The “Old Mass and the “Novus Ordo” Mass: Irreconcilable differences? - Fr. Jerry J. Pokorsky
  • francis
    Posts: 10,144
    I could pick this apart with chopsticks but it’s just doing post mortem on a dead horse

    Right off the top the two “rites” were never “married” so all the suppositions are nil.
  • sdtalley3sdtalley3
    Posts: 247
    Charles,

    I really try to avoid posting my own personal opinions on matters like these and see what others have to say instead. It’s really disheartening when you have good priests that do celebrate the N.O. Try to incorporate forms of nostalgia from the the previous rite but are quickly shot down for doing so. One example comes to mind but I’d have to cite the exact source it came from. I don’t hide that my affiliations are with the Tridentine rite, and do not think less of my Catholic brethren that prefer the newer form of the liturgy, I have my own reasons for this, most of which can be extracted through reason, and I pray proper judgement. Regardless of my own views I do see the works of good people within the different communities and this forum is probably the best of examples. I cannot claim much to the formation of priests in today’s Seminaries but am of the strong belief that a good pastor will successfully lead his flock through good formation, and this is evident in his handling of the sacraments and other outward acts of duty. One cannot judge the state of such a persons disposition except by the fruits that are produced. I heard from various sources that such a marriage between the different rites would be more or less what the Council originally intended, as pointed out in the article you shared. I don’t see that happening in the near future so we must contend with the differences as they are and hope for the best. There are plethora of good and bad from both sides of the aisle. Even growing up, the things I hear from traditionalists were probably enough to harden the hearts of any youth, mine included. I have since come to realize this wasn’t the case in all circumstances. But after attending few N.O. Services during my time in military I couldn’t personally cope with what was happening. On the other side of the coin my fellow Tridentine rites wish to take much of all back to the days of the Knight’s Templar, and will not budge on their convictions. It’s for this reason I despise the term “Traditional Catholic”….I’m Catholic nothing more, and even said this to a priest in a heartfelt conversation I had with him. Hopefully things will all come to their senses and the extreme views produced on either side will find a way, not a compromise, but a way to accommodate the souls that are entrusted to the care of pastors.
  • Charles,

    Thank you for bringing this article to the attention of the readership.

    There is, as Francis points out, something fundamentally wrong with the image, the analogy of a marriage. Nevertheless, the article isn't without its good points:

    1. He reviews the history adequately enough from this end of the horse.
    2. He recognizes that it was necessary to identify that a problem exists before it can be fixed. I read his works at Adoremus and encountered Fr. Zuhlsdorf at the same time, in his column called (in the Wanderer) What does the Prayer Really Say?. Within a short time I was pursuing the traditional forms, unwilling merely to reform the new forms.
    3. He acknowledges that much silliness (and downright viciousness) existed during the allegedly halcyon days of Pope John Paul, which is a welcome admission.


    Many people make their way back to the traditional forms by first acknowledging that something isn't right in their own parish.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,017
    Thanks, francis, sdtalley, and Chris. I posted this precisely because I thought it was in need of commentary such as you all have provided.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw sdtalley3
  • Reval
    Posts: 170
    If we want to use the marriage analogy, I see that the Church and the people were in a marriage. Then along came Vatican II, and the post-conciliar church is like the new wife muscling in. It's like there are three in the marriage now, the new "spouse" ruining everything, but the people have to pretend like everything's fine.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,144
    Exactly what I was thinking, but I,ve been on the campaign for so many years and been treated as a schis I have given up “dialogueing” about it.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • MarkB
    Posts: 878
    What I will add to this discussion is that I have just finished reading Advent to Pentecost: Comparing the Seasons in the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite, by Patrick Regan, OSB, Liturgical Press, 2012.

