If Latin mass advocates have reached the point where they need affirmation from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, the bottom of the desperation barrel has been reached and is being seriously scraped.

Julie, I think you have a good heart and the best of intentions. However, the bulk of the Church isn't with you on this one. Time moves on and things change, and they have. No one asked for my approval, but it is what it is. Pius X, XII and most if not all of the Vatican Council fathers are dead. I have to ask whether those council fathers were even serious in what they said, because when they got home after the council, they did the opposite. One of the greatest reasons we have liturgical chaos is because the Church says one thing, then does another.

Melo, Jackson has a copyright on that dot. You may be in legal trouble. LOL.

Father, so wonderful to hear from you, and if there is one good thing about this discussion it's that I get to read one of your very informative, measured, kind and scholarly comments.

However, I can't help but think that the very idea of the Pope celebrating Mass in Latin, or even part of the Mass, in Latin has become a controversial idea, is troubling, to say the least.

Consider this video is of the Easter Sunday Mass offered by Pope Benedict XVI three short years ago in a very crowded St. Peter's Square with lots of bishops and cardinals in attendance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTOuB5bUy5I

In what language is the Mass being offered?

Not only is it offered in Latin, but it has Gregorian chant (remember when Vatican II said Gregorian chant was to be given pride of place?) and you see a marvelous example of tens of thousands of Catholics singing the Kyrie and Gloria antiphonally in Latin and in Gregorian chant with the choir.

So, my question is simply this: why is the use of the universal (not neutral) liturgical language of Latin, which was so dear to the Pope just three years ago all of a sudden the subject of the greatest possible controversy? I think the words of Josef Cardinal Ratzinger apply to this discussion: "A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent."

This is not about giving our dear Holy Father a break. This is about the fact that a non-Catholic has been excoriated on this forum for simply proposing that the Pope offer Mass in Latin even though this was pretty standard practice in papal masses just three years ago.

I think the question we have to ask ourselves is why suddenly the very idea of saying Mass in Latin even though the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar popes called for its preservation, is now an idea worthy of shock, horror, scorn and ridicule?

Could it be that Rush Limbaugh is unwittingly recalling us to something that was right up until this pontificate a standard part of papal liturgical practice? Where is our collective Catholic memory and why on this issue does it take a non-Catholic--- sort of like the little boy in the fairy tale of the Emperor's New Clothes---to point out the obvious?

One last question: Cardinal Sarah has called Sacrosanctum Concilium "the magna carta" of all liturgical celebrations. If the very idea of a papal Mass in Latin is enough to provoke division, contempt and indignation on the part of some Catholic church musicians, can we really say that we're taking Cardinal Sarah and the Church's wishes seriously?

So, my question is simply this: why is the use of the universal (not neutral) liturgical language of Latin, which was so dear to the Pope just three years ago all of a sudden the subject of the greatest possible controversy?

Again, Mass in Latin was not universal before VII. And Pope St. John Paul II certainly did not ascribe to then-Cardinal Razinger's position, which you quoted. The former almost never celebrated Masses in Latin during his many, many pastoral visits throughout the world.

I think the question we have to ask ourselves is why suddenly the very idea of saying Mass in Latin even though the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar popes called for its preservation, is now an idea worthy of shock, horror, scorn and ridicule?

Personally, I don't see that much shock, horror, scorn, ridicule. I would like to see more use of the Missal of Paul VI in Latin. And I wonder if part of the reason for its rather infrequent use is that Mass in Latin, for the majority of Catholics, became identified with the Catholics who went into schism after VII.

@Chris, I guess if one leaves off the last part of my sentence it does appear to be "freakishly disconnected-from-reality." But the disconnect is your doing, not mine.

CharlesW, Not sure who you're talking to since I don't see anyone pining away for a world that never existed - or even mentioning such a world for that matter. I like Latin, but, as I suspect is true with the others on this thread who also like it, I have no desire to go back to some mythic land where all the masses were reverent and our first Catholic president would do away with all prejudice, poverty, and fear.

And it's just as strange to paint a picture of rushed masses and bored laity as only in the past tense. We're all aware that minimalism and routine didn't suddenly appear after Vatican II.

I get really amused at some folks on this forum who seem to think if we just went back to Latin all would be well.

I would, too - if anybody actually thought it.

Unless the minds and hearts of people and clergy are pointed in the right direction, externals like Latin, vestments, and chant are little more than parts in a stage play.

Or maybe the externals can actually point people "in the right direction." I always thought that was the whole point of "externals." It's hard to have the heart in the right place in a vacuum.

Or maybe the externals can actually point people "in the right direction." I always thought that was the whole point of "externals." It's hard to have the heart in the right place in a vacuum.

You know, people today are so over-stimulated and swamped by information overload, they have tuned out and just go through the motions. I noticed that really taking off with my students when electronic media became widely available. It is hard to get anyone's attention, it seems.

This is not about giving our dear Holy Father a break. This is about the fact that a non-Catholic has been excoriated on this forum for simply proposing that the Pope offer Mass in Latin even though this was pretty standard practice in papal masses just three years ago.

