|
Post by ralfy on Jul 8, 2023 7:25:43 GMT
Gaslighting refers to psychological manipulation and is ironically used in the same article. That is, people who are not "traditional" are seen as children.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 8, 2023 7:28:54 GMT
It's very scary to those who want to start the Church's history in 1570, and who realize that an appeal to past approaches and practices resonates with people who become aware of it. No, that's more what Protestants do --- write off everything from a romanticized "early Church", to the time of Luther and the other "reformers", as an amorphous "Dark Ages" when, to hear them tell it, Christianity was in eclipse and was distorted by an apostate or near-apostate Rome. The basic form of the Traditional Latin Mass goes back much further than 1570. It is essentially the same Mass as in the time of St Gregory the Great. And adherence to Catholic Tradition is about far more than just the Mass.
According to Pope Benedict XVI, both the EF and the OF go back much further than 1570. In addition, many things considered modern are actually ancient, such as various communal practices and even Communion in the hand.
Unfortunately, those who state this would also be accused of romanticizing the past, which includes the same Tradition that one wants to follow.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 8, 2023 7:30:51 GMT
This idea that allowing TLM means there will be no more Masses in the vernacular and we're going to have another Spanish Inquisition is simply bizarre. The good news is I don't know any younger Catholics who think that way so I reckon it's an attitude that will fade out as those people age out. I don't see that happening. Even if a future traditional Pope were to abrogate the Novus Ordo Missae, the 1962 Missal could be translated into the various vernaculars (there is historical precedent for this), and many if not most things that people like about the Novus Ordo could be retrofitted into the 1962 Missal without doing violence to it in the least. So far as I am aware, the following things could be done: - vernacularization (as noted above)
- establishing a lectionary with additional readings immediately before, or incorporated into, the homily
- a vigorous implementation of the "Dialogue Mass" concept, essentially allowing the laity to say the things that the acolytes say
- reciting the Credo and the Pater Noster in unison (hey, if people want to hold hands or sway back and forth, their call)
- allow the faithful to bring up the gifts for the offertory
- allow external manifestations proper to individual cultures (such as the clapping at the consecration that some Africans see as a display of piety)
- a wider range of culturally appropriate hymns
...and so on. That's not going to happen either, but it's an interesting hypothetical to consider. I would not be a hard Pope to get along with. Far warmer and fuzzier than Jude Law's "Pope Pius XIII". I raised this to you in another thread, and you did not support it because you argued that the EF should not be changed and using Latin is important.
You need to make up your mind.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 8, 2023 15:12:59 GMT
I don't see that happening. Even if a future traditional Pope were to abrogate the Novus Ordo Missae, the 1962 Missal could be translated into the various vernaculars (there is historical precedent for this), and many if not most things that people like about the Novus Ordo could be retrofitted into the 1962 Missal without doing violence to it in the least. So far as I am aware, the following things could be done: - vernacularization (as noted above)
- establishing a lectionary with additional readings immediately before, or incorporated into, the homily
- a vigorous implementation of the "Dialogue Mass" concept, essentially allowing the laity to say the things that the acolytes say
- reciting the Credo and the Pater Noster in unison (hey, if people want to hold hands or sway back and forth, their call)
- allow the faithful to bring up the gifts for the offertory
- allow external manifestations proper to individual cultures (such as the clapping at the consecration that some Africans see as a display of piety)
- a wider range of culturally appropriate hymns
...and so on. That's not going to happen either, but it's an interesting hypothetical to consider. I would not be a hard Pope to get along with. Far warmer and fuzzier than Jude Law's "Pope Pius XIII". I raised this to you in another thread, and you did not support it because you argued that the EF should not be changed and using Latin is important.
You need to make up your mind.
