Francis to Abolish Summorum Pontificorum?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randolph said:
If one does not like the EF, fine then attend the OF.
Click to expand...
That’s a fine response for any individual, no need to fight about it. However, for bishops and other prelates, they have other factors to consider. There are only so many priests available, and if there aren’t enough people interested in attending Latin Mass, using scarce manpower for it might now be a great idea.
 
Augustinian… I was referring to those in the hierarchy who willfully suppressed the EF and completely ignored Summorum Pontificum.

As for its implementation, there are, of course, room for growing pain, and issues of feasibility and capability. Bishops do face these difficult realities. But they should, in good faith, do their very best to implement it.

I remember Pope John Paul II had asked bishops around the world to be “generous” in granting permission to have the EF said in their own dioceses. But the “generosity” was not granted at an acceptable level, and Pope Benedict later cited the lack of “generosity” as one of his many reasons to issue Summorum Pontificum.
 
Last edited:
So then why not Aramaic, which Jesus spoke, or Koine Greek, which the New Testament was originally written in? Why use the language of the oppressors of the Jews and early Christians, the language of the people who nailed Jesus to the cross? Honestly, that never made any sense to me.
 
Jfz178… A good starting point answering your question brings us back to the early sees. Then, there were 4 major sees: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome (successor of St. Peter) was considered first among equals. Subsequent sees followed (Constantinople, Athens, Cyprus, Ephesus, etc…) Each see had in its own culture. They spoke different languages, and even had different rites. These rites still exist today. And they were the Catholic Church.

Rome (The Roman Catholic Church) used Latin as we know it. During and after the reign of Constantine, the Roman Catholic Church rapidly expanded throughout the Roman Empire (Europe) and with it—Latin. Subsequently, European catholic missionaries brought Roman Catholicism to Asia, South America and other parts of the world.

As you can see, Aramaic (the language that Jesus spoke) was not (in fact never) used in Rome when the Roman Catholic Church expanded. What we know about Catholicism in the West, Asia and South America is really the Roman (Rome) Catholic Church, whose leader (the Pope) is first among equals over many other Eastern Churches.

This is a very, very, very brief snap shot of Church history that I hope will help you to begin to understand why Aramaic is not used or spoken in the Roman Catholic Church.

Another important point worth noting is, within the Roman Catholic Church, there are many rites/Masses. The EF (Latin) as we know today, was the rite used in Rome for hundreds of years before the Council of Trent, As a result of Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church obligated the entire Roman Catholic Church to use it (with few exceptions). For about 400 years, the EF was the main/official/ordinary rite/Mass of the Roman Church until Vatican II—which subsequently produced the OF.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the history lesson, but that explanation is saying, “It is that way because it got that way.” That’s not a reason to use it today. Aramaic is used in the Lebanese Catholic Church, which is under the Pope. So it could be brought back today, as could Greek. I am not for using dead languages at all. I grew up with the Latin Mass, but I think the local vernacular makes more sense.

I actually saw a fallen-away Catholic on a message board say that she liked the Mass, but didn’t like the Church because it discriminated against women and gays, blah, blah, blah. So she wished the Mass was in Latin so she wouldn’t understand all those not-politically-correct messages. Of course that was ridiculous on multiple levels, but I do think it points up that some people don’t actually want to think about the words said at Mass. Latin plays right into that problem. Having the Mass in a language you are fluent in forces you to think.
 
Maybe I wasn’t clear in my question. I was just using those other languages as examples of other dead languages that might also be appropriate.

My main question is now that we are in the vernacular, what is the point of going back to Latin or even preserving that form of the Mass? I grew up with the Latin Mass and the vernacular doesn’t ruin the identity of the Church for me. Most Catholics alive today never knew the Latin Mass. It can’t be a part of the identity of the Church for them. I see no utility in preserving the Latin Mass. It is an anachronism.
 
In the Catholic Church, ignorance is not bliss. The EF and OF are not discriminatory at all. If anything, the Mass helps us, sinners, to reach deep in our conscience to connect with God so that we could be one with God. If one really knows the meaning of the Mass, it is a Holy Sacrifice for sinners to come to worship God and to meet God in a very intimate way.

In the EF, the meaning in Latin itself is a treasure. If you have a chance to read and follow the 1962 Missal, you will see for yourself how beautiful things are expressed in Latin.
 
Last edited:
I respect your opinion and I guess one size does not fit all. I like the current Mass setup. I like to see the priests face when he says the prayers. I don’t get your comment about female altar servers. What is wrong with that? I learned to be an altar server in the Latin Mass when it was only boys and even then I thought that was sexist. And I like the contemporary music. I have spent about 40 years being a music minister in contemporary ensembles. It has really deepened my experience in the church and congregants have come up to me and said it has helped them also.

A good friend of mine who we will share Christmas Eve dinner with, sill talks about the fact that the only thing that got her late father to go to Mass in his last year of life was to listen to me play the mandolin at Mass. He sat right up in the front row, as close to me as he could get. I didn’t even realize that at the time. They told me after he died. I like to think that made a difference for him.

