The Usus antiquior is already enriched by the New form, being most of the TLM’s Missa Cantata. And there are some signs that the New Form will change too (e.g. increasing number of communion on tongue, Gregorian chant as part of the new form). But in the foreseeable future the desire for unity accepting the view of th other side and obedience to the Magisterium what would be required for a united form, is missing in both sides.
The pope is *guardian *of the Church’s tradition, not superior to it. He is also the focus of unity in the Church and has to act pastorally to appease human weakness (what the easterns call ‘economia’) in order to preserve communion in the Church. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, observed that a big factor in the liturgical crisis was that people believed popes had the right to do whatever they wanted with the liturgy. And Counter-Reformation centralism (and especially the setting up of the Congregation for Rites) is more to blame for that than Vatican II. Hull’s The Banished Heart also sets the Latin liturgical crisis in the context of the bureaucratic legalism that developed in the last few centuries, in contrast to the organic development which existed in pre-Reformation times and still does in the Orthodox Church. IMHO committees should not compose liturgies.
The only other alternatives are the one person of the anarchy of free choice by anybody. The mumified state of the Tridentine Mass before St Pius X and the present direction of the New form of the Mass is the proof, that both are wrong.
I don’t have the exact text of Canon 9 of Session 23 in front of me, but if it’s exactly as you quote, the key word would be “ONLY”. In other words, the use of vernacular language would be permitted, but the Mass cannot be ONLY allowed in the vernacular. Keep in mind that exceptions allowing the Roman Rite in the vernacular, even around the time of Trent, WERE permitted. In fact, in what would become the Czech Republic, a vernacular liturgy was permitted as a reform in order to combat the heresies of Jan Hus.
The previous discussion make is clear that this is not something declared as infallible statement only something for the actual circustantences:
The point is that as the Bible need interpretation the Living Tradition, so does the frozen Tradition. No sentences may be taken and used against the Living Magisterium, whp has the power to bind and loose.
Right. There are two things the Council said here: (1) the Mass is not to be celebrated in the vernacular, and (2) if anyone says that it should only be celebrated in the vernacular, anathema sit. The first part is completely non-dogmatic and merely a reformable choice with respect to discipline, as the Council make clear when it says “non . . . expedire visum est,” “it doesn’t appear advantageous.” The second part is the dogmatic portion; it was a response to Protestant heresies which said that the Mass was not a sacrifice and was not valuable in itself, but required the assembly’s participation to have any worth. This becomes especially clear when you look at the context of the other canons on the Mass promulgated along with it
It is, but it’s also not unusual. The next step is to make the request to your bishop. Make your request polite, respectful, and in writing.
Yes. Even after he “allowed” the all-vernacular Mass, Paul VI issued his Jubilate Deo.
Comes with the territory. No translations are exact. And as more illiterates and half literates speak them, national languages tend to get corrupted.
We are getting a new pastor in Sept. He might be more open to the Latin Mass.
Yes and the pope who called VII decreed in Veterum Sapientia that no one even speak of a vernacular liturgy.
