|
Post by ralfy on Oct 2, 2023 0:14:58 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.
Pope St. John Paul II didn't establish the FSSP; rather, he allowed it to use the EF
Pope Benedict XVI pointed out similar in sources I pointed out elsewhere.
Why is the "end game" taking place? Because the EF has been weaponized by some traditionals who have been using it and others to attack Vatican II and the Church itself. That's why they talk about Latin, older translations of the Bible, the Baltimore Catechism, etc.
Visit forums like this and see for yourself: every week or so a thread is created like this one, with the same wrong arguments about the EF raised.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 2, 2023 1:11:27 GMT
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.
Pope St. John Paul II didn't establish the FSSP; rather, he allowed it to use the EF
I looked it up on Wikipedia and I stand corrected. I thought the FSSP was established de novo by Rome, as an "olive branch" of sorts, to give those SSPX adherents who wished to continue having the TLM under official Church auspices, the ability to do precisely that. The end result was the same. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Fraternity_of_Saint_Peter
|
|
|
Post by AveMaria on Oct 2, 2023 7:37:26 GMT
Visit forums like this and see for yourself: every week or so a thread is created like this one, with the same wrong arguments about the EF raised. And I'd say that the percentage of trads that fit your description are close to, or probably less than 1% of all Catholics who prefer the TLM. Even if every single member of the clergy of trad chapels not in communion with Rome, along with their entire flock of lay members were to start posting on this forum it wouldn't change the fact that TLM's prayed by clergy in communion with Rome and the layity that assist those masses are simply practicing Catholicism. Iow, those who post on Catholic forums waving the trad flag might be fairly claimed to be of a schismatic bent. But the OF bashing one might hear after Mass in an independent chapel coffee hour, or from the pulpit, rarely is seen or heard in diocese parishes from what I've seen. My parish prays both the OF and EF. When the 10:00 am OF lets out, those arriving for the noon EF are often seen chatting with each other in the churchyard and parking lot. Many of us go to both forms. There simply isn't any visible decision. Just because the internet is full of Michael Voris, Taylor Marshall, and Michael Matt types along with Lifesite News on one end and National Catholic Reporter on the other doesn't mean there is a huge division going on. The internet just makes it look like that. What division that is present, is driven by these popular sites. And the percentage of Catholics who post on forums, taking one side or the other is miniscule. (I suppose some high profile clergy on both sides fuel the fuss as well)
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Oct 2, 2023 12:56:00 GMT
I looked it up on Wikipedia and I stand corrected. I thought the FSSP was established de novo by Rome, as an "olive branch" of sorts, to give those SSPX adherents who wished to continue having the TLM under official Church auspices, the ability to do precisely that. The end result was the same. Like most religious communities it wasn't directly established by the pope or the Holy See. It was founded by a group of priests and seminarians who didn't like the route the SSPX was taking.
