to the New Liturgical Movement website recently opined on the justifications used for restricting or denying anyone who asks for it, the Mass of Ages which, like a body, was 'knit together' in our Mother's womb, our Mother, of course, being the Church Herself. Like a body, like a soul, like life itself, it is Sacred. We are told indeed that there is nothing more sacred on Earth than the Mass because there is nothing so sacred as God and the worship of God.
 |
"You have come from all that way just to come to one of
my Masses? Look, if you're not local, it's really not on! |
It would appear that for some, even for many, the Traditional Latin Mass upsets the entire order of the Church, perhaps an entire belief system. Objectively, as Peter Kwasniewski writes, there is no justifiable reason as to why the Extraordinary Form should not be celebrated as regularly as the Ordinary Form of the Mass, side by side, in peaceful co-existence.
As we are frequently told by a visitor to this blog called Fidelity Always, these are two forms of the same rite. But if this is so, there is no justifiable reason why it should not be celebrated by every Bishop in the World. Church law itself, in the light of Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae gives no grounds to those who would wish, or who do, deny it to the Faithful, be they a stable 'community' in the immediate location of the parish, or those who come to visit frequently, or devotedly. From this ancient form of the Mass springs the Novus Ordo. Put quite simply, we would not have a 'superior' or 'improved' Novus Ordo Mass to speak of, which we are reassured by those who do not wish the Extraordinary Form to be the right of all the Faithful, without the 'Mother Mass'.
Traditionalists might object that the Novus Ordo is the 'child' of the Mass of Ages because it seems so very different - or even in comparison, deficient. Yet, we would not have the new, without the old. Why then, is the aged, the ancient, the Mother, old, yet ever new Mass of Ages resented or even feared? What is it about this expression of the Mass that provokes such animosity and fear, loathing and even contempt for those who attend it, or who celebrate it?
As we are frequently told by a visitor to this blog called Fidelity Always, these are two forms of the same rite. But if this is so, there is no justifiable reason why it should not be celebrated by every Bishop in the World. Church law itself, in the light of Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae gives no grounds to those who would wish, or who do, deny it to the Faithful, be they a stable 'community' in the immediate location of the parish, or those who come to visit frequently, or devotedly. From this ancient form of the Mass springs the Novus Ordo. Put quite simply, we would not have a 'superior' or 'improved' Novus Ordo Mass to speak of, which we are reassured by those who do not wish the Extraordinary Form to be the right of all the Faithful, without the 'Mother Mass'.
It seems to me that what the Mass of Ages undermines is 'the project'. I do not mean this in terms of conspiracy theory, but the 'project' that the Church has committed itself to since the Second Vatican Council, in which everything is the same, and yet the emphasis is seemingly entirely different, made in man's image. We have heard from those who defend it and who promote it that the EF Mass has a Christo-centric emphasis - and emphasis on the Sacred that cannot be removed without removing the entire Mass itself. It cannot be easily added to, nor anything easily taken away. It requires nothing of the Priest but obedience to the text and the learning of some rubrics. The focus is entirely on Jesus Christ and, in particular, on the Divinity of Christ expressed in many different ways, through genuflections, through a dignity and reverence which is not translated in the Novus Ordo in quite the same way. The Latin Mass points to the things that are not of this world but the next or the Other. It treats the things of God with huge importance and respect.
We need only to look at the general emphasis of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, in the US and Europe, even in Rome itself, to see that over the past 40 or 50 years, the whole emphasis has, with the attending 'new rite' changed within the Church into something new, but with an emphasis clearly 'of this world'. Somehow the Ordinary Form does not communicate, in such a clear manner, things that the Extraordinary Form does communicate. The Extraordinary Form either communicates something in addition to the Ordinary Form, or something else entirely. If this were not the case, then the past, the old, would not be deemed such a threat to the present order of things, for let's face it, no Catholic Bishop who celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass would wish to stamp out the Novus Ordo - not one. And yet resistance the other way round is palpable as to be keeping those priests who celebrate the EF Mass awake at night. 'When will the Commissars be visiting my parish?', they must think!
Yet that very Novus Ordo that is held to express the modern Christian's worship appears, so it seems, to fail in communicating God Himself and what is taking place during the Mass - even though it is in the vernacular! The Latin Mass definitively shows forth Christ, definitively, expressly leaves the Saviour of the World exposed for the worship and adoration of the Faithful. He is at the start of it, He is at the centre of it, He is its very End and this is what we crave for ourselves. We want Jesus Christ and we want Him for our beginning and our end. The Church may change, the liturgy may change, but He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Why is this EF Mass such a threat? So many Churchmen are committed to the 'project' of what was envisaged by the Second Vatican Council but is truly yet to be seen - a new 'springtime' in the Church - that they are no longer interested in examining what the 'project' really is and whether it is even satisfying to the Christian. Put quite simply, the entire Faith of the Catholic Church rests on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is the ultimate Gift that Jesus Christ gave to the Church - the perpetual memorial and re-presentation of His saving work on the Cross in His Church until the End of Time. The Latin Mass says quite simply that there is one reason and one reason for going to Church and that is to worship God. The average Novus Ordo says many things, but doesn't say the 'main thing' loud enough.
Ironically, it is the Mass of Ages that also leaves you free not to worship God since the participation that you take within the Mass is left entirely to you. Do you want to engage with this, or not? Not so in the Novus Ordo, in which the visitor, be he faithful, lapsed or entirely alien to the Church, is instructed to repeat, 'in a parrot fashion', and in the vernacular, that which he may or may not believe. In fact, I know and have met Catholics who do not believe in the Faith of the Church despite repeating its Creed every Sunday. So how does the vernacular stimulate or transmit Faith? Let's be realistic, the vernacular has not helped the Faith of Cardinal Kasper since he seems to disagree with large parts of it.
