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

[At_Trent]

The documents of Vatican 2, which were written before the OF was promulgated, indicated that the majority of the bishops of the world, in conjunction with Rome, wanted to see the vernacular used in the Mass. Granted they did not specify exactly what and where, and from reading the document it should be obvious they did not intend all of the Mass be in the vernacular at all times; it is still unquestionable they intended the Mass as we had it then should have vernacular in it.

Let’s turn the question around: do you propose that the EF have no vernacular other than what existed prior to VAtican 2 - in other words, that the coument not be followed? And note - that is not to suggest that no Masses proceed without any vernacular added; but it would seem that those who support the EF do not support the use of any vernacular.

The document has never been followed. And the priests praying the EF have no problem with it being in Latin. I hear no one who prefers the EF suggest it be prayed in the vernacular. The pope who called the Second Vatican Council didn’t want it either. If he had lived to see the end of the Council, we probably would not be having these discussions.

jmo

 

[wisdomseeker]

Let’s try this again. I am well aware of the fact that the EF was only by indult prior to SP, and also aware that it is possible to seriously stall any attempts to have the EF said if a bishop should so choose.

In no way do I suggest that those who wish to have the EF should not be accomodated or that the EF should not spread, or that recalcitrance on the part of bishops is in any way shepharding those of his flock who would prefer the EF.

I am simply pointing out a fact that where the EF is available, it is not spreading rapidly to those who could reasonably get to it. If a parish has the EF, one would think, if the enthusiasm for the EF is there, that there would be so many in the parish choosing it over the OF that people from other parishes would not be able to get into the Mass because of overcrowding. But that is not being reported anywhere I can find. Where it is available, it seems to reflect back on what Benedict 16 aid in his accompanying letter; that the OF is the Ordinary Form - implying if not meaning that is the form most people will go to - and the he himself did not expect to see it (the EF) wide spread.

In making that comment, I am not speaking to those areas that have not been able to avail themselves of the EF. However, if one looks at the evidence available, there is nothing in the evidence to indcate that the EF will appeal to even a large minority of Mass goers.

And that evidence has nothing to do with any discussions pro or con about the comparison of the rubrics, or the comparison of the various prayers, or anything else (including music) having to do with whether or not the EF is better than, superior to, more profound than, better able to catechize than, or any of the other categories which get discussed herein. It is simply a factual look at attendance rates and what they may reflect.

The post is about what may or may not be the feasible way out of the crisis the Church faces. Given the fact that attendance is not overwhelming where the EF exists, proposing that the EFis the answer would not appear to be substantiated.

Note also - I do not have the EF available in my area. However, I do belong to a parish which has a reverent OF, and we have had 24 hour Perpetual Adoration for something like 15 years.

of course it is not wide spread. what do you expect? it has been suppressed for so long. they could not be ordained. many dont even know about it. many just gave up. many just like the entertainment they have today. we live in a world where people likes to be entertained by each other. that is the age we live in today. just think of how many priests stoping wearing their habits, it is because it is not entertaining as the regular clothes of our modern times. entertainment is a big business. many priests got envolved in this business too. they want to look goo, clean cut, and so forth. these are ones bringing the big money. do you ever wonder why?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Because it would be magnificent IN the vernacular and for the reasons I gave in the post regarding language, thought, and reasoning.

this reminds me of what a priest said. he said that the Mass will have to change from time to time because as the language of the world changes, so the Mass also have to change. that is the danger of having the Mass in different languages, since these languages changes all the times and the meaning of the words changes constant specially today. one word can mean different things, this can make the Sacredness of the Mass to mean different things for people.

**The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.
–John F. Kennedy **

 

[GIR]

I have to say that it all starts with a return to true Catechism. I’ve seen some of the modern Catechism being taught and I have heard terrible stories of RCIA instructors and even Parish Priests teaching heretical doctrine. What happened to the Baltimore Catechism? Why was this left behind? I know many Catholics that cannot answer even the simplest of quesitons regarding the faith.

I attended Catholic School from K-8 during the 80’s and my 7 kids, who are homeschooled, learn more studying for their First Communion than I did in 9 years of religious classes in a Catholic School. It all starts with learning the basic beliefs of our Faith.

