|
Post by ralfy on Dec 17, 2023 4:35:42 GMT
It can only refer to the OF because there's no other form, and I don't think the writer is referring to the EF versus anything else.
Your second point is correct, but that's not the point of the writer. If any, it goes against him because it implies that the solution is better catechism and not the EF.
Finally, those are part of the other particular Churches and not of the Latin Church. The Anglican Use was allowed because converts are not used to the OF.
Given that, the writer is obviously referring to the EF vs. the OF.
Read it as you see fit. I get a different meaning from it. As to the "other particular Churches", I didn't realize there were any "particular Churches" in the West besides the Latin Church. I'm pretty sure these "rites" are indeed part of that same Latin Church (sometimes called "Roman Rite"). They are usages proper to a particular religious entity (such as an order) or confined to a relatively small area. The ex-Anglicans were allowed to use a slightly modified version of their rite, instead of the OF, because there was no reason not to, as well as to allow them to remain as much what they had always been, as was possible. It could be viewed as a kind of extension of the proverbial olive branch. So far as I'm aware, there is no "sundown clause" allowing them to keep this use only until they are able to make their way over to the OF. It's really a separate rite without calling it that, not unlike the Maronites who are "Eastern-Rite-but-not-Eastern-Rite", viz. for all practical purposes the Lebanese national Catholic Church.
From what I know, the Catholic Church is made up of 24 particular Churches, consisting of one Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Roman Mass used by the Latin Church started with pre-Tridentine, followed by Tridentine, and then the Mass of Paul VI. That means the writer isn't referring to anything other than the latter.
The Tridentine was allowed only recently because according to Pope Benedict XVI some miss it, i.e., they grew up with it. This was explained multiple times in this forum. Before that, Pope St. John Paul II allowed it for those attached to such, and that was explained multiple times in this forum as well. Here's a recap:
Pope Benedict XVI further justified his allowance by stating that the OF and EF (he even argued for using these labels to refer to them) are one and the same Rite.
Later, Pope Francis correctly followed both of their intentions, as seen in the TC. That was also explained multiple times in this forum.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 17, 2023 14:57:28 GMT
Read it as you see fit. I get a different meaning from it. As to the "other particular Churches", I didn't realize there were any "particular Churches" in the West besides the Latin Church. I'm pretty sure these "rites" are indeed part of that same Latin Church (sometimes called "Roman Rite"). They are usages proper to a particular religious entity (such as an order) or confined to a relatively small area. The ex-Anglicans were allowed to use a slightly modified version of their rite, instead of the OF, because there was no reason not to, as well as to allow them to remain as much what they had always been, as was possible. It could be viewed as a kind of extension of the proverbial olive branch. So far as I'm aware, there is no "sundown clause" allowing them to keep this use only until they are able to make their way over to the OF. It's really a separate rite without calling it that, not unlike the Maronites who are "Eastern-Rite-but-not-Eastern-Rite", viz. for all practical purposes the Lebanese national Catholic Church.
From what I know, the Catholic Church is made up of 24 particular Churches, consisting of one Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Roman Mass used by the Latin Church started with pre-Tridentine, followed by Tridentine, and then the Mass of Paul VI. That means the writer isn't referring to anything other than the latter.
The Tridentine was allowed only recently because according to Pope Benedict XVI some miss it, i.e., they grew up with it. This was explained multiple times in this forum. Before that, Pope St. John Paul II allowed it for those attached to such, and that was explained multiple times in this forum as well. Here's a recap:
Pope Benedict XVI further justified his allowance by stating that the OF and EF (he even argued for using these labels to refer to them) are one and the same Rite.
Later, Pope Francis correctly followed both of their intentions, as seen in the TC. That was also explained multiple times in this forum.
Then if your explanations constitute the absolute truth, the way things need to be, there's only one thing for the Church to do. Francis (or somebody) needs to come down with a statement something like this, possibly phrased in more elegant language (or maybe not): "Look, people, the jig's up. It is the mind of the Church that the Mass be simplified, that it be offered in the vernacular, that you need to be hearing a larger panoply of Scripture readings, that everyone be actively participating and following along with the entire Mass in the fashion of a Divine Office (or something similar), and that you need to be seeking out the most recent Bible translations and instructional books that adhere to the most recent Catechism. Nobody really knows Latin anymore, certainly not well enough to follow each and every word of the Mass, so Latin has to go (except for the editio typica of the Missal, which nobody should ever use). It is certainly beyond no one's ability to understand the Mass in their own vernacular. Therefore, effective (insert date here), the 1969 Roman Missal, with its revisions between then and now, will be the only permissible expression of the Roman Rite, and the Mass of Pope St Pius V may never be celebrated anywhere. Entities such as the FSSP must immediately begin offering Mass in the present form, and the portions of their constitutions allowing them to do otherwise are hereby revoked. Any priest who dares to continue to offer the Mass of Pius V incurs latae sententiae excommunication, as do any of the faithful who assist at such a Mass. Moreover, approval for all Scripture translations prior to Vatican II, and all catechisms written before that era, is hereby revoked, and they may not be used under pain of sin." And what then?