The FSSP was canonically erected by the then Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei by a decree dated 18th October 1988. It was established as "of pontifical right" and was granted permission to celebrate the sacred liturgy using the liturgical books in use in 1962, i.e. the Extraordinary Form.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 2, 2023 14:28:24 GMT
Visit forums like this and see for yourself: every week or so a thread is created like this one, with the same wrong arguments about the EF raised. I think he's referring to my arguments, not those of Messrs Voris, Marshall, and Matt. Note as well that these three men come at the issue from their own angle, Voris being pretty much anti-SSPX and anti-sedevacantist, Marshall leaning sedevacantist, and Matt more or less taking the position "no enemies on the right". I agree with these guys on some things but not others. Traditionalists aren't a monolith, and that might be a good thing. At no time has the Church ever insisted that the faithful know Latin to be able to assist with spiritual profit at the TLM, and while John Paul II and Benedict XVI may indeed have had in mind those who "miss it", they didn't limit participation to such folks. The FSSP wasn't founded solely to cater to those who had been raised with the TLM, and as I have noted, there is no "bouncer" at the door turning away young people and newcomers.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Oct 3, 2023 1:13:22 GMT
Visit forums like this and see for yourself: every week or so a thread is created like this one, with the same wrong arguments about the EF raised. And I'd say that the percentage of trads that fit your description are close to, or probably less than 1% of all Catholics who prefer the TLM. Even if every single member of the clergy of trad chapels not in communion with Rome, along with their entire flock of lay members were to start posting on this forum it wouldn't change the fact that TLM's prayed by clergy in communion with Rome and the layity that assist those masses are simply practicing Catholicism. Iow, those who post on Catholic forums waving the trad flag might be fairly claimed to be of a schismatic bent. But the OF bashing one might hear after Mass in an independent chapel coffee hour, or from the pulpit, rarely is seen or heard in diocese parishes from what I've seen. My parish prays both the OF and EF. When the 10:00 am OF lets out, those arriving for the noon EF are often seen chatting with each other in the churchyard and parking lot. Many of us go to both forms. There simply isn't any visible decision. Just because the internet is full of Michael Voris, Taylor Marshall, and Michael Matt types along with Lifesite News on one end and National Catholic Reporter on the other doesn't mean there is a huge division going on. The internet just makes it look like that. What division that is present, is driven by these popular sites. And the percentage of Catholics who post on forums, taking one side or the other is miniscule. (I suppose some high profile clergy on both sides fuel the fuss as well)
I'd say they're the noisiest, though, especially those who want more than just the EF, e.g., older (and less accurate) translations of the Bible, getting rid of Vatican II, Baltimore Catechism, and more. They're also quite illogical, e.g, you don't need to learn Latin as long as you recognize the parts of the Mass, the liturgy isn't supposed to be part of the Mass, and so on.
It gets worse when some of them realize that the base language of the OF is Latin, and that updated translations of the Bible have to partly involve the _Nova Vulgata_.
Pope Benedict XVI was right: if you want more in Latin you need to teach it. Otherwise, fergeddabit.
More points here:
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Oct 3, 2023 1:22:06 GMT
I think he's referring to my arguments, not those of Messrs Voris, Marshall, and Matt. Note as well that these three men come at the issue from their own angle, Voris being pretty much anti-SSPX and anti-sedevacantist, Marshall leaning sedevacantist, and Matt more or less taking the position "no enemies on the right". I agree with these guys on some things but not others. Traditionalists aren't a monolith, and that might be a good thing. At no time has the Church ever insisted that the faithful know Latin to be able to assist with spiritual profit at the TLM, and while John Paul II and Benedict XVI may indeed have had in mind those who "miss it", they didn't limit participation to such folks. The FSSP wasn't founded solely to cater to those who had been raised with the TLM, and as I have noted, there is no "bouncer" at the door turning away young people and newcomers.
One reason why the Church didn't insist on the faithful knowing Latin was because they also didn't want the laity to study the Bible without guidance.
Things changed during the nineteenth century when the Church called for better translations of the Bible and for the faithful to study them. That sounded highly logical because Church teachings are based on the Magisterium and Scriptures, and most did not understand Latin or even Aramaic, Greek, etc.
Both Popes allowed the EF for those who insisted on using it, which is why the FSSP is mentioned specifically. Otherwise, they would have encouraged more parishes that were celebrating the OF to include EF, and that would have meant including it in formal education in Catholic schools.
I'm aware of this because my whole education involved Catholic schools. We learned the Mass formally at school before receiving Communion the first time by understanding what needed to be said during each part of the OF Mass. After that, we received Christian Ed. every year and slowly learned the meanings of each part of the Mass until secondary school, which included exegeses and studying encyclicals. The exegeses included the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Jerome Biblical Commentary, and several translations of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Oct 3, 2023 14:38:24 GMT
It is nonsense to claim that the Church didn't want people learning Latin prior to the nineteenth century. Most people were illiterate and couldn't read or write their own vernacular. They had neither the time nor the resources to get an education. Reading, writing and books were for the few privileged who were literate.
