I've really appreciated the continual analysis on this matter. I heard from a diocesan priest who wrote to his vicar that Saturday, after reading the responsa, and then later that day also received indults from all of the supposed restrictions required by the Vatican. He was basically told, "Just continue what you've been doing all these years."
I want to preface by saying I do not regularly attend a Latin mass. When I have attended, I’ve seen many young large families, and it’s wonderful that confession is offered before each mass. I think if there was a modicum of concern for the future of the church, the Vatican would look less at the Latin mass as competition and look to the reason why it draws in the youth. Obviously the current path leads to no Catholicism in the west.
This is cruelty plain and simple. The Holy Father will get obedience from me, but it will be the type of icy cold obedience born of a father who insults and then relentlessly whips his children.
I am a cradle Catholic (technically) pre-Vatican II who vaguely remembers attending (if not comprehending) Latin masses as a child. I have not been to an extraordinary form mass in many years. Even so, I can appreciate those for whom the extraordinary form represents a sincere expression of faith. I hope that we can find sanctioned room for both forms, as they are in no way contradictory. It seems somehow inconsistent to shut off this portion of our history at the same time that we are making an effort toward connecting to other faiths in our ecumenical outreach.
Also, and I think this is important: in the US, how do we as a consistent (and demanding) faith reconcile the fact that diocesan bishops get to determine, with wide latitude, who in their purview gets to publicly flaunt Church teaching, while simultaneously enforcing the edict that these same clerics do not have the discernment necessary to allow the extraordinary form to be celebrated? This appears to be arbitrary, at least from a superficial consideration of Church hierarchy.
I've really appreciated the continual analysis on this matter. I heard from a diocesan priest who wrote to his vicar that Saturday, after reading the responsa, and then later that day also received indults from all of the supposed restrictions required by the Vatican. He was basically told, "Just continue what you've been doing all these years."
I want to preface by saying I do not regularly attend a Latin mass. When I have attended, I’ve seen many young large families, and it’s wonderful that confession is offered before each mass. I think if there was a modicum of concern for the future of the church, the Vatican would look less at the Latin mass as competition and look to the reason why it draws in the youth. Obviously the current path leads to no Catholicism in the west.
This is cruelty plain and simple. The Holy Father will get obedience from me, but it will be the type of icy cold obedience born of a father who insults and then relentlessly whips his children.
I am a cradle Catholic (technically) pre-Vatican II who vaguely remembers attending (if not comprehending) Latin masses as a child. I have not been to an extraordinary form mass in many years. Even so, I can appreciate those for whom the extraordinary form represents a sincere expression of faith. I hope that we can find sanctioned room for both forms, as they are in no way contradictory. It seems somehow inconsistent to shut off this portion of our history at the same time that we are making an effort toward connecting to other faiths in our ecumenical outreach.
Also, and I think this is important: in the US, how do we as a consistent (and demanding) faith reconcile the fact that diocesan bishops get to determine, with wide latitude, who in their purview gets to publicly flaunt Church teaching, while simultaneously enforcing the edict that these same clerics do not have the discernment necessary to allow the extraordinary form to be celebrated? This appears to be arbitrary, at least from a superficial consideration of Church hierarchy.