Back to Reform of the Reform
-
If he said, "because this is the primary group refusing covid vaccination, which is harmful to the welfare of the general/entire population," would that be a good enough reason?
No, because that has nothing to do with liturgy at all. Liturgical decisions made as a result of SP are leading to a split in the church, as Francis sees it. It's not to punish the group for their misguided decisions elsewhere, it pertains to attitudes that are directly related to the liturgy they attend - namely, using the TLM as an excuse to pretend that the remainder of Vatican II also didn't happen rather than as an Extraordinary Form within a post-Vatican II church. I don't see the relevance to vaccination at all.
This labeling of Catholics who attend/prefer the new Mass as somehow defective or inferior has got to stop. When I read such comments I am not at all surprised at why the Motu Proprio was issued.
This specific labeling behaviour, among others, occasionally makes me feel uncomfortable just posting here. -
People are given all sorts of reasons for things.
But a couple of you are sometimes mean to some people, and sometimes say things that allow me to publicly judge your spiritual disposition... therefore the entire lot of you are going to be crushed and slowly but surely lose that which most nourishes your spiritual lives is the published one. -
I don't agree with banning the TLM, and I have spoken out against such several times in the last few days. However, from what I've seen, the attitudes which Pope Francis cites in support of his actions are absolutely prevalent and honestly should not be tolerated. The dismissal of the Novus Ordo as some sort of heresy and the implication that Vatican II had nothing important to say at all, and the ensuing desire to turn back the clock wholesale to 1955, does not serve the Church. Whether it is the view of most TLM attendees, and I sincerely believe that it is not, is irrelevant; it is the view of some of the loudest voices in the traditionalist camp and, frankly, much of the Church has had it with them.
-
Getting rid of the TLM because of a "few loud voices" is an incredibly stupid and imprudent thing to do. That's sort of like having ten suspects for a murder (and you know one of them is guilty), but you execute all of them because the other nine happened to be in the same house.
What happened to using logic?
-
Getting rid of the TLM because of a "few loud voices" is an incredibly stupid and imprudent thing to do.
I can't tell if it's a few loud voices or something like a majority opinion in TLM land. The vast majority of the people that I can find to speak for the TLM (read, the people I am interacting with on this forum) seem to be in agreement with Pope Francis that they are in opposition to Vatican II.
If there's some kind of silent majority that isn't in opposition to Vatican II, it's sad that the users of this forum have chosen to drown them out.
Pope Francis clearly beleives that the problem is not isolated to just a few crazies. And, all the evidence that I have been able to acquire so far suggests that he is correct in that judgement.Thanked by 1Elmar -
@CCooze
Now now….I take slight issue with that, as I prefer the TLM in all its glory, I do not cast shade on my fellow Catholics who prefer the NO Rite of the liturgy; to me it’s a matter according to the dictates of conscience, and that will not change in 1,000 years or more. It’s insufferable to see those expressing the phasing out of what a few many deem sacred, myself included, but in all this fall out I think that charity is warranted towards each other, are we not all Catholic? -
I wasn't casting shade on anyone..?
It didn't seem like a good reason, nor one that could even be backed up.
People keep saying specific ones of us don't believe in this or that and therefore must be heretics of some sort or other. ...another claim that cannot be backed up.Thanked by 1sdtalley3 -
I am employed by a Novus Ordo parish, so despite my preference, I will continue to exclusively attend the Novus Ordo.
There is little that I can do, except pray; I am doing Fr.Z.'s novena to St. Anne.
I have my weekly meeting with the pastor tomorrow. We will continue trying to drain the sea into our hole in the sand; aka RotR. -
I'm finally trying to slowly digest Cdl Mueller's response.
Look, he also said we're not supposed to be obedient and affirmative to the point of being cult...What this means, however, is not obedience to the pope and the bishops in the discipline of the sacraments, but sanctifying grace, which fully involves us in the invisible Church as communion with the Triune God.
[...]
