A
AlNg
Guest
It is not occurring at the local parish.
- Status
T
twf
Guest
The inverse is this… would Catholicism have spread so successfully in parts of Africa and Asia if not for the Novus Ordo? The new form allowed inculturation to a degree that wasn’t previously possible.
T
twf
Guest
And we see this. At our cathedral, the 11 am “high Mass” on Sundays is OF and primarily English, but the beautiful polyphonic choir sings the Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei in Latin.
S
stpurl
Guest
Probably. It did not occur in about 98% of parishes through the US between 1969 and approximately 2011. Many parishes since 2011 have been able to ‘come in line.’ My former parish which was Stuck in the 70s not only doesn’t have the Latin, it doesn’t actually have things like the Creed in any way, shape, or form, etc.
This is not (well not in your parish’s case probably) due to any kind of disobedience. There was a great, shall we say, ‘misunderstanding’ of what in the OF was an ‘option’ as opposed to a ‘requirement’, and also what a given priest could take upon himself as a variation (pastoral of course) for HIS parish or what he could not. That’s why you will find a number of priests who were told by their superiors that they could pretty much treat the OF as a ‘suggestion’ and could add, subtract, embellish, “enrich”, tweak, as they chose. Since 2011 the numbers of bishops and priests who have the same ‘understanding’ of the liturgical guidelines of the OF has gone down substantially but certain places will still have pockets of “this is how we do things since we received our beloved OF in 1969”, as well as pockets of “the new priest we had assigned who is in his 60s has changed things to make them more relevant—to HIM”.
This is not (well not in your parish’s case probably) due to any kind of disobedience. There was a great, shall we say, ‘misunderstanding’ of what in the OF was an ‘option’ as opposed to a ‘requirement’, and also what a given priest could take upon himself as a variation (pastoral of course) for HIS parish or what he could not. That’s why you will find a number of priests who were told by their superiors that they could pretty much treat the OF as a ‘suggestion’ and could add, subtract, embellish, “enrich”, tweak, as they chose. Since 2011 the numbers of bishops and priests who have the same ‘understanding’ of the liturgical guidelines of the OF has gone down substantially but certain places will still have pockets of “this is how we do things since we received our beloved OF in 1969”, as well as pockets of “the new priest we had assigned who is in his 60s has changed things to make them more relevant—to HIM”.
S
stpurl
Guest
You could take it up with Cardinal Sarah. Who converted well before the OF. In fact, quite a lot of the evangelization of Africa and Asia occurred under the TLM. Quite successfully. Consider the Japanese Catholics for example; the entire ‘foothold’ of Catholicism took place under the shoguns, obviously with the Latin Mass, and was kept going underground for centuries before being able to be practiced freely,
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Actually Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was considered a great missionary to Africa prior to VII:
When first appointed in 1948 by Pope Pius XII as his Apostolic Delegate of Dakar (French-speaking Africa), Archbishop Lefebvre oversaw the Catholic Church in 18 African countries. By 1959, his territory of apostolic work had expanded to 12 archdioceses, 36 dioceses, and 13 Italian Apostolic Prefectures consisting of these modern-day countries:
- Morocco (southern desert region)
- Algeria (Saharan desert region)
- Mauritania
- Mali
- Central African Republic
- Senegal
- Guinea
- The Gambia
- Cote d’Ivorie
- Benin
- Togo
- Niger
- Chad
- Cameroon
- Gabon
- Congo
- Madagascar
- Le Reunion
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
And about how often did that happen? When I was growing up, the altar faced the tabernacle (it wasn’t ‘freestanding’ back then) and so the priest didn’t turn his back on the Lord.
P
pnewton
Guest
Anybody else miss the good old days here when pitting one form against another was verboten?
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
You also have to wonder if the key is not a balance that can accommodate a range of charisms within a diocese.
It isn’t as if the Catholics leaving the Church are all stampeding over to the Greek Orthodox. The Greek Orthodox, meanwhile, have found this in one study:
Out of seven characteristics describing the style of worship in an Orthodox parish, the words “joyful”
and “inspirational” have the strongest relation with a parish’s growth in young adult members and
presence of “Good/Excellent” young adult ministries. In other words, the parishes where worship
services are ʺjoyfulʺ and ʺinspirationalʺ are the parishes that are very likely to grow in the young
adult members and have “Good/Excellent” young adult ministries. On the opposite end are two
characteristics of worship that have relatively little or no influence: worship being ʺreverentʺ or
ʺinnovative.ʺ In other words, the fact that a parish has a “reverent” or “innovative” style of worship has
no impact on parish’s growth in young adult members and presence of thriving young adult ministries.
How many in the Roman Church think that the major question to answer about attracting and getting youth engaged in their faith on a deep level was whether to be “reverent” or “innovative”? What if the answer is a resounding “neither one”?
Now–I am not saying that reverence, which is a virtue, is on a footing with innovation, which is a force that has to come in very judiciously when it comes to liturgy. I’m saying that any change in direction has to be examined so that it is not promoting one fruit of the Holy Spirit or one gift of the Holy Spirit but perhaps neglecting others in the process.
