I have never participated in an irreverent Mass of any type. I do not believe the language matters at Mass. It is what WE bring to the Mass. If I am reverent in thought, word, and deed it follows that the Mass would be reverent. I would attend the Mass you feel that you are most reverent rather than worry about what language is spoken. Yes, I am a senior citizen over 60.
No it is not… ask the Church
It is interesting that when the Mass was in Latin we just trusted the words of the priest to be delivered to God without question. These days we tend to over analyze the meaning of each English word with plenty of questions. For example my step brother keeps quiet during certain parts of the creed because after careful reflection he just doesn’t believe them.
I was born in 1946, so I have had some intimate personal experience of the EF. There clearly have been a small vocal minority who have taken umbrage with the OF and have been vocal about it, some to the degree of approaching hyperbole.
I flat out disagree that the OF is a “complete break with the entire liturgical tradition that preceded it”. Laying the two formats alongside one another and they are far more alike than different. lay either one of them alsong side the Ruthenian Rite Byzantine Mass, and the differences are far more noticeable.
The mind of the Church was expressed when SC was passed, 2,147 to 4. Past commentary by prior popes was disciplinary - which is subject to change by a subsequent pope - as opposed to doctrinal. Thus it is not a matter of personal experience, but rather the mind of the Church as expressed by the Council, and subsequently ratified by Pope Paul VI.
I seriously doubt that those 2,147 bishops had any intent that we would have two forms of the Mass in the Roman Rite; that was given as a concession of limited parameters by Pope John Paul 2, dealing with the Lefbrevists and those of like mind, and subsequently expanded by Pope Benedict in an attempt to heal the division between the SSPX and the Church. Such decisions were disciplinary in nature.
And we know they are doctrinal because the Trent documents mark certain sessions as doctrinal.
Ok, well I certainly appreciate the civil tone here from everyone involved in any case. But I’m going to push a little harder on this just because I can .
So ok, the Mass is actually a celebration and offering and thanks and worship from the community of believers- not just for them, but also by them, together with the celebrant. And when Jesus said to the the apostles, “This is my Body…”, I think He most certainly wanted them to understand what He said and meant. And from the Eucharistic prayer where the priest and faithful are to be communicating with each other to the Sanctus where the whole body ideally proclaims the holiness of God with heartfeltness, exalting Him, participation is in order. I guess I just can’t help but wonder if there’s not the danger of actually being more reverent towards a particular traditional way of celebrating here rather than to God Himself.
Either way, I’m not sure that a language used for ceremonial purposes wouldn’t nonetheless be better if clearly and easily understood especially in the case of the Mass.
I think Catholics who lived in the traditional age understood some of the key phrases in the Mass as well as having the gist of what all was happening, particularly after attending regularly for a long time. It wasn’t like they were totally in the dark by any stretch of the imagination.
The Roman Rite of Zaire is the best even if you don not understand the language.
Numerous councils have had both doctrinal and disciplinary parts. Trent was no different. And the marking, if you will, of certain parts does not mean the whole of the part is doctrinal.
I am sorry to hear that your brother has a problem with some of the Church’s doctrine. I suspect that he had that problem before the Creed was introduced in the vernacular.
I never spoke about my ‘personal experience’ but rather the objective facts.
The Church and her liturgy don’t come down to peoples personal experience. This is how Protestants see things.
I agree to a point. The canons dealing with anathemas are disciplinary. But in most cases they deal with underlying doctrine which shouldn’t be ignored.
I never thought of the Creed as doctrine, especially since there were disputes between the Greek and Latin. (filioque, primarily) But I won’t debate the issue.
Were you satisfied as to Fr. Rippergers standing in the Church? Then this should affect the way you read his article which is all about this topic.