"Latin-Rite" Catholic

[Old_Salt]

From Fr Zuhlsdorf:

“The priest wears the maniple only during Mass. Thus he removed it for the sermon. The maniple comes off because Mass is supended, not the other way around.”

 

[Sirach2]

Old Salt:

From Fr Zuhlsdorf:

“The priest wears the maniple only during Mass. Thus he removed it for the sermon. The maniple comes off because Mass is supended, not the other way around.”

I’m curious to know why you pulled Father’s answer out of context to prove your own point, which is in error, and does an injustice to Father Z’s words. For the record, read them in correct light, please.

I usually like/take questions with one clear point, but I’ll deal with several here.

Q 1. When the maniple comes off, Mass is suspended.
A. Not quite. In some schools of thought concerning the older form of Mass the sermon was not considered part of Mass. The priest wears the maniple only during Mass. Thus he removed it for the sermon. The maniple comes off because Mass is supended, not the other way around.

Q.2. Without it the Mass is invalid.
A. No. Absolutely wrong. A TLM would certainly be valid. However, the maniple is a prescribed vestment for the TLM. The priest must wear one if there is one. Of course, the priest is not bound to the impossible. If there is no maniple and not even a stoll can be adapted, then Mass goes ahead and that’s the way it is.

Q.3. The maniple is permitted in the Ordinary Form.
Yes, it is. The maniple is permitted** as an option but not obligatory** in the Ordinary Form. The maniple** is obligatory** in the Extraordinary Form and is not an option.

 

[Sirach2]

YoungTradCath:

The homily is not always assumed in the OF. It is only assumed on a very few occasions, relatively.

I am getting the sense that those who only attend the TLM are confusing their liturgies with the OF and making unsound comments with regard to the obligation of a homily. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning of the word “assumed.”

A few posts ago, I gave the General Instructions of the Roman Missal, which does not dispense the OF priest from giving a homily. It is obligatory for Sunday liturgies, unless there is a serious reason for omitting it, and is recommended for seasonal weekday liturgies.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

I use it as a sort of “in your face” reminder that Latin is the language of our liturgy …] of our doctors

Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison. Eucharist. Anaphora. Epeclesis.

IIRC all Catholic liturgies were originally in Greek and then later translated into Latin, Old Church Slavonic, etc. Even the Old Testament was the Greek one, the Septuagint, which is why we still use the words Pentateuch, Genesis, Exodus, etc. In my local and neighboring RC parishes, I’ve heard more Greek than Latin from Sunday to Sunday every week of the year. And, of course, the New Testament was in Greek.

Actually, there were Doctors of the Church who spoke Greek: St Basil, St John Chrysostom, St Gregorian Nazianzen – to name a few.

It’s a blind spot for most RCers on how deep and historical Greek (language and culture via the Eastern Roman Empire, aka Byzantium) is in the Catholic tradition.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I am getting the sense that those who only attend the TLM are confusing their liturgies with the OF and making unsound comments with regard to the obligation of a homily. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning of the word “assumed.”

A few posts ago, I gave the General Instructions of the Roman Missal, which does not dispense the OF priest from giving a homily. It is obligatory for Sunday liturgies, unless there is a serious reason for omitting it, and is recommended for seasonal weekday liturgies.

I don’t only attend the TLM. Actually, and unfortunately for me, I usually attend the OF because that is what is near me.

You are right, the homily is obligatory for Sunday masses as well as all Holy Days. That is, what, something like 55-60 total mandatory homilies a year then, in the OF? 55-60 is a relatively low number compared to the 365-366 total days in a year.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

It’s a blind spot for most RCers on how deep and historical Greek (language and culture via the Eastern Roman Empire, aka Byzantium) is in the Catholic tradition.

It’s not a blind spot. I’m well aware of the importance Greek philosophy, language and culture has played in Christendom. This is no way changes the fact that we’ve also got our own Latin tradition that is in grave danger.

Regarding the language of the liturgy, the original liturgies would have likely been in Hebrew and Aramaic. This doesn’t change that for the overwhelming majority of our history in the West, it’s been Latin.

