|
Post by homeschooldad on May 18, 2023 13:16:46 GMT
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.
When I say that the EF ("TLM" is just an abbreviation for the colloquial term "Traditional Latin Mass", or some would say "Tridentine Latin Mass", again, just a colloquialism) could be celebrated in ther vernacular, I do so (a) because there is somewhat recent historical precedent for it, for pastoral reasons, as I noted earlier, and (b) because, while I have no need to hear Mass in the vernacular, and those who assist at the EF probably aren't sitting there saying "man, oh, man, if only this were in English (or whatever language they speak), it'd be so much better!", many people simply have to have Mass in their vernacular (possibly due to Protestant cultural influence), and this is a concession that could be made to them, without doing one whit of violence to the Tridentine Missal of St Pius V. At this point, anno Domini 2023, people outside of TLM circles probably aren't even aware there was any difference, other than language, in the Mass prior to 1962 and the Mass today. Younger people probably couldn't even tell you what year or decade the changes were made. For many today, the Church began either in 1962, or in 1978 when John Paul II was elected, not unlike the way that Protestant church history basically begins with the Reformation, or more precisely put, leaps from a gauzy, romanticized view of "early Church" to the time of Luther and his fellow travelers. As to your other arguments, perhaps this wasn't your intent, but you created a reductio ad absurdum of what, in your view, the FSSP and other groups would have to do, for an EF-only environment to be legitimate. People are not going to learn Latin fluently, at least not the vast majority of them, nor are they going to read the Catechism in Latin and discuss it in Latin. And so on. All of this is a creation of your own considerable intelligence, but it has no basis whatsoever in the lived experience of anybody, and I'm not going to address it. I gave up rabbit holes for Lent. Finally, unless I am missing something, neither TC nor the accompanying letter made any reference to retrofitting the post-Vatican II liturgical calendar into the Pian Missal. It would be a "square peg in a round hole", it just wouldn't work. I have to wonder if that is something Roche came up with, and if it was just another case of Roche not knowing what he was talking about, he didn't know about the "Agatha Christie indult" either. Proclaiming the scripture readings (after they have been offered in the Latin of the missal) using more modern translations, in and of itself, no problem, you will see differences right now between vernacular Scripture among various TLM hand missals. One missal I have uses the Knox Bible, and it's... weird.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on May 19, 2023 1:58:22 GMT
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.
When I say that the EF ("TLM" is just an abbreviation for the colloquial term "Traditional Latin Mass", or some would say "Tridentine Latin Mass", again, just a colloquialism) could be celebrated in ther vernacular, I do so (a) because there is somewhat recent historical precedent for it, for pastoral reasons, as I noted earlier, and (b) because, while I have no need to hear Mass in the vernacular, and those who assist at the EF probably aren't sitting there saying "man, oh, man, if only this were in English (or whatever language they speak), it'd be so much better!", many people simply have to have Mass in their vernacular (possibly due to Protestant cultural influence), and this is a concession that could be made to them, without doing one whit of violence to the Tridentine Missal of St Pius V. At this point, anno Domini 2023, people outside of TLM circles probably aren't even aware there was any difference, other than language, in the Mass prior to 1962 and the Mass today. Younger people probably couldn't even tell you what year or decade the changes were made. For many today, the Church began either in 1962, or in 1978 when John Paul II was elected, not unlike the way that Protestant church history basically begins with the Reformation, or more precisely put, leaps from a gauzy, romanticized view of "early Church" to the time of Luther and his fellow travelers. As to your other arguments, perhaps this wasn't your intent, but you created a reductio ad absurdum of what, in your view, the FSSP and other groups would have to do, for an EF-only environment to be legitimate. People are not going to learn Latin fluently, at least not the vast majority of them, nor are they going to read the Catechism in Latin and discuss it in Latin. And so on. All of this is a creation of your own considerable intelligence, but it has no basis whatsoever in the lived experience of anybody, and I'm not going to address it. I gave up rabbit holes for Lent. Finally, unless I am missing something, neither TC nor the accompanying letter made any reference to retrofitting the post-Vatican II liturgical calendar into the Pian Missal. It would be a "square peg in a round hole", it just wouldn't work. I have to wonder if that is something Roche came up with, and if it was just another case of Roche not knowing what he was talking about, he didn't know about the "Agatha Christie indult" either. Proclaiming the scripture readings (after they have been offered in the Latin of the missal) using more modern translations, in and of itself, no problem, you will see differences right now between vernacular Scripture among various TLM hand missals. One missal I have uses the Knox Bible, and it's... weird.
Most need to hear the Mass in the vernacular because they need to hear the Mass in a language that they understand. That's the same Mass that has a Liturgy of the Word, which also explains why people read the Bible in a language that they know and the Homily involves the same.
Also, my argument actually stems from yours: you were calling for using the use of the vernacular for the EF, among others. However, I find the reasons you gave lacking: I don't think you suggested it simply because it was done before and that others want it, as there are reasons why those two took place. Dig deeper and you will find out. Or just read my previous paragraph above.
