You are mistaken. While I’m aware it’s written in Latin, the intention for the OF has never been for it normatively/primarily celebrated worldwide in Latin. Before the OF we had the Dialog Mass which was also in the vernacular.
It isn’t just a matter of preference. What Windmill was trying to say is that Sacrosantum Concillium said that the faithful are know their parts of the Mass in Latin and to be able to respond accordingly.
Really? Tell that to the Byzantines. The readings are proclaimed from the back of the Church forward.
Wouldn’t that description apply to any Catholic? Surely a traditional Catholic not only appreciates what the Church allows now, but has a preference for what she has done in the past, i.e. traditionally. Would you not agree?
I think the norm for the OF actually is Latin, and the “vernacular” requires an indult. Am I wrong in that? Additionally, and I will readily admit that I am no expert, but I believe Vatican II called for Latin to be retained in the Latin rite, and that all people should be able to respond in Latin during the liturgy. Does Latin in two or three hymns really comply with that? It certainly seems a begrudging and weak response to the call of the Council. But, I really don’t mean to pound the Latin button, as it is not a big deal in and of itself for me. Rather, compliance with the Council is a major issue, as is a logical and effective approach to the vernacular. As I see it, neither has been achieved at this time.
All at one Mass? How is that Mass in the vernacular, or in a language understood by the people? I don’t speak Spanish, and don’t really see why I should need a translator or a dictionary to understand the general intercessions in a Mass offered in English. If I can’t understand half of the Mass, why can’t that half be in Latin as the Council seemed to desire, rather than Spanish?
I have to disagree, it is intrinsic. The OF Mass is about choice, and there is no limit on when and where such choices may be used. The structure of the Mass is such that one small option, regardless of how useful or helpful such option may be, can be used to the total exclusion of the original and well established forms that have been used for centuries. That is actually very intrinsic, and shows a severe failing in the approach taken to the ordinary form of the Mass.
Yes, they are not abuses, and that is because the Mass allows that approach to be taken. It is a legal way of offering Mass. But, is it wise? If it isn’t, then why make it possible to do so? I think this is a flaw in your “theoretical” approach to this issue, comparing an “abuse-free” OF to a similar EF. You clearly also have in mind a tasteful, reverent and well enacted Mass, and that goes beyond the abuse issue.
Yes, that is true, and I think that would be a pertinent point. I have no experience with the EF but in reading others comments on how it works I would think much could have been done to reform it and improve the life of the Church. But, that doesn’t automatically make the OF better, or mean that the problems with the OF aren’t there.
I do know those. Not every Mass celebrated is to have those parts in Latin though. You are wrong, Sacrosantum Concillium does not specify that.
Actually you’re wrong – at least for those of the Byzantine Ruthenian tradition of which I am very familiar. The Epistle is proclaimed a few steps behind the icostasia. The Gospel on the other hand is proclaimed from the front of the church, just outside of the iconostasis.
No, I wouldn’t agree. I don’t think that applies to all Catholics and no, I don’t believe traditionally-minded Catholics necessarily prefer the EF. Far from it.
Whether it requires an indult or not (it does not) would make absolutely no difference as the Church allows it. I covered the second matter in my last posting.
Because no one speaks Latin as their primary language.
No Church document ever limited the OF to Latin-only. That’s simply a canard.
Bull. You may not care for the different options allowed by the OF but that’s your problem. I’ll follow what the Church and not your notion that “original and well established forms that have been used for centuries” have been excluded and/or are somehow superior to what is allowed by the Church.
You’re trying to place yourself above the Church. It’s Her opinion I value, not your own.
Most people who attack the EF never attack it’s structure or content – they attack the abuses they have heard about or possibly encountered. This thread isn’t about abuses – that’s why I ignore comments about them. There are 2000 other threads on this forum that deal with abuses – go check one out.
Actually, I wasn’t specifically speaking of the EF, but rather of traditional devotions, practices or whatever. I don’t think the EF is the only gauge of traditional Catholicism, though it is certainly front and center for most.
