J
JMJ_coder
Guest
And according to the Holy Father, they are. They are of the same value and sacredness. And guess what, between you (or your parish Priest) and the Holy Father, I’ll listen to the voice of Peter.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
It would be Protestantism to take on the Holy Father. I will not go there. If he says that I have to accept the EF and the OF as equal in holiness and necessary for the Church, so be it. I will not attack a person who prefers the OF or the EF. The Church has granted us that right and it should be respecteded and supported. Otherwise, we are no different from Luther who placed his judgment on the same level as that of the pope. Even when we’re right or think that we’re right, we must have the humility to accept our place in the Church.
The mass at the Shrine was beautiful. I hope that they celebrate it several times a year. It would be good for the young people at Catholic University to see the history of the Liturgy in live action. That being said, the OF mass that the Holy Father just celebrated in Malta was also beautiful and that should also be seen by our young people so they can develop an appreciation for good liturgy.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The mass at the Shrine was beautiful. I hope that they celebrate it several times a year. It would be good for the young people at Catholic University to see the history of the Liturgy in live action. That being said, the OF mass that the Holy Father just celebrated in Malta was also beautiful and that should also be seen by our young people so they can develop an appreciation for good liturgy.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The OF and the EF are equal and, as the Holy Father said, a continutation of the same rite. You and your parish priest are entitled to your private, personal opinions, but you aren’t going to be allowed to get away with attempting to state them as though they were definitive truth. It boils down to this: do we listen to the Vicar of Christ, speaking to the whole of the Church via Summorum Pontificam or to you, who have made postings in these fora alledging that a) women had to wear veils (mantillas) as head coverings and b) married women had to wear black ones and single women had to wear white ones? Who speaks with greater authority, YOU or the Pope, who also happens to be one of the more brilliant theologians produced by the Church? You or Benedict?
You want to promote the TLM? Stop talking about it. You aren’t doing it any favors.
M
Marie5890
Guest
THAT I think is so worth repeating and not just for our young people, but for all of us.so they can develop an appreciation for good liturgy.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Im grateful I have a priest in our parish who is dedicated to good liturgy. I know that is often not the case for many.
Thank you, Br. JR, for your insight and comments in this thread. And for keeping the teachings very clear.
L
Lujack
Guest
Seconded wholeheartedly. It’s always a treat to read what Brother JR has to say on an issue, since it makes things much clearer and easier to understand.
Thank you!
J
JReducation
Guest
Well look at what this 83-year oldman crammed into one weekend. I’m young enough to be his son and I can’t cram that much into one weekend without falling asleep somehwhere.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
With all due respect, JR, you didn’t show this in your example. You showed that a priest experienced with saying the EF should also say the OF but not the other way around. This is most biased toward the OF. The OF had already been given a head start in the race and this sends the wrong message if true equality between the forms can be achieved and if that’s what the Pope intended. Even one forced EF in every Latin Rite Catholic parish would not achieve true equality and we’re no where near that.
L
lewisj2455
Guest
@Spirtus Sanctus. You are wrong about it being a mix of TLM and NO. The Mass was entirely a Mass in the Extraordinary Form (EF/TLM). Pontifical only refers to the fact that it was celebrated by a bishop and has its own rubrics within the EF/TLM. The whole purpose of this Mass was to celebrate the easing of restrictions on offering the EF brought about from the Moto Proprio of Pope Benedict in 2007. This Mass has been three years in the making and the occasion was to honor Pope Benedict on the Fifth Anniversary of his inauguration as our beloved Pope and to thank him for the Moto Proprio. It was an entirely EF Mass.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
That’s because your typical Catholic, saint or sinner, prefers the Mass in his or her own language. Offering the EF in the vernacular would PROBABLY go a long way to re-establishing it in the culture of the Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
I cannot say that an EF must be celebrated in every parish in order to show equality, because the Holy Father did not say that. I would be adding something to the document. What he does say is that both are holy and that the two missals are not in contradiction. If both are holy, we cannot present a divisive argument that one is holier than the other.
If you go back and read the letter, it is precisely this point of division over the EF and OF that the Holy Father is trying to avoid.
It is true that he says that every priest who celebrates the EF should also celebrate the OF, but that does not make them unequal in holiness or in spiritual value. I can see the logic there. If the Mass of Paul VI as it has sometimes been called is the Ordinary Form for the Roman Church, then it would make sense that every priest should be able and willing to celebrate it.
What makes something extraordinary is the fact that it is not your daily bread and that it is not celebrated by every priest or in every parish, including by the pope himself. I don’t know what he clebrates in his chapel, but he never celebrates the EF in public, because it is not to be taken as the ordinary mass of the Roman Church. Several times in his letter he repeats two points. First that the Tridentine mass has a special place in the life of the Church. Second, that the use of the Tridentine form is extraordinary.
I understnad what you’re saying about a head start. But if I’m understanding the concept of extraordinary as it was taught to us in the seminary, it is not supposed to catch up in numbers and frequency, otherwise the extraordinary becomes ordinary.
