|
Post by ger on Dec 26, 2007 23:40:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by eircomnet on Dec 28, 2007 10:30:14 GMT
It's only when you attend a Tridentine mass that you realise the difference between the two rites. That very thing was said to me by a friend who attended his "first" traditional mass. ( I used inverted commas because he was brought up on the old mass).
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 1, 2008 17:45:35 GMT
That is a brilliant article and far transcends much of the everyday Traditional/Modern debate, which can be quite superficial. Ger, I hope you get an opportunity soon to experience the Extraordinary Form. It would be hard to do better than the 10.30 Sunday Mass in Harrington Street, where Arbishop Martin has established the Traditional chaplaincy for Dublin — especially if the singers from Haddington Road are there.
|
|
|
Post by salvaporta on Mar 3, 2008 8:09:48 GMT
I would like to thank Ger for posting such a brilliant and enlightening article. What I am puzzled about though is why the Tridentine Mass should now be referred to as the Extraordinary Form.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Mar 3, 2008 18:36:09 GMT
What I am puzzled about though is why the Tridentine Mass should now be referred to as the Extraordinary Form. Pope Benedict uses the term in his letter to bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum, in which he distinguishes between the "Ordinary Form" of the Roman Rite (the Novus Ordo) and the "Extraordinary Form" (the Tridentine Mass); emphasising that both are equally valid.
|
|
|
Post by santiago on Mar 3, 2008 23:33:52 GMT
I have the good fortune to be able to attend a parish in Oxford under the care of the Oratorians (http://www.oxfordoratory.org.uk/). The care and reverence that the good fathers take in all of the liturgies is just stunnning.
They use both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Form (mainly the OF - with Solemn Masses sung in Latin). The vestments, altar arrangements and music are fantastic.
Their celebration of the Solemn Holy Mass in the OF simply blew my mind - nothing I've ever experienced in Ireland has come close (I regret to say).
The preaching and advice in the confessional is also second to none.
Anyway - my point is that, celebrated correctly the OF can be close to Heaven on Earth. Although I would say that I've never experienced a sung High Mass in the EF......
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 1, 2012 23:03:00 GMT
RORATE CAELI reproduces an Una Voce statement expressing concern at reports that the Vatican may introduce changes to the 1962 EF Missal. Whatever about Una Voce, I must say many of the comments in the combox display a very unseemly attitude towards papal authority (even though this is understandable for historical reasons). There will have to be some changes in any case - for example, commemorations of saints canonised since 1962. rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/01/revisions-of-1962-missal-coming-soon.html
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 2, 2012 10:03:09 GMT
Unlike a lot of posters here I know a lot about Una Voce International and the member associations that constitute it. It had a major imput in bringing about the 1984 indult, but since then it went downhill.
The basic problem is that it sees itself as a lobby group in Rome and nothing more. Many of the member organisations have no more than a couple of members and most of them are not active at all. The federation failed to adapt itself to the post-Ecclesia Dei situation; let alone the post-Summorum Pontificum situation. Suffice to say that few FIUV members would have the same degree of success of the LMSI since its foundation (and the LMSI is a member association, although it is very distant from the FIUV leadership).
If the FIUV is serious and if it is to re-establish the role it once had in the trad world, it needs to develop its member associations and push them into being active (which means engaging with dioceses rather than reveling in criticising them) in their home countries. Even if it wants to maintain the position of lobbying the Vatican, it needs to know the politics of the Vatican, but in my experience of Una Voce people, very few are able for this. I know some curialists would be prepared to use UV. This is not necessarily a bad thing if UV objectives are being achieved - but UV officials would have to be aware this is the case. Instead, the UV modus seems to have been to seek supporters in the curia who make traditional-friendly noises without any corresponding attempt to contextualise it. And there isn't much effort to make friends and influence people in the Vatican.
I'll give an example which relates to the older leadership of Una Voce (and the current leadership is a disimprovement). Around ten or eleven years ago a young Cloyne priest was made personal secretary to Cardinal Sodano. This priest (Mgr Joseph Murphy - it's a matter of public record; though he was made a prelate after this) was known to a number of LMSI officers, in particular to one of the vice-presidents who studied with him in Maynooth some time before hand. This information was relayed to the then FIUV president, the late Michael Davies. The response was very positive as up until then, Cardinal Sodano was impervious to any approach. The LMSI offered to contact then Fr Murphy, to lay the ground and see what could be none. The effort might have come to nothing, but it was more than worth persuing. However, Michael Davies didn't reply to the LMSI's follow up message making suggestions and asking how the federation wanted us to proceed. The opportunity died a death.
