Transitioning to Tridentine Rite

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deus_lo_vult
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Diana Catherine:
I think maybe that is the type of statement needed to show what you are trying to say but haven’t. Something that states the bishops PREFER to face the people rather than not face the people. 😊 Maybe? 🙂
Click to expand...
You were very kind, and I’m sorry that I did not answer yesterday while in the thick of battle … 😛

The only comment I can offer at this point is to share the opinion of Cardinal Estevez’s successor at CDWDS, Cardinal Arinze, who was interviewed by Raymond Arroyo in this thread.
RCN: I thought he did a good job of dismissing the question on “ad orientem” - he stressed that altars must allow Mass to be said facing the people, and left it at that. When asked about wider use of Latin in the Mass, he said that while Latin is still the official language of the Church, priests should not switch existing vernacular Masses into Latin on a whim - the pastoral needs of the people must be considered. He acknowledged that large numbers of Catholics do not understand Latin and would not benefit from its use.

Pnewton: Yes, unless a Mass is designated by the bishop or pastor to be in a specific language. It my be his opinion but his is the highest ranking opinion available, short of the Holy Father. The Supreme Court gives opinion, but when they do, none of ours override them legally.

He did say that altars must be constructed to allow the priest to face the people, not that the priest must do so. He also dismissed this a very minor problem.
Click to expand...
In the mode of Cardinal Arinze, I dismiss this, also, as a very minor problem. It is the present norm of celebration in the OF and until the bishop or hierarchy decides to change things, I submit, as every Catholic should, whether or not one personally agrees with it. This should end discussion on this matter, as it has become a mountain of undue proportions over a rather insignificant molehill. 😉

God bless you Diane Catherine.
 
Sirach2 said:
You were very kind, and I’m sorry that I did not answer yesterday while in the thick of battle … 😛

The only comment I can offer at this point is to share the opinion of Cardinal Estevez’s successor at CDWDS, Cardinal Arinze, who was interviewed by Raymond Arroyo in this thread.

In the mode of Cardinal Arinze, I dismiss this, also, as a very minor problem. It is the present norm of celebration in the OF and until the bishop or hierarchy decides to change things, I submit, as every Catholic should, whether or not one personally agrees with it. This should end discussion on this matter, as it has become a mountain of undue proportions over a rather insignificant molehill. 😉

God bless you Diane Catherine.
Click to expand...
Thank you for answering and thanks for the link to the thread. I am so glad you did because I am a returning Catholic and now having read parts of *Redemptionis Sacramentum *I realize so many things that seemed normal to me are abuses. Wow. When I have time I am going to sit and read the whole thing.🙂

In reference to your link to the previous thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=39279, my only concern is that the quotes provided are from two people on Catholic Answers, I don’t know who they are and there are those in that thread that disagree with their comments, also, but I did find the link to the interview with Raymond Arroyo. It is an awesome interview. I would listen to it, openly, because I don’t feel the two commenting on his interview quite express things the way he really said them. He is discussing the document Redemptionis Sacramentum and Raymond did ask questions not just give statements and the Cardinald answered him and a couple times Raymond had to be corrected.

The Cardinal says in response to Raymond asking about ad orientem, “the document does not go into it but earlier documents already said, ‘altars should be built in such away that Mass can be said facing the people.’ The Church never said Mass must be said facing the people but build the altar in such a way that Mass can be said facing the people. That’s all, so as not to be so rigid, which means both are possible.” I italicized can and must because you can hear him stress those words but I am sorry I still don’t hear him say facing the people is preferred.

Great interview. The Catholic Answers forum members didn’t quite get his take on Latin at Mass quite right either.

Here is the link: ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?pgnu=12&SeriesID=-6892288
I tried to just post the show of that one day but couldn’t, so it is show #344, around page 10.

God Bless you, too.🙂
 
Diane Catherine:
I italicized can and must because you can hear him stress those words but I am sorry I still don’t hear him say facing the people is preferred.
Click to expand...
The posters in that thread say did not say anything of the sort, either, nor did I. In the final analysis, we need to put this anthill to rest, for it is a minor matter according to what I understand of the posters’ statements from the Cardinal. I have no need to listen to the link, but I’m sure many will appreciate it and perhaps keep the fire of controversy going. Thanks for taking time to research it. 🙂
 
TimothyH said:
I take issue with the insistence that all liturgies must always be in Latin, and I take strong issue with anyone who insists that two Masses being equal, the one in Latin has a greater power to make those who attend holy, less prone to sin, or to make God love them more than attening the same Mass which is not in Latin.

