Benedict XVI's vision of one form of the Roman Rite

  • Thread starter Thread starter JediHockey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t have an answer for you, but am subscribing just to see the answers. I’m not personally aware of Pope Benedict XVI ever saying that he envisioned one “form” of the Roman Rite - but I’d be glad to be incorrect on that, because to me it seems absurd to have two forms of the same rite. I’d have to research this to find out, but that idea seems as if it is unprecedented both in the Roman Rite and in amongst other rites.
 
If anything I suggest to get with the the Novus Ordo alter and have the priest face the tabernacle and god. That’s the main issue I personally feel with liturgy. The mass can be said in english but at least have the priest preform the mass and sacrifice with the High Alter or the alter facing Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
 
When at least two Popes refer to the New Mass and/or its practices a “rupture of continuity,” it is hard to see exactly how one form can come out of two. Sure, the newer Mass can be entirely in Latin, low-toned, ad orientem, with contemplative prayer, etc. but this doesn’t seem to be accepted well, outside of monasteries and such.
 
ProVobis said:
When at least two Popes refer to the New Mass and/or its practices a “rupture of continuity,” it is hard to see exactly how one form can come out of two. Sure, the newer Mass can be entirely in Latin, low-toned, ad orientem, with contemplative prayer, etc. but this doesn’t seem to be accepted well, outside of monasteries and such.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree.

But on a side note, New Mass? After 5 decades you think they would drop the “New” and call it what it is…it’s as inaccurate as calling the EF the Traditional Latin Mass.
 
Neofight said:
Yeah, I agree.

But on a side note, New Mass? After 5 decades you think they would drop the “New” and call it what it is…it’s as inaccurate as calling the EF the Traditional Latin Mass.
Click to expand...
Compared to the TLM, it is new. Even after 50 years. Five decades isn’t really that long for the Church.
 
JediHockey said:
Hey guys, I’m doing a little research project for school and need some help.
It has been said by some (Cardinal Koch here: catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/05/16/popes-reform-of-the-reform-in-liturgy-to-continue/) that Benedict XVI eventually envisions that the OF and EF will eventually be synthesized into one form of the rite instead of existing side-by-side permanently. Can anyone point me to where Benedict himself actually says this? Thanks!
Click to expand...
2007 Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum has this:

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.

In his letter to the Bishops on Summorum Pontificum he explains that both forms should continue:
For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard.

…

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.

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html
 
Neofight said:
Yeah, I agree.

But on a side note, New Mass? After 5 decades you think they would drop the “New” and call it what it is…it’s as inaccurate as calling the EF the Traditional Latin Mass.
Click to expand...
Point taken. I should have used the comparative “newer” throughout if anything. One can use the argument that in 1962, that Missal was also “new” at the time since it was the reformed Mass of 1920. And so on. Some refer to the 62 Missal as “vetus ordo” or the “Usus Antiquior (older use),” better in my opinion.
 
ProVobis said:
Point taken. I should have used the comparative “newer” throughout if anything. One can use the argument that in 1962, that Missal was also “new” at the time since it was the reformed Mass of 1920. And so on. Some refer to the 62 Missal as “vetus ordo” or the “Usus Antiquior (older use),” better in my opinion.
Click to expand...
In fact the editions and emmendation of Latin Missale Romanum are many, so there is a newness about it:
  • Editio typica, 1970
  • Reimpressio emendata, 1971
  • Editio typica secunda, 1975
  • Editio typica tertia, 2002
  • Editio typica tertia emendata, 2008
 
Vico said:
In fact the editions and emmendation of Latin Missale Romanum are many, so there is a newness about it:
  • Editio typica, 1970
  • Reimpressio emendata, 1971
  • Editio typica secunda, 1975
  • Editio typica tertia, 2002
  • Editio typica tertia emendata, 2008
Click to expand...
And another which includes the St. Joseph in the Eucharistic Prayer, I believe.
 
I hope I can articulate this correctly.

The reason why there are different rites (Carmelite, Dominican, etc) is because the Mass didn’t have uniform expression before the Council of Trent. The religious orders developed their own rites so that their friars could have consistency in celebrating Mass. Every church, just about, had their own way of doing things. The Sarum Rite from the UK is one example of this, and was developed by the Cathedral of Salisbury (aka Sarum).

