Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Interesting.. I see at least one Angelus press material (the how to serve tutorial).
Well, not a big deal really. The resource is not "SSPX" but simply that the SSPX reprinted it.
And what is wrong with a resource from the SSPX?
God bless you.
Nothing wrong. Just.. "interesting".
I have a few myself. And they're very useful.
These resources are wonderful; I am still delving deeper and deeper into mine (currently trying to "crack the code" of the 62' breviary). Even more invaluable is the FSSP training seminar that I highly recommend to any priest.
Also, I believe that there is a cordial relationship between the FSSP publisher and Angelus Press. Quid pro Quo, the FSSP publishes the O'Conner ceremonial book and Angelus press, obviously, publishes many helpful material also.
The O'Connell book should only be used as a secondary reference to the much clearer and more up-to-date 2003 edition of Fortescue. O'Connell has some bizarre recommendations. It's akin to taking beginning cooking lessons from Sesame Street's Swedish Chef...there are easier ways to learn what you need to know.
As for Roman Catholic Book's new pew missal compared to the well-known Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei Red Missal: 1) It's more expensive per copy, while just as likely to get torn up after use; and 2) It lacks the explanatory notes and diagrams in the margins, so useful for newcomers. The old standard Red Book still wins this challenge, despite its lack of attractive color pictures.
AlexB...
I would tend to disagree somewhat.
O'Connell's version is actually much clearer in explaining the details.
The one revised (there was not much updating to do) by Dr. Reid is actually less specific in the details. In my opinion, the details do matter in the celebration of Mass.
Also, O'Connell goes into more and better details on what a PRIEST has to do and how to do it. Fortescue-O'Connell-Reid does not do this.
Can you give us an example of the "bizarre recommendations"? I am pretty sure that we could also find some of them in the other book )F-O'C-Reid.
Fr. Bartoloma-
(and for any one else trying to 'crack the code' of the 1962 Breviary) I have reprinted a book that can help you all. Link below.
I wonder if the FSSP will make these kits available in Australia. It is much more encouraging if locals can buy locally.
latinmass1983:
Sure...
p. 398: Unlike Fortescue, this book has not been updated to reflect post-1964 rulings, such as the permission for an instituted Acolyte to serve as Subdeacon.
p. 575: States that only a cleric may serve as MC at a Solemn Missa Cantata. Incorrect. Further, the remainder of the chapter continues with instructions for the MC that only pertain if he is a cleric, e.g.: taking the chalice to the altar at the Offertory. This may have been common in 1964, but it isn't the reality today. We need useful rules for laymen as well.
p. 473, footnote 28: States that in a Solemn High Mass, the Subdeacon is preferably to chant the Epistle facing the people. Incorrect - while it is now permitted, it is not preferred.
p. 572: The Offertory procedures for the acolytes is convoluted and not how things are typically done.
p. 596: "Commentator to aid Active Participation": All I can say is, ugh.
I find it curious that so many folks are finding it hard to use the terminology given by the Pope in his motu proprio, namely, "ordinary" and "extraordinary" forms of the Mass. It strikes me as dismayingly similar to those who refuse to speak of non-ordained ministers of Holy Communion as "extraordinary," instead using words like "special" or "eucharistic."
O'Connell is just giving us what was allowed then.
I do not agree with many of those things either, but as a "progressive" liturgist to a certain extent, he "had" to include them so that those who would do them (and I am sure that many people did - because everyone went along with everything that came from Rome as if it had been an unquestioned order as opposed to a permission) would do them correctly and with reverence.
When you said "bizarre recommendations" I thought that you meant that he (O'Connell) made them up! Sorry about that...
P. 575 on the M.C. - I do not really think that he said that the M.C. *had* to be a cleric as even before 1964 M.C.'s were also laymen and very young laymen at that.
p. 398 is a really big one as we do not have Subdeacons anymore (thanks to P. Paul VI)... but seriously, you do not really need to update an entire book just for this!