    The author's thesis is: "The purpose of this volume is to show the excellence and superiority of the reformed liturgy over the previous one." (p. xx)

    He elaborates: "...large numbers of the faithful do not yet sufficiently appreciate the astounding spiritual profundity of the reformed Missal, while others, attracted by the theocentricity and apparent reverence of the preconciliar Mass, are unaware of the deficiencies of the 1962 Missal, of how outdated its calendar, of how weak is its repertoire of readings, prefaces, and prayers, and hence of why extensive revision was deemed desirable. This book is to make up for what was not done some forty years ago [referring to inadequate catechesis about the reformed liturgy]." (p.xxi)

    "The most urgent liturgical challenge today, the author contends, is to raise the ars celebrandi to the same level of excellence as the [reformed] Missal itself." (blurb, back of book)

    The postconciliar liturgy, as it is in the Church's official liturgical books, is superior to the preconciliar liturgy. As implemented in practice, the postconciliar liturgy generally is deficient in authenticity and beauty. That needs to be corrected.

    Published ten years ago when Summorum Pontificum was in effect, I think the book is more relevant now in the Traditionis Custodes era.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • francis
    Posts: 10,144
    @MarkB

    Don’t fall for the lies.

    "...large numbers of the faithful do not yet sufficiently appreciate the astounding spiritual profundity of the reformed Missal, while others, attracted by the theocentricity and apparent reverence of the preconciliar Mass, are unaware of the deficiencies of the 1962 Missal, of how outdated its calendar, of how weak is its repertoire of readings, prefaces, and prayers
    This is pure propaganda (“apparent reverence”... REALLY?!?) Apparently we have been Reverently fooled for about two millennia?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,756
    I think what some think, when ruminating about those golden days of yore, is that change is not peculiar to the reformed liturgy. Didn't Pius XII, the last true pope according to some, muck up the Holy Week liturgy? There have been good changes and some that were totally ineffective and wrong-headed. What Mark pointed out about the deficiencies in the 1962 Missal are real.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw hilluminar
  • francis
    Posts: 10,144
    Yes, that is why some go back before that. That was one of the first cracks in the dam. (Smoke anyone?)
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,155
    I agreed at the time of SP with what BXVI wrote to the bishops of the world:
    Um die volle communio zu leben, können die Priester, die den Gemeinschaften des alten Usus zugehören, selbstverständlich die Zelebration nach den neuen liturgischen Büchern im Prinzip nicht ausschließen.
    Which could be translated as:
    In order to live the full communion, the priests who belong to the communities of the old custom cannot, of course, in principle exclude the celebration according to the new liturgical books.
    I get the impression that significant numbers of priests do refuse, as a matter of principle, to celebrate according to the new books. Perhaps I am mistaken.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 935
    Interesting article, thanks for sharing! Among many good points, especially to the end, some things pointed out by Fr. Pokorsky are, imho, a bit problematic:

    The image of a marriage
    The image of a marriage, with which he begins his article, doesn't describe the relationship between the 1962 Missal and the current Missal well. A marriage takes the spouses as equal partners. But the 1962 Missal has been superseded by the current one, even though they “embrace one and the same tradition”. The only reason it’s still being used is an exceptional permission for pastoral reasons granted by the successive popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis, each according to particular regulations. I think we tend to oversee this inequality and the exceptional position of the 1962 rites too often.

    The gradual development until the Second Vatican Council
    There exists this romanticized idea of an organic, gradual development of the Roman Rite, until the Second Vatican Council broke abruptly with that tradition. But in reality, it was already Trent that stopped this gradual development by centralizing future changes to the liturgy, leaving the authority to the pope.

    The Church never suppressed the Old Mass
    Even though this is Benedict XVI talking, he was wrong to suggest that the Missal of 1962 was never suppressed. It was, as soon the new Missal of 1970 was promulgated (Celebrationis Eucharistiae, March 26, 1970). What he might have ment however, is the fact that celebration according to the 1962 Missal had continually been allowed (by exception) by his predecessors.
  • Mark,

    I haven't read this book, but in the thesis statement are (at least) two inaccurate statements.