In response to the Protestant Reformation, the Tridentine Mass was developed, and the Roman church said, “This is our service.” Finally, everyone was literally on the same sheet of paper.

The Mass of Paul VI, as has been told to me, is closer to what the early days of the church had, supposedly. Then we’ve seen the experimentation/liturgical abuses of the last 50 years. The religious orders are slowly bringing back their own Masses/Rites. One religious community in the UK uses the Sarum Rite exclusively – the only religious community in the world to do so.

That being said, because the Church didn’t teach its own Liturgical History, the abuses were able to sneak back in.

I prefer the TLM because it forces me to shut up on the inside. I can, however, still feel the Spirit moving at Novus Ordo Masses. Due to family constraints, I am not able to attend the TLM in a city close-by. How I wish I could. My son with autism seems better able to discern his life’s purpose by attending it. I’ve also found vocational discerners better able to discern their vocations by attending the TLM.

FWIW.

Blessings,
Cloisters
 
Cloisters said:
In response to the Protestant Reformation, the Tridentine Mass was developed, and the Roman church said, “This is our service.” Finally, everyone was literally on the same sheet of paper.
Click to expand...
Almost. Some rites were allowed to continue: the Mozarabic rite in Toledo, in Spain, the Ambrosian in the diocese of Milan (though it too underwent Vatican II reforms), and some religious orders. The Carthusians are still awaiting approval of their post-Vatican II rite.
 
OraLabora said:
Almost. Some rites were allowed to continue: the Mozarabic rite in Toledo, in Spain, the Ambrosian in the diocese of Milan (though it too underwent Vatican II reforms), and some religious orders. The Carthusians are still awaiting approval of their post-Vatican II rite.
Click to expand...
I was going off of a Dominican writing which I can’t seem to get my hands on right now.

I didn’t know the Carthusians had their own rite, too. Hope Rome hurries with it.

Mozarabic – I’ve seen a chant video. Very soothing, but now extinct.

Ambrosian – still around. The cloistered Romite Ambrosiane in Italy use it, AFAIK.

Blessings,
Cloisters
 
Pope Benedict XVI:

"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. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Source: LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA”
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970

Ed
 
Cloisters said:
The reason why there are different rites (Carmelite, Dominican, etc) is because the Mass didn’t have uniform expression before the Council of Trent. The religious orders developed their own rites so that their friars could have consistency in celebrating Mass. Every church, just about, had their own way of doing things. The Sarum Rite from the UK is one example of this, and was developed by the Cathedral of Salisbury (aka Sarum).

In response to the Protestant Reformation, the Tridentine Mass was developed, and the Roman church said, “This is our service.” Finally, everyone was literally on the same sheet of paper.
Click to expand...
Actually any rite that existed 200 years prior was allowed to be said. The Latin Mass (EF) goes back to the early centuries, with modifications here and there.
 
Hey guys, I’m doing a little research project for school and need some help.
It has been said by some (Cardinal Koch here: catholicherald.co.uk/news…y-to-continue/) that Benedict XVI eventually envisions that the OF and EF will eventually be synthesized into one form of the rite instead of existing side-by-side permanently. Can anyone point me to where Benedict himself actually says this? Thanks!
Click to expand...
I think there could be some middle ground between the two.

The Church could have continued to utilize the Tridentine Mass liturgy — only allow it to be said in the vernacular, such as in English. Keep everything else pretty much the same.

This would meet the needs of those that prefer the vernacular over Latin.

If there are concerns with the priest facing the altar, and not being heard by the parishioners, then give the priest a microphone attached to his vestments, or let him turn briefly towards the people in certain select parts of the Mass.

Basically, they could have kept the Tridentine Mass pretty much completely intact and made minor accommodations for the vernacular, etc.

When you compare the two side by side, there could definitely be some middle ground. I am doubtful, however, that if you banned the Tridentine Mass altogether if it would go away. It would just continue underground or with schismatic groups.
 
Cloisters said:
I was going off of a Dominican writing which I can’t seem to get my hands on right now.

I didn’t know the Carthusians had their own rite, too. Hope Rome hurries with it.

Mozarabic – I’ve seen a chant video. Very soothing, but now extinct.

Ambrosian – still around. The cloistered Romite Ambrosiane in Italy use it, AFAIK.

Blessings,
Cloisters
Click to expand...
The Mozarabic Rite is assuredly not extinct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top