truthfinder Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 Back to the Instruction, according to Fr. Z, the Instruction states (in Latin) that "ordinaries are strenuously asked" to have their clerics trained to be able to offer the EF, whereas the English translation merely says "asked." Actually, I looked at the translation of the Instruction in a couple different languages, and they all seem to have this weaker translation. To me its like saying that the Bishop only has to maybe, possibly do something about this if he really, actually, might possibly, in the future perhaps, want to do something of some sort about this. It's too bad that the translation went this way. I know in a local seminary they teach Hebrew and Greek, I don't think Latin is taught (I haven't actually looked at their ciriculum in a while, so I could be wrong, or it might have changed). Although those are both very important languages, they are not the language of the Church. However, this seminary does use some Latin songs and chants and the priests coming out are of a pretty traditional nature, so for them they just need to be nudged into offering an EF mass.
dUSt Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305336281' post='2241129'] [i]Why[/i] is there, on average, more reverence at a T.L.M.? [/quote] Uh, maybe because most "average" Catholics attend the Novus Ordo, and only those who have a more unique interest in the liturgy make it a point to seek out the Traditional Latin Mass? Just a thought. If the situation was reversed, and the Traditional Latin Mass was the "norm" that the "average" Catholic attended, and the Novus Ordo had to be seeked out by people with a special interest in it, I'm quite positive that you'd see a greater reverence in the Novus Ordo and many abuses in the Traditional Latin Mass. I don't think a lot of people think of this when they think about what they think about, but it seems rather common sensical to me.
Luigi Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305336909' post='2241136'] I have a problem when we start discussing which mass is better, and which Catholics are more reverent. How do you decide who is more reverent? Some think the person on the floor talking in tongues is more reverent. Some think it is the person in the veil, kneeling for communion. I am reverent. What I wear, how I act, or which mass I go to does not change how reverent I am. I find it offensive for anyone to imply otherwise. [/quote] What she said.
Vincent Vega Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1305353154' post='2241263']it seems rather common sensical to me. [/quote] I agree. I'm not convinced that the causation is implied by the correlation in this case.
Nihil Obstat Posted May 14, 2011 Author Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) Or maybe, just maybe, some people are provided by God with a particularly gifted understanding of the Liturgy, and they see the great treasure of our Church that is the T.L.M.. Maybe they are drawn to that Mass because it offers for them something they don't see in the Novus Ordo. Maybe the [i]usus antiquior[/i] is a "precious treasure" to which they are drawn, not because of shallow archaeologist or aestheticism, but because of its richness. Maybe some people agree with Pope Benedict in thinking that the Novus Ordo is "a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product" (his words, not mine). Maybe some of these people "find the dignity of the sacred preserved there" in opposition to "many priests who deliberately raised 'desacralization' to the level of a program" (also Pope Benedict [then Ratzinger]). Maybe some people are very concerned that Vatican II is treated as a 'superdogma'- maybe they distrust the paradigm in which, "The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. " (ibid.) Maybe some people feel that some aspects of the new Mass are flawed and not ideal. It is perfectly legitimate to think so. Maybe they find that "all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place" (Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani). Maybe some people are disturbed that, "The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people." (ibid.) Maybe some see that, "The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented." (ibid.) Maybe some are disappointed and grudging of the fact that "the New Order will alienate the East" while simultaneously "pleasing various dissenting groups" and that it "has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants." (ibid.) I say nothing that hasn't been said by better men than you and me. Is it so unthinkable? (Edited for poor phrasing in line one.) Edited May 14, 2011 by Nihil Obstat
Luigi Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 Maybe on top of maybe = a house of cards. Maybe monkeys'll fly out of my .... oh, never mind.
Th0t Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305170366' post='2240364'] I have a question, and I'm not trying to be a pain by asking. I simply do not know, and not being a traddie, I hadn't thought about it before now. I know that the OF in English is being revised to a more faithful translation. I completely support that effort, and it is currently being phased in by our pastors. I'm wondering if the same translation issues occurred in other languages. I mean is there this kind of fight going on in Spanish speaking countries, or German? If so, are they, or have they, received a revised translation? If not, why have we had this trouble in English? [/quote] Actually they are. I don't know much about it, but our parochial vicar had mentioned that they are working on revising some things for the Spanish Mass in the United States that will differ from the Mass in Mexico and all Southern America.