    1)The calendar is outdated. The calendar wasn't outdated in 1962, when the reform was decreed. Could more saints be added to the calendar? Sure, but that fact (by itself) doesn't mean that the calendar is somehow "outdated". I, for one, would like to see St. Damien of Molokai, St. Fulton Sheen*, St. Pius IX*, St Pius XII* and St. Miguel Pro added to the calendar, among others. When someone in Rome can write beautiful, fitting Propers for these saints' feast days, I will be overjoyed. [Given that the present crew in Rome writes things like TC, I expect to be waiting a while for beautiful Propers.]

    2. The ars celebrandi of the Ordo of Paul VI needs to be raised to match the beauty of the Ordo itself. Given what's missing from the Ordo of Paul VI, all that could happen is that the ars celebrandi could be lowered to the level of the Ordo itself, which is (very nearly) what's already happening.


    * These haven't been declared saints yet, but that merely shows the depth of the confusion of our time.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 878
    Re what a_f_hawkins wrote, I think that was what Pope Benedict XVI meant by introducing the now obsolete terms "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form". The ordinary form was supposed to be the expected, usual, normative form of celebration of Mass in the Roman Rite. The extraordinary form was, as with extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, not the norm and not to be preferred, but permitted (1) for any priest privately and (2) publicly where there was a stable group of the faithful already attached to the 1962 Missal who requested that Mass be celebrated using it. Priests were not supposed to promote the extraordinary form over the ordinary form, which is what some priests and lay movements began to do. Summorum Pontificum was hijacked.
    Thanked by 2smvanroode Elmar
  • Mark,

    Have you read SP?
    Thanked by 2tomjaw dad29
  • lmassery
    Posts: 364
    The marriage analogy doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me but I’m glad he made this one point: that a reverent Novus Ordo has done much to increase appreciation for the TLM. Long before I ever went to a TLM, I was introduced to a reverent NO in college that sang Latin ordinaries and I fell in love.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,128
    It's hard to claim two things were 'married' when, ostensibly, one was murdered by the other, leaving the latter dancing (sometimes literally) on top of the former's altar-y grave.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,144
    Dance dance wherever you may be?
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,128
    Well, Francis, if we delight so much in turning, perhaps we shall turn ourselves 'round right one of these days.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,144
    Well, ServiamScores, considering I was, in my younger day, one of the activists of progressive ecumenism to the point of revolutionary excess (even if partly in ignorance), I am now dedicated to turning as many 'round right to truth as I possibly can, and as loud as I was a rebel then, I now loudly proclaim the untarnished Faith—in season and out. No apologies needed.
  • ...stable group of the faithful already attached to the 1962 Missal who requested that Mass be celebrated using it. Priests were not supposed to promote the extraordinary form over the ordinary form, which is what some priests and lay movements began to do. Summorum Pontificum was hijacked.

    I beg to differ. If, as Universae Ecclesia claimed that Summorum Pontificum brought the riches of the Roman rite closer "to the whole Church", then quite obviously it was meant to be promoted. Especially, as there was provision for convents or even entire religious institutes to switch, if they wish so, to the older form (SP3).
    There exists this romanticized idea of an organic, gradual development of the Roman Rite, until the Second Vatican Council broke abruptly with that tradition. But in reality, it was already Trent that stopped this gradual development by centralizing future changes to the liturgy, leaving the authority to the pope.

    Depends on what is understood by "organic development". I think that it is organic when it is perceived as "development" only in hindsight, i.e. there is no grand plan to develop something. In any case, before V-2, no Council, so far I know, asked to change the content of liturgical books. Certainly not Trent.

    The various dialects of the Roman rite usually developed by adding or, less frequently, dropping something for reasons of devotion ar practical necessity, as well as borrowing features they came to like from their neighbors. One of such dialects, the use of Roman Curia, initially being rather austere, too, borrowed every once in a while, e.g., prefaces of Our Lady and Trinity. When Pius V ordered the use of Roman Curia for every place, the "200 year clause" in fact allowed to continue all medieval uses. Whoever chose to adopt it, abandoning their own traditions, had to follow the further changes coming from Rome as part of the bargain.