The hypothetical proposals I make are simply a framework to implement Sacrosanctum concilium and not make any changes to the 1962 Missal, nor introduce a new one. You might call translation into the vernacular (while retaining the Latin editio typica) a "change", but I wouldn't. And supplementary lectionary or no supplementary lectionary, there is no reason that a priest couldn't read Scripture passages within his homily. The Church could abrogate Sacrosanctum concilium tomorrow --- it's not doctrinal, but rather disciplinary and a statement of the mind of the Church at one moment in time --- and it wouldn't bother me in the least. I don't need the vernacular and I don't need to hear additional Scripture, I've read the entire Bible, many parts numerous times. I frequently "dialogue" sotto voce anyway, in tandem with the acolytes. But everyone is not me. If the Novus Ordo and the vernacular Mass disappeared tomorrow, the result would be huge distress, and very possibly large numbers of people either leaving the Church (the Anglicans and Lutherans would be only too happy to take them in, their Mass is very similar to the Novus Ordo anyway) or forming some schismatic bodies to continue worshipping as they do now (I have to think that at least a few bishops and priests would go into schism as well, so you've got your apostolic succession and valid sacraments). It wouldn't be a good outcome. "But what about SC's call to remove things in the Mass that had been added with the passage of time, [supposedly] to little advantage?". The Church could easily come back and say "you know, we've thought it over, and there weren't any, false alarm". There is no shortage of pre-Vatican II books that explain precisely what each part of the Mass is, why it's there, and why it matters. It's like Mr Muntz and his attempts to manufacture a cheap, simple, minimalist TV set, he went in and dinked around where he shouldn't have, took out things that needed to be there, and he ended up making crap TV sets that barely functioned. He didn't stay in the TV manufacturing business long, and "Muntz" became synonymous with a lemon of a TV set. And SC's assertion --- again, not doctrinal, certainly not infallible, just a pastoral assessment of the situation at a given moment in time --- suggests, without coming right out and saying it, that Pope St Pius V erred in making these things part of the Mass in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by crusader on Jul 8, 2023 15:33:46 GMT
It doesn't appear that your average Catholic is concerned with or even aware that certain practices within the OF are said to have originated in the early years of the Church. I've read claims that for the first several hundred years, communion in the hand was common practice, but then again so was belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I'm sure there were many practices that were commonplace in those early years, either born out of necessity or custom, but making changes to the Mass, based on the idea that it was done this way, once upon a time, was unreasonable.
There must be some truth to the idea that the OF, with all of its alterations and compromises, hasn’t achieved its intended goal. Because in the last 20 years, they’ve tried to shift their focus more on the “traditional” and less on the new and progressive. During these last two decades I’ve seen several parishes within my own diocese incorporate more latin and Gregorian Chant into the Mass, they’ve begun praying the Leonine prayers and a few have completed renovations which incorporated altar rails and statues once again.
At my own parish, they offer what they call a High Mass, even though by definition, it’s still the OF. The Mass is celebrated Ad orientem, there are no extraordinary ministers of holy communion, no female altar servers. The readings (excluding the gospel) are not recited by random members of the laity who go up to read, they are chanted by a member of the choir, (usually male, can’t recall a time I’ve seen a female perform the readings). And this person is wearing liturgical garments, similar to an alter server, when they approach the podium to chant the readings for the day. The choir itself is phenomenal, even better then those I’ve heard at the SSPX and FSSP chapels. During communion, everyone approaches the altar rail, which was installed last year, and if able, they kneel to receive communion.
Maybe this is what they thought the OF would look like when it was first proposed and voted on during Vatican II.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 8, 2023 17:18:48 GMT
It doesn't appear that your average Catholic is concerned with or even aware that certain practices within the OF are said to have originated in the early years of the Church. I've read claims that for the first several hundred years, communion in the hand was common practice, but then again so was belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I'm sure there were many practices that were commonplace in those early years, either born out of necessity or custom, but making changes to the Mass, based on the idea that it was done this way, once upon a time, was unreasonable. There must be some truth to the idea that the OF, with all of its alterations and compromises, hasn’t achieved its intended goal. Because in the last 20 years, they’ve tried to shift their focus more on the “traditional” and less on the new and progressive. During these last two decades I’ve seen several parishes within my own diocese incorporate more latin and Gregorian Chant into the Mass, they’ve begun praying the Leonine prayers and a few have completed renovations which incorporated altar rails and statues once again. At my own parish, they offer what they call a High Mass, even though by definition, it’s still the OF. The Mass is celebrated Ad orientem, there are no extraordinary ministers of holy communion, no female altar servers. The readings (excluding the gospel) are not recited by random members of the laity who go up to read, they are chanted by a member of the choir, (usually male, can’t recall a time I’ve seen a female perform the readings). And this person is wearing liturgical garments, similar to an alter server, when they approach the podium to chant the readings for the day. The choir itself is phenomenal, even better then those I’ve heard at the SSPX and FSSP chapels. During communion, everyone approaches the altar rail, which was installed last year, and if able, they kneel to receive communion. Maybe this is what they thought the OF would look like when it was first proposed and voted on during Vatican II. The kind of reverent, "traditional Novus Ordo Masses", with the only difference being the missal used, and possibly being in the vernacular, are indeed something to see. I used to serve the Sunday afternoon Latin Novus Ordo Mass at the Basilica Shrine in DC, down in the Crypt Chapel. That's been 30 years ago, but IIRC, there was no altar rail, nor kneeling for communion, and the priest offered the Mass versus populum.