It isn’t as if the Catholics leaving the Church are all stampeding over to the Greek Orthodox. The Greek Orthodox, meanwhile, have found this in one study:
Out of seven characteristics describing the style of worship in an Orthodox parish, the words “joyful”
and “inspirational” have the strongest relation with a parish’s growth in young adult members and
presence of “Good/Excellent” young adult ministries. In other words, the parishes where worship
services are ʺjoyfulʺ and ʺinspirationalʺ are the parishes that are very likely to grow in the young
adult members and have “Good/Excellent” young adult ministries. On the opposite end are two
characteristics of worship that have relatively little or no influence: worship being ʺreverentʺ or
ʺinnovative.ʺ In other words, the fact that a parish has a “reverent” or “innovative” style of worship has
no impact on parish’s growth in young adult members and presence of thriving young adult ministries.
How many in the Roman Church think that the major question to answer about attracting and getting youth engaged in their faith on a deep level was whether to be “reverent” or “innovative”? What if the answer is a resounding “neither one”?
Now–I am not saying that reverence, which is a virtue, is on a footing with innovation, which is a force that has to come in very judiciously when it comes to liturgy. I’m saying that any change in direction has to be examined so that it is not promoting one fruit of the Holy Spirit or one gift of the Holy Spirit but perhaps neglecting others in the process.
C
CTBcin
Guest
Yeah, it sure gets tiring on here sometimes.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
When there was only one Latin rite and wherever you went the Mass would be the same? Yes
Emeraldlady
New member
I suppose it all fits the narrative some want to push that is Vatican II was an aberration. A weed that needs to be rooted out of Church history. The truth of the matter though is that there was constant talk of reconvening the Vatican Council which had been adjourned indefinitely due to the Franco Prussian War.
Pope Pius XI addressed reconvening the Council in 1922.
Recently you afforded Us new and striking evidence of your zeal when…you came in great numbers, from every part of the world, to the Eternal City, to the tombs of the Apostles, on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress and of the celebration of the Centenary of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda. The assemblage of a body of Pastors so renowned and so authoritative suggested to Us the idea ofsummoning to this city, the capital of the Catholic world, at an opportune time, a similar solemn assembly for the purpose of discovering suitable means to repair the ravages consequent on the terrible upheaval in human society. For the success of this project the auspicious approach of the Holy Year inspires in Us increased confidence.
At the present time, indeed, We could not attempt to resume the sessions of that Ecumenical Council which, as We Ourselves remember, was inaugurated by Pope Pius IX of holymemory. In this, though only partiallycompleted, he succeeded in accomplishing work of the highest importance. The reason We do not resume it now is that, like the renowned leader ofthe Israelites, We await in suppliant attitude of prayer the moment when the good and merciful God may grant Us a clearer manifestation of His will. (Encyclical, Ubi arcano (December 23, 1922))
Proposals for reconvening the Council were always on the boil during that time. Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini in a lecture in the first year of Pope John XXIIIs reign said…
Twenty years ago, at the feet of Pius XII, I, the least of all priests, dared to call for an Ecumenical Council. It seemed to me to be urgently required by the circumstances, and that there was as much material to treat as the Council of Trent had had. The venerable Pontiff did not reject the proposal and took note of it, as he used to do on important matters. I know that he later spoke about it with other prelates, but Divine Providence reserved to his successor the difficult and arduous enterprise. (October 28, 1959)
Pope Pius XI addressed reconvening the Council in 1922.
Recently you afforded Us new and striking evidence of your zeal when…you came in great numbers, from every part of the world, to the Eternal City, to the tombs of the Apostles, on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress and of the celebration of the Centenary of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda. The assemblage of a body of Pastors so renowned and so authoritative suggested to Us the idea ofsummoning to this city, the capital of the Catholic world, at an opportune time, a similar solemn assembly for the purpose of discovering suitable means to repair the ravages consequent on the terrible upheaval in human society. For the success of this project the auspicious approach of the Holy Year inspires in Us increased confidence.
At the present time, indeed, We could not attempt to resume the sessions of that Ecumenical Council which, as We Ourselves remember, was inaugurated by Pope Pius IX of holymemory. In this, though only partiallycompleted, he succeeded in accomplishing work of the highest importance. The reason We do not resume it now is that, like the renowned leader ofthe Israelites, We await in suppliant attitude of prayer the moment when the good and merciful God may grant Us a clearer manifestation of His will. (Encyclical, Ubi arcano (December 23, 1922))
Proposals for reconvening the Council were always on the boil during that time. Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini in a lecture in the first year of Pope John XXIIIs reign said…
Twenty years ago, at the feet of Pius XII, I, the least of all priests, dared to call for an Ecumenical Council. It seemed to me to be urgently required by the circumstances, and that there was as much material to treat as the Council of Trent had had. The venerable Pontiff did not reject the proposal and took note of it, as he used to do on important matters. I know that he later spoke about it with other prelates, but Divine Providence reserved to his successor the difficult and arduous enterprise. (October 28, 1959)
Emeraldlady
New member
Documents detail Cardinal Ottaviano making another push in 1948 to reconvene the Council and the preparatory work beginning.
