|
Post by homeschooldad on May 10, 2023 11:19:26 GMT
www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-belittles-devotion-to-the-latin-mass-as-a-nostalgic-disease-during-jesuit-meetingAnd he is simply wrong. The vast majority of Catholics in the West (probably as high as 90%) say that Pope Paul VI was wrong in Humanae vitae --- which affirmed a perennial moral teaching of the Church, in a discourse as much philosophical as theological, on a gravely sinful matter --- and nobody says "boo" to them, they receive communion with nary a word spoken against it (our diocesan TLM priest recently brought this up in a sermon, and I have never felt so much love for a priest in my life!). Yet when the most sincere, devout Catholics you will ever meet, who pursue vocations and Catholic marriages with many children, raise doubts as to the wisdom of jettisoning the pre-Vatican II Mass, they are these horrible people, with all sorts of obscure names hurled at them, "indietrists" (whatever that means), Gnostics (adhering to traditional Catholic teaching that was never a secret to anyone is not "gnosticism"), Neo-Pelagians (again, not true), I'm reminded here of Yosemite Sam calling Bugs Bunny whatever epithet he could come up with, "galoot", "sidewinder", "carrot-chewing coyote", the list goes on. It is not Catholic doctrine or dogma that the Mass be one way or the other, Latin or vernacular, a more elaborated rite or a simpler one, an older rite or a newer one, whether the faithful participate more actively or more passively (by allowing the acolytes to make the responses for them), and Sacrosanctum concilium was a disciplinary and pastoral document, not a doctrinal or dogmatic one. There were no questions of ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium or anything of the sort. (Truth never changes. If it were a question of doctrine or dogma, then where was the Holy Ghost all of those centuries from the time of St Gregory the Great to 1963, did He throw the Roman Rite faithful under the bus for over a millennium by not allowing them to have individuated active participation in the vernacular?) Those who disagree with the present liturgical orientation of the Church deny nothing whatsoever about the Catholic Faith. One could well disagree with the decision to suppress the Diocese of Steubenville in Ohio, or that the tiny town of Gaylord in Michigan should be the see-city of a whole diocese. These are purely disciplinary matters that could be changed at the stroke of a pen, and there is no right or wrong to it, no question of true or false. Yet those who dissent from the decision to suppress the TLM are vilified, while those who dissent on grave moral matters --- that are matters of right or wrong, true or false, good or bad --- are left alone. (There is also the probable opinion that Quo primum was intended to have perpetual binding force, but that's another issue for another discussion.) Our Lady of Fatima said that the sins which send more people to hell than any others are the sins of the flesh, not that they are the worst ones (though sodomy is way up on the list), but they are the easiest ones to fall into, and the hardest ones to give up once the habit begins, you can flee the world, you can flee the devil, but you can't flee the flesh, because you're stuck in it. Do priests warn the faithful anymore about the danger to salvation of sins of the flesh? If not, why not? Do souls no longer matter? When do we ever hear about mortal sin anymore? Yes, it's in the Catechism (thank God), but who reads that part? Who takes it to heart? In the meantime, almost 100% of African priests --- the "Church of the future", so we're told --- are unfaithful to their promises or vows of celibacy, while young would-be priests in the "decadent" West, vocations abundant in number, who seek only to offer the TLM in peace are prevented from doing so, If that's the "Church of the future", I'll take the past, thank you very much. (And to anticipate the predictable objection, yes, priests throughout the history of the Church have been unfaithful to celibacy, but it wasn't 100 percent, and it was comparatively rare in recent times in the West --- to be fair, and we always want to be fair, right? --- there were some who, ahem, didn't mind giving up the possibility of life with a woman, qui legit intelligat. But for the rest, celibacy was a huge obligation to take on. These fine young men who seek to be priests offering the TLM don't have it in their hip pocket to be ordained and then take a mistress and even father children. I'm not going to say such priests are never, ever unfaithful, but it would be the rare exception.)
