What is the only feasible way out of the current crisis?

[At_Trent]

For example, if you’re younger than 43, the OF has been the liturgical norm for your whole life. If you’re younger than 50, the OF has probably been the liturgical norm since your first communion. So, more people are familiar with the OF and more people attend the OF and the OF is already the predominant form of the mass throughout Christendom.

Thus, if the problem is the 2 forms of the Mass (and that’s the only - or at least primary - problem) then the most efficient solution is to make the OF the sole accepted form.

Pax,
OA

Well, the EF was the accepted norm for a very long time compared to the 41 yr old. Look where we are. Do you see trads expressing shock at what they see or hear at EF Masses on the trad forums ? No. And there is a reason for that. But you sure see OF parishioners posting thread after thread over on Liturgy and Sacraments asking “is this ok”, or 'can a priest do this" ?

Where are the problems ? What has enabled these recurring problems ?
-When did these issues of liturgical abuse and errors and heresies begin to be heard form the pulpits ?
-When did they rip out communion rails and invite the women to come on down ?
-What form do the “women should be priests” clergy pray ?
-Where can one find 2 or 3 parishes in a metro area, where there are no surprises, where everyone in the pews follow the rubrics and where the priests don’t have to make hand motions to indicate when we should stand.

You really think tolerating all of this is the way to go ? It’s going to get worse because nothing is being done about it. The new translation coming up is nice, but I’d like to hear the various ways “for many” will be explained from parish to parish. And that’s the problem with vernacular. It’s what Cardinal McIntyre spoke of at the VII Council

"In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata."
James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council

Pro Multis means for many not for all, and the generation you mention has heard it wrong for too long. Unless every priest makes his flock understand the doctrinal implications of the correction, each parish flock will walk away with various understanding of this or even no understanding of it. Just like protestants.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

The Ottaviani Intervention:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”

 

[MarkThompson]

Can you see the absurdity in that statement ? The falsehood promoted ?
That’s one example of the suppression. I can give you several more from other Bishops if you like. Documented. I can also quote some Bishops lamenting the OF.

We aren’t making this stuff up.

Yet neither Cardinal Mahony nor, as was claimed above, Benedict XVI (!) has suppressed the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.

My point was to correct a significant misunderstanding of the word “suppression” in discussion of of Church topics. I didn’t want to run on for twenty posts about it, but it means, essentially: the formal, de jure, canon-law-type-of-legal abolition, banishment, and forbidding of something. So, Cardinal Mahony’s comments do not amount to formally abolishing the EF.

(Sorry all, I really thought that would only take one or at most two posts to communicate.)

 

[At_Trent]

The Ottaviani Intervention:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”

Yep

Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: "It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change (November AD2000).

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes: “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” (February 1979).

Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy” (Milestones, page 148).
ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

Centuries of unity in His Name and now look. The majority of Catholics don’t know there is any crisis but the sex scandal. Bugnini and the new ecumenism have stripped the Church of Her glory and we are hated as never before.

I say let’s bare the cross and renew the practice of Roman Catholicism of the Saints and Martyrs for our children’s souls and our own… That practice can’t, and never has included tolerance of novelty and what enables it. RC is what it is, and the EF is the only way back to it.

We can’t flip a switch and ban the OF, but we can reinstate the EF very effectively by sending it out with our new priests. If only Rome can agree

 

[At_Trent]

Yet neither Cardinal Mahony nor, as was claimed above, Benedict XVI (!) has suppressed the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.

My point was to correct a significant misunderstanding of the word “suppression” in discussion of of Church topics. I didn’t want to run on for twenty posts about it, but it means, essentially: the formal, de jure, canon-law-type-of-legal abolition, banishment, and forbidding of something. So, Cardinal Mahony’s comments do not amount to formally abolishing the EF.

(Sorry all, I really thought that would only take one or at most two posts to communicate.)

So what do you think his intent was ? What message on that particular public forum do you think he was trying to convey ?

 

[boatbearer]

I say it’s to begin phasing out the OF. Train the seminarians to pray the EF. Have them pray it exclusively after their ordination.

What of the EMHC, the lay lectors, the altar girls, etc. ? Promote the traditional roles. Choir, Third Orders, etc.

It’s crazy as is. As long as there are 2 forms of the Mass, there will be division, no matter how much we pretend there isn’t. At our local parish that offers both forms, it’s blatantly obvious. I’m sure there are exceptions, but those leaving the OF Mass tend to ignore those arriving for the EF that follows. Not just me, I’ve seen folks in front of me greeting those leaving the OF, and time and time again, they are ignored, get cold looks, or those leaving the OF just look the other way. Sad.

The EF will put everyone on the same page. I’ve thought long about this. I can’t think of any other way.

Thoughts ?

Possibly eliminate the EF altogether in order to curb potential divisiveness?

 

[At_Trent]

Possibly eliminate the EF altogether in order to curb potential divisiveness?