    Some pieces of liturgical legislation for the whole Roman rite had been issued already before Trent, e.g. adoption of Corpus Christi. On the other hand, under the very nose of Pope, canons of Vatican did not adopt the Vulgate psalter and Pope Urban's "improved" hymns all the way until V-2 (when the question became moot) on the grounds of having their own use.
  • I was, in my younger day,


    I'm glad to know the older Francis, just a little bit.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,144
    Chris

    “Old” is a subjective concept. “Wise” is a state of Catholic catechesis. I don’t know which one I am closer to, but I am totally relying on grace coming from the hands of our Dear Mother... Consecrated in 1990 as her slave.

    “Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.”

    Somewhere on the Interwebs


    However, that is a “scientific” observation... the spiritual reality trumps that in every logical way imaginable.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,375
    Why I seldom comment any more on the Forum: threads like this.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • francis
    Posts: 10,144
    Ronkrisman

    Why would differing takes prevent you from commenting?
    Thanked by 1rich_enough
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,452
    @Francis
    They are repetitive, and they generally produce far more heat than they do light.

    I can quite happily ignore the threads I do not personally like... not everybody can do this.
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores Liam
  • francis
    Posts: 10,144
    @tomjaw

    Many threads are repetitive.

    "Heat" only comes from "light" "bouncing off" intended recipient without logical reason.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Chris, I must take exception to the sarcasm directed toward St. John Paul II or towards those of us who hold him in esteem--very high esteem in my case. And here I am going to end because I liked what I wrote but--to go back to comments I made in another thread---I don't like getting sucked into internet squabbles and I just did.
    Kenneth
  • As a footnote, there was a delay in reforming the translations of the Liturgy in English, according to George Weigel, because JPII had trouble believing people would mess with the texts. But it was he who gave us Liturgiam Authenticam and a reformed ICEL.
  • Kenneth,

    If you're referring to this...
    He acknowledges that much silliness (and downright viciousness) existed during the allegedly halcyon days of Pope John Paul, which is a welcome admission.

    my problem isn't with Pope John Paul II, but with those who deem him some kind of Traditionalist-Restorationist, claiming that under Pope John Paul the heretics were sent packing and all the rest of it. I dislike the moniker "The Great" because it was adopted and popularized (in part) by the equivalent of teen-aged girls fawning over Elvis Pressley.

    One absolutely must recognize Liturgiam Authenticam as a singular accomplishment, and give thanks to God and the Holy Father for it, but the fact that it was necessary tells us that not all was well when it was published (or it would never have seen the light of day).
    Thanked by 2tomjaw ServiamScores
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    One of the strangest things about that papacy, and I think it sums it up nicely, is that the pope named the future cardinal Lustiger to Paris in order to play the long game; in the meantime, JPII appointed Jacques Gaillot to the see of Évreux, only to have to name him a titular bishop in order to remove him from the aforementioned diocese when Gaillot refused to retract his support of women’s ordination.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • We could go on, but acclamation by the populace of Rome is not unheard of in Roman history.

    My problem with Traditionalism as a movement is exactly its seeming lack of concern for the many.

    "And seeing the multitudes, he had compassion on them: because they were distressed, and lying like sheep that have no shepherd."

    St. John Paul the Great is who he is.

    Kenneth
  • And anyone who thinks JPII or XVII were restorationists or even sympathetic missed a lot.

    But they both made it possible to even think about getting rid of the silliness.