The Roman Church must not pass on its responsibility for unity in cult to the Bishops’ Conferences.Presumptions that one may “improve” the verba domini (e.g. pro multis – “for many” – at the consecration, the et ne nos inducas in tentationem – “and lead us not into temptation” – in the Our Father), contradict the truth of the faith and the unity of the Church much more than celebrating Mass according to the Missal of John XXIII.One cannot simply declare the latest missal to be the only valid norm of the Catholic faith without distinguishing between the “part that is unchangeable by virtue of divine institution and the parts that are subject to change.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 21). -
Those who prefer the EF, how does this affect you? Will it change how and where you worship? What can you do to make things more to your liking?
@bhcordova, that is an interesting question and it seems to pull a number of things together.
Assuming the end result is that there is no TLM anywhere, I would very likely consider finding an Anglican Ordinariate parish. But here is a problem. If Pope Francis can and does eliminate the TLM, what is to prevent him (or a near-future pope) from eliminating the Anglican Ordinariate? Such is not beyond the realm of possibility, especially if the perception is that the TLM "dissenters" -- I'm not sure what to call myself at this point, even though I'm not a dissenter -- have migrated to the Ordinariate and are using that as a cover to disrupt the unity of the Church, as apparently we have done under Summorum Pontificum with the TLM.
And if the Anglican Ordinariate falls and we TLM folk somehow end up associated with the reform of the reform, that will be the end of RotR; for it will have come to be perceived as the haven and disguise of those who are actually trying to bring back the TLM and who won't accept Vatican II.
I think this affects us all, whichever liturgy we prefer. -
100%-Deserving of its own comment block...Nobody can turn a blind eye to the fact that even those priests and laypeople who celebrate Mass according to the order of the Missal of St. Paul VI are now being widely decried as traditionalist. The teachings of Vatican II on the uniqueness of redemption in Christ, the full realization of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church, the inner essence of the Catholic liturgy as adoration of God and mediation of grace, Revelation and its presence in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, the infallibility of the magisterium, the primacy of the pope, the sacramentality of the Church, the dignity of the priesthood, the holiness and indissolubility of marriage – all these are being heretically denied in open contradiction to Vatican II by a majority of German bishops and lay functionaries (even if disguised under pastoral phrases).
And despite all the apparent enthusiasm they express for Pope Francis, they are flatly denying the authority conferred on him by Christ as the successor of Peter. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document about the impossibility of legitimizing same-sex and extramarital sexual contacts through a blessing is ridiculed by German (and not only German) bishops, priests, and theologians as merely the opinion of under-qualified curial officials. Here we have a threat to the unity of the Church in revealed faith, reminiscent of the size of the Protestant secession from Rome in the sixteenth century. Given the disproportion between the relatively modest response to the massive attacks on the unity of the church in the German “Synodal Way” (as well as in other pseudo-reforms) and the harsh disciplining of the old ritual minority, the image of the misguided fire brigade comes to mind, which – instead of saving the blazing house – instead first saves the small barn next to it.
Without the slightest empathy, one ignores the religious feelings of the (often young) participants in the Masses according to the Missal John XXIII. (1962) Instead of appreciating the smell of the sheep, the shepherd here hits them hard with his crook. It also seems simply unjust to abolish celebrations of the “old” rite just because it attracts some problematic people: abusus non tollit usum. -
Those who prefer the EF, how does this affect you? Will it change how and where you worship?
It's impossible to say, at this point; there are too many unknowns. The Bishop of Cleveland's (where I work) position is "keep doing what you're doing until we figure out what you're doing". I've yet to hear the Bp. of Youngstown (where I live) position. It seems likely that if there is any restriction in TLM availability, I'll be out of a job. Which means I won't have that reason to worship 45 miles from home. Instead it will be 50 mi., or 18, and I'll be singing but unpaid. But all possibilities are on the table.
-
I beg to differ.No, he didn't!
But, most importantly is the end:"...If Traditionis Custodes is to serve the unity of the church, that can only mean a unity in faith, which enables us to “come to the perfect knowledge of the Son of God,” which is to say unity in truth and love. (cf. Eph 4, 12-15)." -
Those who prefer the EF, how does this affect you? Will it change how and where you worship?
As far as the liturgy-- For now, it depends on the bishop. It could be situation normal, significant change, or even lights out. The vernacular provisions depend on the bishops' conference, as there is no current lectionary approved by them for the 1962 Missal. Soon we will start to hear from the CDW as well - they may bypass the bishop or the conference and introduce more change.