Nobody is against Latin. Nobody hates the Latin Mass and want’s to abolish it. At least I don’t. What I take issue with is the position that people who go to the Latin Mass are somehow better Christians because the Mass is in Latin, as opposed to French or Russian or Haitian Creole.
Click to expand...
While I see no basis for claiming that people attending the Latin Mass are better Christians, we can say that a Mass with no Latin in it is not following the Vatican 2 teaching about liturgy. The Council Fathers wanted Latin to be preserved in the Mass.
 
Diana_Catherine said:
In reference to your link to the previous thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=39279, my only concern is that the quotes provided are from two people on Catholic Answers, I don’t know who they are and there are those in that thread that disagree with their comments, also, but I did find the link to the interview with Raymond Arroyo. It is an awesome interview. I would listen to it, openly, because I don’t feel the two commenting on his interview quite express things the way he really said them. He is discussing the document Redemptionis Sacramentum and Raymond did ask questions not just give statements and the Cardinald answered him and a couple times Raymond had to be corrected.

The Cardinal says in response to Raymond asking about ad orientem, “the document does not go into it but earlier documents already said, ‘altars should be built in such away that Mass can be said facing the people.’ The Church never said Mass must be said facing the people but build the altar in such a way that Mass can be said facing the people. That’s all, so as not to be so rigid, which means both are possible.” I italicized can and must because you can hear him stress those words but I am sorry I still don’t hear him say facing the people is preferred.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if/when I will get an opportunity to watch this interview. There was a comment in the thread that said
Cardinal Arinze did not “dismiss” the question on “ad orientem” he said that any priest has the option to celebrate Mass “ad orientem”.
Click to expand...
Can you remember if the Cardinal said that any priest has the option to celebrate Mass ad orientem? That is something I have been wondering about.
 
floresco said:
I don’t know if/when I will get an opportunity to watch this interview. There was a comment in the thread that said "Cardinal Arinze did not “dismiss” the question on “ad orientem” he said that any priest has the option to celebrate Mass “ad orientem”.

Can you remember if the Cardinal said that any priest has the option to celebrate Mass ad orientem? That is something I have been wondering about.
Click to expand...
What I did when I listened to the interview was type out what he said, so in my post are his exact quotes he said when asked and then they moved on to the next subject. He said ,“both are possible.” I didn’t hear him dismiss anything in regards to ad orientem, just both are possible. 🙂
 
Diana_Catherine said:
What I did when I listened to the interview was type out what he said, so in my post are his exact quotes he said when asked and then they moved on to the next subject. He said ,“both are possible.” I didn’t hear him dismiss anything in regards to ad orientem, just both are possible. 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m wondering if a priest needs permission from his bishop to do it. I’ve always had the impression he doesn’t but I am looking for a source for that. I guess I’ll just have to watch the interview myself to see if he specifically addresses that.🙂
 
floresco said:
I’m wondering if a priest needs permission from his bishop to do it. I’ve always had the impression he doesn’t but I am looking for a source for that. I guess I’ll just have to watch the interview myself to see if he specifically addresses that.🙂
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, he didn’t even address priests needing permission.
 
floresco said:
I am not implying it. I am very clearly stating that you are misrepresenting Church teaching when you claim that she teaches that *versus populum * is the preferred position. Apparently you have misunderstood the documents that you have quoted in this thread.

It is your error, but I’m glad to look at it again. 😃

Perhaps, the English translation has not changed because it is difficult to translate the Latin more clearly. Perhaps it was an oversight. Perhaps it was felt that the Cardinal’s earlier response made a clearer translation unnecessary since he had already explained this passage:

The phrase “which is desirable whenever possible” refers to building the altar apart from the wall. It does not refer to celebrating Mass facing the people. This is the conclusion that Fr. Z came to in his analysis of the Latin (and normative) original. This is what the Cardinal said in the response that you yourself cited. The Church does not teach that we are to celebrate versus populum whenever possible.

Instructing that the altar be free standing allows for versus populum as an option, which is consistent with Church teaching that both positions are permitted. Allowing it as an option when most altars make it physically impossible, does not make sense. Yes, versus populum was discussed in many places I’m sure. However, there is no official teaching from the Church that says this is the preferred position.

My preferences are irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about you claiming the Church teaches versus populum is to be preferred when she does not in fact teach this. Your misrepresentation of Church teaching would be a problem even if I preferred Mass to be celebrated with everyone standing on their heads.

I am not opposing any particular altar position. (Although, for the record, I think that “standing on their heads” thing is a bad idea. 🙂 ) I am opposing claiming the Church teaches things that she does not.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
archangel04 said:
I am learning a lot from your comments, thank you very much! 🙂
Click to expand...
You are very welcome. I’m pleased that somebody benefited from them. I’m afraid that I carried on the debate longer than was helpful. I was probably getting boring, not to mention derailing the thread. I am thankful that the moderator intervened to stop the argument, since I lacked the wisdom to do it myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top