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on May 10, 2023 13:19:25 GMT
He was in a Jesuit meeting, they probably agree with him. Both he and the Jesuits are in decline at this point anyway.
I just patiently wait and pray till either he goes or I do or Jesus arrives on a cloud, whatever happens first. I’m done wasting my energy worrying about the personal hangups of this Pope.
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on May 10, 2023 14:26:37 GMT
He's in his late eighties, I agree with you that winding ourselves up about it is pointless at this juncture. He won't be knocking around for more than a few years longer.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 10, 2023 20:39:08 GMT
He's in his late eighties, I agree with you that winding ourselves up about it is pointless at this juncture. He won't be knocking around for more than a few years longer. If he left office tomorrow, by whatever means --- and I wish him nothing but health, happiness, and holiness, retirement has its points --- that would be fine with me. There are some praiseworthy things about him --- his simple lifestyle, his solicitude for the poor and for those on the "peripheries", his defense of the Church's teaching on contraception ( mirabile dictu!), and I will grant, he came closer to honoring the request of Our Lady of Fatima than any Pope before him (looking at Your Holiness, Pius XII, I'm not a mindless defender of any and all things before Vatican II, nor am I a mindless opponent of everything after it) --- but all in all, his papacy has been a train wreck. There are those who say "what is wrong with all of the people who had no real issue with JPII or BXVI, but who oppose Francis?". I would say "what is wrong with Francis that he is opposed by those who didn't oppose his predecessors?". Just ask "Demos".
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on May 13, 2023 10:29:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 13, 2023 14:40:30 GMT
To jettison 1300+ years of organic liturgical development, from the time of St Gregory the Great and even before, is "going backward" if ever there were such a thing. We always hear "early Church" this, and "early Church" that, so as long as we're looking to the "early Church", why not revive such practices as heroically strict penances and making confession a public thing with absolution only being conferred once in a lifetime? Looking to the "early Church" is the ultimate "going backward" and smacks of a Protestant mentality. Prior to Vatican II, many authors opined that each and every thing in the Mass was there for a reason, inspired by the Holy Ghost. I always use the example of the Muntz TV company --- they stripped everything out of the manufacture of TV sets that they possibly could, and ended up with a barely functional TV set that delivered only minimal performance. Muntz TV sets were known for being "lemons". The creation of the Novus Ordo was similar. Yes, you still have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass --- the Holy Ghost did not allow that to be taken away --- but it is a "bare-bones" effort that many people find uninspiring and hopelessly banal. If there were a need for more Scripture readings, something I do not necessarily deny, they could have been inserted into the Liturgy of the Word in addition to the readings that were already there, perhaps made optional at the discretion of the priest, just as various options exist within the TLM (the Asperges me, optional extended readings for Holy Week, and so on). The TLM has a richer panoply of Scripture than it is given credit for, but it's embedded within various prayers, such as the Introit and the Gradual, which vary from Mass to Mass. And as to the vernacular, there is no reason in the nature of things, why the TLM could not be translated into dignified, classical forms of the various vernaculars. This could even have incorporated forms of piety unique to different cultures. Clapping hands at the consecration is seen as a sign of reverence in African cultures, whereas to a Westerner, it would be seen as disturbing and uncouth. Ditto for swaying back and forth in a kind of dance --- I have seen some traditional Catholics do a kind of "davening" during their prayer, and that likewise does no violence to the Mass itself. Indeed, there is the phenomenon of the "tradismatic", where some traditional Catholics experience a sort of ecstasy with certain physical manifestations. I myself go into deep meditation during various parts of the Mass, and the silence of the TLM is conducive to this. In short, you can allow the faithful to be highly individualistic in the way they show their piety and devotion, while leaving the Mass itself unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on May 14, 2023 0:24:47 GMT
