Posted on 07/26/2017 10:35:48 AM PDT by ebb tide
Sources inside the Vatican suggest that Pope Francis aims to end Pope Benedict XVI’s universal permission for priests to say the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), also known as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. While the course of action would be in tune with Pope Francis’ repeatedly expressed disdain for the TLM especially among young people, there has been no open discussion of it to date.
Sources in Rome told LifeSite last week that liberal prelates inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith were overheard discussing a plan ascribed to the Pope to do away with Pope Benedict’s famous document that gave priests freedom to offer the ancient rite of the Mass.
Catholic traditionalists have just celebrated the tenth anniversary of the document, Summorum Pontificum. Pope Benedict XVI issued it in 2007, giving all Latin Rite priests permission to offer the TLM without seeking permission of their bishops, undoing a restriction placed on priests after the Second Vatican Council.
The motu proprio outraged liberal bishops as it stripped them of the power to forbid the TLM, as many did. Previously priests needed their bishop’s permission to offer the TLM.
Additionally, Summorum Pontificum stated that wherever a group of the faithful request the TLM, the parish priests should willingly agree to their request.
The overheard plans are nearly identical to comments from an important Italian liturgist in an interview published by France’s La Croix earlier this month. Andrea Grillo a lay professor at the Pontifical Athenaeum of St Anselmo in Rome, billed by La Croix as “close to the Pope,” is intimately familiar Summorum Pontificum. Grillo in fact published a book against Summorum Pontificum before the papal document was even released.
Grillo told La Croix that Francis is considering abolishing Summorum Pontificum. According to Grillo, once the Vatican erects the Society of Saint Pius X as a Personal Prelature, the Roman Rite will be preserved only within this structure. "But [Francis] will not do this as long as Benedict XVI is alive.”
The plan, as related to LifeSite, involved making an agreement with the Society of St. Pius X and, with that agreement in place, sequestering those Catholics wanting the TLM to the SSPX. For most, that would strip them of access to the TLM since there would not be nearly enough SSPX priests to service Catholics wanting the TLM worldwide.
Moreover, LifeSite’s source suggested that the plan may explain a May 20, 2017 letter by the recently ousted Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Even though Cardinal Müller wanted the SSPX fully reconciled to help fight modernists in the Church, the May 20 letter seemed to scuttle an agreement between Pope Francis and the SSPX which would see them get a personal prelature. The letter includes provisions long known to be completely unacceptable to the SSPX, thus nullifying an understanding SSPX leader Bishop Bernard Fellay believed was imminent.
The LifeSite source suggested that the May 20 letter by Muller perhaps was written because he knows what Francis was up to and wanted to avoid the plan to bury Summorum Pontificum with Pope Benedict. “It’s directed not so much against Fellay but against the agreement,” said the source. “Pope Francis was very angry that document came out from Cardinal Muller and some say that’s why he made the decision to dismiss him.”
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html
If Latin was the only language available to the "greatest Doctors" then that partially explains part of the problems we see in Roman Catholicism.
Maybe it's simply the universality of the language that makes the Latin mass enticing to some. The mass is understandable in any country. Or perhaps, a more sinister explanation could be that once the mass in written in native languages, the original Latin must be officially translated. Over time, translations can be amended as different papal priorities become popular.
Nope.
Not possible when one considers the amount of Scripture actually read over a three year cycle in Roman Catholic services.
Pre-Vatican II Missal only covered 1.0% of the OT and 16.5% of the NT for Sundays and Major Feasts
As a result of Vatican II 3.7% of the OT and 40.8% of the NT are covered for Sundays and Major Feasts....with Acts and Revelation being the least covered at 16.4% and 9.4% respectively. The majority of the readings come from the 4 Gospels with 57.8% of the verses covered.
http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm
I've often wondered why many, but not all, Roman Catholics are so illiterate regarding the Bible. Probably for many, if they don't hear it at church, they never hear it. Sadly, that can be said for many Christians as well.
Linguistic knowledge ebbs and flows.
No doubt there are many causes to the present problems the Church faces, but I rather doubt that St. Thomas’ comparative lack of knowledge of Biblical languages is one of them. Augustine himself, while warmly recommending the study of the languages, had no Hebrew and was comparatively weak on Greek.
Why don’t you continue on to where Pius XII notes that any Catholic Scripture Scholar who neglects the study of these languages is guilty of “levity and sloth,” or quote Pius XI noting that every Catholic institute of higher education ought to make the Biblical Languages available (not required but available) to undergraduates?
If these guys didn't know the languages then they can't expertly comment on the texts and their meanings.
Why don’t you continue on to where Pius XII notes that any Catholic Scripture Scholar who neglects the study of these languages is guilty of “levity and sloth,” or quote Pius XI noting that every Catholic institute of higher education ought to make the Biblical Languages available (not required but available) to undergraduates?