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 18, 2023 1:22:26 GMT
From what I know, the Catholic Church is made up of 24 particular Churches, consisting of one Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Roman Mass used by the Latin Church started with pre-Tridentine, followed by Tridentine, and then the Mass of Paul VI. That means the writer isn't referring to anything other than the latter.
The Tridentine was allowed only recently because according to Pope Benedict XVI some miss it, i.e., they grew up with it. This was explained multiple times in this forum. Before that, Pope St. John Paul II allowed it for those attached to such, and that was explained multiple times in this forum as well. Here's a recap:
Pope Benedict XVI further justified his allowance by stating that the OF and EF (he even argued for using these labels to refer to them) are one and the same Rite.
Later, Pope Francis correctly followed both of their intentions, as seen in the TC. That was also explained multiple times in this forum.
Then if your explanations constitute the absolute truth, the way things need to be, there's only one thing for the Church to do. Francis (or somebody) needs to come down with a statement something like this, possibly phrased in more elegant language (or maybe not): "Look, people, the jig's up. It is the mind of the Church that the Mass be simplified, that it be offered in the vernacular, that you need to be hearing a larger panoply of Scripture readings, that everyone be actively participating and following along with the entire Mass in the fashion of a Divine Office (or something similar), and that you need to be seeking out the most recent Bible translations and instructional books that adhere to the most recent Catechism. Nobody really knows Latin anymore, certainly not well enough to follow each and every word of the Mass, so Latin has to go (except for the editio typica of the Missal, which nobody should ever use). It is certainly beyond no one's ability to understand the Mass in their own vernacular. Therefore, effective (insert date here), the 1969 Roman Missal, with its revisions between then and now, will be the only permissible expression of the Roman Rite, and the Mass of Pope St Pius V may never be celebrated anywhere. Entities such as the FSSP must immediately begin offering Mass in the present form, and the portions of their constitutions allowing them to do otherwise are hereby revoked. Any priest who dares to continue to offer the Mass of Pius V incurs latae sententiae excommunication, as do any of the faithful who assist at such a Mass. Moreover, approval for all Scripture translations prior to Vatican II, and all catechisms written before that era, is hereby revoked, and they may not be used under pain of sin." And what then?
There's no need to do that because Pope Francis followed the wishes of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 18, 2023 1:54:29 GMT
Then if your explanations constitute the absolute truth, the way things need to be, there's only one thing for the Church to do. Francis (or somebody) needs to come down with a statement something like this, possibly phrased in more elegant language (or maybe not): "Look, people, the jig's up. It is the mind of the Church that the Mass be simplified, that it be offered in the vernacular, that you need to be hearing a larger panoply of Scripture readings, that everyone be actively participating and following along with the entire Mass in the fashion of a Divine Office (or something similar), and that you need to be seeking out the most recent Bible translations and instructional books that adhere to the most recent Catechism. Nobody really knows Latin anymore, certainly not well enough to follow each and every word of the Mass, so Latin has to go (except for the editio typica of the Missal, which nobody should ever use). It is certainly beyond no one's ability to understand the Mass in their own vernacular. Therefore, effective (insert date here), the 1969 Roman Missal, with its revisions between then and now, will be the only permissible expression of the Roman Rite, and the Mass of Pope St Pius V may never be celebrated anywhere. Entities such as the FSSP must immediately begin offering Mass in the present form, and the portions of their constitutions allowing them to do otherwise are hereby revoked. Any priest who dares to continue to offer the Mass of Pius V incurs latae sententiae excommunication, as do any of the faithful who assist at such a Mass. Moreover, approval for all Scripture translations prior to Vatican II, and all catechisms written before that era, is hereby revoked, and they may not be used under pain of sin." And what then?
There's no need to do that because Pope Francis followed the wishes of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
Yes, and people are continuing to seek it out wherever they can find it, and the FSSP is still going full steam ahead. At least in certain Western countries --- the same ones where there is so much activity in favor of the TLM --- many bishops are dispensing from various provisions of TC, TLM-dedicated parishes continue to flourish and grow (and how does that get stopped?), and there is an abundance of social media activity that keeps the issue front and center (I guess the Church could just tell people to stop reading and listening to that stuff, but would they indeed stop it?). In the meantime, married couples have children whom they raise in the TLM --- yes, some will stick with it, some won't (and very often these families are not exactly small) --- and young men aspiring to the priesthood, and the TLM environment has an outsized proportion of these, will just seek out the FSSP et al, if they can't expect to offer the TLM under diocesan auspices. The more the Church tries to suppress the TLM, the greater the support for it grows. That's how the modern world works --- try to oppress people (and that's how it's perceived), and you just strengthen their resolve. My best advice would be just to leave it alone, and try to persuade people why they should give it up. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 19, 2023 1:11:14 GMT
There's no need to do that because Pope Francis followed the wishes of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
Yes, and people are continuing to seek it out wherever they can find it, and the FSSP is still going full steam ahead. At least in certain Western countries --- the same ones where there is so much activity in favor of the TLM --- many bishops are dispensing from various provisions of TC, TLM-dedicated parishes continue to flourish and grow (and how does that get stopped?), and there is an abundance of social media activity that keeps the issue front and center (I guess the Church could just tell people to stop reading and listening to that stuff, but would they indeed stop it?). In the meantime, married couples have children whom they raise in the TLM --- yes, some will stick with it, some won't (and very often these families are not exactly small) --- and young men aspiring to the priesthood, and the TLM environment has an outsized proportion of these, will just seek out the FSSP et al, if they can't expect to offer the TLM under diocesan auspices. The more the Church tries to suppress the TLM, the greater the support for it grows. That's how the modern world works --- try to oppress people (and that's how it's perceived), and you just strengthen their resolve. My best advice would be just to leave it alone, and try to persuade people why they should give it up. Good luck with that.
