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.

Thanks, francis, sdtalley, and Chris. I posted this precisely because I thought it was in need of commentary such as you all have provided.

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.

@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?

Yes, that is why some go back before that. That was one of the first cracks in the dam. (Smoke anyone?)

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.

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.

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.

Dance dance wherever you may be?

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.

I was, in my younger day,

I'm glad to know the older Francis, just a little bit.

Why I seldom comment any more on the Forum: threads like this.

@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.

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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.”

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

I only wrote a comment about Assisi to correct the false statement about Pope JP2. Assisi is really off-topic for this thread.

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).

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.

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?

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.