I did see that and was encouraged by it. However, I don't see it happening in practice. More emphasis seems to be spent on Mariology and Latin than Greek and/or Hebrew.
I will admit in non-Catholic circles the emphasis on Greek and Hebrew is weak as well. At my church not many of the staff use the languages.
I really think we do a disservice in the study of the Word if we don't know the languages.
There is silence about the Assumption until about the 4th century (so Altaner is off by a century BTW). Lack of evidence means few statements for or against, so not much indication of change one way or the other. To measure change you need a good set of data points over a set timeline.
Good data points come from those doctrines that we actually find implied or discussed from the Apostolic Age on (papacy, Eucharist). And that is where your argument falls apart. Because there is no change.
You do realize you killed your argument for Sacred Traditon with this post.....right?
You're missing a lot. The minor feasts and Ember days each have special readings; Holy Saturday has like 12. There are direct and indirect quotes of Scripture in the "non-readings" portions of Mass (Introit, Gradual). Plus, the Divine Office covers all the Psalms and has its own readings each day; it's considered part of the liturgy.
Do tell! I'm dying to hear.
I’m quoting from a Romam Catholic source. Nothing was left out. Note also I provided pre and post Vatican 2 information. Bottom line is your claim about the Mass gave us Scripture is bogus.
That Rome didn't declare any of the writings on this topic, or any other Marian topic, as canon at Trent is telling.
Is it possible this event happend? Yes.
Is it probable? No.
Try reading Thomas before you criticize him.
A work that you might enjoy, though it shows his mind’s ability to function as a primitive google search engine rather than his ability to analyze which was equally amazing, is the Catena Area, which goes through the four gospels in groups of verses, and after each group of verses gives the relevant patristic commentary that Thomas was able to recall from memory. It is officially four volumes, but all the volumes except for Mark have a part I and a part II. The English translation was done by Newman at the very end of his Anglican days.
Languages are viewed with apprehension in North America, and Colleges tend to cater to demand, and have gutted core requirements. Unless the students have been taught that the languages are important early enough, one will not have demand to support the language courses.
I teach an intro scripture course to all first years at a small Catholic Liberal Arts school, and we spend about a quarter of the course going through magisterial principles, which means required reading of the three scriptural encyclicals, the Vatican II Document Dei Verbum, Benedict XVI’s Verbum Domino, and some other stuff, the longest of which is Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine. That is enough to create something of a demand for languages—I’ve offered Biblical Greek every year for the last 10+ years, and am gearing up for my third run at Hebrew. Greek is easy for students coming in with a Latin foundation (we haul through Mounce in half a semester). Hebrew is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Our program is both compacted (we’re in Canada and offer a three-year Bachelor’s) and intense enough regarding core that finding room for languages shows a good deal of commitment on the part of the student.
John XXIII was the last Pope to greatly emphasize the importance of languages in formation, in Veterum Sapientia. His rigorous standards, in my opinion probably back fired, and resulted in Latin effectively being buried with him, though the importance of Latin is still enshrined in (poorly observed) Canon Law.
Not possible when one considers the amount of Scripture actually read over a three year cycle in Roman Catholic services.
You are looking at only the three-year cycle column, when you ought to be looking a couple columns over—any Catholic who has ever attended weekday Mass during Eastertide in the new rite knows that the solid bulk of Acts is covered. It is a nice chart, and once you start citing from the far right column, relevant for the reasonably devout Catholic. Many who aren’t able to make Mass on a weekday still read and meditate upon the readings. I have a more thorough chart which also includes the office of readings in both one and two year cycles that I compiled myself.
Mrs. Don-o’s point still stands, in that it was that if a portion of a book was read at Mass, it supports the inclusion of the whole book. Revelation was a point of contention because it wasn’t read in the East at Mass—and while the East did in the end accept it into the lists of the Canon, it is my understanding that they still do not read it in the Divine Liturgy. NYer might be able to confirm this—she is Marionite.
Does your Church read Biblical Books in their entirety at Sunday Services?
Can you then explain WHY so many Catholics are IGNORANT of this fact?
You could have discovered this is NOT TRUE in a few minutes by reading what the Book that Rome assembled says:
NIV Matthew 4:18-19
18. As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
19. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."NIV Matthew 8:14
When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.NIV Matthew 10:1-2
1. He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;NIV Matthew 14:28-31
28. "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
29. "Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
30. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
31. Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"NIV Matthew 15:13-16
13. He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
14. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
15. Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
16. "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'BEFORE the following verses came along.....
NIV Matthew 16:13-18
13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16. Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.19. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
For if you know it well; you'll find you do NOT need any bible at all!
25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
It's right there in the Book Rome assembled; so long ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.