Yet, it is still hard to see in what manner the Novus Ordo enriches the Latin Mass, unless we talk of the Gospel and Epistle being read in the vernacular, but then, of course, it is not the child who necessarily nurtures the Mother, but the Mother who nourishes the child. The Mother of All Masses is back and the new vanguard, in a quick and an inexplicable knee-jerk reaction are seemingly desperate to put Mother in a nursing home to rot away without any sense of duty, or respect, or love. I ask those who desire to see the Latin Mass banished to the cupboard from which the Missal emerged at the express approval of Pope Benedict XVI: You wish to see this Mass abrogated, locally, once more. Exactly what are you afraid of? The past, the present or the future? Answer carefully, because all ages belong to Christ our Lord and we are only passing through. All time, all seasons, all glory, honour and power, belong to Him. On this side of the veil or the other, we will all find that out in due time. What you say is the honour due to the community you serve is nothing in comparison to the honour that is due to Almighty God. Honour God, seek first Christ and His Kingdom and everything else, the community included, shall be added unto you, so much so, that they will even travel across a Diocese, just so that you will be their pastor!
64 comments:
I know an otherwise excellent priest who has a thing about the EF Mass. I get the impression that part of his concern is that it has a following which includes some very dubious people, including one psychopath who refuses to attend an NO Mass and other who expresses antisemitic views, and elsewhere around a clutch of neo-Nazis. This makes it difficult for the EF Mass to be accepted as a mainstream thing even though there would be obvious pastoral reasons for a wide adoption due to the variety of language groups in the diocese.
Any suggestions?
The traditional Mass is a threat because it speaks the truth, the full truth of the Faith and the moral life to the mind and heart of man. It does not deceive but rather illumines the mind, strengthens the Faith. So many prelates want to deceive the people about the truths of the Faith and of the moral law but the traditional Mass would greatly impede their ability to do so.
The attitude of Bishops to Pope Adherence to Pope Benedict's clear instructions in Summorum Pontificum is an accurate measure of the clergy's faithfulness to the Magisterium.
The then Cardinal Bergoglio fell far short in this respect, having cynically suppressed the Mass of Ages within his archdiocese.
We don't need any other measure, we have it in this, it tells us everything that we need to know about a bishop.
Physio---remind people that "fringe people" also inhabit the NO!
Post well said. I think the "problem" is that although the essence of what transpires at mass is "the same" i.e. transubstantiation, the "experience" however, can and often is radically different. The EF, with its highly refined and polished rubrics lends itself to an "otherworldly" experience, because in relatively few instances does a person encounter such ritualized experience routinely in daily life. [I'd say the same of Eastern Rite masses, which ARE often in the vernacular, with the people giving MANY responses. I think it's the English who go into hysterical fits, if it's suggested they give latin responses rather than rely 100% on the server -- MANY other countries have the people doing some of the responses, particularly after the Judica Me.]
The rubrics with the NO are stripped down, and the training about how to comport oneself in the sanctuary for those other than the priest is not nearly so stylized and refined in virtually all places. There are some notable exceptions. St. John the Evangelist, in San Diego does the NO with much precision and care. Everything is highly synchronized -- in a way a person with an EF preference would approve. It's quite obvious the priest there has done a lot of work to make it so. They have EMs, lectors, both male and female servers....but every jot, tittle, and refinement of motion by all is highly stylized. The problem, however, is that the NO in many if not the majority of places is not nearly so stylized....and thus leads to going as far as to be downright sloppy in some places. As sloppy as a town hall meeting where nothing is in synch, and style and care fly right out the window. Most places are NOT in fact, clown mass hell holes, but we've all attended that mass that seemed like the ecclesiastical version of the company department meeting where everyone wants to sit at the back and doodle charicatures of the person giving the power point presentation. And the music is often far too often stuck in the 70s to the point of extreme annoyance at its banality and downright mediocrity. The songs don't really take one out of oneself, but come off as bad 70s pop tunes. Certainly not "otherworldly" enough to transport oneself to a higher plane of existence.
I think that a) the NO simply needs to be infused with stylized "performance" if you will, simply because it IS too easy to fall into casual slipshodness around the edges without it. b) every parish should have both forms available.
Face it, the EF *is* going to be "too hard" for some people. And if only the EF were available, some of them, unless very carefully instructed wouldn't have a clue, other than the visual. But the EF should NEVER have been taken out of parishes -- it is sublime. And for those who can appreciate it, well worth the extra effort.
Thank you for this insightful treatment of such a delicate and important topic. The protestations of those who despise the EF are very telling indeed.
Lawrence,the answer to your question is this-The old rite is too Catholic for them!The people have been duped by,and with,modernism for so long that anything which takes them away from the comfortable soft way of thinking is a challenge to far.If a priest said a real catholic sermon ,at mass,concerning the four last things-death,judgement,heaven,and hell some people would walk out in dismay!!We need to get back our faith which was stolen from us in the sixties and attend the old rite as often as we can.For myself i now attend the old rite and also attend a sspx mass as often as i can.Our salvation depends on it.I will be discussing these things with a priest asap as i was brought up in the old rite and lament the distruction of our faith by these -church of nice-pollyannas!!God Bless.Philip Johnson.
Well done Physio, You have just made Bones's case. The priest's excuse won't wash and is used so widely that it's risible. The unspoken implication is that the faithful of previous generations who were devoted to the old Mass must all have been pretty dubious. The answer to this fabricated dilemma is so simple that a child would see it. Widen the availability of the EF and the catchment will be broad enough to bury the nutcases. I hadn't noticed any mental health issues among the parishioners at Blackfen, or at the London Oratory or anywhere where the EF is celebrated. I am sure that Joseph Shaw of the LMS, who seems eminently sane, would be more than happy to put your priest's mind at rest.
Although it looks nice, why did you choose the picture of a Sedevacantist "ordination" as an opener? (No offense)
Sorry, I didn't realise that.
I didn't realise you had started a new thread, as out of courtesy I only returned to our discussion and I am not, until now, a frequenter of your musings.