    Peace,

    Kenneth
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    Its lack of concern for the many? That’s a tad unfair. Everyone except trads or people trying to be Catholic without crossing their fingers behind their back (and therefore without embarrassment at cocktail parties) gets what they want. That’s really not good.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,146
    Until the Missal says "John Paul the Great", using that title has no official ecclesiastical weight, it's only bestowed upon him by some. And when one compares him with the two popes who bear that title, Gregory and Leo, something seems to be lacking: as a friend of mine who studied under him at the University of Wrocław says, "Too much love, too little responsibility". One could also argue that many of the real advancements during the reign of Pope Wojtyła we're really the result of the work of Cardinals Ratzinger and Arinze, and indeed one of them was chosen to succeed John Paul II. Too, I don't know of anyone who actually has devotion to St. John Paul II in the way people have devotion to Our Lady or St. Philomena or St. Gertrude, i.e., there's no piety: I don't know of anyone who invokes his intercession for anything, but I know many who revere him on nationalistic grounds, because he's Polish, or, particularly people in my generation, and thanks to World Youth Day, as s kind of ecclesiastical rock star or something, the closest comparison I can make is to the way people in my parent's generation view JFK. This is not intended in the slightest to downplay what good he did, or call his canonization into question; but his papacy does need to be looked at honestly, with its faults and failures, as well as successes, without drawing a veil over the former or over-emphasizing the latter beyond proper proportion. A saint can make administrative blunders, or even have a catastrophic papacy, and still be a saint, cf. Celestine V.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,128
    As I said on my blog last June,
    I’d like to gingerly suggest that those who refer to St. John Paul II as “St. John Paul the Great” refrain from doing so. “The Great” is a peculiar title that is bestowed upon exceptional saints and is usually only appended to their names in the course of history and not so soon after death. He was not canonized as ‘JPII the great’.

    As far as popes are concerned, there are only three “Greats” and you can read about them here: https://www.stcatherinercc.org/single-post/how-many-the-great-saints-are-there and there are only a handful of other saints with that title. Considering the absolutely unprecedented collapse of the church under his reign (I freely admit much of it was beyond his control and he inherited an absolute mess) and a few other scandalous moments of his papacy—such as the time he allowed a Buddah statue to be placed on top of a tabernacle in Assisi as he sat idly by, or another time he kissed a Koran—it seems rather prudent to allow history to assign this title in due course. If new revelations about his life of exceptional holiness come forth, or he is proclaimed Doctor of the Church, perhaps I’ll change my tune. But until then, it seems safest to just call him “St. John Paul II”.
    Besides… who knows… there may be yet a JPIII coming down the pike who will better deserve the title.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,965
    I attended Mass today at the Shrine of St. John Paul II the Great in Kraków, so I can attest that the title has ecclesiastical approbation:
    https://sjanpawel2.pl/

    Dear Serviam, I must correct a misstatement in your comment about John Paul II and the events at Assisi. From what I've read, it is not accurate to say that the Pope was present or approved when the Buddhists put up their religious object in a church that they were temporarily allowed to use. A description of the mistake, written by long-time Vaticanist Sandro Magister, is quoted here:
    https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-st-pope-john-paul-ii-authorize-buddhist-worship

    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,128
    Regarding “the great”, I am unaware that the title was officially bestowed, and it still seems terribly imprudent to me to append such a qualifier so soon, even if he is referred to this way in quasi-official circumstances.

    Regarding Assisi, I did not assert that he himself was the one to do it, although I was unaware that he was not present, apparently. The fact that there was never a formal apology or condemnation from the pontificate speaks volumes in its own way. I have to say that I also find this quote, from the article you shared, to be prescient to say the least:

    Some of the city’s churches were allotted for the prayers of Buddhists, Hindus, and African animists, as if these buildings were neutral containers, void of any indelible Christian value.


    How a consecrated church dedicated to Christ’s own worship could be described as a “neutral space” is one hell of a mystery to me.

    It reeks of the worst kind of insidious modernism to think to appropriate to allow prayers of Hindus (or any other group) in our churches, as though St. Paul didn’t specifically warn us in no uncertain terms that “the gods of other nations are demons.”
  • SMVanRoode,

    Cardinal Ratzinger and a group of cardinals evaluated the question :Did Pope Paul VI ever abrogate the older rite, and the answer they came back with, after copious research and (no doubt) some argument was that whatever had happened, the older rite was, in principle, always, unstintingly permitted. An all-male altar boy corps is, similarly, always permitted in every parish in the world, but few priests avail themselves of this permission -- for what reason, I choose at present not to explore.