.p 596 - I agree - I do not ever want to see one where I go to Mass... but again, O'Connell could not just ignore the fact that they were allowed.
On the other hand, there are mistakes and also unusual suggestions or in the other book that, because it has the name of Fortescue in it, some people buy and follow blindly. By now, I am sure that you must have seen them all as many of them are in first half of the book.
I use both books plus the out of print book by the American O'Connell.The latter was reccomended to me because it has the American customs.I hab been wondering what I would do on the Sunday the rest of the church in the US is celebrating Corpus Christi.I wanted to have a procession on sunday as I had when the mass was Latin Novus ordo. I had an idea.I would begin a 40 hours on the sunday everyone else was celebrating Corpus Christi.Then came the American O'Connell book and I found this tidbit.The American bishops back in 1888 or so received an INDULT!!!! from the Holy See allowing parishes to celebrate solemnly Corpus Christ on the Sunday following the feast. Problem solved.
I find it curious that the first Fr. Peter Stravinskas comment I see on this blog is so petty. "[F]inding it hard to use...." Yeah, like Fonzie's mouth not working when he tries to say he's wrong.
We've had this discussion here and at several other blogs. I think "ordinary" and "extraordinary" describe the uses in a juridical or disciplinary sense that is very timebound. They are perfect for the necessarily narrow SP. Here, we discuss the uses from a variety of angles and sometimes "ordinary" and "extraordinary" are less helpful, maybe even anachronistic.
Why don't you just identify the axe you're grinding and we'll have at it. This blog linked to Fr. Z's poll on what to call the Mass, the comments to which were often interesting and well thought out.
I know you rotr guys are a little confused about your raisons d'etre these days, but don't take it out on us.
The Rev. Peter Stravinskas writes:
“It strikes me as dismayingly similar to those who refuse to speak of non-ordained ministers of Holy Communion as "extraordinary," instead using words like "special" or "eucharistic."”
Dear Father, do not be dismayed, the Holy Father himself uses many other terms for the “Traditional Rite” I have compile a list albeit not an exhaustive one for you below:
[T]he earlier liturgical forms (par.8; SP), [T]he Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII (Art 1; SP), [A]n extraordinary expression [of the] 'Lex orandi. (Art 1; SP),Venerable and ancient usage. (Art 1; SP), Roman rite (Art 1; SP), Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII (Art 1; SP), Missal of 1962 (Art 1; SP)
[E]xtraordinary form (Art 5; SP), The earlier ritual (Art 9; SP), The ancient form of the Roman rite (Art 10; SP), Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. (Letter accompanying SP), [E]arlier Missal (Letter accompanying SP), [T]he old Missal (Letter accompanying SP), [T]he ancient Latin liturgical tradition. (Letter accompanying SP),
and my favorite by far; the [U]sus Antiquior (Letter accompanying SP).
It is absurd to think that the Holy Father was trying to give the traditional Mass a new name! Otherwise, he would have said so!
I am very sure the Holy Father has much more important things to do than that. The ones trying to do that, for whatever reason, are blogs such as this one and Fr. Z's... and a few other ones.
Traditional Latin Mass has done a great job and everyone gets it. That's it. Don't keep poking the bubble.
It's like trying to give new names to our mothers just because... Please, people have to mature a little bit and be serious catholics and serious followers of the Pope.
The Pope is not a pop artist and Catholics are not fans who have to create a trend/fashion thingy out of everything he says/writes/does.
Fr. Stravinskas,
"I find it curious that so many folks are finding it hard to use the terminology given by the Pope in his motu proprio, namely, "ordinary" and "extraordinary" forms of the Mass."