I'm not suggesting that the FSSP should change. Rather, I'm suggesting that if you want the EF to spread, then you will need to appreciate my points. As long as you find them fallacious, then you won't get what you want.
|
|
bluekumul
Full Member
Christian humanist, democratic socialist, world citizen
Posts: 199
|
Post by bluekumul on May 19, 2023 12:52:33 GMT
Why should nostalgia be considered a disease? The Catholic faith is supposed to be about Bible and Tradition, both of which come from the past. Francis is thinking like a progressive here.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 19, 2023 14:04:04 GMT
Why should nostalgia be considered a disease? The Catholic faith is supposed to be about Bible and Tradition, both of which come from the past. Francis is thinking like a progressive here. Very well put. Catholicism looks to the past by its very definition, and the ancient Latin liturgy is part of that past, and a huge part at that. Francis is very much of that "the Church began in 1962" mindset, while at the same time not being in the least bit bashful about taking an authoritarian, decidedly pre-Vatican II approach in attempting to enforce it. Whatever happened to subsidiarity and collegiality? "We are Church" applies to tradition-minded laity as well.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on May 19, 2023 16:15:56 GMT
When we talk of authoritarian, I think Pope Pius V should come to mind first. It was he who solely changed the Liturgy which gave us the Tridentine Mass. If PPV had the authority to do that, why does Francis not have the authority to do what he has done? Or why should his authority be ignored but PPV's authority be followed? Oh, let me take a stab at that, because one is what some want, and one isn't. I think this is exactly the way protestantism started.
As far as tradition, there were 1500 years of tradition before PPV single handedly made these changes. Maybe we can go back farther in tradition and do away with nuns, and friars. Maybe we could let groups set up their own rites which work for them.
If we are going to look at 400 years of tradition, why does it need to be only the 400 years which are convenient for some. I guess some folks think that the Church started with the Council of Trent and needs to end there as well. Why are VI and VII any more or less important than the Council of Trent? Maybe just because some people don't like what came out of them.
As was indicated in one of the articles linked, when JPII gave an inch, a certain segment wanted a foot. Then when Benedict gave another inch, that segment wanted a yard. Never enough is it? If prior Popes have had authority, but the current Pope doesn't have authority, that seems like a self conflicting argument to me and doesn't hold up too well.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 19, 2023 17:27:10 GMT
When we talk of authoritarian, I think Pope Pius V should come to mind first. It was he who solely changed the Liturgy which gave us the Tridentine Mass. If PPV had the authority to do that, why does Francis not have the authority to do what he has done? Or why should his authority be ignored but PPV's authority be followed? Oh, let me take a stab at that, because one is what some want, and one isn't. I think this is exactly the way protestantism started. As far as tradition, there were 1500 years of tradition before PPV single handedly made these changes. Maybe we can go back farther in tradition and do away with nuns, and friars. Maybe we could let groups set up their own rites which work for them. If we are going to look at 400 years of tradition, why does it need to be only the 400 years which are convenient for some. I guess some folks think that the Church started with the Council of Trent and needs to end there as well. Why are VI and VII any more or less important than the Council of Trent? Maybe just because some people don't like what came out of them. As was indicated in one of the articles linked, when JPII gave an inch, a certain segment wanted a foot. Then when Benedict gave another inch, that segment wanted a yard. Never enough is it? If prior Popes have had authority, but the current Pope doesn't have authority, that seems like a self conflicting argument to me and doesn't hold up too well. There is a school of thought, and not a negligible one, that says Quo primum of Pope St Pius V fixed the Mass of the Roman Rite for all time, and that post-Vatican II attempts to supplant that Mass were ultra vires, or, at the very least, QP was never abrogated. (It's also worth noting that Francis did not abrogate QP by name, he made some kind of sweeping statement, but he didn't say the words "Quo primum". Was there a reason for this? Would this have been some kind of "third rail"? Or did the Holy Ghost hold his hand back?) IOW, according to this argument, Paul VI and his successors acted unlawfully. PSPV used very definite language to indicate that his wishes were not just for his own pontificate. "But it was PSPV who acted ultra vires, not his successors". Okay, then, arguendo, why then did nobody ever call BS on Quo primum from 1570 to 1962 (assuming nobody ever did). Was it just ignored? Did Bugnini and company think "shhh... nobody will ever notice..."? At the time, faithful in the pew would have had no idea what QP even was. Who knew? You tell me. But assuming that QP, despite PSPV's verbiage, despite his apparent wishes, was only binding throughout his own pontificate (or even until he changed his mind within that pontificate), IOW, it was an act of his will and nothing more. The Tridentine Missal didn't just pop out of nowhere. Was it the same kind of collage, if you will, as Bugnini's missal? Or was it something that had basically existed hundreds of years before, even back to the time of St Gregory the Great? And what were these other missals that existed in such diversity before 1570? Did they all more or less follow the same pattern as the Missal of St Pius V? Or were they "all over the place"? And none of this even touches the perceived unique holiness and beauty of the TLM itself. Could it be that the Holy Ghost inspired PSPV to put together "the perfect Mass"? That He thus inspired PSPV to issue a kind of "super-papal bull" to bind his successors in a unique fashion? This is fodder for abundant discussion. Might be good to dust off the works of Michael Davies, Father Anthony Cekada, and Father Rama Coomaraswamy (as well as, to be fair, Messrs James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead), not to mention Father Gommar DePauw and Archbishop Lefebvre. Focus on what they say, not who they are, and let the arguments stand or fall on their own merits.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on May 19, 2023 17:52:42 GMT
