by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .500501502503504505506. . .509510»

Medi Terra wrote:A bit north of Grand Rapids, West side = best side :)

Lots of trad churches out east...

Di-Camilleri di-Rosica wrote:Lots of trad churches out east...

And my personal parish in GR is a Diocesan TLM. Although I will say the ICKSP Oratory in Detroit is in my top 3 churches in Michigan, that whole parish is absolutely delightful. I try to go to Candlemas there every year. I will say the Diocese of Marquette has some of my other favorite churches, plus Bishop Doerfler is very wholesome and the Yoop in general has a special place in my heart. Michigan is cool.

Medi Terra wrote:And my personal parish in GR is a Diocesan TLM. Although I will say the ICKSP Oratory in Detroit is in my top 3 churches in Michigan, that whole parish is absolutely delightful. I try to go to Candlemas there every year. I will say the Diocese of Marquette has some of my other favorite churches, plus Bishop Doerfler is very wholesome and the Yoop in general has a special place in my heart. Michigan is cool.

Assumption Grotto in Detroit has 9:30 sung Mass and very reverent NOs. Lots of TLMs in Arch. of Detroit. Only one got shut down after Murderers of the Tradition (my affectionate name forTraditionis Custodes)

Ottovanus

Di-Camilleri di-Rosica wrote:Assumption Grotto in Detroit has 9:30 sung Mass and very reverent NOs. Lots of TLMs in Arch. of Detroit. Only one got shut down after Murderers of the Tradition (my affectionate name forTraditionis Custodes)

I'd suggest treating Traditionis Custodes with more respect. It's an official promulgation of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, and beyond that, it was justified.

Big oof, not gonna fall for that bait today. It's finally started snowing here, everything is so calm and quiet. After work I'm gonna curl up on the couch with some tea and watch the snow fall.

On another note, has anyone read Deus Caritas Est? I always assumed the idea of separation of Church and State was merely the State's concept, but Papa Benny is quite supportive of it... A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Of course, he also argues that it's the Church's place to form the consciences of politicians according to Her doctrine which forms the State indirectly. Thoughts?

Attike and Ottovanus

Ottovanus wrote:I'd suggest treating Traditionis Custodes with more respect. It's an official promulgation of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, and beyond that, it was justified.

Well, at least a qualified justification. The problem only required surgery but the treatment was chemo.

Ottovanus wrote:I'd suggest treating Traditionis Custodes with more respect. It's an official promulgation of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, and beyond that, it was justified.

Ok, but can we at least agree that GUARDIANS of the Tradition is a bad name for it because it restricts access to Traditional Latin Masses instead of guarding it?

Ottovanus

Evangelium wrote:Well, at least a qualified justification. The problem only required surgery but the treatment was chemo.

What would you consider to be the proper response?

Ottovanus

Di-Camilleri di-Rosica wrote:Ok, but can we at least agree that GUARDIANS of the Tradition is a bad name for it because it restricts access to Traditional Latin Masses instead of guarding it?

Not at all. Especially since the Roman Rite according to the 1962 Missal isn't the "traditional Latin mass." Every Latin mass is traditional by default, and everything people like about the 1962 Missal can be done with the 1970 Missal. Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, altar boys, incense, the Roman Canon, etc.

The title "Guardians of Tradition" makes sense. The document makes it clear that it's trying to prevent the older Missal from being abused.

Ottovanus wrote:Not at all. Especially since the Roman Rite according to the 1962 Missal isn't the "traditional Latin mass." Every Latin mass is traditional by default, and everything people like about the 1962 Missal can be done with the 1970 Missal. Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, altar boys, incense, the Roman Canon, etc.

The title "Guardians of Tradition" makes sense. The document makes it clear that it's trying to prevent the older Missal from being abused.

But so much from the '62 was lost in the '70.
https://lms.org.uk/missals

I think we should stop arguing.

Di-Camilleri di-Rosica wrote:Ok, but can we at least agree that GUARDIANS of the Tradition is a bad name for it because it restricts access to Traditional Latin Masses instead of guarding it?

It isn't a name; it's just the incipit, that is, the beginning of the document, as is traditional for the format.
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/la/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html

And Holy Apostolic Tradition has nothing to do with whichever edition of the Roman Missal you use, as the Missal itself wasn't made by the Apostles; only the general structure of the Rite, as well as a couple phrases (e.g. 'Sursum corda') are Apostolic in origin and thus part of Holy Tradition, but those elements are common not only to both editions, but also to all other Rites.

PS.: 'Traditional Latin Mass' is a bad name, as the rite itself is quite new, doesn't need to be in Latin, and the current (post-council) Rite is actually more Apostolic and it's officially in Latin, not in the vernacular.

