Liturgical Reform... Irreversible
  • MarkB
    Posts: 670
    image
    More at source: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/07/wisdom-from-card-sarah.html#.YOmyWz2SmZs

    This came up as a change of topic in another thread, so I'm starting this one here devoted to the topic of whether the liturgical reforms of Vatican II are irreversible and what that entails for the TLM and the NO Mass in the Catholic Church.

    I agree the reforms are irreversible. I believe what that entails is that the Novus Ordo Mass is to be considered the normal, expected form (the "ordinary" form) of the liturgy according to which Catholics regularly celebrate Mass.

    Given current historical realities in which the NO Mass is celebrated abysmally in so many places, I would not deny the TLM to those who seek the beauty and sense of transcendence often lacking in NO Masses. Yet if and when reverent and dignified celebration of the NO Mass becomes more common, at that point I believe the TLM should be abrogated because the liturgical reform will have matured and attained its goal.

    Currently, I don't think any Roman Catholics should be celebrating the TLM exclusively because that at least implies a rejection of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, if not a rejection of the council itself. Attending the NO Mass must be a part of every Catholic's liturgical prayer, and Catholics who have the knowledge, skills and gifts to do so, instead of preserving the TLM indefinitely, must assist local parishes in celebrating the reformed liturgy with more dignity so that the reforms of Vatican II become better realized and the Church's worship becomes more dignified and reverent, and the reformed liturgy thereby becomes a better instrument of sanctification and evangelization.
    1170 x 1295 - 93K
  • rollingrj
    Posts: 295
    I don't think the question is whether or not the reforms are irreversible. I think the question is whether or not the reforms were properly instituted.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 670
    It would be more helpful if you explained what you mean.

    Do you mean the question concerns the current Missal of Paul VI, the Novus Ordo Mass itself, as not being a proper institution of Vatican II's liturgical reforms? So is the question about the Novus Ordo itself? Possibly implying that the Missal of Paul VI itself is invalid or defective, even if it were to be celebrated optimally?

    Or do you mean the question is about the implementation of the current Missal of Paul VI? That the Missal of Paul VI itself, as promulgated, is valid and satisfactory as a rite, but it frequently is not celebrated well for reasons having nothing to do with defects in the text or rubrics of the Missal?

    Were Vatican II's liturgical reforms not properly instituted by virtue of the Missal of Paul VI being devised and promulgated? Should another "revised Mass" have been promulgated instead? Or have the reforms not been properly instituted because those in charge of parish liturgy often don't celebrate the Missal of Paul VI as well as could be done?

    Because, you see, there are people who claim the Missal of Paul VI is an error and is defective as a rite and should be suppressed or reversed, but they seldom say so explicitly. Kwasniewski is one of the few who is outspoken in saying precisely that, but it's only been recently that he has begun saying explicitly what he has implicitly expressed for many years.

    So rather than making readers guess what you mean, it's a good idea to say what you mean.

    What, precisely, is in question about whether the liturgical reforms of Vatican II were properly instituted? What are we talking about?
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,356
    It should be remembered that the Council's document was not a legislative limit on what Pope Paul VI would ultimately decide to do regarding the liturgy. It did not function like the way the US Constitution limits what the various branches of government can and cannot do. (Over the decades, I've noticed that many American Catholics argue as if it did.) If one wants to revisit papal power, one really must rewind a millennium, not just to Vatican I. And voluble vituperation of online traditionalists towards Pope Francis & Vatican II creates its own self-isolating eddy. Eddies beget more eddies.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    I think that you're missing the point of His Eminence's words: He isn't saying that the Pauline reform is irreversible in se, he's saying that the Benedictine Reform (aka "Reform of the Reform"), launched in many ways by reconnecting Catholics to their past via Summorum Pontificum, is irreversible.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,145
    Who knows what the future holds... But the past can be our guide, in the wake of the Council of Trent, a Missal was promulgated. This was not really a new Missal, it was effectively the Missal of the Canons of Rome. This Missal later became the dominant Use of the Roman Rite. Why did it become the dominant form? Another reform of Trent was to erect seminaries, previously priestly formation in England was in Parishes. As soon as you have seminaries they will teach one Rite or Use and all the priests that are trained will follow one use... It is now easy to see how the Sarum use for instance, would now be on borrowed time, if you have no one to pass on the Sarum Use due to State persecution, and the seminaries are using the Trent Missal...

