tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post3603424718863140079..comments2024-03-28T16:16:51.062-04:00Comments on Musings of a Pertinacious Papist: Michael Davies – Part 2 of 2 – Book Review: Pope Paul’s New MassUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-76088037294211491232010-12-06T12:13:57.100-05:002010-12-06T12:13:57.100-05:00I think it is Fr. Pavone who says that we need to ...I think it is Fr. Pavone who says that we need to show America the pictures. In this case, we need to provide them with evidence. <br /><br />I'm teaching a chant class, for example, to young people. Their parents are often very interested in both the musical and the theological points I make during the class. I suggested this correlation early in the class:<br /><br />Why do most people think chant is sad, and should only be used for penitential seasons? Simple: the mass parts they can find in most "worship aids" are from the Requiem (if reduced), and we only drag out Latin in Advent and Lent, penitential seasons, and then only the Kyrie and the Agnus Dei. Given this context, it's no wonder that many people think chant has to be sad. On the other hand, when we hear chant done properly and (given the feast) festively, when we understand what we hear and (if possible) sing, we see the Wizard behind the curtain and no longer need to keep chant at arms' length.<br /><br /><br />ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-10030163971307378332010-12-01T15:19:47.981-05:002010-12-01T15:19:47.981-05:00The question is not how the Novus Ordo came to be ...The question is not how the Novus Ordo came to be but how we can realistically get back to something like the Old Mass as the norm. For what seems to be the majority of folks in the pews, an almost vicious anti-Latin bias seems to have been part and parcel of post V2 catechetics.<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-51345364167480546442010-11-30T16:33:22.099-05:002010-11-30T16:33:22.099-05:00As a cradle born during the Council and never real...As a cradle born during the Council and never really growing up with anything other than the Novus Order, I only came to realize there even was a previous order of the Mass in my 30's (how's that for good ol' 1980's catechism!).<br /><br />My first question upon learning that the Novus Order was novus was why did we need to change it in the first place? Never eally got a satisfactory answer.c mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-73599171428076497542010-11-21T15:55:00.647-05:002010-11-21T15:55:00.647-05:00The Angelic Doctor writes in S.T., Q. 97, a. 2, an...The Angelic Doctor writes in S.T., Q. 97, a. 2, answers the question: "Whether human law should always be changed, whenever something better occurs?" He writes: <br /><br />"<b>On the contrary</b>, It is stated in the Decretals (Dist. xii, 5): "It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old." <br /><br /><b>I answer that</b> ... to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit. Princip.] that "in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just." <br /><br />Bear in mind, furthermore, that St. Thomas is here cautioning against changes in the law even when they would clearly result in "something better"! The only condition justifying change, then is where the "better" so far outweighs the de facto damage brought about by the mere fact of changing the law that it results in a disproportionate net benefit. <br /><br />Let the reader judge wisely.Sheldonnoreply@blogger.com