I certainly don't interpret the Pope as trying to make a formal designation (and certainly not one that all are obliged to use of course) so much as to spell out the fact of their relationship -- and, of course, without any intent, I think, to prejudice in that regard; he is safeguarding the place of both liturgical books. (i.e. "Extraordinary" wouldn't be used, I think, in the same sense it is used for EMHC's; because EMHC's should be quite rare, whereas Summorum Pontificum, while not suggesting the 1962 Missal become the dominant form, is also working against the precise and relative "rarity" it has experienced under the previous Motu Proprio.)
I suppose the only truly official designation is that found on the title page of the respective missals.
It is important to remember as well that the Pope also spoke in that same document that he raised "ordinary" and "extraordinary" of the usus antiquior or ancient/antique use. So it is equally as current in that regard.
As far as names go, what is less appropriate, in my opinion, are those things factually inaccurate or imprecise; "Latin Mass", or designations that tie the usus antiquior to Trent in a way that suggests it had its advent there and so on.
Fr. Stravinskas,
Having long admired your devotion and your contributions to the reform of the reform, let me assure you that some of us do not find it difficult to use the adjectives "ordinary" and "extraordinary", even if they were intended for extraordinary or juridical usage rather than for ordinary usage in everyday liturgical discussion. For instance:
Why would a Catholic want to attend an ordinary Mass if an extraordinary one is available?
Why would a priest want to celebrate an ordinary Mass if he can celebrate an extraordinary one?
Of course, both these questions may have perfectly good answers, but it's not clear to me that they are the type of questions you wished us to discuss. If not, then perhaps you could clarify your original remarks for us so as to make clearer the questions you actually wished to raise. (I, for one, am quite serious, because I haven't a clue as to what you intended.)
Dear Father Wilfredo, Shawn, et alii:
My original point was very simple: SP is a juridical document; ergo, one should be able to use that language to describe what is being legislated and not resort to other nomenclature. I think it fair to say that if I submitted an item on this website referring to lay distributors of Holy Communion as "special ministers," I would be roundly corrected -- and rightly so. As I do in my own magazine. If we are going to play the game, we need to play by the rules. The Church ought not to be a dumbed down version of Animal Farm, in which all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Now, let me now address a few other related issues.
First, in our more rational moments, no matter where we are on the radar screen with this document (left, right, center, outer space), we all know that the practical effect will be almost nil. For 99.5% of Catholics on the planet (and especially in North America), Mabel the hairdresser will continue to distribute Holy Communion every Sunday while her daughters "serve" Mass and her niece "cantors," screeching out her silly tunes and flapping her hands.
Second, this document will have no more practical effect than any other post-conciliar document. One need only consider "Inaestimabile Donum," "Dominicae Cenae," "Redemptionis Sacramentum," all of which were DOA, because of a fundamental incapacity on the part of ecclesiastical authority (starting with Rome) to enforce the documents promulgated.
Third,lest we too enthusiastically cite the current Pontiff's liturgical positions, let us not fail to note that in several places as prefect of CDF while giving liturgical opinions, he expressed the thought that no one ought to have problems with Communion-in-the-hand. However bad Paul VI's "Memoriale Domini" was, at least it states clearly that Communion-in-the-hand is a very bad practice, even though the Pope weakly went on to permit it in places where the practice had already taken root. The past two Popes, inexplicably, allowed for it to become ensconced in dozens of countries where it never happened before (in violation of the norms enunciated in MD); and, as I have noted, this Pope has said it's not an issue.
Finally, I have always found it perversely amusing that during the Woytyla pontificate, both the Sovereign Pontiff and the Prefect of CDF had "seasonal" images to describe the "status Ecclesiae." Woytyla constantly spoke of "a new springtime," while Ratzinger said a deep, dark winter was on the horizon. Since Ratzinger became Pope Benedict, he has changed the image to "springtime" as well.