    So if you have no seminaries you have a problem, if you have no vocations you have a problem, if you have no one to pass on your Rite or Use to the next generation you have a problem. While your bishop etc. can try to hold back the tide, by mandating how the Liturgy is celebrated, unless the above 3 problems can be solved your Rite or Use will soon cease to exist.

    North Africa, Constantinople, and more recently Ireland were centres of the Faith. No amount of written papers could save them. When the men deserted the churches, they were soon left desolate.

    Liturgy is said to grow in an organic way, this involves growth and adaption, but the organic way also involves die back and death.
    Attending the NO Mass must be a part of every Catholic's liturgical prayer,
    This was tried and as +Heenan predicted, the men walked out the door and most of the seminaries have closed here, and churches are being closed all the time.
    must assist local parishes in celebrating the reformed liturgy with more dignity
    I will quote from the Bible Matthew 10:14
    And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.
    "You can drag the horse to water, but you cannot make it drink"
  • MarkB
    Posts: 670
    There are many things which I want to say, but charity demands otherwise.

    Or maybe you're afraid what you want to say won't withstand scrutiny or will expose things you don't want exposed about where you stand, and you're hiding behind false virtue for cover as an excuse for not advancing the discussion. Really, I wish people would stop being coy and just say what's on their minds. We're all adults here, and presumably we want what's best for the Church and for her liturgy.

    Cardinal Sarah actually has expressed agreement with what I stated in the original post of this thread: that eventually there should be a single reformed liturgical rite for Roman Catholics, not the current state of having TLM and NO Mass together authorized. The current state of affairs is a temporary attempt at a solution to help the Church arrive at a mature and proper implementation of the Missal of Paul VI.

    Since there is profound continuity and unity between the two forms of the Roman rite, the two forms must necessarily illuminate and enrich each other. It is urgent that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we examine in prayer and in study how to return to a reformed common rite, always for the sake of reconciliation within the Church.

    Source: http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/08/29/liturgy-the-counterstatement-of-cardinal-sarah/

    As to the claim that Cardinal Sarah is referring to the irreversibility of Benedict's "reform of the reform" (or reform "within" the reform?) and not the liturgical reform implemented by Paul VI with the new Missal, Benedict's letter accompanying the promulgation of "Summorum Pontificum" stated this:

    In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

    This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy.

    Source: https://zelanti.org/documents/summorum-pontificum/letter-accompanying-summorum-pontificum/

    So Benedict himself endorsed the Missal of Paul VI and the liturgical reforms Paul oversaw and implemented. There's no hint that Benedict intended "Summorum Pontificum" to be a sly way of sabotaging Vatican II's liturgical reforms nor undermining the Missal of Paul VI, yet some fringe supporters of the TLM have taken it in precisely that way, which is why Pope Francis would be justified, in my opinion, in curtailing some of the liberties to celebrate the TLM that were granted by "Summorum Pontificum," for the sake of Church unity and assisting the Church in advancing towards realizing Vatican II's liturgical reforms.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • davido
    Posts: 503
    Here are a few of the things that the consilium did in the new mass/office/pontifical/book of blessings that were not advocated by the council:
    - the ancient lectionary was completely thrown out and a new one invented
    - new Eucharistic prayers were invented partly from shoddy historical research and partly from new cloth
    - the ancient collects of the mass were largely dumped in favor of a new system of collects that casts man’s relationship with God in a less supplicatory light
    - the office psalms were heavily edited to eliminate the impreccatory psalms and any other sections the editors found offensive, despite the psalms in full having been recited by Christians for nearly 2000 years.
    - the book of blessings was entirely changed. Most of the blessings just pray about things, they don’t actually bless anything.
    - ordination prayers of the most ancient usage were completely changed