When we talk of authoritarian, I think Pope Pius V should come to mind first. It was he who solely changed the Liturgy which gave us the Tridentine Mass. If PPV had the authority to do that, why does Francis not have the authority to do what he has done? Or why should his authority be ignored but PPV's authority be followed? Oh, let me take a stab at that, because one is what some want, and one isn't. I think this is exactly the way protestantism started. As far as tradition, there were 1500 years of tradition before PPV single handedly made these changes. Maybe we can go back farther in tradition and do away with nuns, and friars. Maybe we could let groups set up their own rites which work for them. If we are going to look at 400 years of tradition, why does it need to be only the 400 years which are convenient for some. I guess some folks think that the Church started with the Council of Trent and needs to end there as well. Why are VI and VII any more or less important than the Council of Trent? Maybe just because some people don't like what came out of them. As was indicated in one of the articles linked, when JPII gave an inch, a certain segment wanted a foot. Then when Benedict gave another inch, that segment wanted a yard. Never enough is it? If prior Popes have had authority, but the current Pope doesn't have authority, that seems like a self conflicting argument to me and doesn't hold up too well. There is a school of thought, and not a negligible one, that says Quo primum of Pope St Pius V fixed the Mass of the Roman Rite for all time, and that post-Vatican II attempts to supplant that Mass were ultra vires, or, at the very least, QP was never abrogated. (It's also worth noting that Francis did not abrogate QP by name, he made some kind of sweeping statement, but he didn't say the words "Quo primum". Was there a reason for this? Would this have been some kind of "third rail"? Or did the Holy Ghost hold his hand back?) IOW, according to this argument, Paul VI and his successors acted unlawfully. PSPV used very definite language to indicate that his wishes were not just for his own pontificate. "But it was PSPV who acted ultra vires, not his successors". Okay, then, arguendo, why then did nobody ever call BS on Quo primum from 1570 to 1962 (assuming nobody ever did). Was it just ignored? Did Bugnini and company think "shhh... nobody will ever notice..."? At the time, faithful in the pew would have had no idea what QP even was. Who knew? You tell me. But assuming that QP, despite PSPV's verbiage, despite his apparent wishes, was only binding throughout his own pontificate (or even until he changed his mind within that pontificate), IOW, it was an act of his will and nothing more. The Tridentine Missal didn't just pop out of nowhere. Was it the same kind of collage, if you will, as Bugnini's missal? Or was it something that had basically existed hundreds of years before, even back to the time of St Gregory the Great? And what were these other missals that existed in such diversity before 1570? Did they all more or less follow the same pattern as the Missal of St Pius V? Or were they "all over the place"? And none of this even touches the perceived unique holiness and beauty of the TLM itself. Could it be that the Holy Ghost inspired PSPV to put together "the perfect Mass"? That He thus inspired PSPV to issue a kind of "super-papal bull" to bind his successors in a unique fashion? This is fodder for abundant discussion. Might be good to dust off the works of Michael Davies, Father Anthony Cekada, and Father Rama Coomaraswamy (as well as, to be fair, Messrs James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead), not to mention Father Gommar DePauw and Archbishop Lefebvre. Focus on what they say, not who they are, and let the arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Again, I will ask, how can one Pope's authority be definitive, and another Pope's authority not be, that is when addressing the same issue within the Church, and after a Council was held from which a Pope acted. Francis is not the first Pope to address the TLM, he is just the current. Where was all the upheaval other than the SSPX during prior pontificates? This nostalgia, from some, is exactly what Francis was referring to. : a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition. Both JPII and Benedict also discussed unity with the Church, Francis is not the first to address the issue as some claim him to be. Again, he is just the current Pope, and has addressed the fractures within, from some. I will point out that you are one who posts repeatedly about the TLM, and in my mind it borderlines on the disease which might be being referred to. Please don't take it as an afront to you, I am simply stating the facts as displayed on this forum. From some we can get the impression that there is TLM _____________________ clown mass, whatever they may be, as I have never seen such, and absolutely nothing in between, which in and of itself is an outright lie.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 19, 2023 19:32:33 GMT
