alan29 wrote:No doubt he has ...... but that doesn't prevent each one of us from improving our own understanding in a way that goes beyond "The Holy father says ......" Neither does it make his liturgical opinions a matter of infallible dictat.
I don't think anyone here is saying either of those two things, Alan, and you may be pleasantly surprised to learn that the Holy Father himself explicity rejects the second. Rather, the Roman Rite and the manner of its celebration are at the heart of the Latin Church's unity, and the Bishop of Rome has a special place in their maintenance and development in fidelity to tradition, as he has in matters of belief. Indeed, the two are inseperable.
Wow! well the Pope's liturgical aptitude has had a pretty good airing! I'm off to listen to the Haydn Te Deum again - hadn't heard it before it's inclusion at Cofton Park.
JW wrote:Wow! well the Pope's liturgical aptitude has had a pretty good airing! I'm off to listen to the Haydn Te Deum again - hadn't heard it before it's inclusion at Cofton Park.
Last time I checked, JW, this board was run under the auspices of a Roman Catholic liturgy society; the Pope was still a Catholic; and Haydn's Te Deum was a jolly good sing.
NorthernTenor wrote:If you're referring to my comment, Alan, I think that qualifies as an Aunt Sally.
whereas the following
An NVQ in Liturgical Studies validated by the Liturgy Office of the Diocese of Portsmouth, perhaps? Or maybe a Masters in post-Conciliar liturgical praxis from the University of Neasden?
Strange how the stats are issued in Italian: presumably they think that only Italian speakers will be looking up the visit on their website. Fascinating to read that vocations seem to be healthy. If these stats are to be believed, there are as many as 245 seminarians plus 2 'minor' ('junior'???) seminarians. I thought junior seminaries went out in the 70's so they must be referring to something else - anyone know what this refers to?
NorthernTenor wrote:If you're referring to my comment, Alan, I think that qualifies as an Aunt Sally.
whereas the following
An NVQ in Liturgical Studies validated by the Liturgy Office of the Diocese of Portsmouth, perhaps? Or maybe a Masters in post-Conciliar liturgical praxis from the University of Neasden?
is a model of how to conduct a civilised debate.
Both quotes, C, are parts of comments that directly addressed the arguments of others. The irony of the second quote was a mild response to a charge against the Holy Father that appeared to have more basis in indigestion than fact or reason.
JW wrote:Strange how the stats are issued in Italian: presumably they think that only Italian speakers will be looking up the visit on their website. Fascinating to read that vocations seem to be healthy. If these stats are to be believed, there are as many as 245 seminarians plus 2 'minor' ('junior'???) seminarians. I thought junior seminaries went out in the 70's so they must be referring to something else - anyone know what this refers to?
I blinked at this, too. Perhaps they are including religious order students in this. Even so, the stats seem very high. I suspect they've also included all the foreign students at the Beda, and foreign students at our other seminaries who are not training for our dioceses but for their own. Plus the people on the propadeutic year in Valladolid, who technically speaking are not actually seminarians yet. They might even have included permanent diaconate students who are training part-time at the seminaries.
NorthernTenor wrote:If you're referring to my comment, Alan, I think that qualifies as an Aunt Sally.
whereas the following
An NVQ in Liturgical Studies validated by the Liturgy Office of the Diocese of Portsmouth, perhaps? Or maybe a Masters in post-Conciliar liturgical praxis from the University of Neasden?
is a model of how to conduct a civilised debate.
Both quotes, C, are parts of comments that directly addressed the arguments of others. The irony of the second quote was a mild response to a charge against the Holy Father that appeared to have more basis in indigestion than fact or reason.
If you read my posts again, you might see that I was not commenting directly about the Pope, but rather about the attitude that says the Pope knows best and there is therefore no need for study. I will admit to finding that extraordinary and remarkably un-Catholic.
There you go with that Aunt Sally again, Alan. No-one on this thread was suggesting that study is unnecessary because the Pope will tell us what to do. One contributor did angrily claim that the Pope's views on liturgy are worthless because he isn't a "liturgtist". In response it was suggested that it was possible to have an informed and well-rounded understanding of the liturgy without a qualification that proclaims its narrow liturgical credentials; that this Holy Father is a case in point; and that his liturgical views and practice carry a particular significance, by virtue of his office. I don't see anything un-Catholic about that, remarkably or otherwise.
That's some Latin dictionary you have there, presbyter; not Lewis and Short, I'll warrant.
Actually, I did mean the entire piece, because my Latin is better than my Italian. Also, it would have been amusing and instructive to see how the Vatican's Latinists had coped with certain 21st century people and things.
I daresay this is one of those pieces for which the original is, in fact, a modern foreign language.