Evangelium wrote:The problem only required surgery but the treatment was chemo.

I strongly agree. I suspect the Holy Father might have been misled.

Ottovanus

Di-Camilleri di-Rosica wrote:But so much from the '62 was lost in the '70.
https://lms.org.uk/missals

I think we should stop arguing.

I don't mean to start an argument or anything. I just wanted to clarify some stuff regarding the two missals. While a lot was removed during the reform, that was partially the point. The 1962 Missal, as beautiful as it is, tends to be confusing and overly intricate. One of the hallmarks of the Roman Rite, historically speaking, has been simplicity and sobriety. Both of which are descriptive of the newer missal.

Again, not saying one is superior than the other. Just that there were legitimate reasons for the reform, and that the newer form doesn't deserve the hate it gets.

Pray for Canada the barbaric practice of euthanasia is being pushed on the disabled, and poor.

The liturgical questions which face the Church are an ongoing discussion which I'm sure will last the coming decades. There are questions of what right worship and offering of the Mass looks like along with what exactly the aim of the Mass of Paul VI was. It is objectively the case that what Sacrosanctum Councilium lays out and what was instituted are very different, and that is obviously going to raise some questions. The people who produced the Mass of the Ages documentary claim that a major agenda of Annibale Bugnini who was a major figure in the reform was to Protestantize the Mass so that it was more tolerable to them by making it more recognizable to their services.

Another major assertion the more traditional minded are concerned about is the inorganic nature of the reform. The revision of the Mass was sudden and contrived rather than occurring in small increments overtime as had been the case before.

Now it can also be said that the Tridentine Mass was in some way failing to serve the people in the modern world and needed to be reformed in order to better bridge the gap between the laity and God before the altar. Participation is certainly the central theme of Sacrosanctum Concilium, but it remains oddly undefined. It seems to point to intellectual participation by getting people to learn the Latin, sing the Gregorian chants, and understand what is going on in the Mass rather than the more simplistic understanding of responding or having a much stronger presence in the rituals themselves in the sanctuary.

In short, it's a mess. Traditiones Custodes came off like a punishment that made all traddies out to be bad schismatics. Here in New Orleans, the pastor of the primary latin Mass parish is also one of the main canon lawyers. In his view, TC has no canonical powers since it was not written in a way that is legally binding so there have been no noticeable regulations.

Ottovanus wrote:What would you consider to be the proper response?

The heart of the issue was certain people using the former Extraordinary Form as the symbol of resistance to the Holy Father. The ones who were particularly loud and proud about their opposition online might have made it seem like everyone attending former EF liturgies were somehow part of a shadow conspiracy of opposition. Instead of addressing that virulent opposition (which one wonders why it would even need to be addressed given the plethora of opposition within the Church to popes from left and right), TC nuked everyone, hurting many innocent people along the way. Some sadly but ever faithfully attended Ordinary Form liturgies while others opted to attend liturgies in canonically irregular communities (which was the antithesis of why Summorum Pontificum was issued).

Prior to TC, I think there was already some good changes that could have been developed in light of SP. The addition of more recently canonized saints into the General Roman Calendar of the EF was good. I would've liked to see eventually having a three-year cycle for the EF too. I also would've liked to see more changes (in practice, which is already in the rubrics) to the Ordinary Form, such as a more widespread practice of ad orientem (with proper catechesis of course) and inclusion of Latin (I've always wondered why the Agnus Dei is commonly the only part of Masses I attend that's in Latin... perhaps it's short and easy for the congregation to learn?). I also hope that the Octave of Pentecost is re-introduced to the OF and greater use of holy salt when blessing water (which is still in the OF ritual).

Ottovanus

Evangelium wrote:The heart of the issue was certain people using the former Extraordinary Form as the symbol of resistance to the Holy Father. The ones who were particularly loud and proud about their opposition online might have made it seem like everyone attending former EF liturgies were somehow part of a shadow conspiracy of opposition. Instead of addressing that virulent opposition (which one wonders why it would even need to be addressed given the plethora of opposition within the Church to popes from left and right), TC nuked everyone, hurting many innocent people along the way. Some sadly but ever faithfully attended Ordinary Form liturgies while others opted to attend liturgies in canonically irregular communities (which was the antithesis of why Summorum Pontificum was issued).

Prior to TC, I think there was already some good changes that could have been developed in light of SP. The addition of more recently canonized saints into the General Roman Calendar of the EF was good. I would've liked to see eventually having a three-year cycle for the EF too. I also would've liked to see more changes (in practice, which is already in the rubrics) to the Ordinary Form, such as a more widespread practice of ad orientem (with proper catechesis of course) and inclusion of Latin (I've always wondered why the Agnus Dei is commonly the only part of Masses I attend that's in Latin... perhaps it's short and easy for the congregation to learn?). I also hope that the Octave of Pentecost is re-introduced to the OF and greater use of holy salt when blessing water (which is still in the OF ritual).

