J
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
I can’t help but to think this is much ado about nothing.
The EF has only been widely available since 2007. The Knights of Malta since the first Crusade. They celebrated the OF exclusively with no issue for many years.
I can see, just based on my personal experiences, where having both forms available might cause divisions in the organization. I would also imagine that those who are “attached” to the EF is a much smaller number than those who are not, so this just makes sense.
No one has a “right” to have the EF Mass and the Grand Master has every right to do what he sees fit to keep his organization ficused on what really matters.
The EF has only been widely available since 2007. The Knights of Malta since the first Crusade. They celebrated the OF exclusively with no issue for many years.
I can see, just based on my personal experiences, where having both forms available might cause divisions in the organization. I would also imagine that those who are “attached” to the EF is a much smaller number than those who are not, so this just makes sense.
No one has a “right” to have the EF Mass and the Grand Master has every right to do what he sees fit to keep his organization ficused on what really matters.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
What happened to Diversity? We are not talking about mandating the EF to all, but allowing a perfectly valid form, for those who want it.
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Which is still available to anyone who wants it. It is only during Order events,which the order has every right to do. Especially if there is already an issue, or one brewing.
K
KMG
Guest
The letter can’t even manage to spell things correctly.
It also implicitly “bans” Eastern liturgies; other Western liturgies and uses.
It’s not a surprising document whatsoever given the current realities in Rome…but they might at least try to write their documents well. And check they’ve correctly spelled things.
It also implicitly “bans” Eastern liturgies; other Western liturgies and uses.
It’s not a surprising document whatsoever given the current realities in Rome…but they might at least try to write their documents well. And check they’ve correctly spelled things.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
It’s pretty ridiculous, especially given that in US at least, the main people who would be interested in this “Order” would be traditionalists who are likely to also favor the EF.
K
KMG
Guest
It’s vindictive; it’s petty; it’s also predictable given current realities.
Would that some in Rome and elsewhere cared more about things like episcopal sodomy (McCarrick) than about banning the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.
Would that some in Rome and elsewhere cared more about things like episcopal sodomy (McCarrick) than about banning the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.