There is a school of thought, and not a negligible one, that says Quo primum of Pope St Pius V fixed the Mass of the Roman Rite for all time, and that post-Vatican II attempts to supplant that Mass were ultra vires, or, at the very least, QP was never abrogated. (It's also worth noting that Francis did not abrogate QP by name, he made some kind of sweeping statement, but he didn't say the words "Quo primum". Was there a reason for this? Would this have been some kind of "third rail"? Or did the Holy Ghost hold his hand back?) IOW, according to this argument, Paul VI and his successors acted unlawfully. PSPV used very definite language to indicate that his wishes were not just for his own pontificate. "But it was PSPV who acted ultra vires, not his successors". Okay, then, arguendo, why then did nobody ever call BS on Quo primum from 1570 to 1962 (assuming nobody ever did). Was it just ignored? Did Bugnini and company think "shhh... nobody will ever notice..."? At the time, faithful in the pew would have had no idea what QP even was. Who knew? You tell me. But assuming that QP, despite PSPV's verbiage, despite his apparent wishes, was only binding throughout his own pontificate (or even until he changed his mind within that pontificate), IOW, it was an act of his will and nothing more. The Tridentine Missal didn't just pop out of nowhere. Was it the same kind of collage, if you will, as Bugnini's missal? Or was it something that had basically existed hundreds of years before, even back to the time of St Gregory the Great? And what were these other missals that existed in such diversity before 1570? Did they all more or less follow the same pattern as the Missal of St Pius V? Or were they "all over the place"? And none of this even touches the perceived unique holiness and beauty of the TLM itself. Could it be that the Holy Ghost inspired PSPV to put together "the perfect Mass"? That He thus inspired PSPV to issue a kind of "super-papal bull" to bind his successors in a unique fashion? This is fodder for abundant discussion. Might be good to dust off the works of Michael Davies, Father Anthony Cekada, and Father Rama Coomaraswamy (as well as, to be fair, Messrs James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead), not to mention Father Gommar DePauw and Archbishop Lefebvre. Focus on what they say, not who they are, and let the arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Again, I will ask, how can one Pope's authority be definitive, and another Pope's authority not be, that is when addressing the same issue within the Church, and after a Council was held from which a Pope acted. Francis is not the first Pope to address the TLM, he is just the current. Where was all the upheaval other than the SSPX during prior pontificates? This nostalgia, from some, is exactly what Francis was referring to. : a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition. Both JPII and Benedict also discussed unity with the Church, Francis is not the first to address the issue as some claim him to be. Again, he is just the current Pope, and has addressed the fractures within, from some. I will point out that you are one who posts repeatedly about the TLM, and in my mind it borderlines on the disease which might be being referred to. Please don't take it as an afront to you, I am simply stating the facts as displayed on this forum. From some we can get the impression that there is TLM _____________________ clown mass, whatever they may be, as I have never seen such, and absolutely nothing in between, which in and of itself is an outright lie. There is no "nostalgic disease". His use of this term comes across as gaslighting. When you want to denigrate someone else's stance on something, making them appear to "have something wrong with them" is a very potent way to do it, most of all if you manage to convince them of it as well as third parties (by describing or reporting on them to those third parties, which is often done by speaking of them in the third person while they're present). That may not be his intent, but that's how it comes across. It's also worth noting, that in the Soviet Union, people who weren't with the Communist program were liable to being declared "mentally ill" and put in asylums, because, well, the absolute correctness of the workers' revolution and of Marxism-Leninism was (to hear the Communists tell it) so obviously true that dissident opinions to the contrary were simply deemed crazy. The Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist system didn't turn out critical thinkers, because critical thinking wasn't what they wanted. Instead, they emphasized math, science, engineering, and other disciplines (hmmm... sounds kind of like the STEM craze in American secondary education nowadays) which, while requiring considerable intelligence, posed no philosophical or intellectual danger to the regime. IOW, it's okay to be intelligent, just so long as you think the way the Party thinks. As to Quo primum having perpetual binding force (or not), see my comments above. Various commentators argue it either way. All that the anti-QP apologists have to go on, is the assertion that every Pope has absolute veto power over anything and everything that was done in the Church before they assumed the Chair, and anything and everything that any prior Pope did or said. OTOH, those who seek to defend, promote, and advance the restoration of the TLM can point to possible breaches of the Church's moral authority as well as even its legal authority. Put another way, the case is made by many (not all of whom agree with one another on this fine point or that, e.g., the possibility of sede vacante or the acceptability of the Novus Ordo as an alternate form of the Roman Rite) that the post-VII Church went too far. And it can't all be reduced to chopping logic down into fine little pieces. Some simply go to the TLM and find something there. The Holy Ghost blows where He will. Perhaps He, too, is saying "allow this for those who find Me there". And as to punishing everyone for the extreme actions of a few, imagine an alternate Catholic universe where the TLM is the "ordinary form" and the vernacular Novus Ordo is the "extraordinary form", granted to those who "find something