I've heard this claim about how it's only the online "vocal minority" that stir things up, but I can't say that it looks that way. I've seen a fair number of people abandon parishes that exclusively offer the extraordinary form because of the toxic culture that Pope Francis wrote about. I know that I've seen probably hundreds of examples of "rad trads" and sedevacantists try to use the 1962 Missal as a weapon against the Church, and the responses that people had to TC only validated the document in my opinion. I can't believe the number of people that have slandered Pope Francis and the Church in general over this. Again, proving him right.

Beyond all that, the whole point of Summorum Pontificum was to try to enrich both forms of the Roman Rite by having parishes utilize both missals. Unfortunately, that didn't happen at all. Use of the 1962 Missal expanded somewhat, but not tremendously, and parishes that offered it didn't really do it as Pope Benedict XVI intended. Some exceptions would be St John Cantius in Chicago or the Oratory in London. Beyond that, the extraordinary form was still being kept away from average Catholics. Thus defeating the purpose of SP and entrenching the poor assumptions made about the two forms. As in, the older missal is for Latin and reverence, and the newer missal is for whatever you want. The reality is quite the opposite. Both missals allow for use of Latin, ad orientem, all the smells and bells, etc.

If we're going to try to dismiss the antagonistic trads because of how small they are, shouldn't we just dismiss everyone who prefers the extraordinary form since they're also a very small minority? I also don't see nearly as much criticism thrown at the Church by the left. Their errors are of another sort and honestly far worse, but Pope Francis doesn't seem to treat them any better so that criticism never made sense to me. People seem to ignore Francis' condemnations of those errors and then highlight his responses to "right-wing" problems. At least that's what I've seen.

"TC nuked everyone." No it didn't. It somewhat restricted a form of liturgy that most Catholics have little to no interest in. Not to say that I don't care about the 1962 Missal, but these kinds of responses are hyperbolic. If more people stood up against the very vocal number of trads that constantly border on schism, we wouldn't have had this problem.

No, Summorum Pontificum wasn't promulgated to keep people away from canonically irregular or outright schismatic communities. That may have been part of the reason, but I already went over the actual thought behind Benedict XVI's decree.

I'd agree that there have been more reverent ordinary form masses as of late. Or at least that seems to be the case from my own experience. If that's a result of SP then great, but I don't see why that motu proprio was needed for this to happen. All we really need is more discipline in the clergy with the liturgy. I'd also recommend some modifications to the GIRM, but even as it is, the 1970 Missal is fine. Literally nothing stopping parishes from celebrating the mass with the same reverence that we see in many extraordinary form parishes.

Ottovanus

Castle Federation wrote:The liturgical questions which face the Church are an ongoing discussion which I'm sure will last the coming decades. There are questions of what right worship and offering of the Mass looks like along with what exactly the aim of the Mass of Paul VI was. It is objectively the case that what Sacrosanctum Councilium lays out and what was instituted are very different, and that is obviously going to raise some questions. The people who produced the Mass of the Ages documentary claim that a major agenda of Annibale Bugnini who was a major figure in the reform was to Protestantize the Mass so that it was more tolerable to them by making it more recognizable to their services.

Another major assertion the more traditional minded are concerned about is the inorganic nature of the reform. The revision of the Mass was sudden and contrived rather than occurring in small increments overtime as had been the case before.

Now it can also be said that the Tridentine Mass was in some way failing to serve the people in the modern world and needed to be reformed in order to better bridge the gap between the laity and God before the altar. Participation is certainly the central theme of Sacrosanctum Concilium, but it remains oddly undefined. It seems to point to intellectual participation by getting people to learn the Latin, sing the Gregorian chants, and understand what is going on in the Mass rather than the more simplistic understanding of responding or having a much stronger presence in the rituals themselves in the sanctuary.

In short, it's a mess. Traditiones Custodes came off like a punishment that made all traddies out to be bad schismatics. Here in New Orleans, the pastor of the primary latin Mass parish is also one of the main canon lawyers. In his view, TC has no canonical powers since it was not written in a way that is legally binding so there have been no noticeable regulations.