    Please, study and compare the two forms, EF and OF, and make informed comparisons. There is a lot of scholarly material out there now on the topic.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw rich_enough
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    .[Insert MJO yellow box here].
    Thanked by 2tomjaw francis
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,145
    @Salieri
    I am not a member either, but then I do not live in those United States... I do not see how MarkB and his views are other than one view point. I am sure other CMAA members have opposite view points. The Catholic Church is Universal, and we can all be members without all having exactly the same views on Liturgy and Music, the CMAA is I am sure the same.

    MarkB seems to be in the Reform of the Reform camp. I feel sorry for them the TLM steals their members, their own bishops do not always support them, and us Traditionalists will not darken the doors of their churches.

    Please can we not fall out over the written word, we do not want a Forum with only one voice, we need multiplicity of opinions, knowledge and experience.
  • pfreese
    Posts: 138
    “I feel sorry for them the TLM steals their members, their own bishops do not always support them, and us Traditionalists will not darken the doors of their churches.”

    Can’t say that’s the case in the U.S., at least in the Upper Midwest. We have a number of “traditional revival” parishes up here now with chant, incense, altar boys, restored churches, young people, and all the other things ROTRs love. I can think of 3 within a few miles of my house, and every at least small city seems to have one, with more following in their footsteps every year. It’s beautiful, really.

    I actually know quite a few Catholics who frequent these parishes that used to worship in the EF. A common theme is exhaustion from some real firebreathers among their priests and congregants. Also, in the last decade the ancestral EF parish in my city (since the 80s) actually went from three EF masses every weekend to just one Low Mass in the early morning (the rest are either English or Latin OF). It’ll be interesting to see if this trend repeats itself elsewhere as local EF movements mature, notwithstanding possible looming restrictions from Rome.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Elmar MarkB
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 852
    All that I will say is the proclivity of some members here to respond to OF questions or situations with veiled jabs at the OF/supremacy of the EF, or incredulity that anyone would bother working in an OF environment, says enough to me.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,218
    A common theme is exhaustion from some real firebreathers among their priests and congregants.


    Yep.

    There is truth in that. I find the greatest enemy the Trad crowd has is itself.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Mark,

    Cardinal Sarah doesn't put forward the idea that the reforms of Vatican II are irreversible. He says that the reform put in place by SP is irreversible. Except that the word "irreversible" is in both claims, they have nothing in common.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • pfreese
    Posts: 138
    “ He says that the reform put in place by SP is irreversible.”

    Considering the Holy See is currently looking to at least partially roll it back, it would seem to be very reversible…

    Just sayin…
  • Elmar
    Posts: 370
    Cardinal Sarah doesn't put forward the idea that the reforms of Vatican II are irreversible. He says that the reform put in place by SP is irreversible.
    As Mark nicely explained with citation, SP takes as a starting point that the Novus Ordo Missae is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, and that future organic development should result from mutual enrichment of the OF and EF.
    Therefore, the second part of your statement implies the first part to be true.
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins MarkB
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,695
    Just to toss another cat among the pigeons - Pope Benedict authorised the creation of a third Use, in English, by Anglicanorum Coetibus.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    I just want to apologize for my previous comment directed toward MarkB, and toward the CMAA.

    I haven't attended an EF Mass since the shut-down ended in May of 2020; and I work for a Novus Ordo Parish with a "RotR" style. I am called "A Trad" by Modernists and a "Modernist" by traditionalists, which means I'm probably somewhat in the middle. I do believe that there will be a unified Roman Rite at some point, but (my opinion) that it will be the Roman Rite, with some elements of the Novus Ordo: i.e. that it will be something more akin to the 1965 Missal with a couple extra anaphoras, some new prefaces, and an expanded one-year lectionary with daily readings. I think that some octaves will be restored (Pentecost especially), along with Solemn Mass, but that Missa cum Diacono will be permitted beyond Holy Week, as in the Novus Ordo.
  • Pfreese,

    Cardinal Sarah isn't protected by the Tarot Card Cloak of Infallibility.