there", too. Would the Church be out of line in snatching back its permission for the Novus Ordo because some strident voices there challenged the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the concept of Mass as Sacrifice, or the male-only priesthood? (I won't drag dissent from Humanae vitae, the acceptance of intimate homosexual activity, or the acceptance of divorce and remarriage without benefit of annulment, into this, that has nothing directly to do with the Novus Ordo, just as sedevacantism or dissent from Vatican II, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with the TLM. One could hypothetically accept the Novus Ordo and reject Francis as Pope.) Yet that's the mirror image of what we see in the present post-TC Church. All six things I listed, or at least some of them, are hallmarks of many dissident "progressive" Catholics. I have never heard of this kind of "splitting" dichotomy between "either TLM or clown mass". Some hardline traditionalists maintain that all Novus Ordo Masses are bad (or even invalid, whether due to supposedly invalid post-VII orders, or much less frequently, due to the Novus Ordo itself being intrinsically invalid, something about it not being a sacrifice), but I do not do that. Anyone who assists at a diocesan TLM offered in a Catholic church where the Novus Ordo is celebrated, has to affirm, at the very least, the validity of the Novus Ordo and the validity of post-VII orders, otherwise they cannot receive from the common ciborium. (Separating Hosts out into "TLM ciboria" and "Novus Ordo ciboria" is a huge "no-no", a priest at a well-known Catholic college got in trouble over that.) And diocesan TLMs are precisely what TC addressed.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on May 20, 2023 4:35:04 GMT
Why should nostalgia be considered a disease? The Catholic faith is supposed to be about Bible and Tradition, both of which come from the past. Francis is thinking like a progressive here. "Nostalgia" refers to imagining a past where everything was in Latin and the Church stood readily against secularism, if not part of "Western Civilization".
The problem is that the same doesn't apply even to the Bible, the contents of the Bible, and even Tradition.
What do we see in all three? Laypersons were not allowed to read the Bible for centuries unless supervised by clergy. After the nineteenth century, the Church encouraged the opposite: more Bible readings and study by the laity, more scholarship, better translations, etc. Why the latter? So that more people who could not understand Latin could read the Bible, which is a collection of books spanning numerous centuries and stemming from multiple cultures, including Sumerian and Egyptian.
What about the contents? From the Acts of the Apostles and others, we see a lot of conflict between the faithful and those who oppose them. Jews reject Paul, so he shakes the dust off his sandals and tells them that he will go to the gentiles, and so on.
And Tradition shows that it doesn't stop there: lots of councils with groups and bishops fighting with and debating with each other, and it goes on for many centuries. Meanwhile, several were coming up with translations of the Bible, with even Latin used because more didn't understand Hebrew or Greek. Beyond that were crises involving things ranging from colonialism to slavery, and now sex and financial abuse.
You will find out about the rest if you read up on Church history, and given what Pope Francis faces, a very long history of modernism, especially given a Vatican II where large numbers of participants came from Asia, Africa, South America, and even the Middle East, in a world driven by enthnic strife, nationalism, and globalization. Even Pope Francis' background should hint at that: not only a progressive (or the opposite, depending on what he says next) but an Argentinian, and countered by conservatives from Africa.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on May 20, 2023 4:55:58 GMT
Why should nostalgia be considered a disease? The Catholic faith is supposed to be about Bible and Tradition, both of which come from the past. Francis is thinking like a progressive here. Very well put. Catholicism looks to the past by its very definition, and the ancient Latin liturgy is part of that past, and a huge part at that. Francis is very much of that "the Church began in 1962" mindset, while at the same time not being in the least bit bashful about taking an authoritarian, decidedly pre-Vatican II approach in attempting to enforce it. Whatever happened to subsidiarity and collegiality? "We are Church" applies to tradition-minded laity as well. According to Pope Benedict XVI, the OF uses ancient liturgies, and several current practices can also be seen from the early part of the Church. That was explained twice in threads in this forum.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on May 20, 2023 4:59:49 GMT
When we talk of authoritarian, I think Pope Pius V should come to mind first. It was he who solely changed the Liturgy which gave us the Tridentine Mass. If PPV had the authority to do that, why does Francis not have the authority to do what he has done? Or why should his authority be ignored but PPV's authority be followed? Oh, let me take a stab at that, because one is what some want, and one isn't. I think this is exactly the way protestantism started. As far as tradition, there were 1500 years of tradition before PPV single handedly made these changes. Maybe we can go back farther in tradition and do away with nuns, and friars. Maybe we could let groups set up their own rites which work for them. If we are going to look at 400 years of tradition, why does it need to be only the 400 years which are convenient for some. I guess some folks think that the Church started with the Council of Trent and needs to end there as well. Why are VI and VII any more or less important than the Council of Trent? Maybe just because some people don't like what came out of them. As was indicated in one of the articles linked, when