|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 23, 2023 23:06:13 GMT
"Return to" in place of the OAM. I think organic development no longer took place during the 1960s because of various technologies that allowed people to share information quickly, etc. It's ironically one aspect of modernism, where many things move or take place a lot faster. Okay, understood. As to "organic development" in the Mass, it seems to fall into four parts: - Prior to 1570, so far as I am aware, the Roman Rite Mass evolved organically by slight additions or modifications (even though the Tridentine Mass, or rather, its basic form, goes all the way back to the time of St Gregory the Great) slowly, incrementally, and over a great expanse of time, arguably from the time of the later Roman Empire (hence the use of Latin). There was considerably diversity in rites, forms, and uses, and this was what PSPV sought to address, by implementing a uniform Mass (and permitting rites of 200+ years' provenance to continue if those using them so desired).
- From 1570 to 1965, changes were very slight, not least because PSPV "froze" the Mass in a given form, and stated his intention to do this in very strong terms, which some say binds the Church forever (opinions vary). The only changes (someone please correct me if I am wrong) were in the 1950s with the simplified Holy Week rites, and the addition of St Joseph's name to the Canon, something Pope St Pius X said earlier that he could not do, in that "I'm only the Pope"). There were additions of propers for newly canonized saints, as well as certain feasts and solemnities that were added (e.g., the Solemnity of St Joseph).
- In 1965, a hybrid missal was created, with some prayers of the Tridentine Missal removed, and mixed use of Latin and the vernacular (there had earlier been vernacular Masses following the Tridentine form in certain mission areas, such as in China and amongst the Mohawk peoples).
- Then in 1969, in one fell swoop, a drastically revised Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated, and vernacular translations were authorized, the latter having been refined in ensuing years, as well as different de novo uses such as the Zaire Use. There has been, to my knowledge, very little if any change in the Latin editio typica.
Therefore, during the period from 1570 to 1965, organic development really didn't take place, aside from the very minor changes I listed above. And the 1969 Missal was far from being organic development, and was very far removed from being "slight" or "gradual".
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Mar 24, 2023 4:00:23 GMT
According to Pope Benedict XVI and others, the OF was informed by discoveries of ancient liturgies across the centuries, but I have no additional details on that: www.patheos.com/blogs/voxnova/2007/07/07/pope-benedict-xvi-likes-the-novus-ordo/There are additional points in the article which has been posted numerous times in this forum. The implication is that the OF was formed in the same way as the EF, but with additional discoveries and ideas from liturgy studies. And the speed by which the OF spread may have involved the ff. additional points: 1. Most people don't understand Latin, and starting with the 1940s the Church had to come up with vernacular translations. That's why unknown to many there were actually vernacular translations of the EF for various missionaries across four centuries. I have an old copy of the Missal from the late 1940s and it has side-by-side translations in English. It was even earlier for the Bible, with vernacular translations of parts of it across centuries, and full ones by the Renaissance (i.e., if we don't count Latin, which was once a vernacular language in many regions). Actually, similar had been taking place across the centuries in different countries where Catholicism spread, and for the same reason. Similar also took place for the Bible, documents for catechism, etc. 2. Various technologies allowed for wide distribution of not only new discoveries in liturgy studies and more but also of material that encouraged Catholics to raise more questions about the Mass, the Bible, catechism, etc. 3. The Church also discovered that many practices from the past were communal and resembled those promoted by several Protestant groups, and some were even seen in cultures where evangelization spread, together with syntheses of indigenous practices with Catholicism. Others even realized that the latter itself involved the same principles. And so on. I wanted to share these to show that several of these points involve principles that also drove modernism. The last point reminds me of graduate school, where I learned (had to learn, as I came from engineering, and entered graduate studies in the humanities) that "modern" in the past meant the Renaissance, as opposed to the ancient Greek and Roman world. That means the EF is part of a modern world that was both a rebirth of a classics and one that would continue to the Age of Enlightenment, although they still stuck with Latin even with the emergence of English and the rise of Romance languages. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 24, 2023 14:41:59 GMT