Immediately, for many it means more "political" work as well - the sacrifice of organizing, networking, etc. And part of this is figuring out how to be "politically correct" in the age of Traditionis custodes. Pastorally, there are many anxious spirits to calm. -
Corinne,
Cardinal Mueller doesn't speak in enigmatic penumbrae, which leads his meaning to be more evident. -
Those who prefer the EF, how does this affect you?
Will it change how and where you worship?
What can you do to make things more to your liking?
No change, our ordinary has given permission to continue as normal, with a renewal of permissions in 1 year.
For the long term we have the SSPX up the road, but they would need to buy a very large church to accommodate the 3 diocesan TLM.
I suspect we will have a mass defection of priests if the TLM is banned, or priests just having private Masses, as part of a church in the catacombs. A number of the community remember the days when we were persecuted for our Faith and used to meet up in halls, and houses for Mass.
At the moment the plan is to keep on and encourage more people to experience the beauty of the TLM.
@Chrism We have two books in the U.K. approved by the bishops of England and Wales, for use to repeat the readings at the TLM in English. the 1950 version has the Knox translation, and the 1910 ed uses the Douay Rheims.
The question we are not go to ask for clarification,
What is the vernacular in a large inner city parish?
We do not have a majority at our TLM that have English as a first language! We will also continue to use our handouts that use the Douay Rheims translation. Many people have brought Missals / or the various Missal apps, so having in the unlikely event we have an approved modern translation being read, will end up showing how flawed the modern translations are. -
Strange - a previous Bishop of Mayaguez is reported as having celebrated the TLM, or at least he was formally present at it. https://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2014/09/363-cardinals-and-bishops-whove-said.html
-
And now pandora’s box
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/07/demanding-impossible-traditionis.html?m=1 -
Hawkins,
Could that be why he's a former bishop? -
The Knox Bible is in print from Baronius Press. So if you can tolerate proclaiming from a Bible (with a slip of paper to tell you which verses, and the incipit given in a hand Missal) ...
-
What about the deleted verses that are offensive to certain sins? Aren’t you literally proclaiming “a different gospel than the one handed down to us?” Parsing out those things that make men shudder or prick their conscience? Only including the things that would “tickle men’s ears” and turn a blind eye to the things are detestable to God?
And then, shouldn’t the long-standing readings of the Mass have the missing verses Re-inserted and read at the Novus Ordo? -purple- (And it would seem right that they should be proclaimed in Latin so that they don’t have to be understood by the NO congregation). -endpurple-
-
A good bit of silliness creeps into any discussion, it seems, when discussing even the slightest change to the TLM, or as we should more accurately say, the missal of John XXIII 1962.. Yes, as popes and councils have determined again and again, the readings should be understood. It is not essential to anyone's faith that the readings be from Douay as opposed to the New American. I personally don't care so much for the New American and like the RSV 2nd CE much better, but I realize the bishops don't make any money from the RSV. However, I can read both and figure out what the text is saying. So can nearly everyone else. Such things are argument for the sake of argument and don't win any friends for the liturgy. Besides, everyone knows that the King Jimmy was handed down by God and is the only true Bible. I have heard that for years, too, and it is equally as silly.
BTW, as for the Vulgate, it is riddled with errors. St. Jerome worked from some faulty sources that modern scholarship has debunked.Thanked by 1contemporaryworship92 -
It's not the flourish of the vernacular language that is important, it is using a translation that stays true to the authentic meaning of the Latin.It is not essential to anyone's faith that the readings be from Douay as opposed to the New American. -
If the sources simply repeat the errors in the Latin, what good are they from an accuracy standpoint? Here is the issue. Just because it is used in the TLM doesn't mean it is free from error and can't be improved on. Go for accuracy to the greatest degree possible when you can.
-
Charles
Can you please give us your most accurate translation of this passage from the article above to enlighten us:(1) I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, (2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, (3) and all ate the same spiritual food, (4) and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. (5) Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. (6) Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. (7) Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” (8) We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. (9) We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, (10) nor [We must not] grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. (11) Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. (12) Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (13) No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
-
CC, you want the translations to be true to another translation in a different language. That's what I hear you say. The Vulgate is a translation into Latin of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Why not translate directly from those languages?