    Elmar,

    It does take the starting point that the Missal of Paul VI is the Ordinary Form, but what does this mean? Does it take the position that the Missal of Paul VI is and by right should be the form celebrated by most Catholics, or does it mean, instead, that since the only way to assert that there are two forms of the one rite is to declare one legally ordinary and one legally extraordinary, that's exactly what Pope Benedict did?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 670
    Thanks for the great discussion so far, everyone.

    Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that some people are straining Pope Benedict's words in Summorum Pontificum the same way others (or maybe many of the same people) are straining the words in his resignation letter?

    So in Summorum Pontificum, when Benedict said the Missal of Paul VI is the ordinary form, he didn't mean ordinary in any normative sense, he was just using a clever legal fiction and distinction to accomplish something he couldn't do more straightforwardly or openly, even though he was the pope with supreme juridical authority and universal power in the Church. And similarly in his resignation letter, when he said he was resigning the office of ministry and the See of Peter would be vacant, he didn't mean he was resigning the office of the papacy's munus, he was just using clever verbiage to try to bifurcate the papacy into active and contemplative roles or to make it seem like he was resigning but he had his fingers crossed while he signed the letter and he's winking to everyone who's "in the know" about his real purpose and action and he's still the real pope, just biding his time.

    Amazing that perhaps the most brilliant theological mind ever to be pope, one of the clearest theological communicators and most precise and careful thinkers ever to be pope, wrote so cryptically in some of his most important documents that they don't mean what they clearly say. You have to have some gnostic illumination from the secret club to understand what Benedict REALLY meant.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,218
    You have to have some gnostic illumination from the secret club to understand what Benedict REALLY meant.


    Ridiculous, isn't it?
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 192
    My take is that reform was needed, but the OF is not what we ought to have ended up with. God willing, we will have a superior typical form of the Mass more like the '65 or the Ordinariate form, but I doubt it will happen within my lifetime (and I'm not that old). I love the EF, and would gladly never attend the OF again in my life (though I work in an OF environment). I do not think there is anything about this at all which makes me un-Catholic or schismatic. The OF can be celebrated in Latin and in a beautiful way, but 99% of the time it is not. I agree that trads can be bitter, angry, antisocial goblins, but they are not all that way and, at the end of the day, I don't care. The EF is beautiful and dependable, and that makes it worth dealing with sometimes unpleasant congregants.

    I will say, had the "reformers" not taken a wrecking ball to the just about every aspect of Catholic liturgy, maybe people like me wouldn't have to turn to the EF. If we had stuck with something like the '65, I doubt very much that this OF/EF divide would exist. The unfathomably radical departure from any previous form of the Mass is without a doubt what has resulted in many orthodox Catholics shunning the OF. In the current environment, the EF needs to exist. If the OF were significantly reformed, maybe it wouldn't. But we aren't there.
  • I'm not straining the text of Pope Benedict's SP. Some people call the two forms "Ordinary" and "Extraordinary", and others call them "Novus Ordo" and "Vetus Ordo".

    "Extraordinary" can mean more than one thing, and there isn't any lack of clarity in their use, except by people who wish to construe them in a strained manner. Yes, I'm absolutely serious.

    See, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are regular and scheduled and present at every Mass even when the size of the congregation is tiny, but the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is supposed to die out?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 873
    So this is not acceptable:
    the proclivity of some members here to respond to OF questions or situations with veiled jabs at the OF/supremacy of the EF, or incredulity that anyone would bother working in an OF environment

    But this is fine?
    Currently, I don't think any Roman Catholics should be celebrating the TLM exclusively because that at least implies a rejection of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, if not a rejection of the council itself. Attending the NO Mass must be a part of every Catholic's liturgical prayer, and Catholics who have the knowledge, skills and gifts to do so, instead of preserving the TLM indefinitely, must assist local parishes in celebrating the reformed liturgy with more dignity

    The first is simply an opinion, which you may or may not agree with, while the second attempts to tell everyone what they should be doing or not doing, beyond what the Church herself has laid down.

