![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Veterus Ordo
I really wish more media outlets would learn to distinguish "Latin mass" from "Tridentine mass". The novelty of Benny 16's Summorum Pontificum is not that it allows the mass to be said in Latin; this has been possible all along. It's that it allows the Latin mass that our grandparents grew up with to be said without special permission. You see, Vatican II didn't just change the language of the mass, it changed the whole text of the liturgy: What prayers were included, the congregation's responses, and on and on. Older Catholics could always request the performance of Novus Ordo Latin masses, but they weren't the same as the masses they grew up with. Furthermore, even before these changes were made, the Tridentine mass was being performed in languages other than English. Nevertheless, a priest still needed special permission to perform a Tridentine mass regardless whether it was in English, Latin, Kikongo, or whatever.
Incidentally, it's up to the bishop of each diocese to decide whether to grant permission for performance of the Tridentine mass, so actual practice varies a lot in the USA and worldwide. In Chicago, Tridentine masses have been available for almost 20 years now at the parish of St. John Cantius in Ukrainian Village, so the effect of the Pope's letter will probably be minor. Perhaps the media coverage will prompt a few more nostalgic parishioners to seek out this parish, but I suspect anyone with more than a passing interest knew about it already.
I overheard some kids on the el over the weekend discussing the change and calling it "a step backward". "I think what people want is for them to be more progressive." I wonder about that. If you're really interested in progressive Christianity, why would you turn to the church whose name is byword for backwardness and ossification? I'm curious what a brand analyst would say if hired to advise the RCC. I suspect he'd see more value in playing up the ties to tradition; after all, that's what makes this denomination unique in a sea of johnny-come-lately sects and congregations.
Incidentally, it's up to the bishop of each diocese to decide whether to grant permission for performance of the Tridentine mass, so actual practice varies a lot in the USA and worldwide. In Chicago, Tridentine masses have been available for almost 20 years now at the parish of St. John Cantius in Ukrainian Village, so the effect of the Pope's letter will probably be minor. Perhaps the media coverage will prompt a few more nostalgic parishioners to seek out this parish, but I suspect anyone with more than a passing interest knew about it already.
I overheard some kids on the el over the weekend discussing the change and calling it "a step backward". "I think what people want is for them to be more progressive." I wonder about that. If you're really interested in progressive Christianity, why would you turn to the church whose name is byword for backwardness and ossification? I'm curious what a brand analyst would say if hired to advise the RCC. I suspect he'd see more value in playing up the ties to tradition; after all, that's what makes this denomination unique in a sea of johnny-come-lately sects and congregations.
no subject
This phrase has, I am sure they will be pleased to learn, been removed in the Missal of 1962, the version of the Tridentine Mass which is being allowed broader use. (Also, the motu proprio doesn't authorize the 1962 Missal for use during the Good Friday/Easter Triduum anyway.)
3. I don't think that was his primary intent, but it was a secondary one, yes.
2. Mollpeartree's interest in the mega-church phenomenon stems from its new influence in the Protestant church of her childhood. I don't think that anyone was confusing it with a movement within Catholicism. While I don't completely understand the appeal of the mega-churches, I doubt that they are associated with "old tyme religion" by anyone.
1. In my experience, mainstream liturgy in the U.S., which is influenced by progressives more than any other single group, has a very strong desire to make the mass fun. This is especially evident when trying to attract/engage young people, when it is also especially futile. True progressives, judging from the ones I knew in Minnesota, have a rather different agenda, which they would never think to describe as "fun."
The real problem with the liturgical progressives isn't so much their specific agenda (although some elements of that are problematic) as the fact that their devotion to it leads them to approach the liturgy wrongly, as a field for arbitrary changes and experimentation to try to get the effects they want. This is fundamentally discordant with the general Catholic respect for tradition and, specifically, with the basic understanding that the Eucharist is something given to us, not something that belongs to us which we can remake at will.
I suppose it's fairly clear that I think setting apart the liturgy from ordinary time is in no way opposed to "leading a Catholic life on a daily basis." It has not been my experience that progressive liturgies are notably more helpful towards the latter end in any case.
no subject
no subject