To jettison 1300+ years of organic liturgical development, from the time of St Gregory the Great and even before, is "going backward" if ever there were such a thing. We always hear "early Church" this, and "early Church" that, so as long as we're looking to the "early Church", why not revive such practices as heroically strict penances and making confession a public thing with absolution only being conferred once in a lifetime? Looking to the "early Church" is the ultimate "going backward" and smacks of a Protestant mentality. Prior to Vatican II, many authors opined that each and every thing in the Mass was there for a reason, inspired by the Holy Ghost. I always use the example of the Muntz TV company --- they stripped everything out of the manufacture of TV sets that they possibly could, and ended up with a barely functional TV set that delivered only minimal performance. Muntz TV sets were known for being "lemons". The creation of the Novus Ordo was similar. Yes, you still have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass --- the Holy Ghost did not allow that to be taken away --- but it is a "bare-bones" effort that many people find uninspiring and hopelessly banal. If there were a need for more Scripture readings, something I do not necessarily deny, they could have been inserted into the Liturgy of the Word in addition to the readings that were already there, perhaps made optional at the discretion of the priest, just as various options exist within the TLM (the Asperges me, optional extended readings for Holy Week, and so on). The TLM has a richer panoply of Scripture than it is given credit for, but it's embedded within various prayers, such as the Introit and the Gradual, which vary from Mass to Mass. And as to the vernacular, there is no reason in the nature of things, why the TLM could not be translated into dignified, classical forms of the various vernaculars. This could even have incorporated forms of piety unique to different cultures. Clapping hands at the consecration is seen as a sign of reverence in African cultures, whereas to a Westerner, it would be seen as disturbing and uncouth. Ditto for swaying back and forth in a kind of dance --- I have seen some traditional Catholics do a kind of "davening" during their prayer, and that likewise does no violence to the Mass itself. Indeed, there is the phenomenon of the "tradismatic", where some traditional Catholics experience a sort of ecstasy with certain physical manifestations. I myself go into deep meditation during various parts of the Mass, and the silence of the TLM is conducive to this. In short, you can allow the faithful to be highly individualistic in the way they show their piety and devotion, while leaving the Mass itself unchanged.
The OF is part of organic liturgical development for reasons explained in detail in other threads. The same goes for the point about modifying the EF.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 14, 2023 14:55:24 GMT
To jettison 1300+ years of organic liturgical development, from the time of St Gregory the Great and even before, is "going backward" if ever there were such a thing. We always hear "early Church" this, and "early Church" that, so as long as we're looking to the "early Church", why not revive such practices as heroically strict penances and making confession a public thing with absolution only being conferred once in a lifetime? Looking to the "early Church" is the ultimate "going backward" and smacks of a Protestant mentality. Prior to Vatican II, many authors opined that each and every thing in the Mass was there for a reason, inspired by the Holy Ghost. I always use the example of the Muntz TV company --- they stripped everything out of the manufacture of TV sets that they possibly could, and ended up with a barely functional TV set that delivered only minimal performance. Muntz TV sets were known for being "lemons". The creation of the Novus Ordo was similar. Yes, you still have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass --- the Holy Ghost did not allow that to be taken away --- but it is a "bare-bones" effort that many people find uninspiring and hopelessly banal. If there were a need for more Scripture readings, something I do not necessarily deny, they could have been inserted into the Liturgy of the Word in addition to the readings that were already there, perhaps made optional at the discretion of the priest, just as various options exist within the TLM (the Asperges me, optional extended readings for Holy Week, and so on). The TLM has a richer panoply of Scripture than it is given credit for, but it's embedded within various prayers, such as the Introit and the Gradual, which vary from Mass to Mass. And as to the vernacular, there is no reason in the nature of things, why the TLM could not be translated into dignified, classical forms of the various vernaculars. This could even have incorporated forms of piety unique to different cultures. Clapping hands at the consecration is seen as a sign of reverence in African cultures, whereas to a Westerner, it would be seen as disturbing and uncouth. Ditto for swaying back and forth in a kind of dance --- I have seen some traditional Catholics do a kind of "davening" during their prayer, and that likewise does no violence to the Mass itself. Indeed, there is the phenomenon of the "tradismatic", where some traditional Catholics experience a sort of ecstasy with certain physical manifestations. I myself go into deep meditation during various parts of the Mass, and the silence of the TLM is conducive to this. In short, you can allow the faithful to be highly individualistic in the way they show their piety and devotion, while leaving the Mass itself unchanged.
