by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Post

Region: Catholic

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).

Johnpaulopolis

ContextReport