|
Post by kj on Aug 2, 2017 12:41:39 GMT
Well I for one am glad people can become strongly engaged over things such as the Latin Mass. My overriding impression of society is that of a herd of iPhone zombies, indifferent to everything except eating and tv. I know that description is unfair and uncharitable, but that's how I often feel. The fact that there are "ordinary" people with strong opinions on theology and liturgy pleases me and enlivens me, and makes me think that maybe we're not all the walking dead just yet. Just to annoy Maolsheachlann, here is a discussion on the Cork drama: www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/did-fr-gruner-back-bp-williamson-completely/?prev_next=prev#new
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 2, 2017 12:57:37 GMT
Maolsheachlann perhaps this is a modern example of how the fervent confident catholicism in the 1920s and especially after the 1932 Eucharistic congress helped heal some of the Civil War wounds , can still unite people who differ on many other topics?
I still think it is a pity the 1970 Mass which can be said in Latin with the readings we are used to in the vernacular with the Priest facing east( as recommended by Cardinal Robert Sarah) is available no where in Ireland. This was always a completely canonically legal option even in the days when the old mass was "forbidden".
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 2, 2017 12:59:37 GMT
Resistance moment to let people know are not affiliated with the SSPX. A bit off topic and I do not think the Resistance is worth giving any light!
|
|
|
Post by ZenoOfCitium on Aug 2, 2017 13:05:51 GMT
I've only attended one Latin Mass in the Extraordinary Form and found it incredible prayerful in a way that I had not anticipate. I've also attended several NO Masses in Latin (with the readings in English). I love the idea of Mass being in Latin or indeed praying in Latin. It is a wonderful expression of the universal nature of the Church. I would be something if Catholics from all parts of the world had a unified language within which to pray together, even if all they knew was the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, and the Gloria. This 'universal' element is one of the reasons I am committed to the Liturgy of the Hours as a form of prayer; I love the idea that the Church in union prays this, with each part of the Church chiming in in succession to the other as the world turns beneath the sun.
|
|
|
Post by ZenoOfCitium on Aug 2, 2017 13:06:50 GMT
Also, I agree that its a good thing to see passionate argument over such things, because they do matter. However, it is said to sometimes see passion for the argument spill over into the loss of charity towards a brother or sister in Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 2, 2017 13:11:28 GMT
I'm actually quite sympathetic to Traddies, and if the Vatican announced that the Latin Mass was replacing the OF tomorrow I would say, "Great!".
But here's a question that intrigues me...how come there was so little resistance to the liturgical changes after Vatican II? It doesn't seem like a whole lot of Catholics were particularly attached to the Latin Mass, even when they had been brought up with it. It makes me wonder if its reputed spiritual and pyschological effects are, well, niche.
Maybe there WAS, but I haven't been able to find much evidence of this.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 2, 2017 13:18:01 GMT
I've only attended one Latin Mass in the Extraordinary Form and found it incredible prayerful in a way that I had not anticipate. I've also attended several NO Masses in Latin (with the readings in English). I love the idea of Mass being in Latin or indeed praying in Latin. It is a wonderful expression of the universal nature of the Church. I would be something if Catholics from all parts of the world had a unified language within which to pray together, even if all they knew was the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, and the Gloria. This 'universal' element is one of the reasons I am committed to the Liturgy of the Hours as a form of prayer; I love the idea that the Church in union prays this, with each part of the Church chiming in in succession to the other as the world turns beneath the sun. "Extraordinary Form" The Traditional Latin Mass can only be offered in Latin. You should really attend a TLM as they are all over the island now. It saddens me that I will never live to see all Latin Rite Catholics praying in one Language across the World which was the norm before the 70s. The Modernist reforms were such a disaster in nearly every way. The Ofice of the Church is truly beautiful and I really should pray it more.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 2, 2017 13:31:31 GMT
The liturgical reformers used to claim the New Mass was a return to the original sources, sweeping away all the silly medieval stuff so in a way it undermined conservatives on one level.
There was very little resistance historically to the practical suppression of the old rite. Archbishop Lebfervre did catholicism one massive favour in resisting Pope Paul VI. Without him I fear the old rite would have died out completely.
I recall in the late 1970s my uncle complain his PP was "still saying mass to the wall with his back to the people"! This was embarassing and made their parish look backward compared to others.Priests competed with each other to bring in new changes. It was unfortunately the spirit of the age and even good orthodox priests had no difficulty embracing the new and experimental liturgies and throwing out the old.