I also tend to wonder how on earth there can be two Masses. TWO? How is this possible? The Tridentine Mass is extraordinary? I think that the sooner the Church gets back to the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass, and away from the Lord’s Supper, the better.

There are so many other things to bring up, but I think that returning to true Catechism and the return of the Tridentine Mass will absolutely help in healing the division within the Church. These would only be the first steps of course, we still have a long way to go to right the ship…

All in my humble opinion…

God Bless

“May the Lord accept this SACRIFICE at your hands for your good and the good of all His church”

This is from the OF.

 

[GIR]

The only real inherent problem as I see it with the OF Is that it allows too much “wiggle room”. It isn’t specific enough, leaving priests free to do crazy things.

-you can say the OF in latin
-you can use the original Eucharistic preyer
-you can have the whole thing ad orientem if you want
-you can use incense at all masses (I really wish they would do that)

While I haven’t looked at a side-by-side comparison of the two forms, I suspect one could licitly celebrate the OF in a way that makes it very similar to the EF.

I personally like the vernacular just as much as the Latin. Good things could be said for both. I agree that there needs to be one missal for the Roman rite, but lets not forget that historically, there were all sorts of masses for different orders and regions. Trent decided to harmonize them into one missal. I think it was a good idea at the time. They also considered allowing the vernacular, but decided not to. Again, a good choice at the time. I think the OF, properly celebrated, is a great mass.

 

[Anna2552]

Okay, I understand the distinction.

I think even a cursory examination of the threads in the Traditional Catholicism forum would reveal that “traditionalists” are far more denigrating and demeaning to people who prefer the OF, etc., than the other way around. If you have doubts about that, I would urge you to look through the threads.

I’ve been looking at these threads for years. That statement is completely false.

Far and away it is those that appear to be jealous of the piety of the traditionalists that get snarky.

Disagreeing with you is not demeaning you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Pray it in English from the pew and leave the clergy to pray it right.

It’s already magnificent and in no need of novelty.

“Right” doesn’t enter into it. Latin isn’t the only ontologically correct way to pray this Mass or any other. Neither is it “novel,” as it has been done before in the vernacular.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’ve been looking at these threads for years. That statement is completely false.

Far and away it is those that appear to be jealous of the piety of the traditionalists that get snarky.

Disagreeing with you is not demeaning you.

I am aware of the distinction. Your statement is comepletly false in the context of these fora, no matter how true you’d like it to be. OF advocates don’t start “snarky” threads about the EF. I challenge you to find one. I can find dozens that denigrate the OF.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

this reminds me of what a priest said. he said that the Mass will have to change from time to time because as the language of the world changes, so the Mass also have to change. that is the danger of having the Mass in different languages, since these languages changes all the times and the meaning of the words changes constant specially today. one word can mean different things, this can make the Sacredness of the Mass to mean different things for people.

**The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds. **
**–John F. Kennedy **

But that makes absolutely no sense in terms of MEANING. See, MEANING, what the Mass means, what the words of the Mass MEAN, have everything to do with the hearer, ie, the congregation. God doesn’t NEED the Mass to be in Latin in order to understand our meaning or our intent, right? God, being omniscent, understands what we intend in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. He understood it when it was offered in Greek, in Latin, and in whatever other languages it’s been offered in (the Eastern Churches have used vernaculars always). So as to meaning, we seem to be the ones who need to understand, to have something communicated to us.

So in the OF, you have (let’s say) an English-speaking priest standing offering propitatory prayers and petitions on behalf of his English-speaking congregation in Latin, while they follow along in a book, reading the English translation of what he’s saying (in Latin) and deriving meaning from that English page. Now, if the vernacular is as dangerous as your priest and others alledge, isn’t the congregation, for whom MEANING is far more important and immediate a problem than it is for God, still exposed to that danger by reading the English text? Why have a translation at all? Why not avoid the “dangers” all together? This argument has always seemed ridiculous to me.

God doesn’t need the text in Latin AND the Church made the switch to Latin because it was a vernacular in the first place!

 

[At_Trent]

of course it is not wide spread. what do you expect? it has been suppressed for so long. they could not be ordained. many dont even know about it. many just gave up. many just like the entertainment they have today. we live in a world where people likes to be entertained by each other. that is the age we live in today. just think of how many priests stoping wearing their habits, it is because it is not entertaining as the regular clothes of our modern times. entertainment is a big business. many priests got envolved in this business too. they want to look goo, clean cut, and so forth. these are ones bringing the big money. do you ever wonder why?

