Instruction Universae Ecclesiae to be released on Friday

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bkovacs said:
Correct my stupidity but I thought you were a Byzantine Catholic?. How does this concern Byzantine Catholic brothers and priests?. Don’t you just need to learn the Divine Liturgies and Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts.
Click to expand...
Brother David is in a Latin Rite Order and a Latin Rite seminary.
 
Gotcha!. Kinda like the priest at St. Michael the Archangel Byzantine Catholic Church in Allentown. He is in the process of switching from the Roman Rite to the Byzantine Rite. But is now the pastor of the Byzantine Catholic Church. Actually two parishes under his care.

byzantinecatholicpriest.com/profile.htm
 
ByzCath said:
I am not against this happening. I do prefer the Ordinary Form but would not be against learning the EF but…

What classes do you suggest we drop from our program to facilitate the additional class time in learning Latin (for those seminaries that do not require Latin (do not argue that they should do so as I know that but many, if not most, do not) as well as the classes to teach the EF rites?
Click to expand...
Canon 249 already requires the teaching of Latin in seminaries. It does not surprise that many do not however. But that is their problem as they need to follow Church law.
It really does not take long for a priest to learn to say the EF.

C.
 
The_Curt_Jester said:
I was not serious about dropping the N.O. instruction entirely. While I’m a Traditionalist and would prefer that the TLM is available everywhere and would be supportive of phasing out the N.O., I certainly would never suggest a sudden switch without and sort of preparation for it. Major changes like this couldn’t be done instantly.
Click to expand...
The Church prefers the active participation of the faithful will all of their senses, with thei intellect, heart and body. The full men, the who entity shall participate. Thsi is impossible through a dead language, consequently the Church prefers the bnew form as the Ordinary form. Catholics are directed by the Church

One can prefer the usus antiquior, the Church shall and will preserve the usus antiquior, but the new form will not be phased out unless like the state of Israel revived the Hebrew as living language there will be a Catholic state and that will revive the Lating as living language.
 
does anyone have a good link to an English translation of the document?
thanks a bunch
 
laszlo said:
The Church prefers the active participation of the faithful will all of their senses, with thei intellect, heart and body. The full men, the who entity shall participate. Thsi is impossible through a dead language, consequently the Church prefers the bnew form as the Ordinary form. Catholics are directed by the Church

One can prefer the usus antiquior, the Church shall and will preserve the usus antiquior, but the new form will not be phased out unless like the state of Israel revived the Hebrew as living language there will be a Catholic state and that will revive the Lating as living language.
Click to expand...
The Church does not prefer one form over the other but mandates respect for both. It has nothing to do with “dead” or “living” languages. Read the Pope’s Motu proprio as well as the new instruction which says in part:
": “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.”

As the Pope stated in his motu proprio of 2007:
“Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”

C.
 
Cetil said:
The Church does not prefer one form over the other but mandates respect for both. It has nothing to do with “dead” or “living” languages. Read the Pope’s Motu proprio as well as the new instruction which says in part:
": “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.”
Click to expand...
I only reacted to one’s statement, that he expect the new form (what he referenced by a derogatory abbreviation) to be phased out.. The fact that the older form is not prohibited or harmful, does not mean that this should be the exclusive form.

I recommend it to study what was the Mass between St Pius V and St Pius X. It is nor accident that the TLM is heavily influenced by the new form, the silent mass is rarity, the dialog mass which is strict 20th century development becomes the norm.

The church want both form, and either the motu proprio and the new document is clear that the church want the new form for the majority, not phasing it out.

As I pointed ou in an other thread we are Catholics = for everyone individually. Not Jews, whose religion is entirely national religion, neither communist, to whom the community has absolute preference. The Church want to live and flourish the personal preferences, with some natural limitations, but in the Liturgy too.
 
This is what you said: " Thsi is impossible through a dead language, consequently the Church prefers the bnew form as the Ordinary form. Catholics are directed by the Church"

It’s clear the Church considers both forms as legitimate. You should not say participation is “impossible” through a "dead language.

C.
 
Cetil said:
This is what you said: " Thsi is impossible through a dead language, consequently the Church prefers the bnew form as the Ordinary form. Catholics are directed by the Church"

It’s clear the Church considers both forms as legitimate. You should not say participation is “impossible” through a "dead language.

C.
Click to expand...
In the world where I live people are imperfect anyway. Nothing is perfect. Each form represents some value.

One side of the perfect worship would be the perfect reverence, set aside entirely for God, which is represented by the fact that the TLM (in its original form) is the affair between God and the clergy or the priest only.

The other side of the perfection that we people gather, learn, bring our offering; and receive the grace of Christ’s sacrifice, meal, and His mission, which is the theology of the new form and requires the vernacular.

To expect the phasing out of the new form is wrong. The Church expects both forms to enrich the other, what is happening for the present celebration of the TLM’s as dialog masses and almost always missa cantata; and hopefully started to happen for the new form.
 
laszlo said:
In the world where I live people are imperfect anyway. Nothing is perfect. Each form represents some value.

One side of the perfect worship would be the perfect reverence, set aside entirely for God, which is represented by the fact that the TLM (in its original form) is the affair between God and the clergy or the priest only.

The other side of the perfection that we people gather, learn, bring our offering; and receive the grace of Christ’s sacrifice, meal, and His mission, which is the theology of the new form and requires the vernacular.

To expect the phasing out of the new form is wrong. The Church expects both forms to enrich the other, what is happening for the present celebration of the TLM’s as dialog masses and almost always missa cantata; and hopefully started to happen for the new form.
Click to expand...
I think I see what you are saying. You are saying the “new form” is a completely different theology from the other?

C.
 
The other side of the perfection that we people gather, learn, bring our offering; and receive the grace of Christ’s sacrifice, meal, and His mission, which is the theology of the new form and requires the vernacular.
Click to expand...
Does this mean the OF celebrated in Latin is totally wrong? Maybe people are ignorant of this fact, but the OF is also the Latin Mass and can be celebrated everywhere without the vernacular.
 
ProVobis said:
Does this mean the OF celebrated in Latin is totally wrong? Maybe people are ignorant of this fact, but the OF is also the Latin Mass and can be celebrated everywhere without the vernacular.
Click to expand...
Exactly so! the phrase “Latin Mass” applies to both forms of the Roman rite equally. The use of Latin has never been about nationality in a geographical sense but rather it is about universality. the vernacular is an option the priest may choose to use instead of Latin.

Full active and conscious participation is interior participation as much, if not more than, it is interior participation. To say it is impossible in a “dead” language is trite at best.
 
laszlo said:
The other side of the perfection that we people gather, learn, bring our offering; and receive the grace of Christ’s sacrifice, meal, and His mission, which is the theology of the new form and requires the vernacular.
Click to expand...
All of those elements are present in both the EF and the OF.

The OF does not require the vernacular although it permits it.
 
Theophorus said:
the vernacular is an option the priest may choose to use instead of Latin.

Full active and conscious participation is interior participation as much, if not more than, it is interior participation. To say it is impossible in a “dead” language is trite at best.
Click to expand...
Actually the “vernacular,” especially in the English, has not been proven to have increased the level of understanding or reverence in the Mass at all. That’s probably because it’s not vernacular in the true sense but a politically-correct one-size-fits-all translation, which is more local copyright-focused than worship-focused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top