I joke that the Apostles would have been terrified if they heard the sound of a pipe organ. I have the same reaction!
 
My understanding is that women actually had a greater role in the early Church than they do today.

And are you actually saying that girls shouldn’t be on the altar during Mass because it creates a a desire for them to become priests? I think that is a leap. I was a Latin Mass server. It didn’t make me want to become a priest at all.
 
By your logic, Christ Himself was a sexist for only choosing men to be his apostles. And so were the apostles themselves for choosing only men to be priests. For that matter, God the Father was also a sexist for choosing only men to be his prophets.

The main reason for choosing boys to be altar boys is to possibly assisting them (some) to consider the priesthood, while the priesthood is impossible for girls. The function of altar boys is to assist the priest in some function in the Mass. it is not a gender power game. Most altar boys do not become priests, but some do.
 
Last edited:
But Christ is Christ. He can do what He wants. If he says no women priests, OK then. But He didn’t prevent women from being early Church leaders and the Church doesn’t prevent them from assisting at Mass.

I was reacting to the earlier statement that girls on the altar is somehow a sign of what is wrong with the Mass today and I think THAT is sexist, since the Church approves of it. The Church seems to be making a good faith (no pun intended) effort to be as inclusive of women as it can short of ordaining them and I think that’s a good and decent thing to do. If we can’t ordain women, we should at least open up every meaningful role we can for them. It is not only fair, but we are richer for it.
 
Specifically, what leadership roles that women took on in the early church that different from today? How were they different from what the nuns/religious sisters are doing today?
 
Last edited:
Well there aren’t as many nuns left today, at least in the US and I think the two problems run together.

My understanding is that a lot of the early congregations were held in homes and women were the organizers and leaders of those “house congregations.” They were often educated women and even did a lot of the preaching. I think that is a major role we don’t see today. We don’t need that role today, but it sets a precedent for women having a prominent role.

One role I can think of today is chaplain. My wife’ aunt is nun and former missionary who is the Catholic Chaplain at a hospital in Detroit. That role is allowed in the Church, but it only happens rarely.

Overall, and I think today’s Church agrees, is that we should elevate the status of women in every way we can consistent with the faith. I don’t like a sentiment I see shared on this site that one of the big problems with the church is “girls on the altar” or the “feminization” of the Church. That’s just misogyny.
 
My parish is composed of people who speak three different languages (English, Spanish, and Vietnamese). On Sundays, we have separate masses for the different languages, but on Holy Days of Obligation and the Triduum, multi-lingual masses are offered. There are large swaths of those masses that I don’t understand as an English speaker, and I assume the same for those who speak the other languages. However, two parts of those masses are done in Latin (the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei). At those two points, everyone in the congregation is able to vocally pray together. It is one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever experienced. I think that is the draw of Latin: as the language of the Church, it can be used by anyone celebrating mass anywhere, regardless of the language spoken in that place. That’s my take on it anyway.
 
Comparing the low number of nuns and religious sisters today versus the women leaders in the early church, I am quite sure the numbers today is higher than back then by multiple folds.

Women leaders in the early church did many great things, but they were non-ordained work.

Today, nuns and religious sisters also preach the Gospels and the Catholic faith (not in place of a sermon at Mass, which is reserved only for priests) in homes, schools and public outlets. They teach Catechism to children and adults. They help the poor, the sick and the afflicted. They comfort those who yearn for love and compassion. Women today are doing basically everything in the Church except for work reserved only for ordained men. To imply the Church is out to discrimate against women in the Church is quite wrong. Women have always played a critical role in the Church. Women also are saints and Doctors of the Church. Our most beloved, revered Holy Mother is a woman.
 
Last edited:
Then why all this rhetoric against having girls assist at Mass and these comments about “feminization?” What is all that about? I keep raising that as my main issue and people keep answering something else.
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with girls serving as altar girls because the Church allows it.

At the same time, the Church also allows for priests to allow only boys to serve as altar boys. For priests that only permit the latter, it is not sexist for the reason that it is a place to guide boys to think about the priesthood. It is true that only very few of the boys would consider it.

From personal experience, I have seen more vocations—both men and women—from the “traditional” parishes that observe more traditional disciplines than other regular parishes in my diocese. Many of these vocations were in fact altar boys at one point in their lives.
 
Last edited:
Randolph said:
In the EF, the meaning in Latin itself is a treasure. If you have a chance to read and follow the 1962 Missal, you will see for yourself how beautiful things are expressed in Latin.
Click to expand...
The 1962 mass was translated into English over 50 years ago for the hand missal. I think what you are describing is just a reflection on the linguistic skill and vocabulary of 1960’s era translators as opposed to their latter day counterparts who worked on the current, mainstream mass.
 
Specifically, what exactly should have been changed/improved linguistically in the 1962 Missal now 50 years later?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top