Any excoriation I have felt inclined to engage in has nothing to do with someone wanting Mass offered in Latin because this is part of the Church's tradition; it has to do with someone using the Church's tradition of celebrating Mass in Latin to advance a nativist agenda that is somewhat at odds with the Church's teachings on human dignity. If you want to beat a dog, any stick will do. But I would think that those who value the Latin liturgical tradition should be offended that Rush Limbaugh (who otherwise seems to have no interest in that tradition) would use it as a stick to beat up on Spanish-speaking Americans.

O mihi praeteritos referat si Iuppiter annos.

Time moves on and things change, and they have.

Yah. Same with marriage. Sorry, but we don't have to accept either "new marriage" nor "Vernacular slob-ism", Charles. Julie's catacomb is a better place.

Mass in Latin, for the majority of Catholics, became identified with the Catholics who went into schism after VII.

Nope. Maybe for the clergy, but not the faithful. Very, very few of the PIP's know or care about the actual schismatics who broke away from SSPX. Remember that the PIP's at SSPX Masses are NOT schismatic.

Speaking of marriage, dad29, did you see this?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pope-to-release-new-annulment-process-for-catholics/ar-AAe2ECz?ocid=DELLDHP

Looks like it may get even easier to get out of them, perhaps?

(Cough) Rush is very much a part of MSM.

The actual document was embargoed until today at noon, Rome-time.

Have you read it? Did Catholic News present the document yet?

Have you checked the effects with a responsible Canon Lawyer/blogger? Like this one: https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/

Gee. He has nothing to say about it, yet. But the MSM does. Who you gonna believe, the "nooz", or someone who actually KNOWS something?

Who you gonna believe, the "nooz", or someone who actually KNOWS something?

MSN has gotten my attention, meaning I will be watching for more information. Personally, I don't care so much what Latins do, but if all this pans out, I could see some real implications that would develop from it.

In the meantime, bundle your Wanderers for travel, add to the Mormon pantry, buy extra batteries, and prepare to bug out. LOL. Actually, I don't think it will be that serious.

Is marriage preparation in Argentina (or anywhere) really in that sorry of a state?

I don't know. If anyone wants to share recent information, I would like to know.

It may seem that way, but Western law (including canon law) is never been like the laws of the Medes and the Persians. Indeed, canon law was only *codified* in 1917; before that, it was a vast ocean that the nimble could manipulate with skill; the culture of canon and related civil law was such was that the enforcement of the law fell most heavily on the mass of the lowly people, and the privileged were often shown great deference (the civil law was, in practice, a respecter of persons, as it were). Mercy and compassion for the 1%, as it were.

Since officiating is at the discretion of the pastor, there's a wide variation in what sort of preparation he may require, including practically none at all.

Pope Peter II, motu propio, 2515 AD: As we have always taught, marriage is indissoluble. But in our fallen state, our venerable patriarch Moses in his great wisdom and mercy, permitted divorce. The Church, in her desire to shepherd her faithful more closely to the divine ends of Holy Matrimony, permitted only limited grounds for divorce, once called "annulments." Already in St. Hans Kung's day, annulments were freely and generously granted to the irreconcilable. This was a primitive exercise of the Mosaic privilege which, over time, had developed into the divorce process we have today. Today, I grant every priest throughout the galaxy, including our separated brethren in the ultra-traditionalist Society of St. John XXIII, the faculties to grant decrees of separation after the penitent expresses, in his heart, a firm intent to take marriage more seriously next time during the General Absolution of the Holy Mass, formerly called the "Sacrament of Penance." This act of mercy should be freely available to every one of the nearly 200,000 Catholics throughout the galaxy.

Church law is something of a minefield. While there is a code of canons for the eastern Catholic churches, it mostly leaves things to the bishops and apostolic canons and practices. The east was never as "lawyered" to death as the west. In that light, some Orthodox jurisdictions do allow for second marriages to, as they say, prevent the faithful from falling into sin. They are not celebrated with the symbols of a first marriage and the somber note is to display that this is not the norm but an exception.

I have read that in the early days of the west, there were only three confessable sins.
1.) Murder
2.) Apostasy
3.) Adultery may have been the 3rd, but my memory isn't clear on that anymore. All other sins were forgiven by the Eucharist.

Church law can be modified and reinterpreted for different situations. This is not anything new but an ongoing process.

Marriage is not always an ideal state. A friend told me the following totally untrue story. An Englishman was out shooting and one of his shots whizzed close by the head of the wife of another gentleman sitting on the patio drinking tea. The shooter apologized profusely, handed the wife's husband the gun and said, "So sorry. Here. Have a shot at my wife."

So I can chisel my employees' wages after all without committing a mortal sin? Cool!

You can, but when they kill you, you will have created a serious occasion of sin for those employees.

Adultery may have been the 3rd, but my memory isn't clear on that anymore

I'm sure your wife has a thought on that question.

Wendi, if the bishops actually (have to) take responsibility, I imagine we will see more "beefing up" than you might find on a cattle ranch.

Canonist Ed Peters has posted his thoughts. While technically doctrinally sound, in practice, the new fast-track annulment process sure looks a lot like divorce by another name. The synod may want to look into rolling it back a bit. Maybe by imploring bishops to require pre-marriage disclosures from the couple (e.g., disclosures of criminal records) that can be prima facie evidence against fast-track qualification.

As for marriage prep, two years is a bit much. You shouldn't have to date for over two years to get married. There are places that do it well and they should be a model for a mandatory conference-wide policy.