|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Nov 13, 2022 12:53:57 GMT
Just throwing it out there, I found this excellent FAQ on the Anglican Ordinariate: www.saintedmundcampion.com/copy-of-aboutYour objections to the continuance and furtherance of the Traditional Latin Mass are well-known on this forum, so I won't recount those here, though if you wish to, that is up to you. If I might ask, though, what objection, if any, would you have to a similar continuance and furtherance of the Anglican Use? The Anglican Use is very much what I would have proposed, if I had been in the position of Archbishop Bugnini, and had been tasked with a reform of the liturgy. If I did not have the TLM available to me, this would be my second choice, if I had it available as well. Traditional Anglican worship is very beautiful and inspiring, and only requires fairly minor adjustments, to become compatible with Roman Catholicism. And, just stating the obvious, there can be no objection that it is not available in the vernacular of English-speaking Catholics. |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Nov 14, 2022 1:34:09 GMT
I'm not against the EF. Rather, I'm against what the writer states are bizarre reasons supporting it. About the Anglican ordinariate, I think they didn't choose that liturgy over the OF. Rather, they are former Anglicans, and for that reason should be allowed to continue using what is familiar to them while making adjustments: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ordinariate |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Nov 14, 2022 4:03:54 GMT
I'm not against the EF. Rather, I'm against what the writer states are bizarre reasons supporting it. About the Anglican ordinariate, I think they didn't choose that liturgy over the OF. Rather, they are former Anglicans, and for that reason should be allowed to continue using what is familiar to them while making adjustments: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ordinariateMy understanding of your position (and, I am assuming you would say, the Church's too) is that, while you might not oppose the EF in the abstract, as a practical matter, you oppose its continued existence in the life of the Church, for these reasons (which may not be exhaustive): - Whatever value it may have had for the Church before Vatican II, the EF has to go, because we now have the OF
- The EF is only acceptable for those who cannot learn the OF (which is impossible, anyone could learn the OF)
- Everyone needs to be attending Mass in their own vernacular, and that the EF (and, I assume, the OF in Latin as well, the Church's allowance of it notwithstanding) is only acceptable for those who know Latin and no other language (a scenario that exists nowhere)
- The OF has had almost universal acceptance among Roman Rite Catholics, therefore the EF is no longer needed or desirable
- The OF is preferable to the EF because it has more Scripture readings, and in a three-year cycle on top of that
- People in non-European cultures of the Global South have been successfully evangelized using the OF, which would have been more difficult if the Latin EF had been offered instead
- And since they demonstrate great fervor and enthusiasm in their worship, this is proof of the success of the OF as a tool for evangelization for all cultures, as well as proof of its greater suitability for the same
- People must fully understand the language in which the Mass is offered, and it is logistically impossible to bring all Catholics to a functional working knowledge of Latin
Along the same lines, using what I understand to be your reasoning, even societies such as the FSSP should give up the EF (their having permission notwithstanding), for the same reasons, especially because they could easily learn the OF if they don't already know it (again, it's not that complicated), and in any event, laity outside the priesthood of the FSSP should not attend their EF (even though these laity do precisely that, and there are even FSSP personal parishes which the laity attend, e.g., Atlanta). They may have permission to use it, but following this reasoning, they should give it up and adopt the OF instead, for the reasons cited.
