Primary tabs

Agree
7% (131 votes)
Disagree
93% (1816 votes)
Total votes: 1947
body: 

<h2>Thank you for your response. <a href="/node/2115">Click here to fill out the rest of this month&#39;s Sounding Board Survey</a>. </h2>

Comments

Submitted by Thomas (not verified) on

The new mass to my mind is a cause of disunity. There are masses in all sorts of languages (as has been pointed out), and the new mass itself seems to lend itself to ad-libbing (at least that is what actually has happened). With all these ad hoc masses, we almost in effect have a different rite for each priest who decides to do it his way.

On the contrary, the Mass of the Ages is a unifying force.

How exactly would the Extraordinary Form Mass cause disunity? This is never explained anywhere in the article. Perhaps you mean that it will raise objections from those who object to it...but is that really disunity? Or is it simply intolerance? Perhaps the title should have been "Will the Latin Mass expose intolerance among Progressive Catholics?"

The masses I find to be most indicative of disunity are the bi or multi-lingual masses we suffer through out here on the west coast. It highlights what is different - not what we share. That and it turns the attention to us. God understands English, Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, etc. Why do we need the same prayer said to God repeated in multiple languages.

In contrast, I was in Paris, and did not get a thing - but when the chanted the Sanctus or the Agnus Dei, I was right there. Latin is unifying.

Similarly, the EF is performed the same way everywhere. There are no clown masses, or Father thinking he is Jay Leno. There is no ad libbing. It is a very witness to our unity. All of us in our diversity come to the same mass wherever we are in the world. That is an awesome concept.

It's misleading to refer to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite as "the Latin Mass." The ordinary form of the Roman Rite (the Missal of 2002, emended in 2008) is published in Latin.

Latin is still normative; this has never changed, even though translations are now also permitted.

The current law on the subject is: "The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved." (Code of Canon Law, 928).

Submitted by gwr (not verified) on

As pastor of an inner city parish where dozens of languages are spoken, I find the Latin Mass a tremendously unifying force. No one language is favored over another, and all become acquainted with the language of the universal church. It is a joy to see our children being taught their cultural inheritance, and they absorb Latin just the way Jewish children absorb liturgical Hebrew and Muslim children absorb classical Arabic. And, as a writer, I glad to relief from the dreadful English translation presently in use which, one understands, will happily be replaced soon.

Submitted by Shane (not verified) on

Any disunity actuated by Summorum Pontificum could be easily resolved by banning the Novus Ordo.

Submitted by Joseph (not verified) on

That is exactly why this question was raised. There should be no disunity. As the Holy Father says, they are two forms of the same rite. There should be no disunity. There should be no fear of prideful separation between the rites. They coexist together.

That being said, if the Church did what your comment says to do, it would destroy the Church. We saw the crisis after the Novus Ordo was put into place...imagine what it would be like if we did that again while the crisis is still going strong. That would destroy the Church. We just need to pray that the the liturgical movement gets what it wants: a good "reform of the reform."

Submitted by Henry Edwards (not verified) on

It is unfortunate that the implication of this question -- and of the associated article -- is so opposed to the mind of Pope Benedict, whose chief motive in Summorum Pontificum was precisely unity in the Church. As he put it in his letter to the bishops:

"I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity."

Submitted by Observer (not verified) on

The whole tone of this article reflects the divisive mentality that troubles the Church in the U.S. today. The author promotes the view that there are "two churches": the good modern church of post-Vatican II and the evil bad pre-Vatican II church. Already in conflict with his own past--perhaps hating his ancestors and parents for their benighted piety?--he announces that those who reject this pre-/post- division are "devisive."

This is a hateful article, and the hate is ultimately directed not only at his forbears but at the pope. Why? Because the pope sees the essential unity of the Church throughtout the ages.

This article is proof that Summorum Pontificum was needed. This author should be required to attend the traditional Latin Mass until he comes to grips with his hostility toward his past and becomes spiritually healed. Until the schizophrenic pathology of Pre-/Post Vatican II is gone, Summorum Pontificum will be needed.

Shame on U.S. Catholic for allowing this shameful hatefilled rant to blemish its site and magazine.

Submitted by Jason (not verified) on

You've got to be kidding. The new Mass is what undermined the unity of the Church!!

Pages