Of course. The Pope can (and has) erred in many realms: liturgy, politics, history, science, etc.
Well there are people who think it is, and rather a lot of them out there, those who want a reform of the reform and those who want a restoration of the books from 1962.
I agree (I’d give it a B-, not an F), BUT, that’s up to the individual to say. Every Catholic must assent that it is a valid liturgy, but no one has to like it. Just like people are free to dislike the TLM ot the Divine Liturgy of John Chrisostom.
Yet another attempt to find an occasion in the past to set a false precedent to disparage something that you don’t care for in the today’s Church…
It’s not. It just shows that people are wrong to badmouth traditionalists who don’t like the Novus Ordo.
These things are not immutable. It doesn’t mean it’s “bad” necessarily if it is put aside or changed later. But yes, the ordinary form could be put aside and it’s lawful to have preferences in regards to liturgical books, provided you acknowledge their validity and licitness.
That’s true. If one opens a Missal and examines the Ordinary of the Mass, there is nothing non-catholic there.
Tim, can you at least acknowlege that there are men walking the halls of the Vatican that share the concerns of the traditionalists ?
Sure…but can the “traditionalists” acknowledge that many faithful, orthodox Catholics don’t share their concerns, indeed, that MOST faithful and orthodox Catholics don’t share those concerns? We should all be concerned with reverence, obviously, but that cannot be absolutely equated with scrapping the OF. Many times, I’ve read “traditionalists” state that the EF is “objectively” superior. It isn’t, it’s only subjectively superior to THEM. It features things that I might agree are superior, but overall, I find the OF superior for a variety of reasons and I strongly suspect that most Catholics (and yes, THINKING, reverent, faithful, Orthodox Catholics) would make a decision, if it were put up them, based solely on the use of the vernacular.
Well, I’d say that is correct. Most catholics in the pews have never assisted at an EF Mass. Most are not aware of BXVI’s SP. Most are not even aware of the concerns of traditionalists. This forum is not an indication of the average catholic’s views. Only a tiny percentage of Roman Catholics have visited this forum.
Well, that’s quite an assumption. If all those you are taking the liberty to speak for, actually knew what all the fuss is about, then yes, I’d say most would still stick with all they’ve ever known. So your assumption would indeed be proven correct as far as sheer numbers go.
)The TLM is not “better” than any other liturgy; that is your choice of words and your personal preference. Going to TLM is not going to make you holier, more saintly or get you into heaven any sooner than anyone else. I suggest that you dispense with this juvenile mentality in regards to the Mass and the way it is celebrated and focus upon your own place in God’s universe.
Yes, I really think that more grace come to us with a liturgy that is reverent, “ex opero operato” nonetheless. With more graces available it’s easier to get to heaven. The liturgy is just a part of the whole of Christian life but since it’s the source and summit, it has got to be important, don’t you think?Fair enough. I prefer the Gregorian Rite (EF) also.
Guess not.
I posted in response to your assertion that someone was out of step with Rome, which I don’t see how you can make given that person’s post. But in line with the OP’s assertion that a Pope can make a fallible error in prudential wisdom in regards to the promulgation of a liturgy (and here we would have to agree to distinguish between the Holy Sacrifice and the form that clothes the Holy Sacrifice), I would assert that since Blessed John XXIII (he is now among the beatii, you know) was not addressing an issue of faith and morals, but a disciplinary norm, one would be free to disagree with him. Latin’s use in the Church (and it is terribly useful for the universal Church to have a universal language) is not a part of Apostolic teaching, doctrine or dogma. It was not handed down by the Apostles. It’s just a language and it isn’t ontologically sacred, though it is used for sacred purposes.But please don’t think you are going to convince me that the average catholic in the U.S. is a “THINKING, reverent, faithful, Orthodox Catholic”. It’s not their fault they aren’t. I blame their pastors.
I don’t think I’ll be able to do so. I don’t think many of those who self-identify as “traditionalists” can be convinced of much of anything if it contradicts their agenda, just as I don’t believe many of the feminists and modernists (as the Church understands the latter term) would be convinced of anything that contradicted THEIR agendas.
Don’t tell me someone who is slated to be a lector or EMHC shows up wearing shorts(men), or revealing attire(women), is a “THINKING, reverent, faithful, Orthodox Catholic” either.
**That goes to a subjective definition. I’ve known a few devout men who wear shorts to Mass (it’s punishingly hot here in the Mojave Desert and we have old people faint in Mass every summer, the EMTs come in, etc.) and in my experience, any woman showing anything past her collarbone or any knee at all is anathema to a “traditionalist.” A lot of them even hyper-ventilate over a woman in slacks. **
I don’t blame this on the OF itself, but I can attest these sad displays of irreverence don’t tend to be found at the Forma extraordinaria. (btw way, that’s Extraordinray form in venacular
**That there were things that needed to be corrected (pruned, if you will) in the EF seems to me to be self-evident. At the EF at which I assisted, the fact that the priest completed the Consecration while the choir was still singing the Sanctus seems to be at the least, awkward. And you needn’t scruple to translate, I’m not unfamiliar with Latin. **
Your Venacular flag is going to have to be put on a stick and be waved by hand. It’s a preferrence based on opinion, not based on any ecclesiastical or theological grounds.
Ever read the Veterum Sapientia of the man who called VII ?
Responsibility for enforcement
1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.
2. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html
Come on JKIRK, I think H.H.John XXIII was pretty clear on this issue. And don’t forget, the Novus Ordo Missal was introduced in latin was it not ?
And here’s the deal with what we project on pontiffs. I love the man, too. There’s very little he’s done with which I would quibble (just that huge gold cross, really). When you speak of pendulum and wolves, what precisely do you mean? It is the nature of a pendulm to stop in the MIDDLE GROUND between extremes when it stops swinging… Are those of us who hope we don’t go back to the EF as the only form or to an all-Latin Mass wolves?Fair enough. I prefer the Gregorian Rite (EF) also.
I no longer have a problem with the OF or VII. My mind is now at ease because of what I’ve seen since BXVI’s SP.
Knowing H.H. BXVI is a man of strong Faith, and not heeding the cries of the wolves’ to “stop the pendulum”, is very comforting.
There is no way to express my love for him in words.
Fair enough, I’m not a supporter of scrapping the OF. I was just making a point that has to be considered. We cannot blame “traditionalists” for being disloyal.