JPII gave an inch, a certain segment wanted a foot. Then when Benedict gave another inch, that segment wanted a yard. Never enough is it? If prior Popes have had authority, but the current Pope doesn't have authority, that seems like a self conflicting argument to me and doesn't hold up too well. There is a school of thought, and not a negligible one, that says Quo primum of Pope St Pius V fixed the Mass of the Roman Rite for all time, and that post-Vatican II attempts to supplant that Mass were ultra vires, or, at the very least, QP was never abrogated. (It's also worth noting that Francis did not abrogate QP by name, he made some kind of sweeping statement, but he didn't say the words "Quo primum". Was there a reason for this? Would this have been some kind of "third rail"? Or did the Holy Ghost hold his hand back?) IOW, according to this argument, Paul VI and his successors acted unlawfully. PSPV used very definite language to indicate that his wishes were not just for his own pontificate. "But it was PSPV who acted ultra vires, not his successors". Okay, then, arguendo, why then did nobody ever call BS on Quo primum from 1570 to 1962 (assuming nobody ever did). Was it just ignored? Did Bugnini and company think "shhh... nobody will ever notice..."? At the time, faithful in the pew would have had no idea what QP even was. Who knew? You tell me. But assuming that QP, despite PSPV's verbiage, despite his apparent wishes, was only binding throughout his own pontificate (or even until he changed his mind within that pontificate), IOW, it was an act of his will and nothing more. The Tridentine Missal didn't just pop out of nowhere. Was it the same kind of collage, if you will, as Bugnini's missal? Or was it something that had basically existed hundreds of years before, even back to the time of St Gregory the Great? And what were these other missals that existed in such diversity before 1570? Did they all more or less follow the same pattern as the Missal of St Pius V? Or were they "all over the place"? And none of this even touches the perceived unique holiness and beauty of the TLM itself. Could it be that the Holy Ghost inspired PSPV to put together "the perfect Mass"? That He thus inspired PSPV to issue a kind of "super-papal bull" to bind his successors in a unique fashion? This is fodder for abundant discussion. Might be good to dust off the works of Michael Davies, Father Anthony Cekada, and Father Rama Coomaraswamy (as well as, to be fair, Messrs James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead), not to mention Father Gommar DePauw and Archbishop Lefebvre. Focus on what they say, not who they are, and let the arguments stand or fall on their own merits.
This was discussed in another thread. I think the ff. was shared:
Also, "fodder for abundant discussion" is right. It should stay as such.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on May 20, 2023 5:07:08 GMT
Again, I will ask, how can one Pope's authority be definitive, and another Pope's authority not be, that is when addressing the same issue within the Church, and after a Council was held from which a Pope acted. Francis is not the first Pope to address the TLM, he is just the current. Where was all the upheaval other than the SSPX during prior pontificates? This nostalgia, from some, is exactly what Francis was referring to. : a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition. Both JPII and Benedict also discussed unity with the Church, Francis is not the first to address the issue as some claim him to be. Again, he is just the current Pope, and has addressed the fractures within, from some. I will point out that you are one who posts repeatedly about the TLM, and in my mind it borderlines on the disease which might be being referred to. Please don't take it as an afront to you, I am simply stating the facts as displayed on this forum. From some we can get the impression that there is TLM _____________________ clown mass, whatever they may be, as I have never seen such, and absolutely nothing in between, which in and of itself is an outright lie. There is no "nostalgic disease". His use of this term comes across as gaslighting. When you want to denigrate someone else's stance on something, making them appear to "have something wrong with them" is a very potent way to do it, most of all if you manage to convince them of it as well as third parties (by describing or reporting on them to those third parties, which is often done by speaking of them in the third person while they're present). That may not be his intent, but that's how it comes across. It's also worth noting, that in the Soviet Union, people who weren't with the Communist program were liable to being declared "mentally ill" and put in asylums, because, well, the absolute correctness of the workers' revolution and of Marxism-Leninism was (to hear the Communists tell it) so obviously true that dissident opinions to the contrary were simply deemed crazy. The Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist system didn't turn out critical thinkers, because critical thinking wasn't what they wanted. Instead, they emphasized math, science, engineering, and other disciplines (hmmm... sounds kind of like the STEM craze in American secondary education nowadays) which, while requiring considerable intelligence, posed no philosophical or intellectual danger to the regime. IOW, it's okay to be intelligent, just so long as you think the way the Party thinks. As to Quo primum having perpetual binding force (or not), see my comments above. Various commentators argue it either way. All that the anti-QP apologists have to go on, is the assertion that every Pope has absolute veto power over anything and everything that was done in the Church before they assumed the Chair, and anything and everything that any prior Pope did or said. OTOH, those who seek to defend, promote, and advance the restoration of the TLM can point to possible breaches of the Church's moral authority as well as even its legal authority. Put