Again, the Mass is not the only issue at hand. A person may be quite traditional, and not prefer the EF. However, I hardly think one could make much of a case for calling themselves traditional because they dislike the EF, or because they prefer the OF for its modernity. These certainly don’t seem like examples of traditionalism to me.
But you were speaking of what is the norm, not what is permitted. These are not the same thing. Perhaps something has changed since the Council and now permission is not explicitly needed from the Bishop’s to use a language other than Latin, but I don’t think that makes the vernacular the norm as you are now suggesting. Latin is the language all Roman liturgies begin in, and it is from these that others are translated. Additionally, these translations must be approved by the Holy See. Latin is always allowed though. That is because Latin is the norm, and the others are permitted.
What does that have to do with it? I don’t speak Spanish at all. Putting a Mass into two languages guarantees that a large percentage of the people are lost, and how is that doing what you suggest the vernacular should do? How is my sitting there completely oblivious as to what is being said in some way making things better understood by the people?
No they are not, and you know it. If the people really only spoke Spanish, then there would be a Spanish Mass. Not an English Mass with all the intercessions in Spanish, or the Epistle in Spanish or whatever. That is about anything but being understood. If the Spanish speakers don’t need the Eucharistic Prayer in their mother tongue, then why do they need the intercessions or the epistle? And if the English speakers don’t need those then why did they need English for the EP? Or if they all, miraculously, speak both languages, then why not use on or the other so that the whole thing makes sense for the visiting Catholic driving through town to visit his mother?
Bull? You think the suppression of the traditional forms of these rites is a good thing, because it is technically allowed in the rubrics? That I don’t appreciate the complete suppression of all use of Latin, the confiteor and the Roman Canon at any Mass is my problem? You, a “traditionally minded” Catholic praise the removal of these choices, and feel that it is all my problem that I would like to see them? Since I only seek what is allowed by the rubrics and called for by the Second Vatican Council I cannot see how it is my problem.
Why are so many people attached to the OF around here so angry at Catholics who have opinions? You had no trouble saying why you “Prefer the Pauline Mass”. You make a list of what you like about this, or what you like about that, without any hint of hesitation. But, if I say that what you say is good for you is less than good for me, then I am trying to place myself above the Church, and you don’t value my opinion. Why do I have less right to an opinion than you do?
I know, and so was I.
I would agree, except I would use the word “some” instead of “most”
Kinda like how my parish, on Holy Thursday, when there are five priests concelebrating with my pastor, has SEVEN EMHCs. The five visiting priests all sit down after they’ve received Communion. It’s pathetic.
I know the USCCB has said something to that effect: “In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.” (NDRHC 24)
Articles 36 and 54 of Sacrosanctum Concilium never imply a celebration of the Mass without Latin.
The Dialog Mass in the TLM was in the vernacular? That comes as news to me.
“Without Latin” versus mostly in Latin are two different things. If you want to know about the Dialog Mass, Google it. Seems like most fans of the EF have no idea it ever existed.
I would concur.I would agree, except I would use the word “some” instead of “most”
Except that Masses with any Latin are few and far between. As is evident from the previous post I made, the Instructions on the carrying out of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy took quite a few liberties with the permission for the vernacular.
Possibly for some, certainly not for “most.”
That’s the fallacy. I’ve never said I dislike the EF – quite the opposite – I just prefer the OF.
In a practical sense they are the same to me. I care only that something is approved by the Church. FYI, the OF celebrated entirely (or even the majority of it) in Latin was never the “norm.”
Not really. Many people can follow a second language at least to some degree. The bilingual Mass simply helps them get more out of it.
There are people in my parish who only speak Spanish or only English who have no option but to attend a bi-lingual Mass.
I have not seen a suppression of anything the Church directs in my world.
I’m not getting angry – not in the least. I’m just ignoring any rants on abuses because it has nothing to do with the topic.
That’s not been my experience be it in person or on daily TV on EWTN.
One word- SoCal
Don’t you think that’s a tad uncharitable towards a duly authorized EMHC?