However, your thesis fails on two grounds:
1. Pope Benedict made clear in S.P., and the accompanying letter, that The Ordinary Form is the norm but that he wanted to preserve a treasure, and respond to some out of pastoral sensitivity. The clue might be in the term "Ordinary Form".(Pope Francis, however, sees the same groups as discontents, and trouble makers, who rent a room in The Church.)
2. Pope Benedict never once, publicly, celebrated the so called E.F.
3. S.P. is not mandatory, and calls on the church to respond generously to requests, and I would say the priority must be to serve those who want Mass in their own language, who are the majority in most parishes, and indeed nations, and a further priority would be seeking to ensure every Catholic, anywhere in the world, has Mass on Sunday or Holyday.
"and I would say the priority must be to serve those who want Mass in their own language"
No! Emphatically No. The priority is to serve God. Wonderful post Bones. When are you going to get work as a Catholic writer? Your talents are going to terrible waste. Also, it's not mandatory to say TLM under SP but it IS mandatory to allow it.
Chloe
The Holy Mass is worship of God, and love of God and neighbour are our highest duties.
To partially quote a sentence which is primarily about what language is used at Mass is to make a cheap point is moronic, and unchristian.
The majority of people worldwide want Mass in their own language. The Church, not me, came to that conclusion decades ago.
There is no such thing as a Holy language!
People writing as Catholic writers, in the sense you mean, usually know the faith, and avoid postings based on gossip. (Almost a constant theme of Pope Francis, but you may not know that.)
F A - Not so.
Pope Benedict wrote in this letter to the Bishops:
"where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor *should willingly accept* their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962."
"should willingly accept" sounds like the mandatory disciplinary instruction it is intended to be.
Pope Benedict also writes that the 1962 Missal was 'never abrogated'.
Never abrogated.
That means, it was *always* and without interruption a valid usage of the Roman Rite.
Which in turn means - despite your insistence that the Pope was wrong and you alone are right - that any attempts made in the past to suppress the Mass and outlaw those who said it and who would have it said, were illegitimate and even unlawful.
And it is today said all over the country, and attracts growing congregations and growing interest, particularly from the young. It is heartening to see its increasing frequency. As with the deliberate dumbing down of educational standards over the past decades, there is an increased understanding among the young that a deliberate attempt has been made by powerful political interests to keep succeeding generations ignorant of the true meaning of the liturgy.
As I can see around me, it has not worked, and the younger generation are keener than ever to learn what their old, tired grandparents tried to forget. :-)
Laurence - You ask why the opponents of the Traditional Latin Mass hate the past.
I think Orwell (1984) had the answer with his motto of the English Socialist Party, Ingsoc.
"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."
As a priest is only meant to celebrate one Mass a day, and the majority in any parish worldwide, would want Mass in their own language then to express the hope that priests "willingly accept" a request from one or two people is not sensible or practical.
Pope Benedict was zealously expressing a hope. He could not legislate for it.
The "legal" bit was in establishing the E.F. and ending a decades long abrogation. he could not legislate for the actual provision as that would have to be based on the reality on the ground.
Church Law compels all Catholics to attend Sunday Mass. the law does not mandate the language as such. Many more people than those who demand latin, are denied any Mass at all in some parts of the world.
Which "law" is the one the Church should be seeking to implement? I know what any truly "loyal", "Traditional" Catholic would prioritise: Mass for all, in any language.
God does not speak Latin, and for centuries it was not the language of the Church, and I imagine that will happen again too.
When you stop whinging and worry about those who have no opportunity to celebrate any Mass, I think you will have grasped both the Mission of the Church, and the real meaning of the law.
"As a priest is only meant to celebrate one Mass a day"
This is misleading nonsense - Canon Law (904-5) allows every priest to say Mass three times on Sunday and Holydays, when permitted by the Ordinary - and of course in populous parishes with only one or two priests, E&W bishops generally allow this, as there are so few priests to go round.
No Catholic bishop would knowingly restrict the access of the faithful to Holy Mass by withholding such a permission.
As for "ending a decades long abrogation" - again, this is nonsense. Pope Benedict wrote that the Latin Mass has "NEVER BEEN ABROGATED".
What you call a 'decades long abrogation' was the illegal attempt to suppress it and intimidate those who wished to say it.
But those days are happily past, and I see the Traditional Mass's opponents dying off - sadly depressed as they realize their plan has monumentally failed.
"those who have no opportunity to celebrate any Mass"
There we have the core of the problem. Like many Catholics under the sway of modernism, you believe the laity "celebrate Mass".
Actually, it is the priest who 'celebrates Mass."
Pope Benedict's Ecclesia Dei commission published a further clarification of his aims in their 2011 Instruction to the bishops. (Instruction - please note the word.) They are:
"a. offering to all the faithful [note the word 'ALL'] the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, considered as a precious treasure to be preserved;
b. effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the forma extraordinaria for all who ask for it, given that the use of the 1962 Roman Liturgy is a faculty generously granted for the good of the faithful and therefore is to be interpreted in a sense favourable to the faithful who are its principal addressees;
c. promoting reconciliation at the heart of the Church."
Not much sense of reconciliation in your implacably hostile posts, I must observe.
You insult one poster with the words "moronic, and unchristian."
Have you by any chance read Matt. 5:"22?
...And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
You really should not put your immortal soul in such jeopardy. Particularly if you are - as it seems - of such a choleric disposition as to endanger your own health.
FA - the most important reason for having the Mass in Latin is that it is the official language of the church and both a means and sign of the unity of the Catholic church.
For reasons which I am not going to repeat here, there are powerful arguments against having Mass in the vernacular, some of them practical, others which can be explained from insights based on recent developments in cognitive science, brain function and neurophysiology. In short, having the liturgy in the vernacular is a BLOCKAGE to real understanding. If people prefer it, then they have been misled and need to be weaned off it gradually.
There are important reasons why the church adopted Latin in the fourth century. That the people would be able instantly to understand what was being said was not one of them. For a start, most people in the late Roman empire did not speak standard Latin as their vernacular. Such as suggestion is based on impossible assumptions.