The Douay is a translation, into English, of the Vulgate, which is a translation into Latin of the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament.
The Septuagint is a translation into the Greek of the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament.
What you are really asking for is a translation of a translation of a translation of the Old Testament and a translation of a translation of the New.
Does that even sound reasonable?
-
Some in this thread have presented the specious argument that being attached to the TLM is a rejection of VII. For example, VII called for expanding the number of readings at Mass. The TLM excludes this reform because it has the same readings as before VII. Therefore you can't prefer the TLM without necessarily exempting yourself from the reform of the readings. Hence you are personally rejecting VII.
This argument is fallacious for the following reasons.
1. One can be attached to the TLM and completely supportive of the reform of the readings in the NO Mass.
2. One can be attached to the TLM and completely unsupportive of the reform of the readings in the NO Mass due to the failure of the reform to achieve the goals set out by the Council fathers, namely "[t]hat the intimate connection between words and rites may be apparent in the liturgy" (SC 35), and "[t]he treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word" (SC 51). In other words, one might object to the actual reform due to its failure to achieve the goal of the reform set out by the Council fathers.
3. One might achieve the goal of the reform in one's own spiritual life through devotional bible study while being unengaged with the broader reform of the Church. Most healthy people fall in this category whether NO or TLM. -
But one cannot logically be exclusively attached to the 1962 Missal and be completely in agreement with the mind of the Church, which decreed at Vatican II to reform the liturgy in such a way that the revised liturgy would supplant what preceded it. That would amount to saying, "I agree with the Church's decision to reform the liturgy, but I'll personally opt out, thank you very much."
The ability to opt out is what Pope Francis has curtailed and set in motion to eliminate eventually.
To relate this to the RotR, which is this thread's topic, RotR aims to promote celebrations of the Novus Ordo Mass that align more closely with the preconciliar liturgical tradition so that the Novus Ordo Mass is not experienced as a rupture with the Mass prior to Vatican II, but as being in continuity with it as a reformed, living evolution and expansion of that liturgical tradition. -
Francis, here are several translations of the same and they all say pretty much the same. I get the general idea when I read any of them. Should there be a comma in a different place or other such trivia, it doesn't matter and is not worth wasting time on.
https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/1CO.10.1-13
-
bhc, it isn't me... it's The Church.
As Cdl. Mueller said,"The unity of the Latin rite, however, should be preserved through the same basic liturgical structure and the precise orientation of the translations to the Latin original."
And the (post-conciliar) Church has declared:The reform of the liturgy, carried put in accordance with the Constitution of the Second Vatican Council; has also introduced certain modifications in the very essence of the sacramental rites. These new words, just as the others, were to be translated into the vernacular in such a way as to express the original meaning according to the characteristic genius of the various languages. From this certain difficulties have arisen which come to light when such translations are submitted by the Episcopal Conferences for the approval of the Apostolic See. In this situation the S. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith again reminds those concerned that the translation of the essential formulas in the rites of the Sacraments must tender faithfully the original sense of the Latin typical text.
Bearing this in mind it makes known:
The Apostolic See, after due examination of the translation into the vernacular of a Sacramental formula submitted to it, when it deems that it expresses exactly the sense intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, while at the same time decreeing that the sense of the translation must be understood according to the mind of the Church expressed by the original Latin text.t.
-
This argument is also specious.But one cannot logically be attached to the 1962 Missal and be completely in agreement with the mind of the Church, which decreed at Vatican II to reform the liturgy in such a way that the revised liturgy would supplant what preceded it. That would amount to saying, "I agree with the Church's decision to reform the liturgy, but I'll personally opt out, thank you very much."
1. One can logically support the reformed liturgy supplanting what preceded it, but nevertheless personally prefer the TLM and act on that preference. Your particular personal commitment to the reform of the Church is not abligatory for anyone else.
2. One can logically support the reform of the liturgy and agree that the reformed liturgy should supplant what preceded it, but nevertheless be completely unsupportive of the reform of Paul VI due to its failure to achieve the goals set out by the Council fathers. Your position is that, a priori, the reform of Paul VI and the intent of the Council fathers are the same. This is tendentious.
