It has ambiguous meanings for sure. Sort of like “outstanding.” Something can be outstanding as in the best. Something can be outstanding like still being left to complete. Or someone can be outstanding like a “farmer out standing in the field.”
Africans seem to appreciate traditional Christian liturgies. Anglicanism’s Book of Common Prayer, in its traditional (1662 and authorised traditional African versions) also flourished in Africa. You mean the handmissal has an imprimatur by a bishop, don’t you? The 2007 SP requires that the EF be said in Latin, though anyone is free to follow in his own language.
so highly (however much so many priests and bishops in “the West” vulgarly despise it, 
to their discredit), it is one that I am pleased to own.Understandable, when Rome ruled the world, and Africa, that Latin would prevail. Not so now when English is the prevailing non-native language, with French a far second–and Arabic in eastern Africa.Rest assured. Those saying and attending the EF are on their best behavior now.
You’re probably right but it’s sort of ironic since the Latin Mass flourished in Africa and helped spread the faith when it started becoming the norm for the most of the Western world in the early centuries.
You do realize that while that may have been your experience, many of us never were allowed to open our mouths in church before the OF came into existence. I attended Mass in many parishes before Vat. II but never experienced a dialog Mass in any of them.
That may have been your experience. It wasn’t mine.
Yes, the missa recitata (aka “Dialogue Mass”) was, for some strange reason, not well received it North America. (I thought that it might have been more so in French Canada, but I guess I was mistaken.)
I don’t understand. I thought that when the TLM was the only form of the Mass, a traveler could go anywhere and it would be the same.
You’re saying there were massive differences from place to place not only in praxis but reverence? How can this be?Don’t get smart.I don’t understand. I thought that when the TLM was the only form of the Mass, a traveler could go anywhere and it would be the same.
Hear hear !…
No, the priest’s banter was that of someone uninformed, probably prejudiced, too.
Pax, Jerry Parker
There are some important points in your post.
As always, Brother, you make a great deal of sense. Even though I like the EF more frequently than “special holy days” I understand the reasoning.There are some important points in your post.
First, Canon Law does not lock the mass into Latin. As far as mass in other languages, for the benefit of immigrants, that’s not an issue in Canon Law. The issue in Canon Law is the right of the faithful. That’s what a canonist would argue, that the faithful have a right to “ordinary” accommodations. Ordinary in Catholic law is the same as “usual and customary” in civil law.
Second, it was not my suggestion that it work this way or that way. That’s just how the matter can be interpreted by a bishop without violating the law or the intention of Summorum Pontificum. There is very precise language involved here. If the bishop were to say that the EF of the mass cannot be celebrated, that would be a violation of SP. However, if he says that the celebration causes undue hardship to a parish, becaues of A, B, and C, that would be within his right. It would then have to be proven that it does not cause such hardship. The burden of proof is always on the person who is asking for that which is out of the ordinary.
This is not done to be mean. It’s just that law has to be practiced this way to avoid dragging things on for an eternity or turning them into personality and/or power struggles.
Personally, I have no problem with the EF or the OF. We have had both in our community. We do the EF on special holy days, for the reason that it is to remain extraordinary. But that’s us. We take the wording and apply it very literally to ourselves. But our brothers who are ordained celebrate a very beautiful OF, you can watch it on EWTN.
I do have a problem with any group, that is demanding and refuses to sit down and work out a solution that is good for the greater number of people. That’s not the attitude of people who are called to holiness. People called to holiness have take fraternal cooperation very seriously. Do you see what I’m trying to say? I’m not sure if I’m saying this well and charitably or making a bigger mess of it.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Essentially, what you said is that a bishop can contrive whatever fake excuse he may invoking “undue hardship” (far too nebulous a term) in order to prohibit the EF. In an of itself, such would be a violation of SP. Sorry, and with due respect, this isn’t civil court where the plaintiff (here meaning those who prefer the EF) must bear the burden of proof.
Why so angry? There can be legitimate hardships to a parish. My priest said that he would need at least a month of preparation before he could even THINK about a Missa Cantata.
Not angry at all. Re-read the post, and maybe you’ll catch the meaning.
Well anytime you accuse a hypothetical bishop of “contriving a fake reason” is comes across ans being either angry or paranoid. Can you think of a nother way to explain what you mean? I am just not getting it.
I agree. We should adhere to the spirit of the 2007 SP rather than be looking for loopholes in the law.