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Oct 3, 2023 16:48:59 GMT
My father's education occurred in the 1950s and was spotty at best. I still fill in all forms for him or deal with all official communications as he gets MASSIVELY stressed by this stuff but doesn't like to admit why as he feels ashamed by his lack of education. The reality was kids had to get out and earn money for the family as soon as possible in his day. The chance of getting a scholarship or going to college or university for the rural poor in Ireland was minimal. It happened, but it was not common. With that said he knows a reasonably large number of verses from scripture.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Oct 4, 2023 1:24:57 GMT
It is nonsense to claim that the Church didn't want people learning Latin prior to the nineteenth century. Most people were illiterate and couldn't read or write their own vernacular. They had neither the time nor the resources to get an education. Reading, writing and books were for the few privileged who were literate.
It's not that they didn't want people to learn Latin. Rather, they didn't want people to read the Bible unsupervised. I've heard stories from seniors state that in Catholic school they were not allowed to read the Bible unless supervised by a priest or nun.
Meanwhile, starting in the seventeenth century, more did not learn Latin unless they were wealthy, such that they could go to schools for the rich or receive private instruction. That's why the push for vernacular translations of the Bible started, and reading pushed by Protestants.
Most couldn't read or write in the vernacular but could understand it orally and speak it.
Finally, Latin was taught in Catholic schools, and then stopped probably during the latter half of the twentienth century. This is what Pope Benedict XVI meant when he wrote:
"In order to explain the rapid and almost total abandonment of the ancient, common language, we must also take into account a fundamental cultural change in Western public education. Even in the early sixties when I was a professor, it was possible to read Latin text to young people coming straight from German secondary schools. Nowadays, this is no longer possible."
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Oct 4, 2023 1:31:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iagosan on Oct 30, 2023 7:22:35 GMT
What Is the Pygmalion Effect? | Definition & Examples
"The Pygmalion effect refers to situations where high expectations lead to improved performance and low expectations lead to worsened performance. Although the Pygmalion effect was originally observed in the classroom, it also has been applied to in the fields of management, business, and sports psychology." -and some Catholic clergy apparently.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 30, 2023 7:51:55 GMT
When you stop and think about it, the Bible is not terribly difficult reading, for anyone with a basic understanding of whatever language it is written in. A lot of it is basically simple narrative.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Oct 31, 2023 22:21:55 GMT
When you stop and think about it, the Bible is not terribly difficult reading, for anyone with a basic understanding of whatever language it is written in. A lot of it is basically simple narrative. Two things: First, it's amazing how people who seem reasonably intelligent, hold jobs, raise families etc can still fail to grasp parts of the Gospels, such as parables, that seem pretty straightforward to me and probably you and many others. I've seen this in action. Second, we're constantly invited to meditate on and ponder the Bible and come up with new and different thoughts on it based on the Holy Spirit guiding us or whatever. Sometimes this is fruitful and one gets flashes of personalized insight. If it's a complicated or difficult passage, such as in some of St Paul's letters, then it may need extra thought. But for some other sections, including much of what Jesus actually said, protracted pondering is just inviting people to overthink the passage. There are many parts of Scripture that I don't need a 30-minute lectio divina process to ponder in order to get the drift. Maybe the people mentioned in the preceding paragraph who can't seem to grasp basic (to me) passages need it.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Nov 1, 2023 0:42:51 GMT
What Is the Pygmalion Effect? | Definition & Examples
"The Pygmalion effect refers to situations where high expectations lead to improved performance and low expectations lead to worsened performance. Although the Pygmalion effect was originally observed in the classroom, it also has been applied to in the fields of management, business, and sports psychology." -and some Catholic clergy apparently.
In this case, we have a country that has some of the highest spending levels per capita for schooling, and results have been middling not only for reading but also for Math and Science. Meanwhile, results have been mixed elsewhere, with some doing very well because of the Pygmalion Effect (like Singapore) and others doing well because of the opposite (like Finland).
|
|