They will never discard that argument because that’s all they have

 

[Layman]

But that makes absolutely no sense in terms of MEANING. See, MEANING, what the Mass means, what the words of the Mass MEAN, have everything to do with the hearer, ie, the congregation. God doesn’t NEED the Mass to be in Latin in order to understand our meaning or our intent, right? God, being omniscent, understands what we intend in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. He understood it when it was offered in Greek, in Latin, and in whatever other languages it’s been offered in (the Eastern Churches have used vernaculars always). So as to meaning, we seem to be the ones who need to understand, to have something communicated to us.

The meaning is the interpretation of the sign, the symbol.

What, then, does it mean when we discard ancient, pious text and hymns?
What does it mean when we change or remove symbols, like vestments, statues and incense?
What does it mean when unvested lay people can read from the sanctuary and hand out Communion?
What does it mean when there isn’t a sanctuary any more, as there are no longer altar rails to delimit it?

It means we don’t think it’s as sacred any more. Otherwise we wouldn’t take such liberties.

 

[wisdomseeker]

But that makes absolutely no sense in terms of MEANING. See, MEANING, what the Mass means, what the words of the Mass MEAN, have everything to do with the hearer, ie, the congregation. God doesn’t NEED the Mass to be in Latin in order to understand our meaning or our intent, right? God, being omniscent, understands what we intend in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. He understood it when it was offered in Greek, in Latin, and in whatever other languages it’s been offered in (the Eastern Churches have used vernaculars always). So as to meaning, we seem to be the ones who need to understand, to have something communicated to us.

So in the OF, you have (let’s say) an English-speaking priest standing offering propitatory prayers and petitions on behalf of his English-speaking congregation in Latin, while they follow along in a book, reading the English translation of what he’s saying (in Latin) and deriving meaning from that English page. Now, if the vernacular is as dangerous as your priest and others alledge, isn’t the congregation, for whom MEANING is far more important and immediate a problem than it is for God, still exposed to that danger by reading the English text? Why have a translation at all? Why not avoid the “dangers” all together? This argument has always seemed ridiculous to me.

God doesn’t need the text in Latin AND the Church made the switch to Latin because it was a vernacular in the first place!

the change in the language is a problem for us.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The meaning is the interpretation of the sign, the symbol.

What, then, does it mean when we discard ancient, pious text and hymns?
What does it mean when we change or remove symbols, like vestments, statues and incense?
What does it mean when unvested lay people can read from the sanctuary and hand out Communion?
What does it mean when there isn’t a sanctuary any more, as there are no longer altar rails to delimit it?

It means we don’t think it’s as sacred any more. Otherwise we wouldn’t take such liberties.

this is a priest in Brasil.
youtube.com/watch?v=SYGONq9ELYI&feature=related

 

[MarineGuy]

I am aware of the distinction. Your statement is comepletly false in the context of these fora, no matter how true you’d like it to be. OF advocates don’t start “snarky” threads about the EF. I challenge you to find one. I can find dozens that denigrate the OF.

LOL! There are “snarky” threads about the “EF” (a.k.a. the true Mass) all the time on CAF. I remember one in particular about a week or two ago that I responded to, but the thread was later deleted by the mod. By the way, Vegas, for someone who isn’t a trad, you sure spend an inordinate amount of your time in the Traditional Catholicism forum arguing with them!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

They will never discard that argument because that’s all they have

You can wink until Judgement Day, but you still haven’t answered the argument!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The meaning is the interpretation of the sign, the symbol.

What, then, does it mean when we discard ancient, pious text and hymns?
What does it mean when we change or remove symbols, like vestments, statues and incense?
What does it mean when unvested lay people can read from the sanctuary and hand out Communion?
What does it mean when there isn’t a sanctuary any more, as there are no longer altar rails to delimit it?

It means we don’t think it’s as sacred any more. Otherwise we wouldn’t take such liberties.

No, no, no, all you’re doing is engaging in distracting rhetoric. You have valid points, but you still haven’t answered the argument. Does God need the Mass in Latin? Why did the Church change from Greek? What is inherently WRONG with it in the vernacular, especially if YOU are reading it in the same vernacular from your missal?