The OF is part of organic liturgical development for reasons explained in detail in other threads. The same goes for the point about modifying the EF.
Yes, you have explained this, and while I have respect for your intelligence and considerable scholarship, I do not agree with your conclusions. For Bugnini basically to take the Mass apart, as you would take apart an automobile and put it back together again, all in one fell swoop, was not "organic liturgical development". It was a massive and radical re-imagining of the Mass all at once. One of the Eucharistic Prayers was basically hammered out in an evening at a Roman restaurant, to meet a deadline the next day. To jettison the Introibo ad altare Dei at the beginning of Mass severely diluted the concept of Mass as Sacrifice. Those are just two examples of how the Novus Ordo is deeply disturbing to many.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on May 15, 2023 5:10:53 GMT
The OF is part of organic liturgical development for reasons explained in detail in other threads. The same goes for the point about modifying the EF.
Yes, you have explained this, and while I have respect for your intelligence and considerable scholarship, I do not agree with your conclusions. For Bugnini basically to take the Mass apart, as you would take apart an automobile and put it back together again, all in one fell swoop, was not "organic liturgical development". It was a massive and radical re-imagining of the Mass all at once. One of the Eucharistic Prayers was basically hammered out in an evening at a Roman restaurant, to meet a deadline the next day. To jettison the Introibo ad altare Dei at the beginning of Mass severely diluted the concept of Mass as Sacrifice. Those are just two examples of how the Novus Ordo is deeply disturbing to many. I don't think they took the Mass apart. Instead, they looked at other liturgies and practices before the EF was put in place. The result was not massive, radical, or re-imagined. At least that's the argument given by the Vatican and explained in other threads.
Also, removing the Itroibo did not dilute the concept of the Mass as a Sacrifce because according to Pope Benedict XVI the EF and OF are one and the same Rite. That, too, was explained in other threads.
Finally, many are not deeply disturbed by this. If any, they are very few and located in parts of the U.S., Britain, and France. That was explained in other threads as well.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 15, 2023 11:47:08 GMT
Yes, you have explained this, and while I have respect for your intelligence and considerable scholarship, I do not agree with your conclusions. For Bugnini basically to take the Mass apart, as you would take apart an automobile and put it back together again, all in one fell swoop, was not "organic liturgical development". It was a massive and radical re-imagining of the Mass all at once. One of the Eucharistic Prayers was basically hammered out in an evening at a Roman restaurant, to meet a deadline the next day. To jettison the Introibo ad altare Dei at the beginning of Mass severely diluted the concept of Mass as Sacrifice. Those are just two examples of how the Novus Ordo is deeply disturbing to many. I don't think they took the Mass apart. Instead, they looked at other liturgies and practices before the EF was put in place. The result was not massive, radical, or re-imagined. At least that's the argument given by the Vatican and explained in other threads.
Whether the creation of the OF was "massive, radical, or re-imagined" is a matter of perception and reliant upon whether one wishes to see the differences or not. The Ottaviani Intervention, as well as the works of Michael Davies (Pope Paul's New Mass) and Fr Anthony Cekada (The Problems With The Prayers Of The Modern Mass), come immediately to mind. And as to Ottaviani's retraction of his letter, one has to wonder what kind of pressure was put on him. Not to be too lurid, but somebody could have had something with which to blackmail him. Keep in mind that he was the author of that execrable 1962 letter directing bishops to conceal priestly sexual abuse.
Also, removing the Introibo did not dilute the concept of the Mass as a Sacrifice because according to Pope Benedict XVI the EF and OF are one and the same Rite. That, too, was explained in other threads.