As explained to you in other threads, the FSSP was allowed to use it because of TC provisions. One news article explains that the FSSP accepted Pope Francis' decision and even thanked him:
To recap, Pope St. John Paul II allowed the EF only for reasons given in the news article shared, and Pope Benedict XVI continued it for the same: only for those who grew up with it and for some reason can't follow the OF. Pope Francis and the TC follow that. All of these were explained to you multiple times in various threads. This also implies that those who attack Pope Francis over this also attack the two previous Popes.
Finally, I repeat the irony raised in various threads: we have a traditional movement that turns out to be modern; hence, "That's how the modern world works." In short, the Church is a theocracy that's seen as oppressive by trads who turn out be modernists pushing for individual preferences, and if they don't get what they want, then "good luck with that".
It's as if a new Protestant group is emerging.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 19, 2023 1:45:58 GMT
Yes, and people are continuing to seek it out wherever they can find it, and the FSSP is still going full steam ahead. At least in certain Western countries --- the same ones where there is so much activity in favor of the TLM --- many bishops are dispensing from various provisions of TC, TLM-dedicated parishes continue to flourish and grow (and how does that get stopped?), and there is an abundance of social media activity that keeps the issue front and center (I guess the Church could just tell people to stop reading and listening to that stuff, but would they indeed stop it?). In the meantime, married couples have children whom they raise in the TLM --- yes, some will stick with it, some won't (and very often these families are not exactly small) --- and young men aspiring to the priesthood, and the TLM environment has an outsized proportion of these, will just seek out the FSSP et al, if they can't expect to offer the TLM under diocesan auspices. The more the Church tries to suppress the TLM, the greater the support for it grows. That's how the modern world works --- try to oppress people (and that's how it's perceived), and you just strengthen their resolve. My best advice would be just to leave it alone, and try to persuade people why they should give it up. Good luck with that.
As explained to you in other threads, the FSSP was allowed to use it because of TC provisions. One news article explains that the FSSP accepted Pope Francis' decision and even thanked him:
To recap, Pope St. John Paul II allowed the EF only for reasons given in the news article shared, and Pope Benedict XVI continued it for the same: only for those who grew up with it and for some reason can't follow the OF. Pope Francis and the TC follow that. All of these were explained to you multiple times in various threads. This also implies that those who attack Pope Francis over this also attack the two previous Popes.
Finally, I repeat the irony raised in various threads: we have a traditional movement that turns out to be modern; hence, "That's how the modern world works." In short, the Church is a theocracy that's seen as oppressive by trads who turn out be modernists pushing for individual preferences, and if they don't get what they want, then "good luck with that".
It's as if a new Protestant group is emerging.
Yes, you have explained this many times, as you say, and I challenge your conclusions, as well as, in some cases, things that you present as fact. I don't mean to suggest that you are disingenuous --- I don't question your honesty or sincerity one iota --- just that you seem convinced that some things are absolute facts, admitting of only one interpretation and only one set of conclusions, whereas I am not convinced in this fashion. If it were, as you say, "only for those who grew up with it and for some reason can't follow the OF", then they need to prohibit anyone not falling into both of those categories (I say "both" because you said "and", not "or") from attending. So far as I am aware, there is not a TLM venue on the face of the earth that does this. Moreover, there is no one who is incapable of following the OF. Whom would such a person be? Someone who has a kind of neurological disorder (possibly a flavor of autism?) that renders them incapable of speaking anything but Latin? Someone who has a psychological phobia against attending the OF? You appear to seek to reconcile the directives of Sacrosanctum concilium with the permissions to offer the TLM/EF (since SC directs the faithful to engage in "full and active participation", then one would have to be fluent in Latin to do so using the TLM), but this is not something the Church requires. SC is a pastoral document, not a doctrinal one. Though no one comes right out and says it, TLM adherents are, as a practical matter, exempted from this expectation. If nothing else, the mere fact that the FSSP is allowed to continue to exist proves this. As to your comments about "the modern world", I'm not the one maintaining that "the modern world" is this kind of juggernaut, this unconquerable ocean on which we all float, and that the Church has to modify her entire approach and structure to become what this same "modern world" expects. I am merely stating that to suppress traditionalists (or to try to) and their convictions runs athwart of how the world works today, and deep down, I think the Church realizes this. I really don't think the Church wants to push this matter over the brink and end up creating a schism. Hope not. As I see it, the wisest course of action would be for the Church to tell traditionalists something like this: "Look, your approach to the Mass is not the ideal. You are supposed to be actively participating, not being there as a mere spectator, not understanding a lick of Latin, nursing your private devotions while the priest is offering the Holy Sacrifice. You need to hear a greater variety of Scripture than just those same two readings, over and over again, year after year. There's a lot in the Tridentine missal that is basically repetition, after two or three times, do you really need to hear time and again that the Mass is a Sacrifice? Nobody speaks Latin anymore, in fact, this may not be your intent, but you're coming across as medievalist, even elitist LARPers, all this while people in the poor regions of the world do well to have any Mass at all. But if this is what you have to have, we're not going to take it away from you, you can have it in certain places at certain times, but try to get away from this, and pay heed to what the Church would prefer you do." And then let the decision be on them.