Regarding the language of the Scriptures… need I remind you that the Latin Vulgate is the only text of the Scriptures to be declared doctrinally sound?

I know there were Greek doctors. I never said there was. I simply said there was Latin doctors as well.

You’re basically a shinning example of why I am very forceful about highlighting the Latin heritage of the Western Church. Because no matter what, for some reason, the Greeks have to inject themselves into it as well.

However all hell is raised if it’s the other way.

It’s a two way street. The Greek tradition, culture, etc., must be respected. But so must the Latin.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

You’re basically a shinning example of why I am very forceful about highlighting the Latin heritage of the Western Church. Because no matter what, for some reason, the Greeks have to inject themselves into it as well.

Probably because of how many Latin triumphalists are shining examples of the constant neglect of the Greek tradition in Catholicism? We all need a better grasp of Catholic history, and so many do not realize that there is much more to it than only Rome. We need the Pentarchy of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. We are one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

It’s a two way street. The Greek tradition, culture, etc., must be respected. But so must the Latin.

Amen! :byzsoc:

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Probably because of how many Latin triumphalists are shining examples of the constant neglect of the Greek tradition in Catholicism?

Hogwash! The Latin “triumphalism” that I have noted has always been born of a reaction against all things anti-Latin that followed the Second Vatican Council (and I am not saying this was the responsibility of he Council its self, which was very strongly pro-Latin).

Before the 1960s no one would have dared suggest that Greek was of little importance. Of course your average Catholic in 1800s England wasn’t getting a massive dose of Greek thought and culture, etc. But nor was your average 19th century Byzantine Catholic in Croatia being educated about the cult of Saint Edward the Confessor and learning to chant Aquinas’s Pange Lingua.

We all need a better grasp of Catholic history,

No. It’s not a necessity to be highly informed about these matters. Of course with modern communication, wide-spread education, etc., it will always be more advantageous to have a good grasp of it all, but it’s not a matter of needing…

We need the Pentarchy of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. We are one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

No, we do not. Rome is all that is necessary. Even Jerusalem is mere dust in the wind. Rome is eternal, Rome is the absolute necessity to the Church. The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem deserve respect, of course. But they do not rival Rome in any way. They do not have that importance. The Pope could raise a Patriarch and suppress one. That is his authority.

I wont even comment on the jumped-up bishopric of Constantinople.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

Rome is all that is necessary.

Prayers for you. May we one day rejoice in the Lord and be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church – and not just one Roman Catholic Church. :byzsoc:

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Pope could raise a Patriarch and suppress one. That is his authority.

Really? Can you site one historical instance where this has happened, especially pre-Great Schism? (I’m talking about the highlighted “suppression” here).

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Really? Can you site one historical instance where this has happened, especially pre-Great Schism? (I’m talking about the highlighted “suppression” here).

Well it’s never happened as far as I am aware. I doubt it ever would. It’d be completely unnecessary. I was just using hyperbole to make a point of the superiority of the Roman Church.

Edit: I wouldn’t even say it is hyperbolic. It’s completely within Peter’s power. I just don’t see him exercising it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well it’s never happened as far as I am aware. I doubt it ever would. It’d be completely unnecessary. I was just using hyperbole to make a point of the superiority of the Roman Church.

Edit: I wouldn’t even say it is hyperbolic. It’s completely within Peter’s power. I just don’t see him exercising it.

Thats the thing, if its not happened in 2000 years, then it points to the fact that such powers are not with the Pope. There have been several times in history that would have been appropriate to replace the Patriarch of a Church going into schism. The Patriarch of Alexandria after the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon when they separated. And of course the Patriarch of Constantinople at the Great Schism (at any point between 800AD and 1200AD). But it didn’t happen. It would have prevented the schism if the Pope replaced the Patriarch with one that agreed with the teaching of the Church (or at least the Western Church) but it didn’t happen.

So I don’t believe it is completely in the Pope’s power, as many would claim (and without basis I might add).