And the Church still has all of the things you mention. You know, “traditinalists” keep harping on about how the OF is less than a sacrifice than the EF, but I listen to the Mass and I read it and it seems clear to me (as has been pointed out) that the OF is EVERY bit as much of a propitiatory sacrifice as the EF. How many times does the word have to be mentioned before the Sacrifice is effectual?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

LOL! There are “snarky” threads about the “EF” (a.k.a. the true Mass) all the time on CAF. I remember one in particular about a week or two ago that I responded to, but the thread was later deleted by the mod. By the way, Vegas, for someone who isn’t a trad, you sure spend an inordinate amount of your time in the Traditional Catholicism forum arguing with them!

That’s because this is where, in these fora at least, a lot of falsehood is spread about the Church and a lot of truth is distorted, where fondest fantasy is presented as Gospel truth, where discipline is confused for dogma, Tradition is confused with tradition, and the Church I love is attacked. AND there’s the danger of the innocent being mislead.

“One is particular?” Come on…“the True Mass?” That just means you don’t think the EF is a true Mass. See? Who has said that in the forums about the OF? You go miles to prove my point.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

the change in the language is a problem for us.

May I respectfully ask why?

 

[Layman]

No, no, no, all you’re doing is engaging in distracting rhetoric. You have valid points, but you still haven’t answered the argument. Does God need the Mass in Latin? Why did the Church change from Greek? What is inherently WRONG with it in the vernacular, especially if YOU are reading it in the same vernacular from your missal?

God doesn’t need the Mass at all. We need it. That’s my point.

Why did the Church change from Greek? I don’t know. I’m guessing that politically it was a smart move to change to the language of the Roman Empire. Thus, in time, Christ’s Vicar sat on a throne in the capital of His executioners. As he does today.

When did that happen? In the infancy of the Church, I’d guess. 1500+ years later, things are very different. People are literate, for one. We are now called the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church. **Dumping Latin is a wheeze a bad marketing exec might do in a big company: “Let’s meddle with the brand!”. **

We have also had a hateful dumbing-down in Western society and I’m sorry to say the Church has gone along with it.

A small example: the British Daily Mail newspaper printed an exam paper from the Edwardian era. For 12 year olds. Most adults with third-level education could barely get a pass mark in it now. Including me.

**People can certainly understand every word of the Mass now. It’s on their level. Thus, what’s special about it?

Hence, casual behaviour at Mass. **

And the Church still has all of the things you mention. You know, “traditinalists” keep harping on about how the OF is less than a sacrifice than the EF, but I listen to the Mass and I read it and it seems clear to me (as has been pointed out) that the OF is EVERY bit as much of a propitiatory sacrifice as the EF. How many times does the word have to be mentioned before the Sacrifice is effectual?

I don’t know. I’m just going by what I see. It’s on my list of things to do; a line-by-line comparison. When I look at a side-by-side comparison of the old vs. the new rite, I feel cheated. If you want the vernacular, that’s one thing, but cut sections out and change the text? Makes no sense to me.

If an offering is being made then why is the priest facing towards us when he does it?

 

[At_Trent]

You can wink until Judgement Day, but you still haven’t answered the argument!

Pope St Pius V settled the matter a long time ago. Every pope who followed him, including John XXII, was OK with that. John XXIII gave us the 1962 Missal. He gave us Veterum Sapientia. Scroll down to “Responsibility of enforcement” and see what he commanded and decreed be forbidden.

Just as this good Saint told us

“What if some novel contagion seek to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.” St. Vincent of Lerins 445

The novelties and revolutionary changes that came after VII were never part of Tradition. They were always rejected, just as the man who called VII rejected them. But months after his death they were embraced.

Fruits ? A heretic receiving a Lifetime Achievement Award. A nun speaking publicly and promoting what the Church has repeatedly forbidden since day one. No repercussions for her, but a diocese will sell a Roman Catholic church to a Protestant group rather than sell it to an order of Roman Catholic priests. Daily reports of Liturgical Abuse. Pro Choice supporter speaking at a Roman Catholic university.

You ok with all of that just because it doesn’t seem to bother the USCCB ? I don’t think you are ok with it, but that said, how can you not sympathize with those who despise what enables it ?