I have been looking at the age profile of the bishops of England and Wales. In the next couple of years, several will reach the age of 75, which is the age when they have to submit their resignation to the Holy Father. They come up in the following order:-
Bishop Edwin Regan Wrexham Dec 2010
Bishop Brian Noble Shrewsbury Apr 2011
Bishop Thomas McMahon Brentwood Jun 2011
Bishop John Rawsthorne Hallam Nov 2011
Bishop Crispian Hollis Portsmouth Nov 2011
Bishop Christopher Budd Plymouth May 2012
Bishop John Hine Southwark Aux Jul 2013
Archbishop Patrick Kelly Liverpool Nov 2013
Bishop Terence Brain Salford Dec 2013
Several of these would be regarded as not being particularly friendly towards the usus antiquior.
Who will be their successors and will they be better disposed towards the traditional liturgies?
Who would you like to see ordained a bishop? Suggestions please.
The fourth remaining Sunday after the Epiphany
14 hours ago
3 comments:
This is a silly activity. The Holy Father appoints bishops and there is a well established process to ensure that the Holy Father is properly advised. Not all recently appointed bishops are supporters of the Latin Mass but this is hardly surprising as the Holy Father loves the vernacular as mush as he loves Latin. The Eucharist is at the heart of our Catholic faith and life, not liturgy.
"...the Holy Father loves the vernacular as mush... MUSH? Was this a Freudian slip or a description of the vernacular?
I disagree with the simplistic statement that "the Eucharist is at the heart of our Catholic faith and life, not liturgy." In fact this is part of the modern problem. The word 'Eucharist' [thanksgiving] is both the sacrament and the sacrifice of Christ truly present under the appearances of bread and wine and cannot really be separated from the liturgy. It is in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass made present on our altar, in the liturgy of the Church, that God descends from heaven to feed us with the holy sacrament. Eucharist and liturgy are inextricably linked and cannot be considered as separate entities. It is during the Mass, the greatest liturgical action of the Church, that Jesus offers Himself, through the action and words of the priest, as the unblemished Victim to save mankind. The Eucharist does not simply appear out of thin air.
Lex orandi lex credendi is the oft stated maxim that the law of prayer is the law of belief. The prayer and law of the Church with regard to the Eucharistic Sacrifice is admirably and completely expressed in the traditional form of Mass; the same, unfortunately, cannot be said of many Masses in the vernacular.
I would also disagree with the statement that the Holy Father loves the vernacular as 'mush'as he loves Latin. Can anonymous say where (s)he read this? I would not dream of trying to speak for the Holy Father but I would say that on general evidence of his writings and statements over the years that the opposite opinion is probably more valid.
Apologies for mush typo which would have been avoided had I been wearing my specs!
The Eucharistic sacrifice is expressed completely in any liturgical version of the Mass. It may not be to your liking but if the expression was 'more complete' in the traditional form of Latin Mass, then that form would be the norm here in Rome, and certainly in the Major Basilicas, and certainly the Holy Father would be using no other form. Where your argument fails is the word 'completely' The Eucharistic Sacrifice is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, it cannot be incomplete. Last week I met with army chaplains who had been serving in Afghanistan. They tell of the profound spiritual experience of Mass celebrated in difficult circumstances, sometimes on the front of an armored vehicle, wearing combat gear and helmet with just a stole. Tell me this is 'incomplete' It is fine for you to have your personal liturgical preference, but it is not superior to mine when I celebrate in Irish, Italian or English
Post a Comment