In all honesty, when it gets to that point, differences between the two Masses are largely transparent to the faithful, especially if they've never know the TLM. Someone without a knowledge of the Latin wouldn't even pick up on many of the differences. Not saying those differences aren't important (just compare the two missals side by side), just stating the fact. And there is no choir anywhere, none I've ever heard anyway, that can even touch the excellent choir and schola at our diocesan TLM on the far fringes of our Southern metropolitan area, in a quaint little exurb that is basically Mayberry. You've never heard anything quite like it.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 9, 2023 1:51:16 GMT
I raised this to you in another thread, and you did not support it because you argued that the EF should not be changed and using Latin is important.
You need to make up your mind.
The hypothetical proposals I make are simply a framework to implement Sacrosanctum concilium and not make any changes to the 1962 Missal, nor introduce a new one. You might call translation into the vernacular (while retaining the Latin editio typica) a "change", but I wouldn't. And supplementary lectionary or no supplementary lectionary, there is no reason that a priest couldn't read Scripture passages within his homily. The Church could abrogate Sacrosanctum concilium tomorrow --- it's not doctrinal, but rather disciplinary and a statement of the mind of the Church at one moment in time --- and it wouldn't bother me in the least. I don't need the vernacular and I don't need to hear additional Scripture, I've read the entire Bible, many parts numerous times. I frequently "dialogue" sotto voce anyway, in tandem with the acolytes. But everyone is not me. If the Novus Ordo and the vernacular Mass disappeared tomorrow, the result would be huge distress, and very possibly large numbers of people either leaving the Church (the Anglicans and Lutherans would be only too happy to take them in, their Mass is very similar to the Novus Ordo anyway) or forming some schismatic bodies to continue worshipping as they do now (I have to think that at least a few bishops and priests would go into schism as well, so you've got your apostolic succession and valid sacraments). It wouldn't be a good outcome. "But what about SC's call to remove things in the Mass that had been added with the passage of time, [supposedly] to little advantage?". The Church could easily come back and say "you know, we've thought it over, and there weren't any, false alarm". There is no shortage of pre-Vatican II books that explain precisely what each part of the Mass is, why it's there, and why it matters. It's like Mr Muntz and his attempts to manufacture a cheap, simple, minimalist TV set, he went in and dinked around where he shouldn't have, took out things that needed to be there, and he ended up making crap TV sets that barely functioned. He didn't stay in the TV manufacturing business long, and "Muntz" became synonymous with a lemon of a TV set. And SC's assertion --- again, not doctrinal, certainly not infallible, just a pastoral assessment of the situation at a given moment in time --- suggests, without coming right out and saying it, that Pope St Pius V erred in making these things part of the Mass in the first place.
I'm not referring to a new EF but making changes to it, and you were against it, too, don't you remember? Again, you need to work on those self-contradictions, e.g., arguing that the EF is good as it is and changes need to be made to it.
The claims that one does not need the vernacular, that one doesn't need to hear "additional Scripture," and that as long as one knows and can identify the parts of the Mass then that's good enough are absurd.
