|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 28, 2023 16:52:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Sept 29, 2023 1:38:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 29, 2023 13:13:12 GMT
I have nothing against the Extraordinary Form or Divine Worship*. However, I fear this article approaches language in an incorrect manner.
To descibe Elizabethan English as more beautiful than modern English is nothing but personal opinion. There is no objective means of saying any form of any language is better than another. To do so completely misunderstands the purpose of language.
*The correct name of the liturgical rites of the three personal ordinariates.
|
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Sept 29, 2023 18:20:02 GMT
It’s not “better”, it’s just different.
It’s nice to have choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackforest on Sept 29, 2023 20:01:54 GMT
It's actually weird to me that this is such a big deal among Catholics. I don't think it would be if it weren't inherently - on some level - political.
When I was Episcopalian, the Rite I service (1928 Book of Common Prayer) was at 8:00am and Rite II ("modern style") was at 10:00am. Congregants served on the same vestry, shared the same altar, and attended the same potlucks. Yet nobody said nary a word about the other.
A Catholic parish in my area is trying this, but it's contentious.
|
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Sept 29, 2023 20:30:04 GMT
Why is it contentious? Are Catholics who prefer one type of Mass worried that their preferred option will disappear and the other will be all that’s available? Or do they associate preferring one type of Mass with a whole parade of horribles?
The Presbyterian church a few blocks from me routinely advertises three types of services: one “traditional” with organ music, one “contemporary” with some guitar ensemble, and one for children that probably incorporates the kids trooping out for Sunday school and then back in. It does not appear to be a big deal for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Sept 30, 2023 0:30:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 30, 2023 1:24:15 GMT
It's actually weird to me that this is such a big deal among Catholics. I don't think it would be if it weren't inherently - on some level - political. When I was Episcopalian, the Rite I service (1928 Book of Common Prayer) was at 8:00am and Rite II ("modern style") was at 10:00am. Congregants served on the same vestry, shared the same altar, and attended the same potlucks. Yet nobody said nary a word about the other. A Catholic parish in my area is trying this, but it's contentious. That is what my parish is like, Novus Ordo and TLM exist side-by-side, the TLM-dedicated priest (retired) says the Novus Ordo as needed, the Novus Ordo pastor says the TLM on occasion, both priests hear confessions, parish events take place in unison, and so on. Those who have issues with receiving Novus Ordo Hosts, or with post-Vatican II priestly ordination, just don't come. They go to the SSPX or stay home. Granted, we're a pretty relaxed, friendly, "live and let live" part of the country, but it's hard to imagine how this couldn't work everywhere, assuming good will on all sides. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 30, 2023 1:27:51 GMT
Well, then, perhaps reasoned, tolerant discussions such as this one, are the place for healing to begin. These online fora are the best kind of "synodality", if you want to call them that. I have met Cardinal Gagnon. |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Oct 1, 2023 0:54:37 GMT
Well, then, perhaps reasoned, tolerant discussions such as this one, are the place for healing to begin. These online fora are the best kind of "synodality", if you want to call them that. I have met Cardinal Gagnon.
Healing starts with following what Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 1, 2023 1:31:07 GMT
Well, then, perhaps reasoned, tolerant discussions such as this one, are the place for healing to begin. These online fora are the best kind of "synodality", if you want to call them that. I have met Cardinal Gagnon.
Healing starts with following what Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI intended.
Healing starts with recognizing that the Traditional Latin Mass is a legitimate form of worship that brings great good and spiritual graces to those who have embraced it, and reassessing any notions that it might have been something intended for a limited period of time. That is not written in stone, and in actual practice, it hasn't been implemented. The FSSP has not been given any sort of "sundown date", nor even the suggestion of such. And TLM adherents, both within the FSSP framework and outside it, are raising new generations with the TLM. There is also very little that stands in the way of full reconciliation of the SSPX. |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Oct 1, 2023 13:21:31 GMT
It surprises me when people on here say they know what St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI intended. I wonder how they can possibly know.
I saw nothing in Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio Apostolic Letter Summorum pontificum that said it was intended to be for a limited time. Indeed, if St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI intended to make limited provision for the liturgical rites in force prior to Vatican II it would see somewhat strange the Pope Benedict XVI would make them more widely available rather than say we are supposed to be gradually decreasing the use of these liturgical books.
What Pope Benedict XVI said was what had been the rites of the Church for centuries couldn't suddenly become something that was wrong. He wanted both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms to co-exist. There is no reason why they shouldn't. If Pope Francis hadn't all but banned the Extraordinary Form I don't think half the problems and arguments that exist would carry on.
The vast majority of those Catholics who want to attend the Extraordinary Form do not reject the authority of Pope Francis or the Magisterium of the Church. That is a false claim designed to denigrate them.
I, for one, am not a traditionalist Catholic who only wants the Extraordinary Form. In my parish all liturgies are in the Ordinary Form. I attend them and have absolutely no objections to them. I am also not opposed to traditionalists. I would like both forms to co-exist peacefully. Indeed, we have others forms and rites in the Latin Church, not to mention the rites of the Eastern Catholic churches.