I think that the word that many people are looking for when speaking of the EF is nobility, rather than sanctity. Both forms are equal in sanctity and dignity. But the EF has the nobility that comes from age. I call it a historical nobility. Two things can be equal in dignity and holiness, but not the same in historical nobility. Who would say that the Missionaries of the Poor are less holy than the Benedictines? But the Benedictines have something that the Missionaries of the Poor do not yet have, that is age. They enjoy a certain historical nobility. The same applies to the EF and OF.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s one thing that cannot be done. The Extraordinary Form must be celebrated in Latin, except for the readins, sermon and hymns. Those can be in the language of the people. The missal promulgated by John XXIII does not allow for the use of modern languages.
This can be changed by the Holy Father. But as it stands right now, the rubrics call for Latin. In fact, they require that the priest and deacon actually understand the language, not just decode it. They have to be able to encode and process in Latin.
It’s not that hard to follow if you go to mass often enough. You can tell what’s going on and you know the prayers for each part. There are also booklets and missals with translations in various languages.
My Latin is rusty and I can follow it. I have not used Latin since I studied theology at Catholic University in the early 70s. It was interesting, because I went to Rome to do my doctorate and expected to do more reading in Latin, as we had done in the USA. By the time that I got to the Pontifical Universities in Rome, they were much further ahead than Catholic University of America. Rome had switched entirely to European languages and Latin was never uesed, unless you wanted to see the original text. Even the Vatican had changed over to Italian and Spanish. Latin was only used to write documents. I believe now they have more English at the Vatican since there are more Americans working there.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
If I were to stop talking about the TLM, I would, for the most part, be wasting my time on these forums. I’ll talk about the TLM as much as I want to. This is the Traditional section, I’m free to promote it.
And women do have to have their heads covered. That was actually another problem I forgot to mention about the Mass on Saturday, very few women had their heads covered. I did see a few with veils and hats, but a few doesn’t cut it. You say (or atleast imply) that I don’t know very much about the history of the Church, yet you yourself don’t even know that women are supposed to have their heads covered and that the color of a veil (black for married, white for un-married) is important. Maybe if you looked it up you would see that the Church did indeed teach that before Vatican II and that I’m not just making stuff up. I’m not saying we shouldn’t listen to the Pope, I’m just saying there’s nothing wrong with preserving some teachings that were left behind following Vatican II.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
That’s impossible. Offering the TLM in the vernacular would not make it a TLM. Why do you think it’s called the Traditional Latin Mass?
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually TLM is not its canonical name. It’s canonical name is the Tridentine Mass, now called the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite Mass. I’m not sure where TLM came from. Maybe someone can enlighten me on that one. It’s not in canon law or liturgical law. And it’s only used by English speakers.
If you go to South America they call it “la misa tridentina.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
I know that according to the Code of Canon Law of 1917, what you are saying about women covering their heads is correct.
I also know that in the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983 there is no mention of this *“rule”, *and that this code replaces any older form.
That said, please give me a reference that states definitively that the Church indeed stated what color and style of head covering a woman was supposed to wear?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
No, you’re quite simply and factually wrong, along the same lines as claiming that Napoleon won a resounding victory at Waterloo. The Church never said it had to be a veil, most women for years wore hats, and color was NEVER a consideration, apart from local cultures and customs. And no, women do not have to have their heads covered now. The Holy See has said that Paul spoke to a matter of custom and discipline, not immutable truth, and custom and discipline can change (and have).
Promote away. Your type of “promotion” will only leave a bad taste in the mouths of the faithful for the TLM.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I’m aware of what you are saying, Br., but my point was that that would truly level the playing field and give more exposure of the EF to the faithful. I know it cannot be celebrated in the vernacular now, but that could change.That’s one thing that cannot be done. The Extraordinary Form must be celebrated in Latin, except for the readins, sermon and hymns. Those can be in the language of the people. The missal promulgated by John XXIII does not allow for the use of modern languages.
This can be changed by the Holy Father. But as it stands right now, the rubrics call for Latin. In fact, they require that the priest and deacon actually understand the language, not just decode it. They have to be able to encode and process in Latin.
It’s not that hard to follow if you go to mass often enough. You can tell what’s going on and you know the prayers for each part. There are also booklets and missals with translations in various languages.
My Latin is rusty and I can follow it. I have not used Latin since I studied theology at Catholic University in the early 70s. It was interesting, because I went to Rome to do my doctorate and expected to do more reading in Latin, as we had done in the USA. By the time that I got to the Pontifical Universities in Rome, they were much further ahead than Catholic University of America. Rome had switched entirely to European languages and Latin was never uesed, unless you wanted to see the original text. Even the Vatican had changed over to Italian and Spanish. Latin was only used to write documents. I believe now they have more English at the Vatican since there are more Americans working there.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Again, a little education is in order. The Holy See has granted a limited use of the EF in the local vernaculars in the past, centuries before Vatican II. Once again, you simply are not clear on what you’re talking about.
J
JReducation
Guest
The language can certainly be changed. It’s neither a dogma nor a moral law. I doubt that it will be changed, because you do want to preserve its historical purity. But I would never say never.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I don’t know, but I rather think perhaps the Pope is aiming for this type of thing. I think it’s going to be impossible for the Church to always have these warring camps within it. If organic development is our watchword, it may be that one day, there will be only one form again. It might be the EF, permitted in both the vernacular and Latin.The language can certainly be changed. It’s neither a dogma nor a moral law. I doubt that it will be changed, because you do want to preserve its historical purity. But I would never say never.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status