Finally, the use of the OF took place not because Pius V erred but because more no longer spoke Latin, the Church wanted people to understand the contents of the Mass and of Scriptures, and more discoveries were being made of ancient Church practices and liturgies.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 9, 2023 1:58:22 GMT
It doesn't appear that your average Catholic is concerned with or even aware that certain practices within the OF are said to have originated in the early years of the Church. I've read claims that for the first several hundred years, communion in the hand was common practice, but then again so was belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I'm sure there were many practices that were commonplace in those early years, either born out of necessity or custom, but making changes to the Mass, based on the idea that it was done this way, once upon a time, was unreasonable. There must be some truth to the idea that the OF, with all of its alterations and compromises, hasn’t achieved its intended goal. Because in the last 20 years, they’ve tried to shift their focus more on the “traditional” and less on the new and progressive. During these last two decades I’ve seen several parishes within my own diocese incorporate more latin and Gregorian Chant into the Mass, they’ve begun praying the Leonine prayers and a few have completed renovations which incorporated altar rails and statues once again. At my own parish, they offer what they call a High Mass, even though by definition, it’s still the OF. The Mass is celebrated Ad orientem, there are no extraordinary ministers of holy communion, no female altar servers. The readings (excluding the gospel) are not recited by random members of the laity who go up to read, they are chanted by a member of the choir, (usually male, can’t recall a time I’ve seen a female perform the readings). And this person is wearing liturgical garments, similar to an alter server, when they approach the podium to chant the readings for the day. The choir itself is phenomenal, even better then those I’ve heard at the SSPX and FSSP chapels. During communion, everyone approaches the altar rail, which was installed last year, and if able, they kneel to receive communion. Maybe this is what they thought the OF would look like when it was first proposed and voted on during Vatican II.
They became more aware of such because some traditionals kept accusing them of being "too modern" and so forth. It turns out that what's modern is actually also ancient.
Several are returning to what's traditional, but not in the way trads imagine. In several parts of the Catholic world, "tradition" doesn't mean the EF and Gregorian chants but songs in the vernacular from the nineteenth century, practices like the novena and the pasion, etc.
The reason for this is that many parts of the Catholic world are poor, such that there aren't even enough priests and funds to provided basic things like electricity for Churches, and the greater concerns involve feeding programs for children and trying to avoid getting killed by paramilitary forces, subversives, private armies, or bandits.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 9, 2023 2:03:32 GMT
It doesn't appear that your average Catholic is concerned with or even aware that certain practices within the OF are said to have originated in the early years of the Church. I've read claims that for the first several hundred years, communion in the hand was common practice, but then again so was belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I'm sure there were many practices that were commonplace in those early years, either born out of necessity or custom, but making changes to the Mass, based on the idea that it was done this way, once upon a time, was unreasonable. There must be some truth to the idea that the OF, with all of its alterations and compromises, hasn’t achieved its intended goal. Because in the last 20 years, they’ve tried to shift their focus more on the “traditional” and less on the new and progressive. During these last two decades I’ve seen several parishes within my own diocese incorporate more latin and Gregorian Chant into the Mass, they’ve begun praying the Leonine prayers and a few have completed renovations which incorporated altar rails and statues once again. At my own parish, they offer what they call a High Mass, even though by definition, it’s still the OF. The Mass is celebrated Ad orientem, there are no extraordinary ministers of holy communion, no female altar servers. The readings (excluding the gospel) are not recited by random members of the laity who go up to read, they are chanted by a member of the choir, (usually male, can’t recall a time I’ve seen a female perform the readings). And this person is wearing liturgical garments, similar to an alter server, when they approach the podium to chant the readings for the day. The choir itself is phenomenal, even better then those I’ve heard at the SSPX and FSSP chapels. During communion, everyone approaches the altar rail, which was installed last year, and if able, they kneel to receive communion. Maybe this is what they thought the OF would look like when it was first proposed and voted on during Vatican II. The kind of reverent, "traditional Novus Ordo Masses", with the only difference being the missal used, and possibly being in the vernacular, are indeed something to see. I used to serve the Sunday afternoon Latin Novus Ordo Mass at the Basilica Shrine in DC, down in the Crypt Chapel. That's been 30 years ago, but IIRC, there was no altar rail, nor kneeling for communion, and the priest offered the Mass versus populum.