"The majority of prople want mass in their own language, the church recognised that . . ."
This was not so at the end the 1960s, I was a priest then and remember the distress people expressed at the new 'protestant' ritual. Inspite of the Vatican II insistence that people remain familiar with the Latin, it didn't happen. The novus ordo is all that's been available to them for over forty years.
FA - this is why the destruction of the musical tradition of the Catholic church is more important than you claim.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329873.100-primal-pull-of-a-baby-crying-reaches-across-species.htm
Yes, there is such a thing as a "holy" language. Language can become holy through holy use.
Logie Bear I assume if you were a priest then and I assume you are now, and you will know that the changes causes confusion for some, but were welcomed by most, and the majority now do not want o turn the clock back.
The same Pope who authorised the E.F. says both forms are part of the one unbroken tradition, and he even instigated the Year of Faith to mark the beginning of The Council, which he said is one of the greatest treasures of the Church. He gave the die hard Traditionalists the E.F., shouldn't you listen to all he says?
With regards Latin:
Latin is the Official Language of the Church, but it wasn't always so. Indeed for the first few centuries it wasn't so, and so it was not what the Apostles used. Further, it may not always be so in the future. Whilst ever we have an official language it will still be used in some matters, but not in every thing. In Synods for example Bishops no longer have to contribute in Latin, and the current Pope rarely uses it. English may well become the official language,
The important thing is God isn't known to use it, and he hears and responds to people of every tongue and nation, some of who will of never heard of Latin, because we are one humanity, and all his children.
I think this 6th Century Church Father is used in the Office of Readings, possibly at Pentecost:
"The disciples spoke in the language of every nation. At Pentecost God chose this means to indicate the presence of the Holy Spirit: whoever had received the Spirit spoke in every kind of tongue. We must realize, dear brothers, that this is the same Holy Spirit by whom love is poured out in our hearts. It was love that was to bring the Church of God together all over the world. And as individual men who received the Holy Spirit in those days could speak in all kinds of tongues, so today the Church, united by the Holy Spirit, speaks in the language of every people.
Therefore if somebody should say to one of us, "You have received the Holy Spirit, why do you not speak in tongues?" his reply should be, "I do indeed speak in the tongues of all men, because I belong to the body of Christ, that is, the Church, and she speaks all languages. What else did the presence of the Holy Spirit indicate at Pentecost, except that God's Church was to speak in the language of every people?"
Or is the quote a modernist forgery?
When it came to the Reformation (ers), those who followed Luther and his sons (Henry8 did, but more visciously than even Luther could have imagined), they liked to 'insult' Catholic Mass goers by calling them gazers - gazing in adoration upon the Host at the elevation. For those who don't get it, think of gazing upon the pieta - http://www.art-wallpaper.com/3735/Carracci+Annibale/Piet%C3%A0+%28+Christ+of+Caprarola+%29+?Width=1600&Height=1200
You hit 'a' nail on the head with 'project' - that being to dissolve the Real Presence into a protestantised conception of 'presences' - 'Assembly Theology', so-called by Louis Bouyer, the Swedish protestant who (with Junggman and others) 'informed' the new liturgy.
If only Novus Ordo anything really was a legitimate child of Christ's Bride. Recently there was another admission on the NLM site from, Fr. Kocik, who fought for years for 'restoration' in Cathoic Worship:
'The ‘reform of the reform’ is not realizable because the material discontinuity between the two forms of the Roman rite presently in use is much broader and much deeper than I had first imagined. In the decade that has elapsed since the publication of my book, 'The Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate' (Ignatius Press, 2003), which concerns almost exclusively the rite of Mass, a number of important scholarly studies, most notably those of László Dobszay (†2011)...have opened my eyes to the hack-job inflicted by Pope Paul VI’s Consilium on the whole liturgical edifice of the Latin Church: the Mass; the Divine Office; the rites of the sacraments, sacramentals, blessings and other services of the Roman Ritual; and so forth. Whatever else might be said of the reformed liturgy—its pastoral benefits, its legitimacy, its rootedness in theological ressourcement, its hegemonic status, etc....the fact remains: it does not represent an organic development of the liturgy which Vatican II (and, four centuries earlier, the Council of Trent) inherited.'
In other words, it is 'discontinuity' - a break, a contradiction (something I would not dare to accuse the Holy Ghost of committing given He has (or should have) a seemless garment).
The majority of the people in the church want...
That is not a good reason for the church to adapt. People expect leadership, and not leadership in the wrong direction. Or was the church leading the people in the wrong direction for the previous 1900 years and did not suddenly get things right until 19700?
And also using Latin in the Mass is to "unite" all peoples, to have a sense of unity between all peoples and not everyone speaking their own particular language so that no-one understands the other, as it was at the Tower of Babel. Everyone before spoke only one language, and then after the building of the Tower of Babel, God punished us all by taking that away and each person speaking their own language, and no-one understanding the other. That is probably where the word "babbling" is derived from! And some of the old, ancient hymn in Latin are the most beautiful and sublime we will ever hear until we all reach our true-country (as st. Therese of Lisieux would say). A very happy feast-day of st. Padre Pio to everyone here and the author of this blog and all his loved-ones as well.
Equally the Church shoud not listen to a vocal minority?
The Motu Proprio, of Saint Pope John Paul, published when Archbishop Lefebvre sought to split the is as applicable today as it was then.
Like it or not, the man who legislated for The E.F. said The Ordinary Form is the norm, and both "forms" are part of the one unbroken Tradition, and the majority of the Church follow Peter on this. The current Pope speaks often of the minority who are trying to impose a theology, and liturgy, on the whole Church, and who seek to judge the orthodoxy of others, including The Magisterium. He has rightly corrected them, and tpeaks of them as "renting a room in the Church".