(In all fairness, this is what TC already does, more or less, in more diplomatic language. The TLM is discouraged, and it's made hard to have access to. Yet people still seek it out.) How would this be any different than, oh... reminding LGBT people that their situation is not the ideal, but going ahead and not just welcoming them, but even being willing to bless their admittedly imperfect relationships?
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 20, 2023 4:55:24 GMT
As explained to you in other threads, the FSSP was allowed to use it because of TC provisions. One news article explains that the FSSP accepted Pope Francis' decision and even thanked him:
To recap, Pope St. John Paul II allowed the EF only for reasons given in the news article shared, and Pope Benedict XVI continued it for the same: only for those who grew up with it and for some reason can't follow the OF. Pope Francis and the TC follow that. All of these were explained to you multiple times in various threads. This also implies that those who attack Pope Francis over this also attack the two previous Popes.
Finally, I repeat the irony raised in various threads: we have a traditional movement that turns out to be modern; hence, "That's how the modern world works." In short, the Church is a theocracy that's seen as oppressive by trads who turn out be modernists pushing for individual preferences, and if they don't get what they want, then "good luck with that".
It's as if a new Protestant group is emerging.
Yes, you have explained this many times, as you say, and I challenge your conclusions, as well as, in some cases, things that you present as fact. I don't mean to suggest that you are disingenuous --- I don't question your honesty or sincerity one iota --- just that you seem convinced that some things are absolute facts, admitting of only one interpretation and only one set of conclusions, whereas I am not convinced in this fashion. If it were, as you say, "only for those who grew up with it and for some reason can't follow the OF", then they need to prohibit anyone not falling into both of those categories (I say "both" because you said "and", not "or") from attending. So far as I am aware, there is not a TLM venue on the face of the earth that does this. Moreover, there is no one who is incapable of following the OF. Whom would such a person be? Someone who has a kind of neurological disorder (possibly a flavor of autism?) that renders them incapable of speaking anything but Latin? Someone who has a psychological phobia against attending the OF? You appear to seek to reconcile the directives of Sacrosanctum concilium with the permissions to offer the TLM/EF (since SC directs the faithful to engage in "full and active participation", then one would have to be fluent in Latin to do so using the TLM), but this is not something the Church requires. SC is a pastoral document, not a doctrinal one. Though no one comes right out and says it, TLM adherents are, as a practical matter, exempted from this expectation. If nothing else, the mere fact that the FSSP is allowed to continue to exist proves this. As to your comments about "the modern world", I'm not the one maintaining that "the modern world" is this kind of juggernaut, this unconquerable ocean on which we all float, and that the Church has to modify her entire approach and structure to become what this same "modern world" expects. I am merely stating that to suppress traditionalists (or to try to) and their convictions runs athwart of how the world works today, and deep down, I think the Church realizes this. I really don't think the Church wants to push this matter over the brink and end up creating a schism. Hope not. As I see it, the wisest course of action would be for the Church to tell traditionalists something like this: "Look, your approach to the Mass is not the ideal. You are supposed to be actively participating, not being there as a mere spectator, not understanding a lick of Latin, nursing your private devotions while the priest is offering the Holy Sacrifice. You need to hear a greater variety of Scripture than just those same two readings, over and over again, year after year. There's a lot in the Tridentine missal that is basically repetition, after two or three times, do you really need to hear time and again that the Mass is a Sacrifice? Nobody speaks Latin anymore, in fact, this may not be your intent, but you're coming across as medievalist, even elitist LARPers, all this while people in the poor regions of the world do well to have any Mass at all. But if this is what you have to have, we're not going to take it away from you, you can have it in certain places at certain times, but try to get away from this, and pay heed to what the Church would prefer you do." And then let the decision be on them.