Two weeks later, on March 15, 1948, Ottaviani presided over a meeting of six consultors and informed them of the pope’s charge. The commission met four more times before the end of May, during which they proposed establishing five preparatory commissions(for dogmatic and speculative theological matters, for practical theological matters, for disciplinary and liturgical matters, for the missions, and for Christian action and culture) and a Central Commission, whose members would be chosen from the Roman Curia, to coordinate the work of the different study-commissions. Ottaviani’s commission also began a study of topics for the Council to consider, reviewing the agenda of Vatican I and the acts of the Holy Office. Caprile gives a summary of the topics proposed by this commission and makes the pertinent remark that they indicate that certain problems that emerged after Vatican II were already perceived and known in Rome.
The commission also considered who should be invited to take part in the preparatory commissions. They drew up a list of 36 persons, and then proposed that the members would be chosen from among the consultors to the Roman congregations, with the addition of a non-Roman, chosen after consultation with papal representatives and some bishops of important dioceses. (Pius XII himself decided that it was unnecessary to consult more widely, and the commission was asked to propose names of non-Roman experts.) As for the proposed Central Commission, this would be composed of members of the Roman Curia, while members of the Commission would also preside over the various preparatory commissions.
In February 1949, Pius XII established the Central Commission or Special Preparatory Commission, with Monsignor Borgongini Duca as President and Pierre Charles, of Louvain, as Secretary. The Commission met six times between February and May, 1949. They proposed sending a letter to select bishops (65 of them in some thirty countries) soliciting their proposals for the Council. Although a later plenary session of the Holy Office was to postpone a consultation of these bishops, the letter drawn up is worth quoting for the indications it gives of the spirit and purposes of the preparatory Commission: here
Of course the first Vatican Council was formally closed in 1960 and the second phase convened in 1962
Pope John XXIII may indeed have been inspired by a start date, but Vatican II was in the works in a very significant way since the premature adjournment of the original Council. Unfortunately those details will make it harder to bury Vatican II as an innovation of the liberals.
Two weeks later, on March 15, 1948, Ottaviani presided over a meeting of six consultors and informed them of the pope’s charge. The commission met four more times before the end of May, during which they proposed establishing five preparatory commissions(for dogmatic and speculative theological matters, for practical theological matters, for disciplinary and liturgical matters, for the missions, and for Christian action and culture) and a Central Commission, whose members would be chosen from the Roman Curia, to coordinate the work of the different study-commissions. Ottaviani’s commission also began a study of topics for the Council to consider, reviewing the agenda of Vatican I and the acts of the Holy Office. Caprile gives a summary of the topics proposed by this commission and makes the pertinent remark that they indicate that certain problems that emerged after Vatican II were already perceived and known in Rome.
The commission also considered who should be invited to take part in the preparatory commissions. They drew up a list of 36 persons, and then proposed that the members would be chosen from among the consultors to the Roman congregations, with the addition of a non-Roman, chosen after consultation with papal representatives and some bishops of important dioceses. (Pius XII himself decided that it was unnecessary to consult more widely, and the commission was asked to propose names of non-Roman experts.) As for the proposed Central Commission, this would be composed of members of the Roman Curia, while members of the Commission would also preside over the various preparatory commissions.
In February 1949, Pius XII established the Central Commission or Special Preparatory Commission, with Monsignor Borgongini Duca as President and Pierre Charles, of Louvain, as Secretary. The Commission met six times between February and May, 1949. They proposed sending a letter to select bishops (65 of them in some thirty countries) soliciting their proposals for the Council. Although a later plenary session of the Holy Office was to postpone a consultation of these bishops, the letter drawn up is worth quoting for the indications it gives of the spirit and purposes of the preparatory Commission: here
Of course the first Vatican Council was formally closed in 1960 and the second phase convened in 1962
Pope John XXIII may indeed have been inspired by a start date, but Vatican II was in the works in a very significant way since the premature adjournment of the original Council. Unfortunately those details will make it harder to bury Vatican II as an innovation of the liberals.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
I think you might be conflating rites with forms.
P
pnewton
Guest
So continue on with this sort of, “My Mass is better than your Mass” stuff if you must. Might as well keep trying to convert the faithful that are different than us. It is not like there are lost people that need our evangelization.pnewton:
When there was only one Latin rite and wherever you went the Mass would be the same? Yes
P
pnewton
Guest
Thank you. I edited it for accuracy.
Emeraldlady
New member
See my evidence in the previous post.
Strong language is very much called for when history is being manipulated to lead unsuspecting faithful to believe something that is absolutely untrue.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Vatican II is part of the Catholic church. It is a valid 21st Ecumenical council of the Catholic church. It can’t be rooted out of Church history.
Yes, though sadly they disregarded much of what Cardinal Ottaviano and the prepatory documents many had proposed, which is why there was the Ottaviano intervention at the end of VII.
Yes
You can’t bury an Ecumenical council. You can distort it and make it say what it doesn’t but you can’t bury it.
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
That should be addressed to Homeschooldad.
- Status