If the majority of the Church listen to the Successors of St Peter, and only recently two of them have been Canonised, and a third will soon be beatified, I think people should heed Saint Pope John Paul, to repeat, "especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church."
p.s. 'Scuse my careless spelling; the utter creep in big ways responsible for the poisoning of 'Catholic Worship', was Jungmann - two nns not two ggs. Read and weep.
Can I respond to the fact that a priest may, with permission, celebrate 3 Masses on a Sunday.
The Official celebration of Sunday, and other major Feasts, begins with Evening Prayer 1 the evening before, and one reason why we are allowed to have The First Mass of Sunday on a Saturday is that the Church in her thinking goes with the more traditional way of dealing with time. As with the Jewish Sabbath, the day begins at sunset the evening before.
Logically, and for consistency, if that argument is followed The First Mass of Sunday, on the Saturday evening, is the first of the three Masses a priest is permitted to celebrate "if pastoral circumstances dictate".
In a well attended, populous parishes, it is difficult to see how a typical priest can fir in a celebration of the E.F. for a tiny group of actual parishioners anyway.
I also know of no priest who wants to celebrate a series of Masses, on a regular basis, in quick succession in one day.
Priests are not spiritual vending machines, and have a right to themselves, and for them, too, Sunday should essentially be a day for prayer, recreation, and family.
Many more people than those who demand latin, are denied any Mass at all in some parts of the world.
But not because of a requirement that the Mass be in said in Latin. It has nothing to do with Latin - it is because of religious/political oppression or dearth of vocations in most NO parishes. Oh wait... maybe it does have something to do with Latin.
FA - where is your evidence that the new liturgy in the vernacular was welcomed? In my observation people were comfortable with the Novus Ordo in Latin but would leave in droves when the vernacular was introduced. English is particularly unsuitable for liturgical use because the language is a war zone. The vernacular is also particularly unsuitable for use in parishes where congregations are drawn from many different countries. It is divisive. It is also unsuitable when priests familiar with and fluent in the vernacular are in short supply. It would be difficult to think of a more ill-advised decision than the use of the vernacular in the Latin rite Catholic liturgy.
A further issue to arise is that there is no proper music for the English liturgy. It has all had to be written specially as the 2500 year old Gregorian chants do not work with English translations. Most of the music that has been written is banal rubbish and most certainly in no way sacred, it is also written in ignorance of the tradition of modal music.
The majority of those Catholics who have remained in the church may well prefer Mass in the vernacular because they have become used to it. However, they deserve a better quality of liturgy and in my experience are more than happy to revert to the use of Latin when the priest is sensitive about the change and makes it gradually over a period of several months. Where this has been done, the parishes have thrived.
God does not speak any particular language but the human soul is deeply affected by sounds. Different languages have different sounds. Latin is one of the few languages which is characterised by open vowels and simple consonants, which are essential to get the best from the human voice.
There are very good reasons why Latin was introduced by the church for its communications and liturgy. Some of them were obvious, others have become apparent once it was got rid of. That is what happens when breaks with tradition are made.
The "point" of the thesis hasn't even been addressed by loud critics on this blog. The point was, why is the TLM so hated, blocked, and opposed? Why is their such opposition to its mere existence, even if such doesn't cause Priest A or Bishop B the slightest inconvenience or cost? There has been much seizing on minor side notes and attempts to divert the conversation, but the main point has not been addressed, or refuted, at all - why is the TLM, which some see as a small, almost trivial thing, such an object of obsession to its opponents?
Too many words, not enough sense.
The current suppression efforts in respect of the Traditional Latin Mass puts me in mind of a passage from the Book of Daniel which has been generally understood by theologians to refer to the reign of the Antichrist:
"Many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand. From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days (3 1/2 years). How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days!" Daniel 12:10-12
I have this dread that the Traditional Latin Mass will be abolished shortly.
If you think the shortage of vocations, or Mass attendance, has anything to do with Latin then please explain the growth of the Church in other parts of the world, and the number of vocations that existed in former Communist, and totalitarian states, or talk to Catholics who actually lapsed and hear their stories. May I suggest in particular you talk to survivors of child abuse and their friends and relatives? Latin was rarely spoken during the assaults, and, of course, lots of the historical abuse took place when Latin was still the norm. To seek to divide and rule the Church, as you do, suggests you have no love for the Church.
FA - In what countries has the Catholic church grown? In most of Europe, the US, British Commonwealth countries and Latin America, there has been, since 1970, a collapse in the Catholic church by any measure that you care to use - baptisms, marriages, ordinations, Mass attendance, etc. The age profile of the priesthood indicates that the decline will accelerate over the next 20 years.
Obviously there are many reasons for the decline. I would not attribute this solely to liturgical reform, but in my observation of several parishes, congregations fell within weeks of the arrival of a new priest who introduced the vernacular. These people would normally go to adjacent parishes where the NO was still being celebrated traditionally (no this had nothing to do with EF/NO) but as those parishes received new priests who introduced unwelcome changes, the situation eventually arose that people were faced with a long journey if they wanted to attend a liturgy, unless they were prepared to sit and grit their teeth for an hour and come out feeling thoroughly depressed at the bleakness and banality of the experience.
It is absurd to associate paedophilia with Latin or the liturgical changes. It is not paedophilia, anyway, it is ephebophilia, and the cases that are now coming to light refer to incidents that happened in the 1970s and subsequently, ie after the liturgical changes. No doubt it happened before, but to associate the two is absurd and unworthy.
However, it was Cardinal Heenan who said that the NO was not sufficiently masculine, or words to that effect. This could have a bearing on the unusually high proportion of men with homosexual inclinations drawn to the priesthood.
This whole acrimonious discussion above, however, only serves to confirm the claim that the liturgical reforms were divisive. And that has to be the work of the devil.
(Mr Editor, I hope you will post both parts of this, as it is, I hope, a reasoned answered to a bizarre argument for the Old Rite.)