According to Pope Benedict XVI and others, the OF was informed by discoveries of ancient liturgies across the centuries, but I have no additional details on that: www.patheos.com/blogs/voxnova/2007/07/07/pope-benedict-xvi-likes-the-novus-ordo/There are additional points in the article which has been posted numerous times in this forum. The implication is that the OF was formed in the same way as the EF, but with additional discoveries and ideas from liturgy studies. And the speed by which the OF spread may have involved the ff. additional points: 1. Most people don't understand Latin, and starting with the 1940s the Church had to come up with vernacular translations. That's why unknown to many there were actually vernacular translations of the EF for various missionaries across four centuries. I have an old copy of the Missal from the late 1940s and it has side-by-side translations in English. It was even earlier for the Bible, with vernacular translations of parts of it across centuries, and full ones by the Renaissance (i.e., if we don't count Latin, which was once a vernacular language in many regions). Actually, similar had been taking place across the centuries in different countries where Catholicism spread, and for the same reason. Similar also took place for the Bible, documents for catechism, etc. 2. Various technologies allowed for wide distribution of not only new discoveries in liturgy studies and more but also of material that encouraged Catholics to raise more questions about the Mass, the Bible, catechism, etc. 3. The Church also discovered that many practices from the past were communal and resembled those promoted by several Protestant groups, and some were even seen in cultures where evangelization spread, together with syntheses of indigenous practices with Catholicism. Others even realized that the latter itself involved the same principles. And so on. I wanted to share these to show that several of these points involve principles that also drove modernism. The last point reminds me of graduate school, where I learned (had to learn, as I came from engineering, and entered graduate studies in the humanities) that "modern" in the past meant the Renaissance, as opposed to the ancient Greek and Roman world. That means the EF is part of a modern world that was both a rebirth of a classics and one that would continue to the Age of Enlightenment, although they still stuck with Latin even with the emergence of English and the rise of Romance languages. Not clear what you mean by "starting with the 1940s", when you point out that translations had been used by missionaries for centuries. As to the "speed by which the OF spread", this was due to its being promulgated within the Church on the First Sunday of Advent 1969, bishops being told, in so many words, "this is your new missal, so use it". It was, in effect, an immediate order, an edict, a ukase. It wasn't a case of something developing organically and "catching on". It wasn't optional. The Tridentine Missal and the 1965 hybrid missal were suppressed. Of all the dioceses in the world, only Campos in Brazil, under Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, refused to implement the Novus Ordo Missae. |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Mar 25, 2023 1:00:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 25, 2023 2:09:53 GMT
Thank you, this was very educational. I read the NLM article, but the paper, at 50+ pages, is something I will have to get to later. It is easily downloadable. Two thoughts: - As noted, the laity were not at all deprived of vernacular readings, at least in the English-speaking world, until the 20th century. I did not realize that vernacular readings (in tandem with the Latin) at Mass took place that far back, from around 900 AD onwards. Needless to say, I have no issue with this, rather, I have an issue with Scripture readings not being offered in the vernacular.
- It's also interesting, and in a way, a roundabout defense of the Tridentine Missal, to note that the Sunday readings were established (i.e., which ones were read on any given Sunday) back to the time of St Gregory the Great, and possibly before. For the Novus Ordo Missae to break with this, and to introduce a three-year sacramentary, is therefore not simply to break with the Tridentine Missal of PSPV (1570), but with the pattern of readings for almost a millennium prior to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Mar 26, 2023 3:49:00 GMT
From what I gathered, there were numerous liturgies, and several involved vernacular languages. Meanwhile, there was translations of only parts of the Bible done by various personalities, and which may or may not have been shared with others. Finally, fewer people spoke Latin, and even several vernacular languages emerged from it, i.e., the Romance languages.
Throughout the Church did not allow people to read the Bible by themselves for various reasons, e.g., they wouldn't be able to understand parts of it or deal with it.
The result is that many likely attended Mass knowing little to nothing about what was taking place. Whatever they knew about Scriptures they gained from whatever vernacular translations were available, or if they received sufficient education in Latin.
By the nineteenth century, more were asking for at least translations of parts of the Mass alongside the Latin text. At the same time, the Church began to call for better translations of the Bible, more scholarship, especially involving discoveries of new manuscripts about ancient liturgies, Scriptures, etc.
After several decades, many Catholics got to hear Scriptures read in the vernacular at Mass thanks to new English translations of Scriptures. Three decades after, with more discoveries of ancient liturgies, new translations of the Bible, etc., the Church came up with the OF.
And it didn't stop there, especially with the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Now, both the NRSV and the NABRE will be revised again to fill in gaps made possible through updated scholarship, and will be available soon. Meanwhile, by Vatican II, the Church was facing a very secular world, driven by a Cold War and multiple national fronts as a Global South emerged, with former imperialist powers weakening, new countries emerging, bewildering combination of neocolonial powers and the existential threat of global predicaments, new members of the Church bringing with them an incredible diversity of languages and cultures, etc. If any, that is very much a perfect ilustration of hyper-modernism, where everything is moving so fast and in different directions.