another way, the case is made by many (not all of whom agree with one another on this fine point or that, e.g., the possibility of sede vacante or the acceptability of the Novus Ordo as an alternate form of the Roman Rite) that the post-VII Church went too far. And it can't all be reduced to chopping logic down into fine little pieces. Some simply go to the TLM and find something there. The Holy Ghost blows where He will. Perhaps He, too, is saying "allow this for those who find Me there". And as to punishing everyone for the extreme actions of a few, imagine an alternate Catholic universe where the TLM is the "ordinary form" and the vernacular Novus Ordo is the "extraordinary form", granted to those who "find something there", too. Would the Church be out of line in snatching back its permission for the Novus Ordo because some strident voices there challenged the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the concept of Mass as Sacrifice, or the male-only priesthood? (I won't drag dissent from Humanae vitae, the acceptance of intimate homosexual activity, or the acceptance of divorce and remarriage without benefit of annulment, into this, that has nothing directly to do with the Novus Ordo, just as sedevacantism or dissent from Vatican II, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with the TLM. One could hypothetically accept the Novus Ordo and reject Francis as Pope.) Yet that's the mirror image of what we see in the present post-TC Church. All six things I listed, or at least some of them, are hallmarks of many dissident "progressive" Catholics. I have never heard of this kind of "splitting" dichotomy between "either TLM or clown mass". Some hardline traditionalists maintain that all Novus Ordo Masses are bad (or even invalid, whether due to supposedly invalid post-VII orders, or much less frequently, due to the Novus Ordo itself being intrinsically invalid, something about it not being a sacrifice), but I do not do that. Anyone who assists at a diocesan TLM offered in a Catholic church where the Novus Ordo is celebrated, has to affirm, at the very least, the validity of the Novus Ordo and the validity of post-VII orders, otherwise they cannot receive from the common ciborium. (Separating Hosts out into "TLM ciboria" and "Novus Ordo ciboria" is a huge "no-no", a priest at a well-known Catholic college got in trouble over that.) And diocesan TLMs are precisely what TC addressed. The call to use a language that most don't understand, the insistence on old translations of the Bible, and even on older Catechism does not address new issues of the modern world are part of a nostalgic disease, i.e., the view that one needs to go back to a nineteenth century, if not earlier.
Even the reasons are contradictory if not senseless: the feeling of reverence, the compromise in revising what is supposed to be perfect so that it can still be used, the absurd argument that not only the language at Mass is fine as long as one recognizes the parts of it, and so on.
Meanwhile, "traditional" has another meaning outside such an industrialized but ephemeral world: the OF in the vernacular but with songs from decades ago, the novena involving the whole family every afternoon, colorful fiestas, lengthy chants of the Passion, and so on, and none of them part of the "Western Heritage" but unusual fusions of Christianity and indigenous practices, with a provenance centuries old.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 20, 2023 15:47:17 GMT
There is a school of thought, and not a negligible one, that says Quo primum of Pope St Pius V fixed the Mass of the Roman Rite for all time, and that post-Vatican II attempts to supplant that Mass were ultra vires, or, at the very least, QP was never abrogated. (It's also worth noting that Francis did not abrogate QP by name, he made some kind of sweeping statement, but he didn't say the words "Quo primum". Was there a reason for this? Would this have been some kind of "third rail"? Or did the Holy Ghost hold his hand back?) IOW, according to this argument, Paul VI and his successors acted unlawfully. PSPV used very definite language to indicate that his wishes were not just for his own pontificate. "But it was PSPV who acted ultra vires, not his successors". Okay, then, arguendo, why then did nobody ever call BS on Quo primum from 1570 to 1962 (assuming nobody ever did). Was it just ignored? Did Bugnini and company think "shhh... nobody will ever notice..."? At the time, faithful in the pew would have had no idea what QP even was. Who knew? You tell me. But assuming that QP, despite PSPV's verbiage, despite his apparent wishes, was only binding throughout his own pontificate (or even until he changed his mind within that pontificate), IOW, it was an act of his will and nothing more. The Tridentine Missal didn't just pop out of nowhere. Was it the same kind of collage, if you will, as Bugnini's missal? Or was it something that had basically existed hundreds of years before, even back to the time of St Gregory the Great? And what were these other missals that existed in such diversity before 1570? Did they all more or less follow the same pattern as the Missal of St Pius V? Or were they "all over the place"? And none of this even touches the perceived unique holiness and beauty of the TLM itself. Could it be that the Holy Ghost inspired PSPV to put together "the perfect Mass"? That He thus inspired PSPV to issue a kind of "super-papal bull" to bind his successors in a unique fashion? This is fodder for abundant discussion. Might be good to dust off the works of Michael Davies, Father Anthony Cekada, and Father Rama Coomaraswamy (as well as, to be fair, Messrs James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead), not to mention Father Gommar DePauw and Archbishop Lefebvre. Focus on what they say, not who they are, and let the arguments stand or fall on their own merits.
This was discussed in another thread. I think the ff. was shared:
Also, "fodder for abundant discussion" is right. It should stay as such.