Part 1
To argue that because Holy Mass in the vernacular, introduced in a particular time, had no "Music" or "Gregorian Chants", and there must be an aberration is one of the most facile and bizarre arguments for The Old Rite going. If you begin something new, that other new things will probably accompany it.
Until Gregorian Chant was introduced (the clue to what period it began is contained in the "name") then presumably in the previous Rite they had other forms of Music/Settings!
Either you accept the following teaching or you don't:
“POPE BENEDICT XVI
APOSTOLIC LETTER
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.” July 7th 2007
“PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI
INSTRUCTION
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO
19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.” 30th July 2011
The P.C, Ecclesia Dei is the guardian, and arbiter in disputes over Summorum Pontificum
APOSTOLIC LETTER
"ECCLESIA DEI"
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO
,…but especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.
(2nd July 1988).
(Mr Editor, I hope you will post both parts of this, as it is, I hope, a reasoned answered to a bizarre argument for the Old Rite.)
Part 2 continued.
The Form now referred to as The E.F., replaced, in some way, what came before, and Latin was not introduced as the Official Language of the Church until centuries after Jesus and his Apostles walked the earth. (I have read various histories of the Holy Mass, but the central issue that which is claimed by some here to be the only authentic worship replaced earlier Rites, and other Rites also co-existed with this Rite, and are still celebrated by those authorised those Rites.)
Change sometimes causes confusion. Listening to Christ, and his Church, and being faithful to the teaching of The Pope, and the College of Bishops, and its Councils, and the wider Magisterium, is a way of surviving such difficulties.
Stop contradicting the very teacher who legislated for the E.F.., and note of the Missal of 1962 had not been abrogated it would not be necessary for, successive Popes to issue specific Indults to authorise its use, and those Indults still applied until 2007. and nor would Pope benedict needed to create, for the first time, the terminology he uses. He would of merely had to remind Bishops it was never abrogated, and nor would he have needed to list the very Indults that created exceptions to the general rule. (And he does list each Indult. To repeat no such Indult would have been necessary if they were not exceptions to the general rule.)
Pope Francis has told may of those who comment here, and their dissident friends, to stop seeking to claim superiority, and greater knowledge, than the and the majority of Catholics throughout the world who listen to the one's appointed to lead and guide the Church.
You may think it is the only way to pray, but Pope Benedict said the Missal of Pope Paul Vl is the norm, and the majority of Catholics worship using that Missal which to be clear , to use the terminology of Benedict, is The Ordinary Form, and Ecclesia Day have said: “the faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.”
Please stop seeking to divide the Church. Pray as you wish, but don’t mock, or deride, those who pray in other ways in Communion with the S
Cardinal Kasper expresees different views on marraiage than most. An observation by Cardinal Heenan on the Mass, and Masculity, may give a greater insights to his tastes than the Tradition of the Church.
Much of what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in "The Spirit of The Liturgy" finds positives in the Missal of Paul Vl. and as pope he never once celebrated Mass publicly in the E.F.. He could of done so at will, just as Pope Francis has chosen to innovate at The Mass on the Lord's Supper, on Holy Thursday. Likewise, Joseph Ratzinger, if he genuinely believed his own thesis on abrogation, could of celebrated The Old Rite every day, anywhere and every where, in the world when he had no parochial responsibilities.
FA. It dosent seem to occur to you that some of us attend both forms. In my own parish we didnt have a sunday evening Mass at all before our pp allowed an outside priest to offer an EF mass on Sunday evening. outside priest has since gone and our parish priest has taken it over himself. Majority attending are parishoners.
I really find your opposition to broadening the ways of devotion odd. I get the feeling that while the idea of introducing an EF mass appals you, you would probably be quite happy if he had introduced a taize service or Tambourine ecumenical basket weaving praise. Basically anything other than worshiping as our forefathers did?
FA - Gregorian chant was not introduced under Pope Gregory the Great. Its history is extremely complex. Some of the chants are much older than Christianity itself and can be found in use amongst Jewish Yemeni communities who migrated well over 2000 years ago. The music of the early church was Jewish liturgical music and was brought into the church by the first converts.
There has been a steady evolution of chant from the Byzantine period. The music in use at the time of Pope Gregory is what is known as Old Roman. What we think of as Gregorian chant is an evolution that began in Benedictine monasteries in the empire of Charlemagne, and eventually replaced the Old Roman chant. Se we have here an ancient tradition.
The Eastern churches took the Byzantine chant and adapted the languages to the chant; Church Slavonic was devised so that the texts could be sung, Slavonic languages being consonantal and inferior for singing purposes to languages with open vowels such as Latin. The Germanic languages suffer from a related problem due to their use of vowels such as those written in the Scandinavian languages by the special letters Ä, Å and Ö.
Gregorian music can be used with some languages and can be translated effectively with little loss, though the problem of the vowels remains. English is not one of those languages as the music then no longer makes sense in terms of the text, nor is it even possible to use Gregorian psalm tones, which is why Anglican chant was devised.
Thus there was no ready-made body of music which could be used for a Catholic liturgy in English. This left thing open for anyone to try their hand at replacing something that had taken a couple of millennia to evolve. This was a lucrative business for talentless musicians who would otherwise have had to scrape a livelihood from writing jingles for TV ads, and gave English-speaking Catholics a liturgy of extreme banality.
Things post V2 evolved in a slightly different direction elsewhere. In the Lutheran lands, the Protestant music was lifted wholesale. The result is that whilst the Catholic liturgy still possesses a certain dignity, it is scarcely recognisable as Catholic, oozing the atmosphere and spirituality of the Lutheran reformers.
FA - I quote from Summorum Pontificum.
As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.
Thus the indults were never required. Paul VI should have said as much when presented with the petition signed by, amongst others, Agatha Christie. One can only assume that the Pope was not aware of this. That of course raises further questions.
The objections to the NO as it has worked out in practice are set on in SP. I normally attend Mass in the NO, being fortunate enough to live in an area where it has not been subjected to what Benedict referred to in SP as "deformations". My principal objection to it is that I cannot hear much of what is going on as the NO depends on good acoustics and a good sound system competently set up, which is difficult and expensive to achieve in buildings not designed for the purpose.