Where am I going with all this? The Scriptures admonish us, "put not your trust in princes." I think Cardinal Ratzinger was right about the winter of the Church and I see very little light at the end of the tunnel since so many problematic practices have been thoroughly institutionalized and even orthodox young priests, now beg
Okay Fr., I see where you're coming from now. I do think SP has already had more practical effect than the other docs you mentioned, each of which was truly DOA. I mean, I know of no effects from those other docs, even from second- or third-hand sources. I know about half a dozen instances where the extraordinary form is being offered where it wasn't two months ago and by priests who weren't offering it then. My brother's parish is doing it now. My parents' parish priest is getting training from the FSSP, a chapel near my girlfriend's place is offering the extraordinary form daily now. These things are happening in 3 different dioceses in 3 different states. And this is second-hand knowledge that I received first-hand, as it were. The blogs are full of more good news (as well as some bad news).
It seems to me that this is the only document that has had any effect in the trenches in the last twenty years.
Fr. Stravinskas,
If I might, a few thoughts.
One, I think the significant point that I wanted to raise is that "usus antiquior" is a title the Pope used in Summorum Pontificum as well. As such, it I think given the issue as you raised, it should be at least considered equally as pertinent by such a criterion. (And by consequence, the English translation of the same.)
As regards the new springtime, I think while we can be realistic of the situation, that realism also includes the fact that some significant steps have been taken here. There are indeed significantly institutionalized problems to be dealt with and I can't imagine they will be resolved overnight. But still, an image I have used is that we are seeing some "green shoots of life" here. It may take a long while for those to come to full blossom, but nonetheless, our situation today is much better than it was 35 years ago for example.
I do believe that Summorum Pontificum has the power to help us in a significant way that can now define a "pre-MP" and "post-MP" situation.
For myself it is a turning point, though the beginning only of one, and in a fairly broad sense.
As in so many things, I agree here with Father Stravinskas and suspect that much of the reluctance to call the extraordinary use of the Roman Rite "extraordinary" is based upon the fervent hope that the celebration of the 1962 Missal will some day soon be anything other than extraordinary. And he is correct to point out that this was the very tactic used by those who wanted to make the use of "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion" all too ordinary.
And while we're speaking of what to call the extraordinary use, let me vote here as strongly as I can against calling it "the Traditional Latin Mass" for two reasons:
1. The ordinary use of the Roman Rite can be celebrated from the 1970 Missal in Latin by any priest, any time, any where. Latin is, therefore, not a true marker for the 1962 Missal.
2. Any Mass in any Rite approved by the Church is the bearer of Sacred Tradition, and this is true of the 1970 Missale Romanum no less than any other text. Benedict XVI insists upon this very point in SP. Consequently, it is both misleading and prejudicial to use the adjective "traditional" to modify only the extraordinary use of the Roman Rite.
So, call it the Mass of John XXIII, call it the Missal of 1962, call it the usus antiquior, call it the extraordinary use of the Roman Rite, but please don't call it the Traditional Latin Mass or (still less) the Mass of the Ages.
"The ordinary use of the Roman Rite can be celebrated from the 1970 Missal in Latin by any priest, any time, any where."
I don't think that's a true statement. How 'bout this:
The ordinary use of the Roman Rite can be celebrated from the 1970 Missal in Latin by any priest, any time, any where. Once.
That's better. There are a lot of dioceses where a priest wouldn't get a second opportunity to celebrate the 1970 Missal in Latin. Not in the same "anywhere," anyway.
The Rev. Peter Stravinskas says:
“My original point was very simple: SP is a juridical document; ergo, one should be able to use that language to describe what is being legislated and not resort to other nomenclature.”