There were other such removals and redactions that were equally disturbing. If my count is correct, the EF mentions Mass as Sacrifice fourteen times, while the OF only mentions it three times. That's a dilution. It would be nice if the Church would simply admit that she downplayed the concept of sacrifice to mollify Protestants, who get all disturbed at the notion of a priest offering a spotless victim as a sacrifice and partaking of that victim. One could even argue that this downplaying wasn't a bad thing, rather, that it was an attempt to find some way to make the liturgy more palatable to separated brethren. But just admit it, is what I would say.
Finally, many are not deeply disturbed by this. If any, they are very few and located in parts of the U.S., Britain, and France. That was explained in other threads as well.
Many are, many are not. I will grant that most aren't. They just take what they are given at face value. Most have never taken a TLM missal in the vernacular, read through it, compared it with the Novus Ordo, and asked "hey, why did the Church get rid of all this?". That's what I did, many years ago, I came into the Church as a blank slate and started asking questions. Almost fifty years later, I'm still doing it, and I shall do it until the mortician tends to my rotting remains.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on May 16, 2023 3:21:30 GMT
I don't think they took the Mass apart. Instead, they looked at other liturgies and practices before the EF was put in place. The result was not massive, radical, or re-imagined. At least that's the argument given by the Vatican and explained in other threads.
Whether the creation of the OF was "massive, radical, or re-imagined" is a matter of perception and reliant upon whether one wishes to see the differences or not. The Ottaviani Intervention, as well as the works of Michael Davies (Pope Paul's New Mass) and Fr Anthony Cekada (The Problems With The Prayers Of The Modern Mass), come immediately to mind. And as to Ottaviani's retraction of his letter, one has to wonder what kind of pressure was put on him. Not to be too lurid, but somebody could have had something with which to blackmail him. Keep in mind that he was the author of that execrable 1962 letter directing bishops to conceal priestly sexual abuse.
Also, removing the Introibo did not dilute the concept of the Mass as a Sacrifice because according to Pope Benedict XVI the EF and OF are one and the same Rite. That, too, was explained in other threads.
There were other such removals and redactions that were equally disturbing. If my count is correct, the EF mentions Mass as Sacrifice fourteen times, while the OF only mentions it three times. That's a dilution. It would be nice if the Church would simply admit that she downplayed the concept of sacrifice to mollify Protestants, who get all disturbed at the notion of a priest offering a spotless victim as a sacrifice and partaking of that victim. One could even argue that this downplaying wasn't a bad thing, rather, that it was an attempt to find some way to make the liturgy more palatable to separated brethren. But just admit it, is what I would say.
Finally, many are not deeply disturbed by this. If any, they are very few and located in parts of the U.S., Britain, and France. That was explained in other threads as well.
Many are, many are not. I will grant that most aren't. They just take what they are given at face value. Most have never taken a TLM missal in the vernacular, read through it, compared it with the Novus Ordo, and asked "hey, why did the Church get rid of all this?". That's what I did, many years ago, I came into the Church as a blank slate and started asking questions. Almost fifty years later, I'm still doing it, and I shall do it until the mortician tends to my rotting remains.
I am only referring to your opinion, and the Church disagrees.
The idea of bean-counting looks ludicrous, e.g., counting the number of times certain words are used. Also, as explained in another thread, the point was not to mollify Protestants but to see what was done in more ancient liturgies, and it turned out that they had a lot of communal activity, which not surprisingly is also found in many societies where Catholicism was spreading.
Many are not deeply disturbed. Only traditionals brought this up and then used it to attack Vatican II. If there's anything that's disturbing, it's sexual abuse that's not being addressed, and secondarily, financial abuse.
Finally, the references to the EF in the vernacular is similar to shooting oneself in the foot: the EF is supposed to be perfect and should not be changed, but changes are now suggested.
In light of that, one should not only ask why the Church got rid of this or that, but why it introduced this or that, and, also important, why are there suggestions to modifying the EF. The latter may even shed light on claims of re-imagining things.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 16, 2023 4:28:25 GMT
Finally, the references to the EF in the vernacular is similar to shooting oneself in the foot: the EF is supposed to be perfect and should not be changed, but changes are now suggested.