Dear Fidelity Always: "Could have", "could have"...
Now that the Revolution has been completed, the erstwhile revolutionaries have become defenders of the status quo.
Which is more likely, the entire College of Bishops, The Pope, and The Curia all wrongly acted clearly, and consistently, on the basis that it was never abrogated, and successive Successors of St Peter issued Indults, or that one of them, who lists every Indult in his Motu Proprio, strangely concludes, that the entire Church had been wrong? Remember the historical judgement is not a matter of faith, and the S.P., was consistent with his personal view of liturgy.
Even learned articles on say, Rorate, and in very conservative publications concede that he legislated to change things even if they do not use the word, probably because they dare not "lift the abrogation".
Further the whole tone of this blog, and most Trad commentators, explicitly deny what Pope Benedict taught: "Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.” July 7th 2007
And therefore, if they are the slightest bit honest, they should recognise this applies to them: ""19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.” 30th July 2011
But, of course, they won't as they and their arguments are dishonest and as Saint Pope John Paul said, about these very topics, ",…but especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church."
2nd July 1988.
If an argument about the right of a Rite is based on Music and Chant,and language, or the length of time, one or both have been used, and its history, the Missal of 1962 has no foundation as it replaced earlier rites, and for the first four centuries we know Latin was not used.
If you want a more traditional Church then accept, that except for heretics and those in schism, people listened to the Pope, The College, and The wider Magisterium, and would not do as you do now. As SAINT Pope John Paul wrote ",…but especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church."
2nd July 1988.
I have no opposition to "broadening devotion". I object to the very thing the current Pope objects to: those who seek to divide the Church on the basis of liturgical preferences and demands, or claim to know better and pray better than everyone else, who wish to impose a style of prayer on the whole Church, and who ignore the Successor of Peter, and seek to overturn it teachings.
Further, they wish to quote caon Law and use it in one way, and ignore it in others. For example, on what a Parishioner is, and who has duties towards Parishioners, and that three masses on a Sunday includes any Mass of Sunday includes the First Mass of Sunday on a Saturday. (It is the liturgy of Sunday, it fulfils the obligation, and is explicitly celebrated, and intended to do so, as a proper liturgical celebration of Sunday.)
Disloyal Trad's can ignore The Pope, and The Council, and cause havoc, and daily offend the majority of Catholics by suggesting they are in error, and pray wrongly, and unworthily, but they like very one will face God, and judgement!
The previous paragraph describes what you are doing, and you ask the majority of the Church you condemn to give you something the Church, not they, says is not necessary as The Ordinary Form is the norm, part of the unbroken Tradition of The Church, and is like the E.F. the prefect representation of Calvary, and no Latin was required at the time of Jesus, and for centuries afterwards.
A significant correction for my earlier post, and an additional comment:
"Which is more likely, the entire College of Bishops, The Pope, and The Curia. and the wider Magisterium, all wrongly acted clearly, and consistently, on the basis that it WAS abrogated, and successive Successors of St Peter issued Indults, to permit exceptions, or that one of them, who lists every Indult in his Motu Proprio, strangely concludes, that the entire Church had been wrong until 2007? Remember the historical judgement is not a matter of faith, and the S.P., was consistent with his personal view of liturgy"
May I add, again, that Cardinal Ratzinger respected the teaching, and practice, of the Church and never celebrated the Old Rite anywhere. and having issued Pope Benedict never publicly celebrated the E.F., and if he followed his own logic one, or all, of his papal Masses in ANY of the places he celebrated could, or should, have been the so called E.F.. He didn't. presumably, because regardless of whether he lifted an abrogation, or if it didn't exist at all, HE accepted, with full vigour, and absolute conviction, the so called Ordinary Form is the norm. Further, logically he didn't need to invent new terms for an existing reality.
FA said: "...I object to the very thing the current Pope objects to: those who seek to divide the Church on the basis of liturgical preferences and demands..."
The argument that the Mass of the Ages and its adherents causes division is how the enemies of the TLM are framing their attack. Apparently, the liturgy and Church before V2 was such that the New Order Mass had to be implemented in order to unify the Body of Christ...
A patent absurdity, considering the New Order Mass is said in a multitude of languages using a variety of rubrics today. In fact, attending Mass in a New Order parish can be so radically different from parish to parish and Mass to Mass that one wonders if it is the same form of Christianity or just one of the thousands of sects spinning around in their own little universe.
@Fidelity Always,
Sooo..., in addition to the Traditional Mass do these 'divide' the Church too?
The Coptic Rite;Ethiopic Rite; Antiochian Rite; Maronite Rite; Syrian Rite; Syro-Malankara Rite; Armenian Rite; Chaldean Rite; Syro-Malabar Rite; Byzantine Rite, etc.
Liam, that is the whole point: those Rites serve a particular group in Communion with Rome.
The Ordinary Form, says Benedict is the norm, and those who have those other Rites aren't saying the rest of you are using a made up Protestantised Rite, they are saying this is our Tradition. The Church says clearly the Missal of Paul Vl us part of the one, unbroken, liturgical Tradition of our Rite.
"St Benedict"
The Missal of Paul Vl is part of that one unbroken Tradition, and it is Pope Francis who is so critical of those "who rent a room in the Church". Not me. The Ecclesia Dei Commission specifically appointed by Benedict to oversee these things said " The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.” 30th July 2011
The Missal of Paul Vl is the Mass of Ages as there is only ONE MASS, whatever Rite is celebrated. It is for all people, for all time, the saving self offering of Christ. Offered to The Glory of God, and for the sanctification of humanity.
Pope Francis is quite clear there is a certain arrogance in those who reject the teaching of the Church, and presume to tell The Church how to pray.
First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they attack you. Then you win.
why is the TLM, which some see as a small, almost trivial thing, such an object of obsession to its opponents?