    It is not "heresy" to believe that the EF is superior to the OF, just as the contrary is not dogma. Rome's approval of traditional orders for the last 30 years disproves any notion that exclusive celebration of the EF is somehow suspect or outside the pale of acceptable Catholicism.

    Why not simply let people celebrate and attend the form of the Mass as they wish, as is allowed by current law, and not try to dictate to people what they should and shouldn't do? This is the genius of the Motu Proprio, after all.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 852
    The first is simply an opinion, which you may or may not agree with, while the second attempts to tell everyone what they should be doing or not doing, beyond what the Church herself has laid down.

    Mark's comments, whether you agree or not, are confined to a thread explicitly discussing the matter. He isn't traveling onto threads where members are asking for help in an EF context and proselytizing. Moreover, plenty of TLM advocates who insist the NO is "dying out" and "theologically bankrupt/Protestant" seem to be telling us what we should be doing just as much as Mark may.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • MarkB
    Posts: 670
    Let me throw in what happened in Dijon, France. The archbishop expelled the FSSP from his archdiocese because the two FSSP priests refused to concelebrate at the chrism Mass.

    That is a perfect example of TLM adherence being thinly veiled rejection of communion with the post-conciliar Church and rejection of Vatican II. There's no good reason why priests interested in communion with the Church and with their local ordinary would refuse to concelebrate at a Novus Ordo Chrism Mass, which is the Mass that especially signifies communion of all the priests with their bishop. And that was the ONLY participation in an OF Mass that the archbishop asked of the FSSP priests all year long.

    Preferring to celebrate the EF, at this time, given current circumstances, is fine. Refusing to celebrate or attend the OF is not acceptable because the OF is ordinary, in the sense of normative for the post-conciliar Church.

    Those FSSP priests who refused to concelebrate at an OF Mass reject the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. That's not acceptable because it's contrary to Church unity. That attitude has to be corrected one way or another. Unfortunately, Summorum Pontificum has unintentionally fostered that attitude and made some traditionalist priests liturgically arrogant, as if they are untouchable by the bishop and unaccountable to the wider Church because of the freedoms Benedict's motu proprio gives them.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • pfreese
    Posts: 138
    To add to MarkB, an FSSP pastor in a neighboring state once refused to allow use of their church tabernacle to a neighboring OF parish who was using their church for OF masses, supposedly to avoid “mixing Jesus.” Last I heard the kindly bishop helped smooth this over. As I’ve said before, I harbor no ill feelings towards the EF movement and I wish it success, but this sort of deliberate injury to ecclesiastical union, if common elsewhere, is not a good look, especially now that more skeptical heads now leading important Vatican posts may very soon be deciding to what degree their Experiment is allowed to continue.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • Mark,

    The FSSP priests refused to concelebrate because they refused to concelebrate. In the era of tolerance and options and all the rest, their refusal shouldn't be construed as more than it is.

    Attending the event isn't the same as concelebrating. Independent of the question you raise is the very real puzzle of how many Masses are being celebrated if 4 (or 40) priests standing around the altar all pronounce the words of Institution or Consecration.