Sometimes it's only in hindsight we can see the damage revolutionary change can bring. Enthusiasts for change often point out it was ecumenical vis a vis protestantism. They ignore the fact we created a new barrier with eastern orthodoxy who looked on many of our reforms with horror.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Aug 2, 2017 13:37:15 GMT
I'm actually quite sympathetic to Traddies, and if the Vatican announced that the Latin Mass was replacing the OF tomorrow I would say, "Great!". But here's a question that intrigues me...how come there was so little resistance to the liturgical changes after Vatican II? It doesn't seem like a whole lot of Catholics were particularly attached to the Latin Mass, even when they had been brought up with it. It makes me wonder if its reputed spiritual and pyschological effects are, well, niche. Maybe there WAS, but I haven't been able to find much evidence of this. The idea of not doing what Rome said had probably never entered the heads of that generation. There was also about a seven year transition, where Mass was in vernacular, but usually facing East, without things like lay ministers. Obviously some things changed in some places before others. Dancing already existed at masses in the U.S. by the early 70s.... Perhaps that's why the pendulum has already swung the other direction there in some ways. That '65 missal rite was probably good enough for a lot of people,I know people NOW who think that that's the ideal, but go to the extraordinary form because Rome, from what I've heard, never allows the use of the transitional rite. Myself-I try not to get a 'refugee complex', that I'm running away from abuses or I'm going there because I can't find MY ideal elsewhere. I like to be clear-headed that this IS an end in itself-it's the preferred way that Mass should be.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Aug 2, 2017 13:40:13 GMT
I think this discussion raises an interesting philosophical point about the notion of 'Tradition'. If we take it at its most literal form should not all mass and liturgy conform as closely as possible to whatever is the most complete picture of the earliest masses we have, whatever that may be?
Assumedly, Jesus and his Apostles spoke in Aramaic. Should the language of the Church therefore not be Aramaic?
I am not being particularly facetious here. I think the word 'Tradition' is a complicated one. Presumably, the Latin Mass with its rites was at one stage itself considered revolutionary and disturbed many people with its 'innovations'.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 2, 2017 14:01:46 GMT
I think you are putting your finger on the fallacy of aboriginism. "The Spirit of Catholicism" by Karl Adam is a good book on this subject. I haven't read The Development of Christian Doctrine by Newman (even though I started it), but I understand it also tackles the same theme. Chesterton said that, when a dog develops, it grows more and not less doggy. That's a good way of putting it.
In a secular sense, I think this is one of the challenges of conservatism-- to explain why change and exploration aren't the quintessential human charactersitics, or at least, why they shouldn't always be valorized over more conservative inclinations.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Aug 2, 2017 15:24:24 GMT
In Pope Pius Xiis encyclical on the liturgy Mediator Dei the Pope welcomed liturgical scholarship and research but condemned "archaelogicalism" ie we go back to the most primitive rites ignoring what was handed on (traditio) He gave as examples moving altars , black vestments , polyphonic chant , latin , statues etc Ironically all of these abuses were to implemented less than a generation later and were made compulsory!
Prior to this encyclical liturgy as taught in seminaries was largely to do with the rubrics how to celebrate the sacraments validly and normally very little was taught about the spiritual , scriptural and theological basis for the liturgy. I think much liturgical theology is still taught through a liberal lense in seminaries. Benedict XVI managed an intelligent synthesis of traditional belief with scholarship but it appears not to have made much impact at ordinary parish level so far.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Aug 3, 2017 1:27:28 GMT
I think this discussion raises an interesting philosophical point about the notion of 'Tradition'. If we take it at its most literal form should not all mass and liturgy conform as closely as possible to whatever is the most complete picture of the earliest masses we have, whatever that may be? Assumedly, Jesus and his Apostles spoke in Aramaic. Should the language of the Church therefore not be Aramaic? I am not being particularly facetious here. I think the word 'Tradition' is a complicated one. Presumably, the Latin Mass with its rites was at one stage itself considered revolutionary and disturbed many people with its 'innovations'. Actually, people who attend the extraordinary form usually know more about the anthropology of liturgy than others. They're well aware of changes through the centuries. The difference being a) the changes after the council consist of a complete demolition and reconstruction, in his memoirs the then-cardinal Ratzinger said that this was never done before. b) other changes had a different mentality- Communion under both kinds ceased in the West because of disbelief in the transubstantiation. Never before has the church made changes that lead to the Mass being seen as a community fellowship, which is what has happened now. Actually,a few years ago, the bodies of two pioneer bishops were exhumed in an Australian cathedral, one Irish, one Spanish. Even the diocesan paper mentioned that the Irishman was buried in Green vestments, because he was Irish. It was actually Latin Mass-goers that pointed out that the vestments were either black that had faded or gold that had oxidized, as Green wasn't used in the mid 1800s
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Aug 3, 2017 2:00:03 GMT
that this was never done before. b) other changes had a different mentality- Communion under both kinds ceased in the West because of disbelief in the transubstantiation. [/quote]
I think I put that badly: The church was trying to counteract the disbelief, of course
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 14, 2018 12:30:00 GMT
I have heard that the Vatican has started to move away from the practice of issuing all documents in Latin. That's sad. I have no Latin myself. I hope I can improve my Irish. That's the task of a lifetime for me, when it comes to languages. Pope John Paul wrote most of his papal documents himself in Polish and they were given to a rather eccentric American priest Reggie Foster who went to the bother of learning Polish so he could speed up the Latin translation which was then used as the offical text. Fr Foster has retired to the USA but still teaches Latin to those motivated enough for free. Italian has now become the de facto Church language and is a bit easier to master than Latin I am informed. There was annoyance at the Youth Synod as many documents were only available in Italian which is bizarre given many clergy and religious from English speaking backgrounds live there and could provide translations pretty quickly if need be.
|
|