    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • francis
    Posts: 10,144
    How a consecrated church dedicated to Christ’s own worship could be described as a “neutral space” is one hell of a mystery to me.

    It reeks of the worst kind of insidious modernism to think to appropriate to allow prayers of Hindus (or any other group) in our churches, as though St. Paul didn’t specifically warn us in no uncertain terms that “the gods of other nations are demons.”
    This is absolutely true... the problem is that "C"atholic was reduced to "c"atholic, "D"ogma to "d"ialogue and the "S"acrifice to "s"yncretism.
    Definition of Syncretism
    1. the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought.
    "interfaith dialogue can easily slip into syncretism"

    OR

    syn·cre·tism (sĭngkrĭ-tĭz′əm, sĭn-)
    n.
    1. Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous. (AHD)

    Taken from the Vatican website:
    Assisi was the symbol, the staging of what the Church must do by virtue of her proper vocation before a world in a state of flagrant religious pluralism: to profess the unity of the mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ. When John Paul II tried to report to the cardinals and members of the Curia what happened in Assisi, he gave an address which appears to me to be the most explanatory for the theology of religions ( 22nd December 1986). Insisting on the mystery of the unity of the human family founded both on creation and on redemption in Jesus Christ, he said: "The differences are a lesser important element in relation to the unity which, on the contrary, is radical, fundamental and determining". So Assisi permitted a number of men and women to bear witness to an authentic experience of God in the heart of their respective religions. "All authentic prayer, the Pope added, is fostered by the Holy Spirit who is mysteriously present in the heart of every human being".

    https://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_june-sept-1996_etchegaray-assisi_en.html

    As you can see, the Pope was promoting gobelty gook... Satanists have their own 'prayers' too. Our unity with them is absolutely anti-Christ(ian).

    "For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens." Psalm 95:6

    This is the link to the address given by JPII above, "The Theology of Religions". You can see it in English through google translate.

    https://www-vatican-va.translate.goog/content/john-paul-ii/it/speeches/1986/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861222_curia-romana.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
    Thanked by 2tomjaw ServiamScores
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 935
    Cardinal Ratzinger and a group of cardinals evaluated the question :Did Pope Paul VI ever abrogate the older rite, and the answer they came back with, after copious research and (no doubt) some argument was that whatever had happened, the older rite was, in principle, always, unstintingly permitted. An all-male altar boy corps is, similarly, always permitted in every parish in the world, but few priests avail themselves of this permission -- for what reason, I choose at present not to explore.


    Did John XXIII abrogate the missal of Benedict XV? Did John Paul II abrogate the missal of Paul VI? I think we know the answer. How is the situation different from Paul VI abrogating the missal of John XXIII?