    I am going to insist, however, that Ordinary, as Pope Benedict uses the word in that Motu Proprio does not mean "this is how it should be".
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,685
    The FSSP priests refused to concelebrate because they refused to concelebrate. In the era of tolerance and options and all the rest, their refusal shouldn't be construed as more than it is.
    Baloney. Actions have consequences (and implications).
    Thanked by 2CharlesW MarkS
  • Yes, Charles, they do have implications, but refusing to concelebrate and to elaborate should not be taken in any way as necessarily malicious, any more than someone's silence when I ask him when he stopped beating his wife should be construed as agreement with my premise that he has been beating his wife.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,695
    The third sentence in this paragraph is often quoted. It is from the covering 'explanatory letter' sent with SP by Pope Benedict to all bishops. This is the basis on which bishops are asked to show generosity of spirit, but reciprocity is called for here.
    There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
    Evidemment, pour vivre la pleine communion, les prêtres des communautés qui adhèrent à l’usage ancien ne peuvent pas non plus, par principe, exclure la célébration selon les nouveaux livres.
    One of the purposes of the Chrism Mass in the OF is for the bishop to experience this 'full communion' with his clergy. Is it reasonable to expect a bishop to entrust the cure of souls to priests who are unwilling to demonstrate full communion with him?
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,145
    At our Chrism Mass you have a choice, you can put on the polyester rag, and stand with your arm outstretched around a table. You can also put on clerical dress with a lacy cotta, and participate in choir. I believe the age when the M.C.s that would confiscate breviaries from those in choir has now passed. This seems a fair system.

    I don't see how a novelty (concelebration) with no real basis in Church history, should now be considered, the only way a priest can be in (yearly) communion with his bishop. Although if you play stupid games you can win stupid prizes.

    As for Dijon, it is sad that Trad's should form circular firing squads. Without this pointless acrimony the answer to this problem would be for the FSSP to move out and hand the Apostolates over to the SSPX. We will see no real change, the mutual loathing will continue until the N.O. bishop runs out of priests in a few years.

    All that I will say is the proclivity of some members here to respond to OF questions or situations with veiled jabs at the OF/supremacy of the EF, or incredulity that anyone would bother working in an OF environment, says enough to me.


    As for this, it would do well to look through the comments over a few years of those members, you may find something interesting...
    1. They were running a N.O. music programme in line with the wishes of the Church, and were hounded out of their job and parish because they programmed a piece in Latin once a month.
    2. Their Reform of the Reform music programme, that had run successively for many years and was produced from much hard work was destroyed by a new Parish priest within a month of his induction.
    3. They work in an N.O. parish and this is the only place they can vent about their frustrations, that will not get them sacked.
    4. They originally were in favour of the N.O. and have changed their mind...

    I do agree that some comments are not helpful... but then again this is yet another of those popular discussions on this forum that generate more heat than light.
    Thanked by 1KARU27
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    I know of Novus Ordo priests who:

    1: Do not concelebrate;
    2: Have avoided the cathedral at all costs, especially for the Chrism Mass.

    They've always used the correct names in the Canon: Are they schismatic?

    I don't see how concelebrating can be the sole criterion for unity with the local bishop, especially since it didn't exist in the West until 1964.

    Also, I cannot stand huge concelebrations: The words of institution always remind me of a nazi rally, when the priests all stick their arm out. It looks so silly, I have occasionally laughed out loud.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,218
    Baloney. Actions have consequences (and implications).


    Yes, they certainly do. It is possible to win the battle and lose the war. Sometimes not much significant thought goes into those actions.

    I have seen concelebrations with numerous priests involved. The thought has crossed my mind that the program should say, as did the old movie credits for spectaculars, "and a cast of thousands." However, concelebrations are not a hill to die on and don't really seem worth the acrimony involved.

    As for Dijon, it is sad that Trad's should form circular firing squads.


    Well, they at least make good mustard. The Trads have a gift for shooting themselves in the foot and being their own worst enemies. We often excel at that in the east, too. I have heard it said many times that a Byzantine firing squad is circular.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 656
    As long as the calendars don't align, it is unfair to expect a faithful Catholic to attend both forms of the rite, unless one is attended only very occasionally.

    Liturgy is meant to be an integral way of life -- no one expects Byzantines to attend anything other than their rite (and particular local church's form of it) voluntarily beyond necessity.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 873
    Mark's comments, whether you agree or not, are confined to a thread explicitly discussing the matter. He isn't traveling onto threads where members are asking for help in an EF context and proselytizing. Moreover, plenty of TLM advocates who insist the NO is "dying out" and "theologically bankrupt/Protestant" seem to be telling us what we should be doing just as much as Mark may.