My original post could not be simpler, it was a list of the many terms used by the Holy Father to refer to the “Traditional Roman rite” here it is again:
[T]he earlier liturgical forms (par.8; SP), [T]he Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII (Art 1; SP), [A]n extraordinary expression [of the] 'Lex orandi. (Art 1; SP),Venerable and ancient usage. (Art 1; SP), Roman rite (Art 1; SP), Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII (Art 1; SP), Missal of 1962 (Art 1; SP)
[E]xtraordinary form (Art 5; SP), The earlier ritual (Art 9; SP), The ancient form of the Roman rite (Art 10; SP), Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. (Letter accompanying SP), [E]arlier Missal (Letter accompanying SP), [T]he old Missal (Letter accompanying SP), [T]he ancient Latin liturgical tradition. (Letter accompanying SP),
and my favorite by far; the [U]sus Antiquior (Letter accompanying SP).
Father Stravinskas ends his post with the following:
“Where am I going with all this? The Scriptures admonish us, "put not your trust in princes." I think Cardinal Ratzinger was right about the winter of the Church and I see very little light at the end of the tunnel since so many problematic practices have been thoroughly institutionalized and even orthodox young priests, now beg”
Please Father do not loose your hope in the Church. Let me share with you just a few reasons why I believe that a new age has begun to dawn in the Church.
1. I regularly celebrate the Usus Antiquior. (I am 4 years a priest)
2. The Episcopal Vicar for my region of the diocese has made it clear to the priest that the Traditional rites need to be made accessible to anyone who asks for them.
3. I am working with 15 priest friends in New York and New Jersey who want to learn how to celebrate the Traditional rites (not just the Mass)
4. I am putting together a choir of kids who after they are taught will chant the Gregorian prospers at public celebrations of the Traditional Mass.
5. I am not the only priest who is doing this.
Fr. Stravinskas,
After the Motu Proprio part of the responsibility for the implementation of the MP also fall on priests... priests like you and Fr. WTC. Are you, Fr. Stravinskas, able to celebrate the traditional Mass? Do you do it?
If you are waiting for the Holy Father to force you to celebrate it, you will keep waiting. He has not given, publicly, the "go" for priests who really want to say it -regardless of the inconveniences and probably obstacles- to say it as best and as reverencely as they can.
Fr. WTC seems to be doing his part! Good! Probably, soon enough he will be prepared to celebrate a Solemn Mass in NYC! or NJ!
It should say: "He has *now* given, publicly, the "go"...."
Somehow or other, my entry got cut off. It should have ended thus:
"young priests beguile themselves with the thought that they can put up with the nonsense in the mainstream every day of the week, in exchange for an opportunity to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Mass from time to time."
I then went on to observe: "I am convinced that every one of us reading this blog will have to be content with the "Moses experience," that is, seeing the Promised Land from Mount Nebo but not entering into it personally."
Dear Fr. Stravinskas
Every beginning is a small one. It will take the Church many years to recover from "The Reform", the canonical restoration of the Traditional rites of the Roman Church is just that beginning.
Fr Jay Scott Newman says:
[C]all it the Mass of John XXIII, call it the Missal of 1962, …but please don't call it the Traditional Latin Mass or (still less) the Mass of the Ages.
Pope Benedict XVI says:
[T]he Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII …must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage.
Since Ratzinger became Pope Benedict, he has changed the image to "springtime" as well.
Fr. Stravinskas, could you kindly give a few examples of this? The only decent result Google uncovers is that the Holy Father said that the practice of the Lectio Divina will bring a "new spiritual springtime" to the Church. It's hard to see how His Holiness believes that the Lectio Divina could do this if he already believes that the Church is in its "springtime."
Fr WTC,
I do not deny the ancient and venerable usage of the extraordinary use of the Roman Rite, but I do deny that there is any such thing as the "Mass of the Ages." There is simply the Mass in every age. And, to repeat my point from above, much of the language used in avoiding the expression "extraordinary use" is both misleading and prejudicial. Which is why I suggest avoiding both "Traditional Latin Mass" and "the Mass of the Ages" to describe the extraordinary use of the Roman Rite.