Some things to point out here. The documentary, Mass of the Ages, doesn't give an accurate or balanced account of the liturgical reform. Painting Archbishop Bugnini out as a comical secret villain, complete with creepy visuals and fake quotes, was both uncharitable to the dead, and dishonest. The documentary also failed to point out that many of the critics of the reform also signed off on the changes. Which Bugnini lamented in his own writings. I'd recommend this video if you want a good review of the problems in episode two specifically.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b61Xn34ThGc&t=15716s

I also don't think the whole organic vs inorganic claim holds water. There were plenty of occasions throughout Church history where massive changes occured in the liturgy suddenly. After Quo Primum, it took literal centuries for the Tridentine Missal to be fully implemented across the west because of how much it differed from the various other liturgies. Places like France and Germany were using different missals even up till the 19th century because of local disobedience. St Vincent de Paul wrote about how you could hardly find two parishes celebrating the mass the same way around the start of the 17th century. However, I certainly agree that the 1970 Missal should've been tailored more closely to the previous missal, and that the GIRM should've emphasized the hermeneutic of continuity far more.

As I've said before, I don't think Traditionis Custodes is nearly as bad as many make it out to be. The horribly negative reaction to it only justifies it more. If people can have this much of a crisis over the restriction of one form of one rite, then things aren't going so well. Again, not to say that this was a perfect response or anything like that. Only this was a long time coming.

And yeah, TC is canonically valid. I don't know what "canon lawyer" you're referring to, but to just say that Pope Francis doesn't have the authority or didn't write TC correctly to return to the status quo before Summorum Pontificum is ludicrous. Popes have enacted far greater disciplinary decrees than this without placing whatever specific language this lawyer claims is necessary.

Ottovanus wrote:I've heard this claim about how it's only the online "vocal minority" that stir things up, but I can't say that it looks that way. I've seen a fair number of people abandon parishes that exclusively offer the extraordinary form because of the toxic culture that Pope Francis wrote about.

I'm not here to argue, because I don't know the specifics of your experience. All I'm saying is that I know there are many hurt Catholics because of TC. In choosing to be obedient to the Holy Father, despite the malicious actions/words of others, they must now choose to worship only in the Ordinary Form or go back and forth between the OF and canonically irregular communities.

The canon lawyer isnít saying the encyclical is invalid. He is saying that it in no way changes the status quo which is that the discretion of these matters lies with the bishop who can choose to enforce the harsher regulations, particularly from the clarifications such as the Latin Mass taking place in a parish church and being publicly advertised in the bulletin. The parameters are up to the ordinary to enforce rather than Rome, so the bishop can be as strict or lenient as he sees is good for his people. Canon Law reserves such responsibilities and powers to the local bishop.

Ottovanus

Evangelium wrote:I'm not here to argue, because I don't know the specifics of your experience. All I'm saying is that I know there are many hurt Catholics because of TC. In choosing to be obedient to the Holy Father, despite the malicious actions/words of others, they must now choose to worship only in the Ordinary Form or go back and forth between the OF and canonically irregular communities.

I understand there are many faithful Catholics who felt hurt by TC, but I still don't see what other option there could've been. Clearly, things weren't fine as they were, and I don't know any other way to "crack down" on the schismatic people with the precision that would keep faithful people from being affected too. Keep in mind, TC didn't restrict the extraordinary form. It only allowed bishops the ability to restrict it if they deemed it necessary.

No, many of those faithful Catholics still have the option to go to either the ordinary or extraordinary form. None of them have been forced to attend illicit services as you imply.

Ottovanus

Castle Federation wrote:The canon lawyer isnít saying the encyclical is invalid. He is saying that it in no way changes the status quo which is that the discretion of these matters lies with the bishop who can choose to enforce the harsher regulations, particularly from the clarifications such as the Latin Mass taking place in a parish church and being publicly advertised in the bulletin. The parameters are up to the ordinary to enforce rather than Rome, so the bishop can be as strict or lenient as he sees is good for his people. Canon Law reserves such responsibilities and powers to the local bishop.

Yeah that all makes sense. Sorry, just the way you originally wrote it made it seem like this canon lawyer was questioning the validity of the motu proprio itself.

Ottovanus wrote:It only allowed bishops the ability to restrict it if they deemed it necessary.

Actually, TC allowed bishops to permit it on a case by case basis. The default posture is that the former EF is not allowed. In a subsequent clarification, bishops who permit it must get permission from the Holy See to do so.

Nascibility

Ottovanus

Evangelium wrote:Actually, TC allowed bishops to permit it on a case by case basis. The default posture is that the former EF is not allowed. In a subsequent clarification, bishops who permit it must get permission from the Holy See to do so.

Fair enough. But has there been an example so far of a bishop being denied the option of allowing the extraordinary form?

Nascibility

The Diocese of Savannah, Georgia (USA) seems to have been told by the Vatican that they cannot permit any EF Masses after May 20, 2023.

Nascibility wrote:The Diocese of Savannah, Georgia (USA) seems to have been told by the Vatican that they cannot permit any EF Masses after May 20, 2023.

Please pray that is not a trend.

«12. . .500501502503504505506. . .509510»

Advertisement