(In all fairness, this is what TC already does, more or less, in more diplomatic language. The TLM is discouraged, and it's made hard to have access to. Yet people still seek it out.) How would this be any different than, oh... reminding LGBT people that their situation is not the ideal, but going ahead and not just welcoming them, but even being willing to bless their admittedly imperfect relationships?
One of those venues is the FSSP, and that was explained in the article that I just shared.
The directive that allowed for the EF came from Pope St. John Paul II, and the reason is explained in another article also shared. Pope Benedict XVI repeated that reason in two documents which were also shared in another thread. After that, Pope Francis fulfills the same reason through the TC, which was also explained in another thread.
Here's the gist: organizations like the FSSP are allowed to use the EF "since the use of the ancient liturgical books was at the origin of their existence and is provided for in their constitutions." That, I think, explains the intentions of the three Popes.
"Modern world" refers to democracy and individual liberties. In contrast is the traditional world, with a Church ruled as a theocracy. That's why one point in Canon Law, which was also explained in another thread, states that no one is above the Holy See, including those who insist on using the EF.
Thus, we have traditionalists who turn out to be modernists fighting against actual traditionalists who went back to more ancient liturgies and practices to make the Mass more accessible to the same modern world, and the reason given by these modernists is that the EF makes them "feel" more reverent and is aesthetically appealing, which is for me a modern way of looking at the Mass.
As for LGBT, etc., I've no idea what that has to do with the OF.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 20, 2023 5:18:59 GMT
Yes, you have explained this many times, as you say, and I challenge your conclusions, as well as, in some cases, things that you present as fact. I don't mean to suggest that you are disingenuous --- I don't question your honesty or sincerity one iota --- just that you seem convinced that some things are absolute facts, admitting of only one interpretation and only one set of conclusions, whereas I am not convinced in this fashion. If it were, as you say, "only for those who grew up with it and for some reason can't follow the OF", then they need to prohibit anyone not falling into both of those categories (I say "both" because you said "and", not "or") from attending. So far as I am aware, there is not a TLM venue on the face of the earth that does this. Moreover, there is no one who is incapable of following the OF. Whom would such a person be? Someone who has a kind of neurological disorder (possibly a flavor of autism?) that renders them incapable of speaking anything but Latin? Someone who has a psychological phobia against attending the OF? You appear to seek to reconcile the directives of Sacrosanctum concilium with the permissions to offer the TLM/EF (since SC directs the faithful to engage in "full and active participation", then one would have to be fluent in Latin to do so using the TLM), but this is not something the Church requires. SC is a pastoral document, not a doctrinal one. Though no one comes right out and says it, TLM adherents are, as a practical matter, exempted from this expectation. If nothing else, the mere fact that the FSSP is allowed to continue to exist proves this. As to your comments about "the modern world", I'm not the one maintaining that "the modern world" is this kind of juggernaut, this unconquerable ocean on which we all float, and that the Church has to modify her entire approach and structure to become what this same "modern world" expects. I am merely stating that to suppress traditionalists (or to try to) and their convictions runs athwart of how the world works today, and deep down, I think the Church realizes this. I really don't think the Church wants to push this matter over the brink and end up creating a schism. Hope not. As I see it, the wisest course of action would be for the Church to tell traditionalists something like this: "Look, your approach to the Mass is not the ideal. You are supposed to be actively participating, not being there as a mere spectator, not understanding a lick of Latin, nursing your private devotions while the priest is offering the Holy Sacrifice. You need to hear a greater variety of Scripture than just those same two readings, over and over again, year after year. There's a lot in the Tridentine missal that is basically repetition, after two or three times, do you really need to hear time and again that the Mass is a Sacrifice? Nobody speaks Latin anymore, in fact, this may not be your intent, but you're coming across as medievalist, even elitist LARPers, all this while people in the poor regions of the world do well to have any Mass at all. But if this is what you have to have, we're not going to take it away from you, you can have it in certain places at certain times, but try to get away from this, and pay heed to what the Church would prefer you do." And then let the decision be on them.
(In all fairness, this is what TC already does, more or less, in more diplomatic language. The TLM is discouraged, and it's made hard to have access to. Yet people still seek it out.) How would this be any different than, oh... reminding LGBT people that their situation is not the ideal, but going ahead and not just welcoming them, but even being willing to bless their admittedly imperfect relationships?
One of those venues is the FSSP, and that was explained in the article that I just shared.
The directive that allowed for the EF came from Pope St. John Paul II, and the reason is explained in another article also shared. Pope Benedict XVI repeated that reason in two documents which were also shared in another thread. After that, Pope Francis fulfills the same reason through the TC, which was also explained in another thread.
Here's the gist: organizations like the FSSP are allowed to use the EF "since the use of the ancient liturgical books was at the origin of their existence and is provided for in their constitutions." That, I think, explains the intentions of the three Popes.
"Modern world" refers to democracy and individual liberties. In contrast is the traditional world, with a Church ruled as a theocracy. That's why one point in Canon Law, which was also explained in another thread, states that no one is above the Holy See, including those who insist on using the EF.
