tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post7981695824568051949..comments2023-06-01T09:22:18.917+01:00Comments on Liturgiae Causa: Hello!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-74539930248815246702011-03-28T13:57:59.353+01:002011-03-28T13:57:59.353+01:00I simply don't have the time to explain the na...I simply don't have the time to explain the nature of the “great gulf” that existeth between the ‘Tridentine Rite’, properly so-called, and the 1962 abomination. <br /><br />As for Tradition, Protestants have largely rejected It, whereas Papist pay It lip-service, but, in reality, have replaced It with whatever they can discern from the latest bowel-movement of the Anti-Christ in Rome.Lector Orientalishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636623875524253174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-29228291507255923352011-03-27T22:12:32.707+01:002011-03-27T22:12:32.707+01:00Patricius,
Would St. Paul recognize 1570 without ...Patricius,<br /><br />Would St. Paul recognize 1570 without some time getting used to a language he did not know, vestments foreign to his eye, and perhaps a helpful liturgist (such as yourself) to explain to him the various beautiful rituals and rites born out of the humble liturgy he and the apostles first celebrated? <br /><br />Arguably, one can recognize 1570 in the Novus Ordo if given the same help Paul would above. <br /><br />Okay, I may be playing at fantasies with that one.<br /><br />Still, I'm not so sure "recognition" is a good sign of tradition.<br /><br />And since the Roman Rite developed in Rome, isn't it probable that many popes, the ordinary of Rome and thus the proper celebrant of Masses under his jurisdiction, fiddled with the rite to a greater or lesser degree before 1570? When is it "developing" and when is it "monkeying?"<br /><br />I'm not defending the changes of the early 20th century, and God knows the kind of heartbreak I go through attending the Novus Ordo, but tradition has to be defined better than recognition and/or date.Tomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871814767313979455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-10438288236735308742011-03-27T20:07:30.847+01:002011-03-27T20:07:30.847+01:00the sung Office (or part, at the least) at least w...the sung Office (or part, at the least) at least would have offered something for Anglicans to join in with. <br /><br />On the 1962 Missal, could you perchance point me to an explanation as to how it is so different from the 'Tridentine' Mass? <br /><br />My Latin has sadly atrophied to the point where I could scarcely manage de Bello Gallico... and I'm not sure mediaeval Latin would make a great deal of sense even were I in better shape linguistically.<br /><br />I think I have said this before, but... the question of what is and is not 'traditional' depends greatly on how strictly you interpret what counts as tradition..https://www.blogger.com/profile/04611694996611765479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-66912232653108202772011-03-27T06:36:53.458+01:002011-03-27T06:36:53.458+01:00"...but surely sung Office was?"
And st..."...but surely sung Office was?"<br /><br />And still is, if you care to attend Evensong.<br /><br />Even Common Worship-ordered liturgy as practiced at York is probably more authentically catholic by your standard!Ludovicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00640712611554174346noreply@blogger.com