Fr. Newman said:
"much of the reluctance to call the extraordinary use of the Roman Rite "extraordinary" is based upon the fervent hope that the celebration of the 1962 Missal will some day soon be anything other than extraordinary. And he is correct to point out that this was the very tactic used by those who wanted to make the use of "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion" all too ordinary"
Fr. Stravinskas and Fr. Newman,
Perhaps both, or one, of you would be kind enough to explain the parallels between the use of the extraordinary form of the Roman rite and the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. I would be interested to send the suggested parallels into Ecclesia Dei and ask whether this is an accurate comparison of what the Holy Father intended.
I am very serious. This comparison really needs to either be confirmed or denied otherwise it becomes a stumbling block for those who use it and those who have to argue against it.
Deborah,
The analogy means simply what it says:
The Church allows lay people to distribute Holy Communion under the right circumstances, but this was never intended to be an "ordinary" practice. When the laity perform this function, they are properly known as "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion," but the partisans of "lay ministry" have never used this terminology and have instead used other language (e.g. eucharistic ministers) intended to deflect attention from the fact these ministers and their usage are meant to be "extraordinary", meaning not the norm.
In a like manner, under the right circumstances the Church allows the celebration of the Roman Rite from the Missale Romanum (and the other liturgical books) of 1962, but this is and will remain the "extraordinary use" of the Roman Rite, while the Missale Romanum and other liturgical books promulgated since 1970 are the "ordinary use" of the Roman Rite. But the partisans of the Traditionalist movement do not want the "extraordinary use" to be extraordinary; they would rather see the 1962 liturgical books replace the "ordinary use" of the Roman Rite in as many time and places as possible. And for this reason (I contend), they are reluctant in the extreme to describe the "extraordinary use" as extraordinary. And so they continue to use language like the "Traditional Latin Mass" to make theological points even in the simple naming of the ritual. But, as I have explained above, calling the Missale Romanum of 1962 the "Traditional Latin Mass" is both misleading and prejudicial. Which is why I suggest that we all call it what it is: the extraordinary use of the Roman Rite.
Fr. Newman,
"The Church allows lay people to distribute Holy Communion under the right circumstances, but this was never intended to be an "ordinary" practice. When the laity perform this function, they are properly known as "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion," but the partisans of "lay ministry" have never used this terminology and have instead used other language (e.g. eucharistic ministers) intended to deflect attention from the fact these ministers and their usage are meant to be "extraordinary", meaning not the norm."
Clearly, however, one can not make exact parallels here; there are holes in this analogy. EMCH's are extraordinary in the restrictive "indult" sense; they provide a supplementary service given other conditions being in place that are not considered ideal, or the way things are to normally be. Their use is in response to a "negative"
The issue of the usus antiquior is not a parallel; such an argument might have been better proposed in the previous "indult" scenario when it was thought to be a special exemption to the law (and even then it would be a stretch to make given "rightful aspirations"), but not so when you consider that the Church has now stated that it is a non-abrogated Missal which is to be valued and not understood in a marginalized or diminuitive way. It is to be valued and treasured; not seen as harmful, but good.
This is a much different consideration than in the case of EMHC's I would propose.
"In a like manner, under the right circumstances the Church allows the celebration of the Roman Rite from the Missale Romanum (and the other liturgical books) of 1962..."
Not exactly however. No circumstances are required for private celebrations -- other than those in place for any liturgical rite -- which can include many people as well. There is no limitation put upon how many such celebrations are used in that context and we shouldn't think of this as being "only in these circumstances" in the diminuitive and restrictive sense.
Circumstances mainly apply to public celebrations, and even there, they are quite liberating, practical circumstances which give the faithful a certain kind of right while also maintaining the rights of those other faithful who are attached to the modern form of the Roman liturgy.
I would not myself deny that the modern Roman missal is the majority liturgical expression of the Roman rite, but understanding it in that positive sense should not lead to or imply a "negative" or restrictive consideration with regard to the other Missal in use in the life of the Roman rite.