Nihil Obstat Posted May 14, 2011 Author Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1305355128' post='2241272'] Maybe on top of maybe = a house of cards. Maybe monkeys'll fly out of my .... oh, never mind. [/quote] You can mock if you want, but if you do (you don't even have to tell anyone), think about these things. Ask yourself if it's possible that there actually are serious problems in today's Liturgy, and ask yourself if it's possible that a Mass assembled by a committee might be less ideal than one that developed organically over many centuries.
Maximilianus Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 I just hope this means that maybe, just maybe, the faithful in my deanery won't have to make going to an EF the equivalent of going on a pilgrimage to a distant holy site. Peeps like me aren't asking for much, just at minimum the opportunity to make it to an usus antiquior without travelling across the state or to a different diocese.
kafka Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305338738' post='2241178'] Do you agree that the law of prayer is the law of belief ([i]lex orandi lex credendi[/i])? The Vatican does. What does it mean to you? [/quote] I dont understand why you have to make a patronizing remark like that to DS. Do you understand what lex orandi lex credendi means? Based on your posts I dont think you have a clue what it means. Are you a representative of the Vatican? What do I think lex orandi lex credendi means? I think it first has nothing to do with outward liturgical forms, rubrics and gestures. It has everything to do with the will and intellect which is the soul. The will and intellect seeks, searches and desires God and plunges into the depths of God's Revelation. The result is prayer and meditation. When the Faithful living in a certain time and age prayerfully agree on a matter of faith or morals then this is an expression of Living Tradition and Living Scripture (sometimes it is an infallible expression like Vatican II taught). So we saw in the 20th century the development of a liturgical rite for prenatals, infants and children who die without baptism of water. The prayerful agreement is now that these prenatals, infants, and children die in the state of sanctifying grace. The prayerful agreement partially came in response to the growing number of children who die without baptism of water (through abortions and in vitro fertilization). So even though there is at the present no formal Magisterial teaching on exactly what happens to these prenatals, infants and children, [i]there is [/i]a prayerful agreement expressed by Living Tradition and Living Scripture that they are saved, therefore there is no more reason to deny them a liturgical rite as Catholics of previous ages rather unjustly and pharisaically denied it to them and to the parents and relatives. And this thanks to the liturgical reform after the Council. Thank you Vatican II for being merciful to God's children and breaking the bonds of injustice and pharasaism. Thank you Holy Spirit for breaking through our stiff necks. That is a modern example of lex orandi lex credendi. Living, dynamic, relevant, liturgical. We are moving beyond all the pettiness of being fixated on outward gestures, forms, and rubrics. And God will fix all this petty fighting over them when He thoroughly transfigures the Church. Then we will understand all things. Edited May 14, 2011 by kafka
Nihil Obstat Posted May 14, 2011 Author Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1305355989' post='2241276'] I just hope this means that maybe, just maybe, the faithful in my deanery won't have to make going to an EF the equivalent of going on a pilgrimage to a distant holy site. Peeps like me aren't asking for much, just at minimum the opportunity to make it to an usus antiquior without travelling across the state or to a different diocese. [/quote] Darn right it's not asking much. Yet somehow, just for wanting to attend the EF, you're just a bit more suspicious. Just a bit potentially more inclined to be unfaithful, disobedient. Is it true? Or are we being demonized? It's easier to fight the enemy you've made up yourself. Is that what's happened in the Church? Are the modernists and progressives demonizing us, sowing distrust, and consigning us to the ghetto of "Pre-VII Catholicism"? Ridiculous. I do not accept that it must be this way.
Nihil Obstat Posted May 14, 2011 Author Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='kafka' timestamp='1305356130' post='2241277'] I dont understand why you have to make a patronizing remark like that to DS. Do you understand what lex orandi lex credendi means? Based on your posts I dont think you have a clue what it means. Are you a representative of the Vatican? What do I think lex orandi lex credendi means? I think it first has nothing to do with outward liturgical forms, rubrics and gestures. [snip] That is a modern example of lex orandi lex credendi. Living, dynamic, relevant, liturgical. We are moving beyond all the pettiness of being fixated on outward gestures, forms, and rubrics. And God will fix all this petty fighting over them when He transfigures the Church. [/quote] The Vatican seems to disagree that it "has nothing to do with outward liturgical forms, rubrics and gestures." "The Holy Father, having recalled the concern of the Sovereign Pontiffs in caring for the Sacred Liturgy and in their recognition of liturgical books, reaffirms the traditional principle, recognised from time immemorial and necessary to be maintained into the future, that “each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi)." Seems like a clear link to me. Pretty rock solid.
