Church official says old rite will be norm in 50 years

  • Thread starter Thread starter georgewithfaith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarkThompson said:
It is good for the Vatican to have people with different points of view. This keeps the “mind of the Church” on all aspects of the various issues it faces, and it allows the Holy Father to draw on advice that has been tested and strengthened against opposing viewpoints. That said, it’s on the level of astrology or fortunetelling – though entirely natural and understandable – to find the one person who predicts what you would personally like to be the case and think, “The man’s a veritable prophet!” In other words, to find one unnamed “Vatican official” who has said something you agree with and ascribe overwhelming significance to it, when you would have ascribed absolutely no significance to a report that six dozen Vatican officials had predicted that the Mass of Paul VI will still be around, likely with varying degrees of modification, in fifty years.
Click to expand...
Excellent analysis and diagnosis. As has been said, a NAMED Vatican official seems to have different hopes for the OF (HH Pope Benedict XVI per Summorum Pontificum, which some “Traditionalists” only read for the bits they like).
 
MarkThompson said:
In that regard, I notice that the OP didn’t quote the preceding paragraph from the article:
How this will all work out, of course, is yet to be seen. At least one Vatican official I talked to recently told me he believes the future of the Church’s liturgical life will be a type of fusion between the old Mass and the new Mass of Paul VI.
Click to expand...
Really? That bit got left out? Wow…imagine that.
 
Dreams are free, I’m afraid.

We know that very few are joining the priesthood these days and even fewer of these priests are actually studying church Latin… so project this trend into the future - there will be very few who would be able to preform a Latin Mass in 50 years time.
 
roveau said:
Dreams are free, I’m afraid.

We know that very few are joining the priesthood these days and even fewer of these priests are actually studying church Latin… so project this trend into the future - there will be very few who would be able to preform a Latin Mass in 50 years time.
Click to expand...
Oh, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that. I think the turmoil after the Council is dying down (and every Council has supposedly had a period of confusion and turmoil follow it)and the pendulum is swinging back to the middle…mind you, I think it will swing to the MIDDLE, not the extreme right, at least not liturgically. I think we’ll see both rites developing organically closer together, the EF pruned back a bit, a restoration of reverence expected for the OF. Perhaps we’ll see one liturgy again in a hundred years, offered in both Latin and the vernacular. Be of good cheer.
 
Robert_Burns said:
So if , put another way , we are to believe that Immodest Dress , Irreverence and Guitars and Clowns and Homosexual and Women Priests are are in our Future as opposed to a return to traditional Catholicism - I’d have to opt for the latter.
Click to expand...
Immodest dress, irreverence, guitars, clowns and women priests have nothing to do with the OF said according to the rubrics in a reverent way, and you know it.

And if you are so naive as to think that homosexual priests came about in the aftermath of the chnge to the OF, then you actually should sit down and start doing some research.

The first priest publicly taken down in our archdioces (or at least, the first one I recall) was teaching in a Catholic boy’;s high school 9and ordained) wel before Vatican 2 started. and he was only opne of many. Homosexual men have been ordained for centuries.

And they were all saying the EF… which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
 
roveau said:
Dreams are free, I’m afraid.

We know that very few are joining the priesthood these days and even fewer of these priests are actually studying church Latin… so project this trend into the future - there will be very few who would be able to preform a Latin Mass in 50 years time.
Click to expand...
Source?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Now ProVobis, you know that any post in any thread in any of the fora is open for comment.
Click to expand...
Yes, you should try some of the others unless your only intent on CA is to undermine the traditionalists on this forum as usual.
 
