Permitted and Promoted are not synonymous. Promoted means you advertise and actively push for people to attend an Extraordinary Form Mass. Nowhere is that envisioned in what Pope Benedict said. Nowhere is it said or even implied that if there is no demand for the EF that the parish has an obligation to create such a demand.
And no priest is obligated to celebrate the Extraordinary Form either.
The book to which I refer is a very tradition source.
Your fraternal correction is a valid one, Broher. I should have said that it is the ordinary form of the Latin Church.
Nonsense. The Mass has always and will always come from Tradition. No matter what Rite.
It’s not funny, it’s simply a matter of better theological scholarship and information.
No, Latin was chosen as the language of the Roman Rite at some point in its history. The Church has ALWAYS used a number of languages. And always will.
I never said to disregard it. I simply pointed out the fact that there are and have been valid Eucharistic prayers that did not include those words.
usccb.org/liturgy/current/GIRM.pdf
And it is preserved. The Roman Missal was promulgated in Latin. Latin is offical text. From this Latin text all translations are made into the venacular. If there are problems, as we see there were in the text we use now, we go back to the Latin text and make corrections. The OF has always been able to be celebrated in Latin. That is what is means when they say the Latin language is to be preserved. The Constitiution also left it open for the liturgy to be celebrated in the venacular. Many parishes still pray parts of the Mass in Latin, even if only occasionally or only in hymns.
Its funny that people do not know the actual facts of what they are arguing.
I think that you are the one who does not know the facts of what you are arguing, It is a fact that they did not give permission for the vernacular. It was done in Church Slavonic, which is not (nor was) a vernacular at all. And either way, this is by far the rare exception, and was by no means the norm.
Armenia?
Parts of Dalmatia, yes: there was an indult to use Glagolitic but I have never heard of anything about Armenia. If that was referring to my comment; no. I did not say the Church does not need Latin. I agree with and accept everything Vatican II taught, including the preservation of the Latin language in the Latin Rites.
Thank you!There is a difference between Latin being preserved and Latin being the only language used in the Latin rite. It’s not the same thing. Additionally, Br. David is correct. Armenia did celebrate the Tridentine mass in their language. Also, long before the Council of Trent there other languages were used in the Latin rite liturgical music. The prayers of the mass were in Latin, but much of the music was already in German, Italian and Spanish. In my own order we had Italian hymns written by St. Francis sung at mass from the 1200s.
Also, let us remember that the liturgy is not just the mass. It also includes the Liturgy of the Hours, which are equally important in the liturgical life of the Church. The Liturgy of the Hours were already being translated for use in some religious congregations, long before Vatican II. In addition, the OF is not a new rite. The Holy Father has said it quite clearly in Summorum Pontificum. The OF and the EF are two forms of the SAME RITE. They are not different rites. Therefore, the Latin Rite has not been changed. We simply have two forms of the same rite. Let’s not call it what it’s not. We have one Latin Rite mass, with two forms that are in general use. There are other forms that are used less commonly, but we do not call them rites. They continue to be the Latin Rite mass, for example the Carthusian form.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Do you have any historical, objective evidence to support this claim? Thank you.
If Vatican II’s 'Latin should be preserved" clause doesn’t apply to your rites, then I don’t understand your point.
Paul VI was the one who named it the Novus Ordo. Novus means new.