Nihil Obstat Posted May 14, 2011 Author Posted May 14, 2011 Furthermore, there was nothing patronizing about what I said to DS. I was genuinely asking what it means to her, because as you very clearly illustrated, some people believe it means radically different things, and Ecclesia Dei was quite clear about how it may be applied in this situation.
kafka Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305356392' post='2241282'] The Vatican seems to disagree that it "has nothing to do with outward liturgical forms, rubrics and gestures." "The Holy Father, having recalled the concern of the Sovereign Pontiffs in caring for the Sacred Liturgy and in their recognition of liturgical books, reaffirms the traditional principle, recognised from time immemorial and necessary to be maintained into the future, that “each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. These are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also so that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief (lex credendi)." Seems like a clear link to me. Pretty rock solid. [/quote] The whole spirit of my post blew right over you like everything else. I said first it has nothing to do with it, primarily. You erased that from my quote. I was presenting something deeper that you dont see yet. And you are still playing God with your excessive Vatican quoting and false representations.
kafka Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305356487' post='2241283'] Furthermore, there was nothing patronizing about what I said to DS. I was genuinely asking what it means to her, because as you very clearly illustrated, some people believe it means radically different things, and Ecclesia Dei was quite clear about how it may be applied in this situation. [/quote] I am sorry, but I simply dont think you are truly genuine anymore. Maybe you dont explicitly intend it, but I think you are losing it Nihil. I can feel it. So that is why I interpreted it the way I did. So be it. I speak my heart.
Nihil Obstat Posted May 14, 2011 Author Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='kafka' timestamp='1305356793' post='2241284'] The whole spirit of my post blew right over you like everything else. I said first it has nothing to do with it, primarily. You erased that from my quote. I was presenting something deeper that you dont see yet. And you are still playing God with your excessive Vatican quoting and false representations. [/quote] Oh am I? Am I playing God? Or are you, rather, ignoring the learned and faithful lead of those better educated, more experienced, and [b]more authoritative[/b] than yourself, and instead holding fast to [i]your own theology[/i], which appears to quite gallingly deemphasize to the point of irrelevance the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and utterly ignores the transcending value of the ars celebrandi? Who is recognizing their Shepherd? Edited May 14, 2011 by Nihil Obstat
Nihil Obstat Posted May 14, 2011 Author Posted May 14, 2011 I said, in my above posts, nothing not spoken by those greater than me, and those who have or had immediate authority over us, the flock of the Catholic Church. Who speaks for the Church better than they? Without the Fathers of the Church, the Doctors, our priests and bishops and cardinals, I know nothing. God gave them to me that I might learn from them and see what they see. That is continuity. That is Tradition.
kafka Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305357002' post='2241287'] Oh am I? Am I playing God? Or are you, rather, ignoring the learned and faithful lead of those better educated, more experienced, and more authoritative than yourself, and instead holding fast to [i]your own theology[/i], which appears to quite gallingly deemphasize to the point of irrelevance the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and utterly ignores the transcending value of the ars celebrandi? Who is recognizing their Shepherd? [/quote] I knew this was going to happen. You are acting like the Shepherd and you are not him. I am just trying to offer some balance here. Edited May 14, 2011 by kafka
Nihil Obstat Posted May 14, 2011 Author Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='kafka' timestamp='1305357560' post='2241291'] I knew this was going to happen. You are acting like the Shepherd and you are not him. I am just trying to offer some balance here. [/quote] I am no Shepherd. I follow the Shepherd. What have I said in my posts that disagrees with our Fathers and our Princes and Lords of the Church? Who or what are you following? Your own intellect? Why is your opinion enlightened and faithful, and mine is pharisaical and misguided and arrogant?
Recommended Posts