Thus, we have traditionalists who turn out to be modernists fighting against actual traditionalists who went back to more ancient liturgies and practices to make the Mass more accessible to the same modern world, and the reason given by these modernists is that the EF makes them "feel" more reverent and is aesthetically appealing, which is for me a modern way of looking at the Mass.
As for LGBT, etc., I've no idea what that has to do with the OF.
Just drawing a comparison based upon events of recent days. As to your assertion that "traditionalists are modernists", I'm going to let that be your idea. I ask the reader to draw the distinction between the heresy of Modernism (capital M) as condemned by the Church, and "modernism" (small m) which appears to be shorthand for the prevailing mindset of mankind (at least those outside of the Islamosphere and similar cultures) in the 20th and 21st centuries. It is really a kind of neo-Renaissance (for lack of a better word) with emphasis upon, inter alia, individual liberties, popular democracy, social egalitarianism, and so much more, and, yes, people of all stripes have imbibed a lesser or greater portion of it, whether they are Latinists who seek to maintain what spiritually nourishes them, restorationists who appeal to an even older antiquity even if it means trashing centuries of liturgical development, or what have you. Seen that way, there's at least a little "modernist" in all of us.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 21, 2023 7:06:24 GMT
One of those venues is the FSSP, and that was explained in the article that I just shared.
The directive that allowed for the EF came from Pope St. John Paul II, and the reason is explained in another article also shared. Pope Benedict XVI repeated that reason in two documents which were also shared in another thread. After that, Pope Francis fulfills the same reason through the TC, which was also explained in another thread.
Here's the gist: organizations like the FSSP are allowed to use the EF "since the use of the ancient liturgical books was at the origin of their existence and is provided for in their constitutions." That, I think, explains the intentions of the three Popes.
"Modern world" refers to democracy and individual liberties. In contrast is the traditional world, with a Church ruled as a theocracy. That's why one point in Canon Law, which was also explained in another thread, states that no one is above the Holy See, including those who insist on using the EF.
Thus, we have traditionalists who turn out to be modernists fighting against actual traditionalists who went back to more ancient liturgies and practices to make the Mass more accessible to the same modern world, and the reason given by these modernists is that the EF makes them "feel" more reverent and is aesthetically appealing, which is for me a modern way of looking at the Mass.
As for LGBT, etc., I've no idea what that has to do with the OF.
Just drawing a comparison based upon events of recent days. As to your assertion that "traditionalists are modernists", I'm going to let that be your idea. I ask the reader to draw the distinction between the heresy of Modernism (capital M) as condemned by the Church, and "modernism" (small m) which appears to be shorthand for the prevailing mindset of mankind (at least those outside of the Islamosphere and similar cultures) in the 20th and 21st centuries. It is really a kind of neo-Renaissance (for lack of a better word) with emphasis upon, inter alia, individual liberties, popular democracy, social egalitarianism, and so much more, and, yes, people of all stripes have imbibed a lesser or greater portion of it, whether they are Latinists who seek to maintain what spiritually nourishes them, restorationists who appeal to an even older antiquity even if it means trashing centuries of liturgical development, or what have you. Seen that way, there's at least a little "modernist" in all of us.
According to canon law, no one is above the Holy See. Given that, can one state that to argue that the Holy See is wrong (or even committing heresy) for letting go of (or restricting the use of) the EF is an example of Modernism?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 21, 2023 16:18:50 GMT
Just drawing a comparison based upon events of recent days. As to your assertion that "traditionalists are modernists", I'm going to let that be your idea. I ask the reader to draw the distinction between the heresy of Modernism (capital M) as condemned by the Church, and "modernism" (small m) which appears to be shorthand for the prevailing mindset of mankind (at least those outside of the Islamosphere and similar cultures) in the 20th and 21st centuries. It is really a kind of neo-Renaissance (for lack of a better word) with emphasis upon, inter alia, individual liberties, popular democracy, social egalitarianism, and so much more, and, yes, people of all stripes have imbibed a lesser or greater portion of it, whether they are Latinists who seek to maintain what spiritually nourishes them, restorationists who appeal to an even older antiquity even if it means trashing centuries of liturgical development, or what have you. Seen that way, there's at least a little "modernist" in all of us.
According to canon law, no one is above the Holy See. Given that, can one state that to argue that the Holy See is wrong (or even committing heresy) for letting go of (or restricting the use of) the EF is an example of Modernism?
That canon simply refers to the possibility (or, in this case, impossibility) of juridical appeal. Here's the text: Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.It does not address anything as to doctrinal orthodoxy, prudence, truth or error, right or wrong, good or bad. Again, it is merely juridical. The Code of Canon Law is a legal document, not a catechism. The heresy of Modernism (capital M, which you used) doesn't even enter into it.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 21, 2023 23:55:49 GMT
According to canon law, no one is above the Holy See. Given that, can one state that to argue that the Holy See is wrong (or even committing heresy) for letting go of (or restricting the use of) the EF is an example of Modernism?