The idea of ordinary and extraordinary as presented in the Motu Proprio brings an assurance against suggestions of a restorationist agenda on the one hand, while also explaining that both missals form a part of the life of the Roman rite.
"[the 1962 Missale Romanum] is and will remain the "extraordinary use" of the Roman Rite"
While acknowledging all that I have said about what is the majority Roman missal in use, I don't think I would want to be so bold as to make a claim like this -- and when I say this, I am not speaking of a "restorationist" type agenda (i.e. that maybe it will happen down the road; this is not what I am saying).
What I am saying is this: Our situation as it is is certainly not permanent, because our missals are not frozen. The 1962 Missal will develop and work will be done as regards the modern Roman missal in reforming the reform. Here enters in the idea of convergence and borrowing.
But what that exact form will look like, or how and when it will happen, or even if there will be a convergence into one Roman Missal again, who can say for certain?
"...the partisans of the Traditionalist movement do not want the "extraordinary use" to be extraordinary; they would rather see the 1962 liturgical books replace the "ordinary use" of the Roman Rite in as many time and places as possible. And for this reason (I contend), they are reluctant in the extreme to describe the "extraordinary use" as extraordinary."
The traditionalist movement, like the reform of the reform movement, is made up of a variety of individuals and schools of thought, so I think that important to state. Let's not generalize of course.
There may be some individuals who do as you suggest for the reasons you suggest, but then, the other point that is relevant in this is that there are likewise partisans on the other side of the fence who wish to use "extraordinary" in a way that would give a restrictive and diminishing spin to the Pope's motu proprio; one which would even possibly try to re-marginalize what the Pope has de-marginalized, suggest it somehow to be "second rate" if you will; an exception to the norm and not a full member in the life of the Roman Church. That is highly problematic and inappropriate.
Insofar as that is the case, some might shy away from "extraordinary form", not because they have a restorationist agenda, but because they are aware that there are partisans who are trying to use that word in a way that is evidently contrary to the spirit of the motu proprio.
Others may not do that, but may simply have a habit or preference. I think there are very few who would bring an agenda to it. For example, for my own part, I prefer usus antiquior -- a term the Pope also used in the motu proprio. The reason for this is that, for me, it speaks to the historical dimension of that liturgy. It is this historical relation that I find important as a designator, for it speaks of the long-standing participation of that form of the Roman liturgy in the history of the church these past 1500 years.
Shawn,
As I'm sure you know, in every analogy there is greater dissimilarity than similarity between the things compared. To point out the dissimilarities in the two things I compared is tautological. Of course there are important differences, but the comparison is still useful in pointing out the ways in which language can be used in a self-serving way to promote a point of view.
Moreover, if every adherent of the Traditionalist movement possessed your equanimity, we would all live in a much more tranquil Church. But, alas, that is not the case, and in the service of an ideology (call it integrism or whatever you like) all too many Traditionalists use sacral language in a tendentious way to promote their cause. It was to this misuse of language that I addressed my remarks.
Of course there are important differences, but the comparison is still useful in pointing out the ways in which language can be used in a self-serving way to promote a point of view.
I agree, just as those who would prefer that the TLM not proliferate are using the term "extraordinary" to promote their own point of view.
Moreover, if every adherent of the Traditionalist movement possessed your equanimity, we would all live in a much more tranquil Church.
Of course the same could be said of the "conservative" movement or the "reform of the reform" movement or any other "movement" within the Church.
I'm shortly going to post this similar sort of piece to the wider blog as I think it would make an interesting discussion. I have a few other analogies I want to bring out on my own part.
I think it will be fruitful. Please feel free to comment on the thread when I put it out there.
Just as a point of note, the problem indeed is what I and DCS also mentioned; we have to avoid people generally from trying to manipulate a term to serve whatever their particular cause.
I think in this case, some do it on either side but what we must do is serve the truth of the matter.
Thanks so much for this review...I'll be saving up for the kit!
6 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
