Rumors
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    http://ulstertaig.blogspot.com/2009/03/pope-to-abolish-novus-ordo-new-missal.html
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Source of leak info:

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=321663
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    If various trads want to hold their breath waiting for this, I might be ok with that.

    On a serious note, this rumor is ridiculous on a number of levels:

    - the change of the sign of peace suggests to me this is a made up rumor. The pope has made it clear on many occasions that he favors moving the sign of peace. This doesn't necessarily add up to a full new Missal.

    - The actual idea that the pope would work in secret to throw a whole new missal out there in the midst of violent argumentation over liturgy is, besides an ultramontanist's dream, terribly dangerous. Last liturgy act without widescale input that I recall is ICEL - a disaster. The pope is a brilliant, brilliant man. I think he knows better than to undertake rewriting the whole Mass quickly in secret.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Gavin,

    I propose that every time Ratzinger the Priest said Mass he, like many others, bemoaned the Novus Ordo Mass in many ways and has been mentally, if not graphically, restoring the Mass for years.

    Is it terribly dangerous to challenge modern practice? Let's put it this way.

    If a Catholic approaches Benedict to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, the Catholic kneels.

    How more drastic an action can anyone take but to require the proper homage that has been abandoned...and on TV and the net around the world.

    Annoucing a new Missal is nothing compared to that. ICEL has drug their feet and put the moneychangers back in the Temple....and they may become targets.

    May I propose that a phrase heard around the Papal apartment might be...."Well, what did Jeffrey write now?"
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,048
    The Holy Father has stated numerous times (as Cardinal Ratzinger) that big sudden changes in the ordinary form were a bad idea - e.g. mandating that priests immediately celebrate ad orientem (not that he wouldn't be for this over time).

    Some of the things mentioned (e.g. moving the sign of peace) have already been widely reported; others less so (reconciling the two calendars); one point - that the lectionary will be kept as is - isn't a change at all! In his motu proprio Benedict himself talked about the rites "cross pollinating" so it's hardly surprising that some changes may be in the works. It hardly adds up to a "new missal" or the Novus ordo being "abolished."

    Sam Schmitt
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    It's pretty clear to me that the reform of the reform is happening already, bit by bit. i don't think there is any question about it.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,022
    The Kalendar:

    I will admit that there are a few - just a few - aspects of the current Liturgical Kalendar that I like. Many more that I really dislike - such as moving Feasts to the nearest Sunday almost universally.

    Personally, there are MANY aspects of the 1962 Kalendar that I prefer. But it's also the Rubrics that allow for options that are really good there.

    There are even more wonderful things hiding in earlier Missal editions - not just prior to Pius XII, but even earlier. More Vigils and Octaves especially.

    I would only be overjoyed at the merging of Kalendars if, at the same time, rubrics were included for more options.

    The one aspect that I love very much is that of multiple Collects - "Commemorations". In the current Missal, these are specifically denied, i.e. there may only be one Collect (Secret, Postcommunion). Any other intentions or commemorations are relegated to the Prayers of the People.

    And my argument for more Vigils and Octaves is the added diversity of Scripture Readings. I mean, we added a 3rd Reading to most Masses, but neglected to include wonderful Readings that have been lost, in some cases, for a century! Case in point: find the Vigil of the Feast of St. Andrew. It's "Epistle" is from the book of Exodus where Aaron sees a bush burning in the desert, and tells Moses to go take a look - and he encountered God. This is followed by the Gospel which tells of Andrew meeting Christ FIRST, and then running to tell Peter to come to meet Him. (Now, visualize a Ford commercial light bulb being turned on above the congregation!)

    There are too many wonderful facets of our patrimony of Liturgy to cut anything OUT of our liturgical options. Indeed, we need more options. It is NOT complicated. Liturgical planning is not "rocket surgery"!
  • Bruce E. Ford
    Posts: 431
    The elimination of multiple collects was a definite improvement.

    Each of the orations in the mass concludes a structural unit--entrance, offertory, communion.

    Collects were always introduced to the Liturgy as conclusions. Even in the "Solemn Collects" of Good Friday, each collect concludes a unit including a bidding and a period of silent prayer.

    The recitation of several collects in succession is a medieval aberration, reflecting Gallican sensibilities rather than Roman. The pre-Carolingian Roman rite was chaste and sober. It was too sober for the French, who always seemed to feel that more was better.

    Commemorative collects can be recited at the conclusion of the Prayer of the Faithful.

    I am frustrated that Morning and Evening Prayer in the Episcopal Church's 1979 Prayer Book still provide for the recitation of several collects in succession. (This is not allowed at the Eucharist.)
Add a Comment