tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post6495586884695872541..comments2024-03-25T20:03:03.657-06:00Comments on Καθολικός διάκονος: Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum wherein in the long awaited motu proprio is finally issuedDeacon Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01385969740195992108noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-19622442814004280982007-07-09T20:17:00.000-06:002007-07-09T20:17:00.000-06:00Deacon Dodge, Welcome back from St. Mary's Un...Deacon Dodge,<br> Welcome back from St. Mary's University!<br><br> You mentioned that the Pope's letter takes the celebration of the 1962 liturgy out of our bishop's hands. That this is a drastic change in the lex orandi which must affect the Church's lex credendi.<br> <br> Couldn't the exact same words have been written some forty years ago concerning the changes to what was then the <i>ordinary</i> expression of the liturgy?<br> <br> I wish that the explanatory notes you listed would have highlighted the characteristics of the 1962 Missal in a better light.<br> <br> I was just confirmed this Easter so I can be considered one who is great in sin and small in experience. In my RCIA class I was taught the old mass was for the lack of a better word - lame. Once did I have the opportunity to attend the old mass in Kansas City for the feast of the Ascension. It was on a Thursday and it was not lame. In fact all of the weaknesses I was told about seemed to me to be its greatest strengths.<br><br> I'm hopeful that the Motu will prove fruitful beyond my own personal joy.<br><br> Anyway, thank you for your thoughtful blog and your service to our Lord.kRadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12581921701006325552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-13722213711375715702007-07-09T20:41:00.000-06:002007-07-09T20:41:00.000-06:00First of all, thank you for the thoughtful way in ...First of all, thank you for the thoughtful way in which you present your point-of-view.<br><br>The old high masses, which were rare and far between were alright, depending on the quality of the choir. However, as the congregation followed the Mass, when they were not fervently praying a private devotion, the priest went at his own pace and there was not even synchronization between the priest and the choir. The low masses were mundane in the extreme with the priest generally mumbling his way through daily Mass in fifteen minutes or so. No doubt the Feast of the Ascension in K.C. was a high mass. <br><br>Let me be clear, I have no problem with the 1962 Missal being done under the supervision of bishops with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter supplying diocese in which there is a pastoral necessity as determined by the bishop. This is what Pope John Paul II did in 1988. Removing the bishops from the equation seems a break in ecclesiastical order that is unwarrented and sets the stage for some ugliness that is wholly unnecessary. <br><br>I would just state that any eucharistic celebration in which the congregation is superflous is inferior and a departure from Christian tradition. This is not to say that there are not many worthy elements carried forward from the Tridentine Mass, which was a universalization of the Roman Rite which, up until a few centuries earlier had itself proven highly adaptable. Latin still holds, rightfully, a privileged place in the Roman Rite. Even within the Novus Ordo, I am gratified to see that more and more commnities are singing parts of the mass, like the Agnus Dei and the Sanctus in Latin. i do appreciate the Holy Father's built-in desire to review this motu in three years time based the experience of various bishops throughout the world. I also appreciate the Pope Benedict's pastoral desire to bring the Society of Pius X back into the fold and to end the schism.<br><br>The good news is that in places in which the Latin mass is made available people will come to see on their own that it is not very compelling. A private Mass is very much like a rounded square. the 1962 missal has the advantage of giving the presider the option of reading Scripture in the vernacular and removes references to "the perfidious Jews." <br><br>Any notion that what Pope Paul VI did was without the endorsement of the consensus of the Council fathers of Vatican II is ludicris.<br><br><br>Anyway, we'll see. It worries me not.Dcn Scott Dodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09994604395739905637noreply@blogger.com