    The comment was not directed at MarkB in particular, but at the view he was expressing, which seems to be getting the upper hand among a certain coterie in Rome these days, and which, as I have argued, goes against both the letter and the spirit of the motu proprio.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,218
    no one expects Byzantines to attend anything other than their rite (and particular local church's form of it) voluntarily beyond necessity.


    Actually, I did that for 20 years while working in a Latin church as DM/organist. I kept copies of both eastern and western calendars for reference since they often don't agree.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,543
    Charles... did that cause szchizophrenic thinking?

    don't see how a novelty (concelebration) with no real basis in Church history, should now be considered, the only way a priest can be in (yearly) communion with his bishop. Although if you play stupid games you can win stupid prizes.


    Really just manipulation...

    truthfully embarrassing argument that shows true colors of the cancel culture catholic... let’s face it... that is what this is coming down to... Cancel Culture Catholicism... probably a heresy from another time in history... although I don’t think the church ever turned on her own Rites before... yes? It’s reminds me of a form of Rabidism.

    Definition of rabid
    1a : extremely violent : FURIOUS
    b : going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion
    rabid editorials
    a rabid supporter
    2 : affected with rabies


    Rabies is a fatal but preventable viral disease. It can spread to people and pets if they are bitten or scratched by a rabid animal. In the United States, rabies is mostly found in wild animals like bats, raccoons, skunks, and foxes. However, in many other countries dogs still carry rabies, and most rabies deaths in people around the world are caused by dog bites.

    The rabies virus infects the central nervous system. If a person does not receive the appropriate medical care after a potential rabies exposure, the virus can cause disease in the brain, ultimately resulting in death. Rabies can be prevented by vaccinating pets, staying away from wildlife, and seeking medical care after potential exposures before symptoms start.


    Ironically, this mentality was also identified within the church by the very pope who unleashed the NO himself...

    Pope Paul VI (1968): "The Church is in a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what could better be called self-demolition."
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,218
    Charles... did that cause szchizophrenic thinking?


    Not that, but it did cause confusion as to what Sunday it actually was. Interestingly, the eastern calendar is more similar to the old Latin Rite calendar than to the new Latin Rite calendar.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 928
    Those FSSP priests who refused to concelebrate at an OF Mass reject the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. That's not acceptable because it's contrary to Church unity. That attitude has to be corrected one way or another.


    It is stiflingly ironic to me that this be posited. This is precisely what was cried at the promulgation of the new missal. The cry from the beginning has been that the new system split from the old, not the other way around. The changes were so drastic and so many, one couldn't help but feel as though the whole world flipped poles.

    I don't deny the nuChurch™ legitimacy, as much as it sometimes grieves me. (I play for a N.O. parish, after all, and I wholeheartedly believe Jesus is in the tabernacle. I also believe the N.O. legitimate but deficient.) But the fact remains that the onus of the burden still lies on the new "traditions" to prove their worth in light of the old, again, not the other way around. I do not believe that anyone should be persecuted for sticking to the old ways, and I believe they still reserve the right to be skeptical of what is [still] novel. The Novus Ordo is still a statistical blip on the radar at this point; people treat IT as though it were the one that had been around for millennia.

    People often accuse the radtrads as being too dogmatic; ironically, some of the most dogmatic people I know are novus ordo catholics (for lack of a better term) who are absolutely dogmatic about murdering the old rites and burying them in the back flowerbed—and the sooner the better. It is a two way street; one just hides better in plain sight than the other.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,543
    Ummm... the NO parishes I worked for did not want to be in unity with me and made that very clear. So I don’t want to hear about the false unity excuse.
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 928
    Indeed, francis... I've met resistance many places too, all because I dared to sing chant that had been chanted for over 1000 years in catholic churches worldwide... If only the Catholics of the 50s and 60s were as territorial of their parishes then as the boomers are of their collapsing parishes now... Perhaps we'd be in a different situation.
    Thanked by 2francis tomjaw
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,073
    at least implies a rejection of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, if not a rejection of the council itself


    Really?