I think it is worse now than then. True, the situation is much improved now - but that is down to Pope Benedict, not the trad movement. Trads like to see the Pope as one of them, but that is not the case at all.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 2, 2012 23:03:28 GMT
There are I think two trad views of Pope Benedict: (1) Pope Benedict is one of us. Just wait a little longer and he will give us everything we want and resolve all our problems. (2) Pope Benedict has not given us everything we want and resolved all our problems. Therefore he is just another one of those Vatican II modernist trendies who got us into this mess in the first place, and we must resist him to his face. The latter attitude is very much in evidence on Rorate Caeli - and I see from a recent visit to the Central Catholic Library that James Larsen has started up another of his exercises in Ratzinger-bashing in the December CHRISTIAN ORDER. If they wanted to make sure that the next Pope will chastise trads with scorpions they couldn't do it better.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Feb 3, 2012 11:13:31 GMT
I'm in a third category. I probably like the Pope as a person but I don't share the view of those traditionalists that he's a great pope. He isn't. He's certainly better than his predecessor but that's hardly an achievement worth boasting about. (Even thinking about the fact that he beatified JP2 causes me indescribable anger and makes my blood boil with rage.) I've read some of his works and wasn't impressed. His encyclicals, like those of his predecessor, are bland and boring. A pope needs to reach out widely, not just to theological students. It's a hard time to govern the Church, no doubt, but Benedict is simply not up to the job (that he's probably the best of a bad lot notwithstanding).
I am 100% opposed to any further reforms of the Roman Missal, at least for another few decades, until things settle down. I am completely against adding new saints and am horrified at the prospect of an expanded liturgy. (A 'short and sweet' lectionary is IMO the best 'incidental' feature of the TLM.) Liturgists are a dangerous species who need to be rounded up and locked in a dungeon somewhere on a remote island, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 3, 2012 11:21:28 GMT
For a short post, Shane, you raise several interesting issues and at present, I will focus on one.
Cardinal Burke made a remark in recent weeks that I would regard as naive to say the least. He said the two forms of the Roman Rite would merge. The post referred to on Rorate Coeli by Hibernicus seems to be a move in that direction.
For the record, I agree with the UV International position - I don't think Leo Darroch or his associates are the best people to pursue this (especially as they cultivated a relationship with Cardinal Burke over the years, as has the ICRSS, which I am not sure was such a good move). But anyway, all that is beside the point. The point I want to raise, is do you think there is a move towards merging the EF and OF coming from B16 in the light of the rumoured moves and Cardinal Burke's comments?
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Feb 3, 2012 14:18:52 GMT
Shane, there were liturgists such as Louis Bouyer and Klaus Gamber whom we should hear a lot more about - no one would profit from these being in a dungeon. The biggest problem is pseudo-liturgists.
But you have a point about the smaller lectionary. The Eastern Rites too have a smaller lectionary and some Sundays are known by their Gospel, eg Good Samaritan Sunday, Prodigal Son Sunday. This is possible in the EF year, but impossible in the OF. Something was lost.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Feb 3, 2012 17:36:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 3, 2012 19:27:21 GMT
I might add that the two trad attitudes to Pope Benedict which I outlined above were also applied to Pope John Paul II. A lot of the "Catholic restoration" optimism from the early years of his pontificate looks very sad now (I am thinking, for example, of Anne Roche Muggeridge's THE DESERTED CITY which singled out Cardinal Groer as a fine specimen of the orthodox prelates JPII was appointing to clean up the Church). On the other hand, there is a strong feeling in America that while John Paul's legacy in terms of appointments was mixed, he did put a stop to the feeling (widespread under Paul VI) that the Church was rapidly and irretrievably disintegrating. We didn't get that sense so much in Ireland because the full impact of the international crisis of Catholicism was delayed here, and if you are too young to remember Paul VI you really can't get a sense of the positive side of John Paul II's legacy. The smaller lectionary I take it specifically refers to the concept of having an annual cycle (based on driving home the important points through annual repetition) rather than the three-year cycle of the NO/OF which is based on the idea of exposing the congregation to as much Scripture as possible even if they hear any individual text less frequently. What's with the hate about the new saints (which I see quite a lot of from SSPX and other trads)? If the EF/TLM had remained the standard form, new offices for newly-canonised saints would have been inserted on a regular basis, and if it comes into regular use at all this will have to be done even if there were no other changes. IMHO some of the changes to the canonisation process were ill-conceived, but that doesn't make canonisations under the new system invalid - indeed, given the strength of the theological opinion that papal canonisations are infallible, it is extremely unwise to do so. Might I remind you that many of the saints in the calendar were never formally canonised but were raised to that status on the basis of widespread local veneration? In theory, we could go back to that system if it were so decided by competent authority; I think that would be most unwise but it would not be inherently illegitimate, and it would be very dubious to decide unilaterally which saints you would and would not recognise.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 10, 2012 13:52:47 GMT
I think a lot of trads believe the Church became a canonisation factory under JP2.
|
|