ProVobis said:
Yes, you should try some of the others unless your only intent on CA is to undermine the traditionalists on this forum as usual.
Click to expand...
I and others only seek to inform against misinformation, make certain that the innocent are not mislead, and defend the Church. That makes me pretty “traditional,” I think.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I and others only seek to inform against misinformation, make certain that the innocent are not mislead, and defend the Church. That makes me pretty “traditional,” I think.
Click to expand...
Now I feel much better. Thanks. :rolleyes:
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I and others only seek to inform against misinformation, make certain that the innocent are not mislead, and defend the Church. That makes me pretty “traditional,” I think.
Click to expand...
Cool. Do you make an effort to explain the TLM was codified by the Council of Trent? What about the Novus Ordo being defeated by a jury of bishops when first introduced? That it was originally created to be said in Latin and ad orientum? That Communion in the hand was an abuse until AB Bernardin got it approved with a dubious third vote? Pope John Paul II ruled against altar girls? Because if you do then that would make you pretty ‘traditional’ I think.
 
ProVobis said:
Just wish you had been around in the 60’s and 70’s when real misinformation spread. But I think the internet’s got you beat now.
Click to expand...
You’re bang on there. The Internet is allowing Catholics to find out what’s been going on these past forty years. Most of us are not fortunate enough to have anyone in their family or parish discussing these topics.
 
Ockham said:
Cool. Do you make an effort to explain the TLM was codified by the Council of Trent? What about the Novus Ordo being defeated by a jury of bishops when first introduced? That it was originally created to be said in Latin and ad orientum? That Communion in the hand was an abuse until AB Bernardin got it approved with a dubious third vote? Pope John Paul II ruled against altar girls? Because if you do then that would make you pretty ‘traditional’ I think.
Click to expand...
Yes, but then I try and take the “spin” off it as well. To take one example that you mention, I remind people that while the Council recommended Latin continue, as you’ve mentioned, the Holy See permitted national bishop’s conferences to decide how much of the vernacular would be permitted in the Mass. Each conference’s decision was then to be ratified by the Holy See or, presumeably, denied by the Holy See. So the all-vernacular Mass that we have today lawfully exists by the legitimate authority of the Holy See. I’m certain you didn’t intend it, but to simply say that the OF was “created to be said in Latin and ad orientum” might give some the impression that the OF offered in the vernacular and ad populum was illicit, illegal, an abuse, etc., and both of us know that nothing can be further from the truth (and I think it’s pretty “traditional” to be concerned with truth). The same goes for altar girls. You’re quite right, the Ven. Pope John Paul II DID didn’t like the idea. To state “Pope John Paul II ruled against altar girls,” however, doesn’t mention the fact that he reversed that decision and might seem to imply that girls serving at the altar is an abuse, which again we both know is not true. Finally, even some folk in the same “traditionalist” camp cannot seem to get their stories straight. I’ve never heard that CITH was a result of Cardinal Bernardin’s efforts until your post; what has been repeated and repeated here in this particular fora is that it was the result of the disobedience of Dutch bishops (and frankly, no one would have been surprised at that). Again, however it started (and it was also a patristic and possibly Apostolic practice, but that fails to get mentioned as well), it now exists by legitimate authority (Pope Benedict permitted it at the request of the Polish Bishops’ conference in late 2007 or early 2008).

And it runs both ways, this “traditional” concern for truth. I’ve also frequently defended in other fora a person’s legitimate right to kneel for Holy Communion and to receive on the tongue when those liberties guaranteed by the Church were denied.
 
I never said the venacular is illicit. What people should be aware of is ever since independent bishop conferences were created they have been doing their own thing. The Church is supposed to be a top down organization. The head is Jesus Christ. When the bishop conferences start making their own rules they are not following apostolic tradition.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Each conference’s decision was then to be ratified by the Holy See or, presumeably, denied by the Holy See. So the all-vernacular Mass that we have today lawfully exists by the legitimate authority of the Holy See.
Click to expand...
So nothing. Vatican II and Pope Paul VI “ordered” Latin to be maintained in the liturgy. In fact in 1969 Paul VI stated:
"…in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful “should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, the Our Father” (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).
Click to expand...
  1. But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: **the Latin language will not thereby disappear. **It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See’s official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. **If possible, it will reflourish in splendor. **
Click to expand...
It appears you’re saying someone gamed the system so that enough vernacular would be instilled into the liturgy so that they made sure no more universality of the faith could be preserved and the Vatican would lose control. So much so, no one synod of bishops could understand another. Another Tower of Babel occurred in other words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top