    That's a great deal of conclusion over a minor bite of cereal. When all this began, aged priests were specifically granted permission to continue using the EF. Were they rejecting the OF, or the Council, by doing so?
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores tomjaw
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,543
    Hmmm... isn’t this the theologically proper way this should go?

    Currently, I don't think any Roman Catholics should be celebrating the NO exclusively because that at least implies a rejection of the authentic Roman Rite of The Catholic Church, if not a rejection of the Church itself. Attending the TLM must be a part of every Catholic's liturgical prayer, and Catholics who have the knowledge, skills and gifts to do so, instead of preserving the NO indefinitely, must assist local parishes in celebrating the authentic rite in its inherent dignity.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 928
    It IS funny how they treat it as a one-way street, Francis. It’s perfectly fine for NO Catholics to not show any interest in the TLM but heaven forbid TLM goers don’t want to attend a NO mass.
    Thanked by 2francis tomjaw
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,543
    I have said this for years and it all falls on deaf ears
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,073
    So far, THREE examples of 'non compliant' FSSP member priests have been presented. Doesn't look like a tidal wave to me.

    In re: 'concelebration,' Fr. Hunwicke recently posted a short essay describing the practice. Assuming he is not making things up, it IS a long-standing practice, and every new ordinand concelebrates with his Bishop on the day of Ordination.

    Just sayin'.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,218
    authentic Roman Rite of The Catholic Church


    No more authentic than any other. It was the authentic Roman Rite at one time but has been revised in our own time. It is now one of the Roman Rites.

    I still can't believe all the furor over concelebration once during the year. If this were of earth-shaking importance it would be a different matter. It isn't. If I were in that situation, I would do the once per year mass and even buy the bishop an ice cream cone afterwards. Small price to pay for being left alone the rest of the year. I think some folks just look for trouble.
  • Mark,

    Some of the mental gymnastics you're seeing (and, to be fair, I know people who engage in it) are the direct result of Pope Francis' all-out war on everything the Church has ever said or believed. They also result from the utterly illogical and un-historical idea that the magisterium of Pope Francis must be read backwards to re-interpret everything which has come before.

    Tradition-minded Catholics want to be allowed to worship in peace, but --unlike the liturgical reformers -- their reason isn't that it's modern or up-to-date or anything similar, but precisely that it's timeless!
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores tomjaw
  • Elmar
    Posts: 370
    Charles,
    It was the authentic Roman Rite at one time but has been revised in our own time. It is now one of the Roman Rites.
    I remember a traditionalist priest (who was himself bi-ritual: Roman and some Eastern rite in full communion with Rome, I forgot which one) explaining that for a very good reason pope B.XVI didn't call the TLM (+ what further belongs to it) a 'rite' but rather the 'extraordinay form' of the Roman rite, in order to avoid that priests could claim that they were 'TLM-only' - and at the same time allowing all 'NO-priests' to say the TLM without additional permission.

    dad29,
    This priest once held a lecture on the history of concelebration which matches (I believe that you referred to this one) Fr. Hunwicke on concelebration: that newly ordained priests concelebrated their first mass with the bishop, each one his own paten + chalice, saying the entire mass including the Canon - horribile dictu - together with loud voice.

    At the same time this priest was very critical on the 'fabricated and a-historical' NO-concelebration, which he said intrinsically lacks ars celebrandi by its very ritual.
    After the lecture he was asked if he would ever concelebrate in the NO if requested. "Of course, at several occasions" ... mumbling in the audience ... "after all is a valid and licit way of celebrating; so I never refuse to concelebrate, I just try to avoid getting invited."

    But as an act against open and persisting disobedience it is certainly legitimate that
    in Dijon, France. The archbishop expelled the FSSP from his archdiocese because the two FSSP priests refused to concelebrate at the chrism Mass.