In all honesty, when it gets to that point, differences between the two Masses are largely transparent to the faithful, especially if they've never know the TLM. Someone without a knowledge of the Latin wouldn't even pick up on many of the differences. Not saying those differences aren't important (just compare the two missals side by side), just stating the fact. And there is no choir anywhere, none I've ever heard anyway, that can even touch the excellent choir and schola at our diocesan TLM on the far fringes of our Southern metropolitan area, in a quaint little exurb that is basically Mayberry. You've never heard anything quite like it.
They're even largely transparent to people like Pope Benedict XVI, who pointed out that the OF and the EF are one and the same rite.
When it comes to reverence, I think it involves doing the Mass correctly, whether it's the OF or the EF. The belief that the EF is more reverent is absurd, part of aesthetic and romantic views.
Finally, it's notable that when trads talk about being trad, they always talk about their surroundings which are alien to most Catholics, and that should be the case as the protests over this issue are coming only from small groups and most in the U.S., Canada, Britain, and France.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 9, 2023 4:15:00 GMT
The hypothetical proposals I make are simply a framework to implement Sacrosanctum concilium and not make any changes to the 1962 Missal, nor introduce a new one. You might call translation into the vernacular (while retaining the Latin editio typica) a "change", but I wouldn't. And supplementary lectionary or no supplementary lectionary, there is no reason that a priest couldn't read Scripture passages within his homily. The Church could abrogate Sacrosanctum concilium tomorrow --- it's not doctrinal, but rather disciplinary and a statement of the mind of the Church at one moment in time --- and it wouldn't bother me in the least. I don't need the vernacular and I don't need to hear additional Scripture, I've read the entire Bible, many parts numerous times. I frequently "dialogue" sotto voce anyway, in tandem with the acolytes. But everyone is not me. If the Novus Ordo and the vernacular Mass disappeared tomorrow, the result would be huge distress, and very possibly large numbers of people either leaving the Church (the Anglicans and Lutherans would be only too happy to take them in, their Mass is very similar to the Novus Ordo anyway) or forming some schismatic bodies to continue worshipping as they do now (I have to think that at least a few bishops and priests would go into schism as well, so you've got your apostolic succession and valid sacraments). It wouldn't be a good outcome. "But what about SC's call to remove things in the Mass that had been added with the passage of time, [supposedly] to little advantage?". The Church could easily come back and say "you know, we've thought it over, and there weren't any, false alarm". There is no shortage of pre-Vatican II books that explain precisely what each part of the Mass is, why it's there, and why it matters. It's like Mr Muntz and his attempts to manufacture a cheap, simple, minimalist TV set, he went in and dinked around where he shouldn't have, took out things that needed to be there, and he ended up making crap TV sets that barely functioned. He didn't stay in the TV manufacturing business long, and "Muntz" became synonymous with a lemon of a TV set. And SC's assertion --- again, not doctrinal, certainly not infallible, just a pastoral assessment of the situation at a given moment in time --- suggests, without coming right out and saying it, that Pope St Pius V erred in making these things part of the Mass in the first place.
I'm not referring to a new EF but making changes to it, and you were against it, too, don't you remember? Again, you need to work on those self-contradictions, e.g., arguing that the EF is good as it is and changes need to be made to it.
The claims that one does not need the vernacular, that one doesn't need to hear "additional Scripture," and that as long as one knows and can identify the parts of the Mass then that's good enough are absurd.
Finally, the use of the OF took place not because Pius V erred but because more no longer spoke Latin, the Church wanted people to understand the contents of the Mass and of Scriptures, and more discoveries were being made of ancient Church practices and liturgies.
I don't see any contradiction here --- I was merely positing a framework for making the EF more appealing to people who sought various things (vernacular, cultural manifestations of piety, more pleasing hymnody, dialoguing, etc.), while making no changes in the EF (viz. 1962 Missal) itself. As I noted elsewhere, I wouldn't even have added St Joseph to the Canon, but that one little change is not a hill I would die on.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 10, 2023 8:30:42 GMT
I'm not referring to a new EF but making changes to it, and you were against it, too, don't you remember? Again, you need to work on those self-contradictions, e.g., arguing that the EF is good as it is and changes need to be made to it.