They already tried that. Besides the EF is the cure for the cancer.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Can you see the absurdity in that statement ? The falsehood promoted ?
That’s one example of the suppression. I can give you several more from other Bishops if you like. Documented. I can also quote some Bishops lamenting the OF.

We aren’t making this stuff up.

Suppression is a legal act.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

They already tried that. Besides the EF is the cure for the cancer.

Not according to the cover letter for.*Summorum Pontificum. *So not according to Benedict XVI.

 

[ProVobis]

We can’t flip a switch and ban the OF

No but we can tell them we banned it and watch the fun.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Ottaviani Intervention:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”

Pope Benedict seems to disagree with the Cardinal:

“There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No but we can tell them we banned it and watch the fun.

You won’t ever be handed that authority, ProVobis.

 

[Onegin]

You won’t ever be handed that authority, ProVobis.

Given the fact that they handed Bugnini, Mahoney et al quite a bit of authority, personally, I’d rather see ProVobis have it than either one of them.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Given the fact that they handed Bugnini, Mahoney et al quite a bit of authority, personally, I’d rather see ProVobis have it than either one of them.

It still won’t happen. Those waiting for the OF to disappear are simply spinning their wheels in bitterness and anger.

 

[Onegin]

It still won’t happen. Those waiting for the OF to disappear are simply spinning their wheels in bitterness and anger.

I agree that bitterness and anger have no place (though they are often the natural reaction to what has been happening in the Church).

A previous poster had it right when they observed that the OF will die on its own. Like other novelties, it had its day but when it has finally wearied of its own existence, it will fade away.

The progressives tried to effectively eliminate the TLM from the Catholic consciousness and for a few decades they succeeded, but, like other novelties that have come and gone, this is a mere blemish on the face of thousands of years of tradition. It will heal up soon enough.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

A previous poster had it right when they observed that the OF will die on its own. Like other novelties, it had its day but when it has finally wearied of its own existence, it will fade away.

That isn’t the mind of the Church, re: the Holy Father’s instructions to the bishops. And let’s face it, the EF isn’t as popular as you’d like to believe. The OF is pretty safe, I’d say, given the Pope’s desires and the general preference on the part of the faithful for Mass in the vernacular (as Ojtm has observed elsewhere). Relatively few people regreat the loss of Latin in the liturgy.

 

[At_Trent]

Indeed. I really doubt that the intent of the Novus Ordo was to make it as reverent as the TLM. The innovators and progressives were happy that they could take liberties with the liturgy; reverence would have been more accidental than intended.

It appears so.

 

[Onegin]

That isn’t the mind of the Church, re: the Holy Father’s instructions to the bishops. And let’s face it, the EF isn’t as popular as you’d like to believe. The OF is pretty safe, I’d say, given the Pope’s desires and the general preference on the part of the faithful for Mass in the vernacular (as Ojtm has observed elsewhere).

Haha. I guess all I can say in response is that the OF isn’t as popular as you would like to believe either. Perhaps it is all based in perception but I’d like to think that there’s something to the resurgence of the TLM in the past few years.

Relatively few people regreat the loss of Latin in the liturgy.

I’d disagree but to each their own. Personally, as a frequent traveller, I regret the loss of Latin in the Liturgy as, unless I am at a TLM, visiting another Church where everything is in a foreign language and the music corresponds with whatever that culture prefers does not lend itself to a “universal” feel at all but rather a culturally specific one.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Haha. I guess all I can say in response is that the OF isn’t as popular as you would like to believe either. Perhaps it is all based in perception but I’d like to think that there’s something to the resurgence of the TLM in the past few years.

But it hasn’t “resurged” that much. There’s really very little demand for it throughout the world. That is unlikely to change, esp. where the Church is emerging more strongly (Africa) PLUS, it’s attitudes such as yours, the arrogant assertion that a liturgy loved by many, which brought many into the Church, will “die” that will always assure that there will be people who will militate FOR that liturgy. The Church isn’t going to force people to give it up. Having given a minority the right to have the EF (where there are stable communities that want it), She isn’t going to deny a far larger majority the right to the liturgy to which they are attached (and yes, She learned that lesson from the injustice done to the EF, but She learned the lesson anyway).

I’d disagree but to each their own. Personally, as a frequent traveller, I regret the loss of Latin in the Liturgy as, unless I am at a TLM, visiting another Church where everything is in a foreign language and the music corresponds with whatever that culture prefers does not lend itself to a “universal” feel at all but rather a culturally specific one.

That’s the point. I don’t think the loss of Latin is regretted by very many, relatively speaking.

 

[At_Trent]

That isn’t the mind of the Church, re: the Holy Father’s instructions to the bishops. And let’s face it, the EF isn’t as popular as you’d like to believe. The OF is pretty safe, I’d say, given the Pope’s desires and the general preference on the part of the faithful for Mass in the vernacular (as Ojtm has observed elsewhere). Relatively few people regreat the loss of Latin in the liturgy.

How can you say it’s not popular when the majority have no access to it ?