Sadly, Pope Francis, for reasons I don't begin to understand, seems to like causing confusion rather than bringing clarity. This is another example of the Holy Father generating confusion. On one hand he has all but banned the Extraordinary Form. On the other hand he seems to be going the extra mile to accommodate the SSPX.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 1, 2023 17:20:28 GMT
It surprises me when people on here say they know what St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI intended. I wonder how they can possibly know. I saw nothing in Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio Apostolic Letter Summorum pontificum that said it was intended to be for a limited time. Indeed, if St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI intended to make limited provision for the liturgical rites in force prior to Vatican II it would see somewhat strange the Pope Benedict XVI would make them more widely available rather than say we are supposed to be gradually decreasing the use of these liturgical books. What Pope Benedict XVI said was what had been the rites of the Church for centuries couldn't suddenly become something that was wrong. He wanted both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms to co-exist. There is no reason why they shouldn't. If Pope Francis hadn't all but banned the Extraordinary Form I don't think half the problems and arguments that exist would carry on. The vast majority of those Catholics who want to attend the Extraordinary Form do not reject the authority of Pope Francis or the Magisterium of the Church. That is a false claim designed to denigrate them. I, for one, am not a traditionalist Catholic who only wants the Extraordinary Form. In my parish all liturgies are in the Ordinary Form. I attend them and have absolutely no objections to them. I am also not opposed to traditionalists. I would like both forms to co-exist peacefully. Indeed, we have others forms and rites in the Latin Church, not to mention the rites of the Eastern Catholic churches. Sadly, Pope Francis, for reasons I don't begin to understand, seems to like causing confusion rather than bringing clarity. This is another example of the Holy Father generating confusion. On one hand he has all but banned the Extraordinary Form. On the other hand he seems to be going the extra mile to accommodate the SSPX. So well put. My thoughts exactly. John Paul II didn't establish the FSSP for a limited period of time, nor did he establish any protocols allowing only those who "miss it" to assist at the TLM. They don't have a bouncer at the door verifying age with ID, nor do you have someone saying "did you grow up with this and miss it, or did you just hear about it and decided to check it out?". And if you don't want children raised with it as well, who would then "miss it" if it were taken away, then you have to get a sitter and leave them at home (taking them to the Novus Ordo separately so they'll get to Mass too). The Church has no such requirement. I have a pet theory that the "end game" is to corral the SSPX and FSSP into one large group, or federation, or whatever, and to confine the TLM to them, and to them only. If Rome wants to treat the TLM as a disease that must be quarantined, that's pretty silly, but I can live with that. Circumstances allowing, that's where you'll find me. We might even relocate to be near the TLM. |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Oct 2, 2023 0:03:20 GMT
Healing starts with following what Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI intended.
Healing starts with recognizing that the Traditional Latin Mass is a legitimate form of worship that brings great good and spiritual graces to those who have embraced it, and reassessing any notions that it might have been something intended for a limited period of time. That is not written in stone, and in actual practice, it hasn't been implemented. The FSSP has not been given any sort of "sundown date", nor even the suggestion of such. And TLM adherents, both within the FSSP framework and outside it, are raising new generations with the TLM. There is also very little that stands in the way of full reconciliation of the SSPX. Healing starts when one realizes that there's no such thing as a "better Novus Ordo".
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Oct 2, 2023 0:06:33 GMT
It surprises me when people on here say they know what St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI intended. I wonder how they can possibly know. I saw nothing in Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio Apostolic Letter Summorum pontificum that said it was intended to be for a limited time. Indeed, if St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI intended to make limited provision for the liturgical rites in force prior to Vatican II it would see somewhat strange the Pope Benedict XVI would make them more widely available rather than say we are supposed to be gradually decreasing the use of these liturgical books. What Pope Benedict XVI said was what had been the rites of the Church for centuries couldn't suddenly become something that was wrong. He wanted both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms to co-exist. There is no reason why they shouldn't. If Pope Francis hadn't all but banned the Extraordinary Form I don't think half the problems and arguments that exist would carry on. The vast majority of those Catholics who want to attend the Extraordinary Form do not reject the authority of Pope Francis or the Magisterium of the Church. That is a false claim designed to denigrate them. I, for one, am not a traditionalist Catholic who only wants the Extraordinary Form. In my parish all liturgies are in the Ordinary Form. I attend them and have absolutely no objections to them. I am also not opposed to traditionalists. I would like both forms to co-exist peacefully. Indeed, we have others forms and rites in the Latin Church, not to mention the rites of the Eastern Catholic churches. Sadly, Pope Francis, for reasons I don't begin to understand, seems to like causing confusion rather than bringing clarity. This is another example of the Holy Father generating confusion. On one hand he has all but banned the Extraordinary Form. On the other hand he seems to be going the extra mile to accommodate the SSPX. According to the sources I gave, Pope St. John Paul II allowed it for limited use for those priests who miss it, and Pope Benedict XVI said similar, i.e., for those who grew up with it.
Pope Francis understood this very well, which is why there is the TC.
Finally, he didn't ban the EF. If any, he followed the TC and the two Popes:
I've pointed these out multiple times in various threads.
|
|