3. One can logically support the reform of the liturgy etc., but achieve the goal of the reform set out for the faithful by the Council fathers in one's own spiritual life, including being attached to the TLM, but otherwise unengaged with the broader reform of the Church.
Specious arguments such as the one you have put forward here tend to deny the dignity of the human person. The faithful are not obligated to order their personal choices around a reform program for the Church. Reform of the Church is the responsiblilty of the bishops. We are invited to participate, as indeed you have, but not required to participate. The faithful are entitled to their legitimate freedom. -
I don't think the Vulgate is even the official translation these days. I had heard that was changed.
CC, I basically agree but I remember the "pro multis" flap a few years ago and that was sheer ignorance to get so bent out of shape over a faulty translation. People have a tendency to do that, unfortunately. -
Charles, changing the words that reportedly came from Christ's own mouth is going a bit beyond "reforming" a liturgy. The Catholic Church wasn't supposed to undergo that kind of drastic (for lack of a worse word) reform...
-
I have pointed out elsewhere that the reforms mandated by the council were entrusted to people not competent to do them. But when you get right down to it, Christ didn't say most of the words in the canon outside of this is my body/blood. The rest was added in by others.
-
"...to reform the liturgy in such a way that the revised liturgy would supplant what preceded it."
I don't know that we can claim with any certainty that specifically the N.O. or even generally any reform was absolutely intended to absolutely replace the old Mass. One can perhaps guess at this, or speculate, but that's the extent of it. Certainly, it is not what happened, and Rome has permitted it to exist alongside the reformed Mass from day one. And really, it is just as unrealistic to say that it will actually ever cease to exist as it is for trads to claim with certainty that the N.O. will go extinct. -
The reform of the Church's liturgy is obligatory on everyone who wishes to be in full communion with the Church because it was decreed by an ecumenical council and a particular liturgical form implementing that decreed reform was approved and promulgated by papal authority. A variety of revised rites were possible, any of which could have been faithful to Vatican II. The Novus Ordo Mass could have been different, could have been more or less to people's liking, but it's what the Church legitimately decided upon and it does conform to the Council's wishes and decree.
The faithful are not obligated to order their personal choices around a reform program for the Church. Reform of the Church is the responsiblilty of the bishops. We are invited to participate, as indeed you have, but not required to participate. The faithful are entitled to their legitimate freedom.
I will not mince words on this: the attitude expressed above pretends to accept Vatican II and pretends to accept the Church's authority while carving out personal exemptions and exceptions by using sophistry. That's not sentire cum ecclesia. Not at all.
Liturgy is the Church's official, public worship. It is not a matter of personal choice.
In what other aspects of faith shall Catholics consider themselves free to carve out personal exemptions? Oh, Fr. James Martin, S.J. has some to suggest...
The citation above is just the false "primacy of conscience" argument proffered again but disguised in an attempt to make people not recognize it for what it is.
2209 x 699 - 172KThanked by 1contemporaryworship92 -
@MarkB
The N.O. Mass is irrelevant to large numbers of Catholics that belong to other Rites and Uses, is it a big problem for it to also be irrelevant or even irreverent to me. Anyway you have no authority on the matter, and your therefore your opinion has almost no worth. -
"The reform of the Church's liturgy is obligatory on everyone who wishes to be in full communion with the Church because it was decreed by an ecumenical council and a particular liturgical form implementing that decreed reform was approved and promulgated by papal authority"
Sooooo....Benedict XVI was willfully leading people into schism/heresy by permitting more widespread use of the Old Mass? And by permitting exclusively EF communities? -
I understand your opinions on this matter, but you are taking your own subjective approach to this issue and making some extremely heavy-handed conclusions which are a far cry from what the Church has to say about these things.
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,108
- General Music Discussion7,595
- Job Openings1,303
- Management of Music Programs833
- Choral Matters519
- Church Documents and Rubrics504
- CMAA Notes291
- Events651
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony528
- Hymnody821
- Gregorian Chant: General2,582
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis354
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong671
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire414
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,208
- Recordings222
- Music for Hispanic Ministry151
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General214
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism723
- Amusements170
- General Discussion1,001
- Opinions113