The revolutionaries see that the Novus Ordo is dying. They see the TLM rising. That is why they had such a vicious attack on the FFI, it was growing rapidly. Their revolution was a failure. They are responding in such a vile way due to their impotence to establish the revolution in the Church vs. the destruction that was actually caused.
FA, better theologians than you or I have taken issue with the continuity of the New Order Mass with the Mass of the Ages.
When a New Order Mass is said with the rubrics intact (something that is often in question, unfortunately), it is of course valid and legitimate. I have not contested that, though you seem to accuse me of it. A New Order Mass is, however, inferior to the Extraordinary Form, and the collapse of the Faith since its implementation is proof enough of that.
Are you accusing those who prefer the Vetus Ordo of "presum[ing] to tell the Church how to pray?" How ironic.
FA, better theologians than you or I have taken issue with the continuity of the New Order Mass with the Mass of the Ages.
When a New Order Mass is said with the rubrics intact (something that is often in question, unfortunately), it is of course valid and legitimate. I have not contested that, though you seem to accuse me of it. A New Order Mass is, however, inferior to the Extraordinary Form, and the collapse of the Faith since its implementation is proof enough of that.
Are you accusing those who prefer the Vetus Ordo of "presum[ing] to tell the Church how to pray?" How ironic.
James D
"
why is the TLM, which some see as a small, almost trivial thing, such an object of obsession to its opponents?"
This blog, and countless others like Rorate, obsess over The Old Rite, and smirk, and contradict the teaching of The Magisterium. This thread is entirely based on a misunderstanding that The Ordinary Form is not part of "The Old" because it is that which has been handed down by the Apostles.
Most commentators write the congratulate the different authors, and attack those who are entirely faithful to Tradition as there is because can only be ONE MASS, even if there are different Rites or "Forms", and they, the self professed Trad's, say the majority are going to hell for undertaking false worship.
The Pope suspends a Bishop for complicity in covering up a preeist who commits sexual abuse, and even makes him a V.G., and Rorate rights at length he probably would not of been suspended if he were not faithful to The Old Rite?
Who is obsessed? Who makes unjust criticism of others? Who is being disloyal to The Magisterium of the Church that says there is only One Holy Mass?
A clue: it isn't those who celebrate the Ordinary Form in good conscience, because they accept it is "The Mass of Ages" and part of the unbroken Tradition of the Church.
Memo to self get a proof reader!
A correction: "The Pope suspends a Bishop for complicity in covering up a priest who commits sexual abuse, and even makes him a V.G., and Rorate writes at length that he probably would not of been suspended if he were not faithful to The Old Rite?"
By the way, sexual abuse by clergy had damaged the Church more than even the greatest changes in Liturgy. To abuse anyone is inhumane, immoral, and wrong, but it is abuse of Christ himself. To then link the removal of a Bishop who was complicit with things about liturgy shows the mentality of self professed Trad's who "rent a room in the Church".
"St Benedict", I persoanally find it offensive you use the pseudonym of an actual Saint now in heaven, but that is self professed Traditionalists for you. If you dropped the "St" it wouldn't be so bad. It is I snot as if you write with the humility, truthfulness, or style of St Benedict, who listened to The Magisterium.
However, to give quotes I have given before, as the liturgical changes were mandated by the Pope, and a Church Council:
"The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.” 30th July 2011
",…but especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church."
2nd July 1988.
You may protest you are not questioning such things, but you are passing judgement on others, and presumably sitting at Holy Mass with a score card, when your mind and heart should be directed at God.
As somebody has pointed out before,it is "Would have"not"would of",and "Writes"not "rights".Are you a teenager,accustomed to abusing the English language.
FA - life's too short to keep on arguing the toss.
FA, I am sorry the name St. Benedict's Thistle offends you. It is the actual name of a thistle plant, and is used in B&B, a Benedictine liquor.
Regarding your other comments, they have descended to ad hominem. Our discussion must be at an end.
Benedict
Pope benedict who said "
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.” (July 7th 2007) is one of the greatest theologians of The Church, and was head of The C.D.F., and the defender of orthodoxy, I suspect I am on good ground if I take my lead from him rather than a theologian, or theologians, that write with blinkered eyes, and a closed mind.
Cardinal Ratzinger, you may recall, was elected The Successor of St peter, and he echoed the teaching of the last Council, and spoke/wrote, in Communion with his fellow Bishops, and the wider magisterium. Which has greater authority, self selecting theologians, or the Pope and The College of Bishops?
FA says: "Which has greater authority, self selecting theologians, or the Pope and The College of Bishops?"
I would think those who are in obedience to Christ and His Church...
You are setting up straw men arguments and then knocking them down in an attempt to discredit my points without actually addressing them.
Benedict
Not at all. The Pope and The C.D.F. can remove the right of a Theologian to present themselves as Catholic, and speak, or write, publicly as Catholic.
Up until 2005 the Head of The C.D.F. was a Cardinal Ratzinger, and he became Pope, and as Pope he said: ". The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.”
Few theologians became the Head of the C.D.F.. and fewer still the Pope.
I think a former head of the C.D.F, who became the Pope can rightly be seen as a pre-eminent Theologian. and no straw man.
In Jesus said to him, "You are Peter and on this rock I build my Church".
FA quoted: "These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.”
Ah, if you truly believe that, then we are on the same page and I pray your anger at the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and its adherents ceases. :-)
I have no anger towards the E.F. I am not seeking to wreck parishes, or suggesting the majority of Catholics are taking part in protestant worship, or travelling miles rather than attend an Ordinary Form Mass in my own Parish, or demanding overworked priests celebrate more Masses, and any above 3 is contrary to Canon Law, or writing blog threads mocking the current Occupant of The See of Rome, who is the only one, who as Supreme Pontiff, has Universal Authority to legislate.
Legislation of the Church must be in accordance with the Deposit of Faith and the Natural Moral Law.
Post a Comment