That canon simply refers to the possibility (or, in this case, impossibility) of juridical appeal. Here's the text: Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.It does not address anything as to doctrinal orthodoxy, prudence, truth or error, right or wrong, good or bad. Again, it is merely juridical. The Code of Canon Law is a legal document, not a catechism. The heresy of Modernism (capital M, which you used) doesn't even enter into it.
This issue is a legal one: Pope St. John Paul II authorized the EF but with special conditions, and according to this article:
Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis followed through.
Here's the catch about the claim that it's "merely juridical": besides 1404, the one who shared this information also mentioned 331 and 331 s. 3, both of which were also referred to in another thread, and they all directly refer to the Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy.
I think we're beginning to see a pattern here: you criticize the Pope (now, it turns out that three Popes are involved) concerning the EF, the counterarguments are raised against you again (because they were raised several times in other threads, and in response to you), then you end up creating another thread to repeat the process.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 22, 2023 6:51:43 GMT
That canon simply refers to the possibility (or, in this case, impossibility) of juridical appeal. Here's the text: Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.It does not address anything as to doctrinal orthodoxy, prudence, truth or error, right or wrong, good or bad. Again, it is merely juridical. The Code of Canon Law is a legal document, not a catechism. The heresy of Modernism (capital M, which you used) doesn't even enter into it.
This issue is a legal one: Pope St. John Paul II authorized the EF but with special conditions, and according to this article:
Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis followed through.
Here's the catch about the claim that it's "merely juridical": besides 1404, the one who shared this information also mentioned 331 and 331 s. 3, both of which were also referred to in another thread, and they all directly refer to the Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy.
I think we're beginning to see a pattern here: you criticize the Pope (now, it turns out that three Popes are involved) concerning the EF, the counterarguments are raised against you again (because they were raised several times in other threads, and in response to you), then you end up creating another thread to repeat the process.
Here is Canon 331 to which you refer, not sure what "331 s.3" is: Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.This merely says that he has the authority. It doesn't say that he will always use that authority wisely, and it doesn't address matters that may be beyond his authority. Does the Pope have the authority to order the Pietà to be smashed to bits with a sledgehammer and replaced with a representation of Pachamama? "But he wouldn't do that"? Hope not. But does he have that authority? And would it be a misuse of that authority? And would the person charged with doing the smashing be able to say "no, I'm not doing that" without committing the sin of disobedience? The TLM is too expansive of a topic, to admit of being confined to a single thread, and when I find an article, or news of some event, concerning the TLM, I'm going to post it. I am considering the creation of a thread along the lines of "Arguments In Favor of the Church's Present Liturgical Discipline" or some similar title, and using that as the "staging area" to allow you and others to advance such counter-arguments, and then to let those counter-arguments stand on their own merits. What could be fairer than that?
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 22, 2023 10:43:55 GMT
This issue is a legal one: Pope St. John Paul II authorized the EF but with special conditions, and according to this article:
Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis followed through.
Here's the catch about the claim that it's "merely juridical": besides 1404, the one who shared this information also mentioned 331 and 331 s. 3, both of which were also referred to in another thread, and they all directly refer to the Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy.
I think we're beginning to see a pattern here: you criticize the Pope (now, it turns out that three Popes are involved) concerning the EF, the counterarguments are raised against you again (because they were raised several times in other threads, and in response to you), then you end up creating another thread to repeat the process.
Here is Canon 331 to which you refer, not sure what "331 s.3" is: Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.This merely says that he has the authority. It doesn't say that he will always use that authority wisely, and it doesn't address matters that may be beyond his authority. Does the Pope have the authority to order the Pietà to be smashed to bits with a sledgehammer and replaced with a representation of Pachamama? "But he wouldn't do that"? Hope not. But does he have that authority? And would it be a misuse of that authority? And would the person charged with doing the smashing be able to say "no, I'm not doing that" without committing the sin of disobedience? The TLM is too expansive of a topic, to admit of being confined to a single thread, and when I find an article, or news of some event, concerning the TLM, I'm going to post it. I am considering the creation of a thread along the lines of "Arguments In Favor of the Church's Present Liturgical Discipline" or some similar title, and using that as the "staging area" to allow you and others to advance such counter-arguments, and then to let those counter-arguments stand on their own merits. What could be fairer than that?
I think you skipped much of it. He does not merely have "the authority." He's also "the Vicar of Christ," and in his office "he possesses supreme, full, immediate...." Do I need to restate even that? It's the Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy.
S.3 was given in another thread, together with those two points.