I think that's why we should at least be understanding towards the Popes of the last few decades and the Church itself, as we've not experienced anything like this. This might also explain why, in place of what should be an even more elaborate OAM, and addressed towards an increasingly modern global society, the Church decided to return to the Apostle's Creed.
|
|
|
|
Post by hakutaku on Apr 1, 2023 17:15:50 GMT
Doesn't the OAM include a line requiring support/belief/respect for the now-abolished Index Librorum Prohibitorum (by requiring assent to the encyclical Pascendi and Lamentabili)
So you couldn't take the oath and believe the church was right to abolish it.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Apr 3, 2023 5:09:22 GMT
Doesn't the OAM include a line requiring support/belief/respect for the now-abolished Index Librorum Prohibitorum (by requiring assent to the encyclical Pascendi and Lamentabili)
So you couldn't take the oath and believe the church was right to abolish it.
The ILP and the OAM have nothing to do with each other, except insofar as the ILP contains books dealing with Modernism (capital letter M). As noted in the 1966 letter, the ILP retains its moral force (assuming one is weak enough in faith and intellect to be swayed by such books), however, it no longer legally binds. So far as I am aware, no books have been added to it, indeed, it would be well-nigh impossible to maintain such an index, given the massive explosion in publishing, not to mention the growth of the Internet. Given the mindset of people today --- wherever they fall on the ideological spectrum --- to have such an index, or to attempt once again to enforce the ILP, would have the "Streisand effect", and make those books even more sought-after. Look at what happens when secular authorities (again, wherever they fall on the ideological spectrum) try to ban books from schools and libraries. It just makes them more popular. That said, it wouldn't totally surprise me, for a future Vatican even more committed to suppress traditional Catholicism than it already is (Roche, Hollerich, the St Gallen group, et al), to reinstate some kind of index, placing on it the works of such commentators as Michael Davies, Fr James Wathen, Peter Kwasniewski, Atila Sinke Guimarães, and others too numerous to mention. It's entirely possible that even Cardinal Pell's "Demos" letter might make it onto such a list. The fault lines become clearer every day. |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Apr 3, 2023 15:40:41 GMT
In light of so-called "traditional Catholicism" and even banning books:
|
|
|
|
Post by hakutaku on Apr 5, 2023 15:03:21 GMT
Doesn't the OAM include a line requiring support/belief/respect for the now-abolished Index Librorum Prohibitorum (by requiring assent to the encyclical Pascendi and Lamentabili)
So you couldn't take the oath and believe the church was right to abolish it.
The ILP and the OAM have nothing to do with each other, except insofar as the ILP contains books dealing with Modernism (capital letter M). OAM:
Pascendi condemns the idea of reforming the index as modernist mania:
Lamentabili condemns condemning the condemners:
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Apr 6, 2023 14:56:51 GMT
The ILP and the OAM have nothing to do with each other, except insofar as the ILP contains books dealing with Modernism (capital letter M). OAM:Pascendi condemns the idea of reforming the index as modernist mania:
Lamentabili condemns condemning the condemners:
What you point out here does not necessarily vitiate the OAM as it was written. The Index still exists, there are just not the near-absolute prohibitions against reading books on it, that there was prior to 1966. Whether the lifting of such prohibitions constitutes a "reform", well, that's a matter of definition. It is left up to the discretion and the spiritual knowledge and maturity of the reader. I have read several books that are on the Index (Rabelais, Stendhal, Zola, Balzac, et al) and my faith or morals were not the least little bit endangered, but then again I was a mature, intelligent scholar strong in the Faith. Likewise, if books aren't being added to the Index anymore --- are they? --- that doesn't constitute a "reform" either. As far as I know, the Index is "frozen in time". It would be very difficult to add books to the Index today, if you define websites with printed works as "books", that would be a game of whack-a-mole if ever there were one, back when the Index was created, book publishing was difficult, expensive, and not nearly as accessible to the masses as literature is today --- such sites as archive.org and Gutenburg basically open up a massive panoply of literature to anyone with a computer, instantly and for free. Likewise, anyone with a computer and an opinion can make their thoughts known to the world, again, instantly and for free. Look at what we're doing right here on this forum. If it weren't for the Internet, concerns such as people express here would be confined to "letters to the editor" to Catholic publications, with the vetting process and the imprimaturs (another concept that really isn't workable anymore) to go with it. I am old enough to remember when the traditionalist cause, and promotion of the Latin Mass, was limited to cheaply produced, sometimes even photocopied, samizdat-like publications that you would find surreptitiously placed in the book rack of the vestibule (and which were purged once the pastor caught wind of them), or which would come in the mail. Today's environment is totally different ( Deo gratias!), and neither a strictly-enforced Index, nor the imprimatur system, would work today. Put another way, the genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in. Worst case, the OAM could always be rewritten to remove reference to the Index. |
|