The rest of the points have been beaten to death in this thread, and I have nothing I can add, but WRT the EF in the vernacular, there is historical precedent for it, among the Croatians, the Chinese, and the Mohawk nation in North America. The Tridentine missal was not changed by this, it was merely translated into various vernaculars for pastoral reasons. This could have been done for the whole Church, in fact, it would have been deeply educational for the faithful, and could have helped them to see how important that the concept of Mass as Sacrifice really is. Many people (in fact probably most) who adhere to the OF have no clue as to what the prayers in the EF are like, much less have they taken the time to sit down and compare the two in the vernacular. All they know is that the EF is in Latin and has different rubrics than the OF. And as a side note, there is a not-negligible stripe of Catholic who simply does not like all of that interaction, the sign of peace (some call it the "sign of cringe"), all of the responses, and so on. They just want to be left alone to pray. The EF is made to order for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2023 10:38:12 GMT
I am far too young to be nostalgic for a period of Church history that not even my parents are old enough to have lived through, yet I am very fond of the Traditional Latin Mass. I am nostalgic for times in my life that I look back on with pleasure, but not for times I did not exist in.
Hence this nineteen year old does not understand the Holy Father's statement. I like the Traditional Latin Mass partly because of its mystical beauty, and the way it lifts my mind, soul, and heart up to God, as well as for the connection it gives me to the past - not because I am nostalgic for the past, but because the TLM is the result of almost two thousand years of organic liturgical development in the West just as the Byzantine liturgy is the result of incremental liturgical development in the East (although one could argue for instance that if the Byzantine liturgy had been allowed to incrementally develop in Russia as it did for hundreds of years before the Nikonian reforms, then it would look quite different from the liturgy of the Greek churches, but even in spite of the Russian liturgy being aligned with the Greek liturgy under Patriarch Nikon, there are still slight differences in the form of the liturgy in Russia vs in the Greek world that have developed over time).
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 16, 2023 11:44:45 GMT
I am far too young to be nostalgic for a period of Church history that not even my parents are old enough to have lived through, yet I am very fond of the Traditional Latin Mass. I am nostalgic for times in my life that I look back on with pleasure, but not for times I did not exist in. Hence this nineteen year old does not understand the Holy Father's statement. I like the Traditional Latin Mass partly because of its mystical beauty, and the way it lifts my mind, soul, and heart up to God, as well as for the connection it gives me to the past - not because I am nostalgic for the past, but because the TLM is the result of almost two thousand years of organic liturgical development in the West just as the Byzantine liturgy is the result of incremental liturgical development in the East (although one could argue for instance that if the Byzantine liturgy had been allowed to incrementally develop in Russia as it did for hundreds of years before the Nikonian reforms, then it would look quite different from the liturgy of the Greek churches, but even in spite of the Russian liturgy being aligned with the Greek liturgy under Patriarch Nikon, there are still slight differences in the form of the liturgy in Russia vs in the Greek world that have developed over time). This is so well put. The TLM is not an outdated historical artifact to be set aside after the generation that were adults in 1970 passes away. It is timeless and doesn't belong to any particular historical period. "Nostalgia" doesn't even enter into it. If the TLM is allowed to grow and flourish within approved Church structures (it will take another Pope to make that happen), it may well happen that, at least in the West, it will one day again become the normative Mass of the Roman Rite. It would be an act of inspiring humility for the Church one day to say something like "while the liturgical reforms of the post-Vatican II era were welcomed by many, and it seemed like a good idea at the time to replace the Tridentine Missal with the Pauline Missal and to suppress the former, some prefer the older forms, in Latin, and it was a mistake not to allow it to flourish and be discovered anew by succeeding generations". The two forms could be permitted to exist side-by-side with no violence to either one.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on May 17, 2023 2:57:05 GMT
Finally, the references to the EF in the vernacular is similar to shooting oneself in the foot: the EF is supposed to be perfect and should not be changed, but changes are now suggested.