I knew Dr Mirus personally, and while I have profound respect for his scholarship, his merely making an assertion doesn't make it so. I'd be very interested to know (a) whether any other papal documents ever made such a sweeping, "in perpetuity", "never", and so on, claim to binding force, and (b) what the various forms of the Roman Rite looked like in the centuries prior to 1570. Was the Missal of St Pius V a "cut and paste" project similar to Bugnini's Novus Ordo Missae, or were there merely minor variations for which the Pian Missal was a kind of collection and reconciliation of these forms, with this or that being trimmed at Pius's discretion? The Roman Rite Mass, in its same basic form, existed as long ago as the time of Pope St Gregory the Great and possibly even before. It is my understanding that Gregory set in place the Scripture readings for each Mass. And you are quite right, Quo primum is indeed a legitimate topic for further discussion. Did anyone in the Church say "well, yes, we know he said the Missal could never be changed or abolished, but if the next Pope, or any Pope after him did so, it'd be okay, because Pius V's edict could be changed at any time by one of his successors"? (Or, to be fair, later in his pontificate, Pius could have said "that 'in perpetuity' and 'never' business, just scratch that".)
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on May 21, 2023 1:00:45 GMT
This was discussed in another thread. I think the ff. was shared:
Also, "fodder for abundant discussion" is right. It should stay as such.
I knew Dr Mirus personally, and while I have profound respect for his scholarship, his merely making an assertion doesn't make it so. I'd be very interested to know (a) whether any other papal documents ever made such a sweeping, "in perpetuity", "never", and so on, claim to binding force, and (b) what the various forms of the Roman Rite looked like in the centuries prior to 1570. Was the Missal of St Pius V a "cut and paste" project similar to Bugnini's Novus Ordo Missae, or were there merely minor variations for which the Pian Missal was a kind of collection and reconciliation of these forms, with this or that being trimmed at Pius's discretion? The Roman Rite Mass, in its same basic form, existed as long ago as the time of Pope St Gregory the Great and possibly even before. It is my understanding that Gregory set in place the Scripture readings for each Mass. And you are quite right, Quo primum is indeed a legitimate topic for further discussion. Did anyone in the Church say "well, yes, we know he said the Missal could never be changed or abolished, but if the next Pope, or any Pope after him did so, it'd be okay, because Pius V's edict could be changed at any time by one of his successors"? (Or, to be fair, later in his pontificate, Pius could have said "that 'in perpetuity' and 'never' business, just scratch that".) The simple fact that VII indicated that the Mass/Missal be changed to the NO is indication enough that PPV was not able to bind the Church for eternity to his Missal. Regardless of what this scholar or that scholar may or may not think. The Council which VII consisted of certainly didn't believe that PPV Missal was never to be changed, that is all that matters, because they were under Church authority when the Council was convened. It really is that simple.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 21, 2023 2:18:51 GMT
I knew Dr Mirus personally, and while I have profound respect for his scholarship, his merely making an assertion doesn't make it so. I'd be very interested to know (a) whether any other papal documents ever made such a sweeping, "in perpetuity", "never", and so on, claim to binding force, and (b) what the various forms of the Roman Rite looked like in the centuries prior to 1570. Was the Missal of St Pius V a "cut and paste" project similar to Bugnini's Novus Ordo Missae, or were there merely minor variations for which the Pian Missal was a kind of collection and reconciliation of these forms, with this or that being trimmed at Pius's discretion? The Roman Rite Mass, in its same basic form, existed as long ago as the time of Pope St Gregory the Great and possibly even before. It is my understanding that Gregory set in place the Scripture readings for each Mass. And you are quite right, Quo primum is indeed a legitimate topic for further discussion. Did anyone in the Church say "well, yes, we know he said the Missal could never be changed or abolished, but if the next Pope, or any Pope after him did so, it'd be okay, because Pius V's edict could be changed at any time by one of his successors"? (Or, to be fair, later in his pontificate, Pius could have said "that 'in perpetuity' and 'never' business, just scratch that".) The simple fact that VII indicated that the Mass/Missal be changed to the NO is indication enough that PPV was not able to bind the Church for eternity to his Missal. Regardless of what this scholar or that scholar may or may not think. The Council which VII consisted of certainly didn't believe that PPV Missal was never to be changed, that is all that matters, because they were under Church authority when the Council was convened. It really is that simple. Then we have one of three possibilities: That the Council acted ultra vires.That Pius V acted ultra vires.That such grandiloquent language didn't really mean what it sounds like it meant. In the third case, I'd be interested to know if such language was ever used in the Church to settle similar issues. It is only too bad that (so far as I am aware) we don't have commentary from the same time along the lines of "Quo primum: can the Pope do that?" --- I'm not sure that journalism, to the extent it even existed (keep in mind that this all happened not so long after Gutenberg, the Tim Berners-Lee of the day), would have gone so far as to do a late-medieval version of investigative reporting or the op-ed page. It would have been nice if we'd had one of those "airplane interviews" or even that short little Italian jolie-laide lady of indeterminate age who sits on the edge of the desk with her shoes off, to ask Pius V, "Your Holiness, do you mean that you intend to bind all future Popes with this?".Even if Quo primum could not bind future Popes or Councils, that is only one piece of the puzzle, as it were, in defending the TLM. The argument doesn't stand or fall on QP alone. QP is just "icing on the cake".
|
|