Is it just me or do too many of the recent postings of those on the Blogosphere who keenly await the release of Benedict's Motu Proprio on the use of the 1962 Mass smack of the intolerance that they so regularly accuse their opponents of?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Uh, no Father, now that you mention it.
We are happy that you can say the Novus Ordo and we do not wish to prevent you from it. We wish the best for you.
We just think we should be able to hear the mass that was the mass of the Church for over 400 years, and we think it's rather narrow of people to tell us we can't, especially when they apparently can have what they wish.
There is room for the faithful Novus Ordo as well as the classical mass, in truth. It really is a diversity issue, you see.
Where on my Blog does it say that I am a priest?
Who are the 'we'? Is it royal?
Using the logic of this argument, why not go back to the mass of the first c1500 years of the Church? Would it not be more authentic?
You are not a priest, then. I'm sorry for my mistake. Please forgive me.
I say "we" because I speak for myself, my family and many of my friends. We've talked about this quite a bit. I am not royalty.
If we go to the classical mass we DO go to the "mass of the first 1500 years of the church" because the mass developed slowly and organically from the beginning without breaking off and starting over. The elements of the classical mass are ancient, indeed. It is completely authentic, taking its form from the start.
No, I doubt if you do go to the Mass that was offered in the Upper Room or on Calvary - unless Christ was minded to speak in Latin, wear layers of vestments or make use of incense. Perhaps he pushed the table at the Last Supper against the wall and sat with his back to the disciples.
The one element of the Mass that is central is - to my mind - transubstantiation. Are you claiming that there is a break in this element from the Classical rite to the current Mass?
Hello Mr. Madden,
Just followed your link here from Fr Zuhlsdorf's pad...
1) Unfortunately you will probably be able to find a few too-triumphant traditionalists now and in the coming weeks. But I think you will agree that Fr. Zuhlsdorf is going well out of his way (rightly) to encourage charity, not animosity. In truth, so far there has been less of it in general than I expected.
2) But as for your more substantive comments: I think you identified the difficulty that occured with the Consilium's construction of the Paul VI missal - an archeologism that has no precedent in the Church's liturgy. It is one thing to sweep away the occasional incrustation which seems to obscure more than it enriches, but there has never been (until recently) an assumption that we must go all the way back to the beginning, that everything which has come since is simply superfluous. Our authority is not merely Christ as historical figure, but in his Mystical Body as well, and this has grown and developed over time - and, with it, its liturgy.
Nor, likewise, is the Church's liturgy so relentlessly reductionist - i.e., that there is very, very little absolutely essential to it, so you can do as you please, rearranging or changing as seems fitting.
Rather, the liturgy is something we receive as Pope Benedict has pointed out - and, likewise something organic which grows slowly, reverently, over time. It is not frozen in time. Which is one reason why I hope that this motu proprio over the long run slowly moves the 1962 missal forward as it does the novus ordo, keeping the best of both while taking better hold of the principles laid out in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Indeed, the Pope explicitly expressed such a hope in his comments at the Fontgambault conference in 2001.
I do not think there is a rupture in the transubstantiation of the True Body of Christ in the 1970 missal - to say so would be to say it is invalid. But a great deal of the rest of it in its form and matter has sustained rupture, some of it in the practice but also in its very design, as Lauren Pristas, Alciun Reid, Klaus Gamber and, yes, Pope Benedict have pointed out on many occasions.
I think Christ was in layers of clothing and probably did speak Latin as well as Aramaic. You remember he did live within the Roman Empire during his lifetime and many people did speak Latin where he lived. He did thank the Magdalene for putting perfume on his feet as well. Incense was brought to him after his birth. These things were not foreign to him, although they are to many of us.
There was no break at the time of Vatican II between the "old church" and the "new church." Indeed the current pope speaks of the hermaneutic of continuity. The idea that the old church is gone and replaced with a new one is wrong.
The mass is Latin is ancient. Peter himself went to Rome and lived there for many years after the Resurrection, where he preached to the Romans in LATIN until his martyrdom on the Vatican hill. Latin has been used for the mass ever since.
On the off chance that that wasn't a rhetorical question, yes, it's just you.
The only "intolerance" I'm seeing is from people who are getting their panties in a twist from fear of the TLM.
They seem to think it violates the Spirit of VCII.
They'll grow up and learn not to be afraid of thunder...
I am looking forward to see whether Ratzinger's funeral is according to the 1962 liturgical books or whether the order of Papal Funerals of Paul VI (and modified by John Paul II) is used.
Post a Comment