The claims that one does not need the vernacular, that one doesn't need to hear "additional Scripture," and that as long as one knows and can identify the parts of the Mass then that's good enough are absurd.
Finally, the use of the OF took place not because Pius V erred but because more no longer spoke Latin, the Church wanted people to understand the contents of the Mass and of Scriptures, and more discoveries were being made of ancient Church practices and liturgies.
I don't see any contradiction here --- I was merely positing a framework for making the EF more appealing to people who sought various things (vernacular, cultural manifestations of piety, more pleasing hymnody, dialoguing, etc.), while making no changes in the EF (viz. 1962 Missal) itself. As I noted elsewhere, I wouldn't even have added St Joseph to the Canon, but that one little change is not a hill I would die on.
When you use the vernacular and change readings, then you make changes to the EF.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 10, 2023 15:12:10 GMT
I don't see any contradiction here --- I was merely positing a framework for making the EF more appealing to people who sought various things (vernacular, cultural manifestations of piety, more pleasing hymnody, dialoguing, etc.), while making no changes in the EF (viz. 1962 Missal) itself. As I noted elsewhere, I wouldn't even have added St Joseph to the Canon, but that one little change is not a hill I would die on.
When you use the vernacular and change readings, then you make changes to the EF.
As you see it. I don't see a translation as a "change", in that you have left the original intact, it would be (and has been, viz. Croatia, China, and the Mohawk nation) merely a concession to pastoral needs. And I specifically said to add readings outside the missal itself --- not to change what is already there --- to read them as part of the homily or immediately before (or even after) it. The homily was traditionally viewed as an interruption of the Mass, though, admittedly, the mind of the Church today is that it is "an integral part of the liturgy" ( Homiletic Directory 4, 2015), but either way, it really doesn't matter, as those additional readings wouldn't become any more part of the missal than the homily itself does. My only point in all of this was to demonstrate how Sacrosanctum concilium could have been implemented short of creating the Novus Ordo Missae. It didn't happen, and it's not going to happen, no more than the FSSP is going to implement the multi-point program you proposed as an attempt to grow itself. (The FSSP seems to be doing just fine as it is.)
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 11, 2023 2:08:35 GMT
When you use the vernacular and change readings, then you make changes to the EF.
As you see it. I don't see a translation as a "change", in that you have left the original intact, it would be (and has been, viz. Croatia, China, and the Mohawk nation) merely a concession to pastoral needs. And I specifically said to add readings outside the missal itself --- not to change what is already there --- to read them as part of the homily or immediately before (or even after) it. The homily was traditionally viewed as an interruption of the Mass, though, admittedly, the mind of the Church today is that it is "an integral part of the liturgy" ( Homiletic Directory 4, 2015), but either way, it really doesn't matter, as those additional readings wouldn't become any more part of the missal than the homily itself does. My only point in all of this was to demonstrate how Sacrosanctum concilium could have been implemented short of creating the Novus Ordo Missae. It didn't happen, and it's not going to happen, no more than the FSSP is going to implement the multi-point program you proposed as an attempt to grow itself. (The FSSP seems to be doing just fine as it is.)
It's definitely a change, and a big one, especially when it's also referred to as a Traditional LATIN Mass.
I'm not aware that the homily was seen as an interruption. My understanding is that there was a Mass for the Catechumens followed by a Mass of the Faithful. The former became the Liturgy of the Word in the OF.
Why did that happen? My guess is that little by little the Church realized that many of the faithful knew little about the Mass, their faith, the Bible, and Church teachings, and it didn't help that they barely knew Latin and was not encouraged to study the Bible. At the same time, more wanted not just the Mass but even the Bible in the vernacular, together with more Catechism, while scholars discovered older manuscripts leading to better translations of the Bible plus more information about communal practices and ancient liturgies of the same Church.
Given that, reforms were started in the nineteenth century calling for more Bible scholarship and study, and culminating with Vatican II and the OF.
|
|