The rest of the points have been beaten to death in this thread, and I have nothing I can add, but WRT the EF in the vernacular, there is historical precedent for it, among the Croatians, the Chinese, and the Mohawk nation in North America. The Tridentine missal was not changed by this, it was merely translated into various vernaculars for pastoral reasons. This could have been done for the whole Church, in fact, it would have been deeply educational for the faithful, and could have helped them to see how important that the concept of Mass as Sacrifice really is. Many people (in fact probably most) who adhere to the OF have no clue as to what the prayers in the EF are like, much less have they taken the time to sit down and compare the two in the vernacular. All they know is that the EF is in Latin and has different rubrics than the OF. And as a side note, there is a not-negligible stripe of Catholic who simply does not like all of that interaction, the sign of peace (some call it the "sign of cringe"), all of the responses, and so on. They just want to be left alone to pray. The EF is made to order for them.
Keep in mind that there's a reason why traditionals refer to it as the TLM, i.e., it has to be in Latin. I also remember that you also insisted on using Latin in some threads. So when you argue that it can and should be celebrated in the vernacular, then that puts the traditional view into question, not to mention points that the Mass is more "reverent" because it is in Latin, and so on.
I agree with the point that the vernacular should be used, which is why I kept referring to it as the EF and not the TLM. Given that, what other things should be considered?
It has to be revised to follow the liturgical year, with readings that follow those used for the OF.
It has to use translations guided by Vatican II, etc.
and so on. As I recall, these guidelines were raised in the TC and documents accompanying it.
But the Vatican will still ask: what is the valid reason for using this revised version of the EF and the OF. That's where your last two sentences come in. It will be very important for EF adherents to explain those two things very carefully, and show why the OF cannot provide such.
This is notable because the only excuse that the Vatican accepts is that the petitioning group does not know how to celebrate the OF, and mainly because the EF has been part of its community from the start. That's why Pope Francis allowed an exception for the FSSP:
Notice that this is far removed from the "nostalgic disease" mentioned in the topic thread. In short, referring to being left alone, reverence, superiority of the EF, etc., won't cut it, especially when contradictions arise (e.g., the EF is supposed to be superior but is not because it can and should be revised). For the EF to be retained, besides revising it following Vatican II valid reasons based on policy need to be given to do so, and that means one has to think like a lawyer and policymaker about this.
So let's do that (I say that because I actually support the use of the EF, but I'm also a realist):
We can't use the point about the use of ancient books and constitutions because not all EF adherents belong to such communities.
We also can't use the claim that EF adherents need to celebrate the EF because they don't know the OF because some of them do, and I think very few priests don't know the OF. (Notice how this is seen in light of Latin: we accept the use of vernacular languages for the EF because most don't know Latin. Probably many priests aren't used to using Latin for Mass.)
Given that, the only way out of this is to join more groups like the FSSP, i.e., they have been using "ancient liturgical books" from the beginning and that's part of their constitutions, and then help them increase in numbers. And from there they will have to be compelled to use the vernacular, since that will be needed to get more people to join (as most don't speak Latin). I don't know if the FSSP will consider revisions to the EF other than what the Vatican requires.
Another way is to use the point that the EF was used in the vernacular by missionaries in the past, and that is a valid reason for continuing to use the EF in the vernacular. But lawyers and policymakers will say, the EF was used because there was no OF. Now that we do, why not use the OF?
A last way to convince them is to turn that "nostalgic disease" into actual practice. That is, the community that wants the EF will need to demonstrate it explicitly and through numbers. That is, the community must learn Latin formally, and have to demonstrate that. Following that, they need to be able to read and discuss Scriptures and probably even the Catechism in Latin, and then celebrate the OF (not the EF) in Latin. They need to sing in Latin, have all the things needed for an EF available even for an OF, and see their numbers increase significantly, and not only in the U.S. but even in the poorest Catholic communities.
If that's achieved, then the Vatican will not be able to ignore that.
|
|