    I'm very interested in the arguments of Ratzinger and the group of cardinals. Is their reasoning printed somewhere?
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,965
    I only wrote a comment about Assisi to correct the false statement about Pope JP2. Assisi is really off-topic for this thread.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,146
    There is a difference between abrogation an edition of a Missal, e.g. Benedict XV vs John XXIII, or Paul VI vs John Paul II, but the truth of the matter is that the Novus Ordo is a different Rite from the Roman Rite (the which is obvious just by comparing the Ordines Missae of the two books: the Novus Ordo has just as much in common with the so-called "Tridentine" Rite as it has with the Liturgy of St. James), the question, therefore, is not whether or not the Pope can issue a new edition of the Missal, but whether or not he can abrogate immemorial custom by papal fiat. If the pope can abrogate the ancient Roman Rite and replace it with something created by committee ex nihilo, then what, other than good taste and an authentic respect for tradition, is preventing the Greek Catholic patriarch from abrogating the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and substituting a new rite, with a new "offertory" and substituting the Roman Canon, and restructuring the rest of the rite to remove "duplications", and changing the order of the rituals: if he were to call this the "New Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom" and claim that it's the same thing as before, just renewed and "restored" to meet the demands of our time, I think that he would (rightly) be resisted if not tarred and feathered.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CharlesW
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    How is that different? Because BXVI said so. I don't think that this is particularly complicated, particularly because of the situation; either it's a new rite, or it's two forms of the same, but whatever the case may be, it is manifestly not the same as introducing the 1962 missal or, in the case of the NO, the 2002 missal (which is even stranger due to the delay in translating vernacular editions conforming to the editio typica).
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,689
    FWIW, as a matter of Roman law, it's not necessarily manifestly different; with an Anglospheric common law mentality and assumptions, arguing that the difference is manifest might have more purchase, so what seems manifest to folks coming from that mentality with those assumptions does not necessarily translate as well to different context. The common law mentality is one where differences in facts can often result in a shading in interpretation of applicable law/regulation. In the Roman law mentality, that process is more typically handled by a discretionary excusing or exempting applicable of law, a discretion that the Anglospheric mentality is wary of (all the more wary if the legislator, executive and judge are the same person, as it were).
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,146
    So how far back can the pope go to abrogate immemorial custom? Evidently, on a whim he can create completely new liturgies for all seven sacraments and the divine office, keeping only the bare minimum of what is absolutely necessary for validity in the case of the sacraments or the bare outline of the office, also he can on a whim change the degrees of orders, and extend the ministries formerly associated with them to women, contrary to immemorial custom in both East and West, but in conformity to modern sociology. How far does papal prerogative extend? If a Pope, allegedly acting on the wishes of an ecumenical council, can do this, what is to stop a further ecumenical council and pope from deciding that the deuterocanonical books should not be used in the liturgy because they are merely apocryphal and decreeing that their placement in Bibles should henceforth be as an appendix after Revelation? Or permitting women deacons? Etc. If the power to bind and loose permits any pope to do anything he pleases in order to keep up the modern world, then what the hell is the point of belonging to the Catholic Church in the first place? If we need to be relevant sociologically by changing everything every so often, then I might as well become an Anglican, because they are less tacky at it than the Romans. And the women Chaplains at Cambridge preach better (and with greater orthodoxy) than most Catholic priests anyway.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,146
    NB: I realize that what I said above can be dismissed as the "slippery slope fallacy", but some of these things have already been openly discussed in the current pontificate, so it's not outside the realm of possibility.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,144
    Chonak

    We can start a different thread with a title such as:

    The Famous 1986 Liturgy of Assisi

    Or

    The Theology of Religions : JPII Summarizes Assisi Gathering

    Or

    ?

    By the way... Does anyone know what kind of music was performed during that service?
  • [Pushing Francis aside to address His Holiness Pope Francis and the irreconcilable differences]

    The evidence that the two Missals are irreconcilable isn't only asserted by staunch traditionalists. It's asserted by non-Popes such as Fr. Gelineau, and by Popes such as Francis. It is asserted by every single bishop who mandates proof that we (whoever we are) accept the Second Vatican Council and the "Living Magisterium", not because we think they're different, but because the proponents of them believe that they are.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,128
    Indeed, CGZ. One of the most interesting developments since TC is how the mask has dropped and how even those in Rome are no longer peddling the "two forms of the same rite" theory anymore. Frankly, a lot of the friction could go away if Rome simply stated that there was/IS a new [separate] rite, it is to be normative, and the old rite is to be relegated to the peripheries (unmolested) just as the umpteen other rites of the church are.

    Of course, this will never work, as the old lie was peddled ("authentic development, hermanutic of continuity, etc. etc.") to lend legitimacy to the new rite. To go back on that, as they now are, is to reveal their hand.

    There is no theoretical reason the two couldn't coexist (and indeed, this was truly beginning to happen in many places, including a number of churches affected by TC that were formerly home to both rites).

    The difference, of course, is the old rite is a threat to the new — I say this as a frank observation; if it were not perceived as such by those in authority, it wouldn't be attacked as it now is — whereas the sister rites are (mercifully) on the whole ignored. (And may they continue to be.)

    If they were two sides of the same coin, as was previously asserted by Rome, then to suppress one is to wound the other. They clearly do not believe this anymore; so it is no concern to them to suppress the old rite.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Salieri