Also, not that you are doing this, but I wouldn't overly romanticize the FSSP as a society that deserves to keep the EF because they are loyal and docile to the post-Vatican II Church and the changes that have taken place since V2. I seriously have to doubt that any FSSP pastor anywhere urges his faithful (many if not most of whom homeschool) to quit using the Baltimore Catechism (and similar works such as My Catholic Faith) and adopt the CCC instead, to wean themselves away from the very EF they now attend because the OF is preferable (for the reasons cited above and possibly other reasons), or to quit using Bible translations such as Knox, Confraternity, or a fortiori the Douay-Rheims, because more recent translations, reflective of the latest scholarship, exist and should be used instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Nov 15, 2022 0:42:46 GMT
I'm not against the EF. Rather, I'm against what the writer states are bizarre reasons supporting it. About the Anglican ordinariate, I think they didn't choose that liturgy over the OF. Rather, they are former Anglicans, and for that reason should be allowed to continue using what is familiar to them while making adjustments: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ordinariateMy understanding of your position (and, I am assuming you would say, the Church's too) is that, while you might not oppose the EF in the abstract, as a practical matter, you oppose its continued existence in the life of the Church, for these reasons (which may not be exhaustive): - Whatever value it may have had for the Church before Vatican II, the EF has to go, because we now have the OF
- The EF is only acceptable for those who cannot learn the OF (which is impossible, anyone could learn the OF)
- Everyone needs to be attending Mass in their own vernacular, and that the EF (and, I assume, the OF in Latin as well, the Church's allowance of it notwithstanding) is only acceptable for those who know Latin and no other language (a scenario that exists nowhere)
- The OF has had almost universal acceptance among Roman Rite Catholics, therefore the EF is no longer needed or desirable
- The OF is preferable to the EF because it has more Scripture readings, and in a three-year cycle on top of that
- People in non-European cultures of the Global South have been successfully evangelized using the OF, which would have been more difficult if the Latin EF had been offered instead
- And since they demonstrate great fervor and enthusiasm in their worship, this is proof of the success of the OF as a tool for evangelization for all cultures, as well as proof of its greater suitability for the same
- People must fully understand the language in which the Mass is offered, and it is logistically impossible to bring all Catholics to a functional working knowledge of Latin
Along the same lines, using what I understand to be your reasoning, even societies such as the FSSP should give up the EF (their having permission notwithstanding), for the same reasons, especially because they could easily learn the OF if they don't already know it (again, it's not that complicated), and in any event, laity outside the priesthood of the FSSP should not attend their EF (even though these laity do precisely that, and there are even FSSP personal parishes which the laity attend, e.g., Atlanta). They may have permission to use it, but following this reasoning, they should give it up and adopt the OF instead, for the reasons cited.
Also, not that you are doing this, but I wouldn't overly romanticize the FSSP as a society that deserves to keep the EF because they are loyal and docile to the post-Vatican II Church and the changes that have taken place since V2. I seriously have to doubt that any FSSP pastor anywhere urges his faithful (many if not most of whom homeschool) to quit using the Baltimore Catechism (and similar works such as My Catholic Faith) and adopt the CCC instead, to wean themselves away from the very EF they now attend because the OF is preferable (for the reasons cited above and possibly other reasons), or to quit using Bible translations such as Knox, Confraternity, or a fortiori the Douay-Rheims, because more recent translations, reflective of the latest scholarship, exist and should be used instead.
No, I don't oppose the EF. Rather, I question the traditional Catholics' behavior and line of reasoning, plus the point that they also contradict themselves and each other. Here's what I mean:
Some want the OF to go and the Church to return to a pre-Vatican II past. Others want the Church to stay as it is and that they be allowed to go back to a pre-Vatican II past. Still others want only a partial return, with an EF in Latin or even an EF in the vernacular.
Some want only older editions of the Catechism to be used. Others want Catholics to se whatever Catechism they want.
In terms of Scripture, some want the Church to go back to a pre-Vatican II past, where lay persons were not allowed to read Scriptures unless in the presence of and guided by clergy. Others want a partial return to the past where only the Vulgate should be read. Still others want a return to a past where only old Biblical translations should be read. Still others want the Church to allow Catholics to read whatever edition they want, and to use whatever edition in Catechism and for Mass.
There are more points, like absurd claims that the EF is more reverent because it's in Latin, etc., that Latin is the universal language of the Church, and so on, not to mention bewildering beliefs that the type of liturgy is based on preferences (e.g., if one who speaks no Mandarin wants to attend Mass in that language because he finds it reverent, then he should).
In contrast, my views follow that of the Church: if you don't understand a language, then don't use it. If you're only used to one type of liturgy or have been using it as part of your organization from the beginning, like the FSSP and the Anglican Ordinariate, then continue using it.
But I also support the other views of the Church: history has shown that vernacular languages have been used to evangelize, so it's logical to continue using them. History has also shown that active participation, etc., have not only been part of the early Church but, together with the use of vernacular languages, have also aided in evangelization, so do the same. Similar can be said about more exposure to Scriptures, which the Church started encouraging only after the nineteenth century, and made part of the Mass only through the OF, etc. As for Catechism, earlier editions could not address new concerns, so the Church wants now editions to do so. That is commonsensical.
|
|