There's nothing expansive about the EF given the fact that I've been repeating the same points across various threads about it.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 22, 2023 16:28:22 GMT
Here is Canon 331 to which you refer, not sure what "331 s.3" is: Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.This merely says that he has the authority. It doesn't say that he will always use that authority wisely, and it doesn't address matters that may be beyond his authority. Does the Pope have the authority to order the Pietà to be smashed to bits with a sledgehammer and replaced with a representation of Pachamama? "But he wouldn't do that"? Hope not. But does he have that authority? And would it be a misuse of that authority? And would the person charged with doing the smashing be able to say "no, I'm not doing that" without committing the sin of disobedience? The TLM is too expansive of a topic, to admit of being confined to a single thread, and when I find an article, or news of some event, concerning the TLM, I'm going to post it. I am considering the creation of a thread along the lines of "Arguments In Favor of the Church's Present Liturgical Discipline" or some similar title, and using that as the "staging area" to allow you and others to advance such counter-arguments, and then to let those counter-arguments stand on their own merits. What could be fairer than that?
I think you skipped much of it. He does not merely have "the authority." He's also "the Vicar of Christ," and in his office "he possesses supreme, full, immediate...." Do I need to restate even that? It's the Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy.
S.3 was given in another thread, together with those two points.
There's nothing expansive about the EF given the fact that I've been repeating the same points across various threads about it.
Then please address this paragraph, if you care to: This merely says that he has the authority. It doesn't say that he will always use that authority wisely, and it doesn't address matters that may be beyond his authority. Does the Pope have the authority to order the Pietà to be smashed to bits with a sledgehammer and replaced with a representation of Pachamama? "But he wouldn't do that"? Hope not. But does he have that authority? And would it be a misuse of that authority? And would the person charged with doing the smashing be able to say "no, I'm not doing that" without committing the sin of disobedience?As to the TLM, it is indeed a very expansive, wide-ranging topic, and I have no intention of forcing it into one thread, or posting the many articles and items that crop up on the Internet on a daily basis into that thread. I have provided a thread, attached to the top of this sub-forum, for you or anyone else to post whatever you wish regarding how the Church's liturgical discipline is a good thing, a wise thing, consonant with an even older tradition than the Gregorian/Pian/Tridentine one, that the Mass is a communal celebration where the faithful need to be praying actively and in unison in their own vernacular, that there needs to be a greater variety of Scripture in the Mass, and so on. I won't presume to go back and copy your past arguments (or anyone else's) into that thread, but feel free to do so yourself, if you like. Perhaps this thread can be a magnum opus of why, as some see it, TLM adherents are flawed in their reasoning and need to "get with the program" of the 1969+ Missals and all that has gone with that, as a practical matter --- communion in the hand, under both kinds, distributed by laypersons, overt and tactile sign of peace immediately before communion, getting rid of communion rails, having the priest facing the people, the list goes on. Please defend these things. I'm not into suppressing viewpoints.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 23, 2023 5:43:38 GMT
I think you skipped much of it. He does not merely have "the authority." He's also "the Vicar of Christ," and in his office "he possesses supreme, full, immediate...." Do I need to restate even that? It's the Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy.
S.3 was given in another thread, together with those two points.
There's nothing expansive about the EF given the fact that I've been repeating the same points across various threads about it.
Then please address this paragraph, if you care to: This merely says that he has the authority. It doesn't say that he will always use that authority wisely, and it doesn't address matters that may be beyond his authority. Does the Pope have the authority to order the Pietà to be smashed to bits with a sledgehammer and replaced with a representation of Pachamama? "But he wouldn't do that"? Hope not. But does he have that authority? And would it be a misuse of that authority? And would the person charged with doing the smashing be able to say "no, I'm not doing that" without committing the sin of disobedience?As to the TLM, it is indeed a very expansive, wide-ranging topic, and I have no intention of forcing it into one thread, or posting the many articles and items that crop up on the Internet on a daily basis into that thread. I have provided a thread, attached to the top of this sub-forum, for you or anyone else to post whatever you wish regarding how the Church's liturgical discipline is a good thing, a wise thing, consonant with an even older tradition than the Gregorian/Pian/Tridentine one, that the Mass is a communal celebration where the faithful need to be praying actively and in unison in their own vernacular, that there needs to be a greater variety of Scripture in the Mass, and so on. I won't presume to go back and copy your past arguments (or anyone else's) into that thread, but feel free to do so yourself, if you like. Perhaps this thread can be a magnum opus of why, as some see it, TLM adherents are flawed in their reasoning and need to "get with the program" of the 1969+ Missals and all that has gone with that, as a practical matter --- communion in the hand, under both kinds, distributed by laypersons, overt and tactile sign of peace immediately before communion, getting rid of communion rails, having the priest facing the people, the list goes on. Please defend these things. I'm not into suppressing viewpoints.
That point is disingenuous because it refers to restricting the EF as equivalent to smashing the Pieta to bits. To recap, Pope St. John Paul II allowed the EF only to appease the SPPX, and came up with various restrictions for the allowance. Both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis continued what he did, and those allowances are seen in the TC.
Given that, there is nothing expansive or wide-ranging for this topic. Every point you've raised in various threads have been countered and repeated in the same threads, just as they're being repeated here. In some cases, I had to link to those other threads.
What's weird is that you abandoned those threads, only to make new ones where you post the same wrong arguments.
|
|