Changes in the Traditional Mass

[palmas85]

There are heavy rumors floating about concerning the replacing of the readings in the Traditional Mass or the Extraordinary Form of the Mass with the readings from the Pauline Rite or the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I know that the traditionalist sites are buzzing with this rumor and at least one Traditional Mass that I know of has started using the Pauline readings. Has anyone heard anything definite on this? It seems it would be problematic on several levels just on the face of it.

 

[kleary]

There are heavy rumors floating about concerning the replacing of the readings in the Traditional Mass or the Extraordinary Form of the Mass with the readings from the Pauline Rite or the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I know that the traditionalist sites are buzzing with this rumor and at least one Traditional Mass that I know of has started using the Pauline readings. Has anyone heard anything definite on this? It seems it would be problematic on several levels just on the face of it.

thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2008/04/question-of-vernacular-readings-in-usus.html

:crying:

That is not all…the ED commission also is going to change the liturgical calendar as well- at least for the EF in England- to conform to the OF calendar.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

There are heavy rumors floating about concerning the replacing of the readings in the Traditional Mass or the Extraordinary Form of the Mass with the readings from the Pauline Rite or the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I know that the traditionalist sites are buzzing with this rumor and at least one Traditional Mass that I know of has started using the Pauline readings. Has anyone heard anything definite on this? It seems it would be problematic on several levels just on the face of it.

Are you sure you have your information correct? I think you have heard whether the TLM readings will be (can be) in English rather than Latin. That is NOT the same as replacing the TLM readings with the NO readings.

I dont think the NO readings would replace the 1962 readings, as that would destroy the 1962 Missal at its core with the Propers and wreck other things, not to mention it would cause a huge uprising.

Honestly, Rome needs to be careful at this point and to not even think of “altering” the 1962 for at least 50 years. If Rome slips up here, they can expect an even greater RadTrad backlash, one in which Rome would never be trusted again.

The Motu Proprio already said the 1962 readings could be done in English, the hype now - if I had to guess - is that some priest, somewhere, has actually wanted to have the readings in English.

thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2008/04/question-of-vernacular-readings-in-usus.html

:crying:

That is not all…the ED commission also is going to change the liturgical calendar as well- at least for the EF in England- to conform to the OF calendar.

There is some confusion on this issue as well. From what I have read on another blog is that the OBLIGATION has shifted to the next Sunday on some of those mid week feasts, BUT the feast can still be celebrated on whatever day of the week it falls on.

That is NOT the same as forcing a mid week feast day to be celebrated on the next Sunday. IF that is what the ED Commission is planning then there will be problems because that is clearly an attack on the 1962.

 

[palmas85]

Are you sure you have your information correct? I think you have heard whether the TLM readings will be (can be) in English rather than Latin. That is NOT the same as replacing the TLM readings with the NO readings.

I dont think the NO readings would replace the 1962 readings, as that would destroy the 1962 Missal at its core with the Propers and wreck other things, not to mention it would cause a huge uprising.

Honestly, Rome needs to be careful at this point and to not even think of “altering” the 1962 for at least 50 years. If Rome slips up here, they can expect an even greater RadTrad backlash, one in which Rome would never be trusted again.

The Motu Proprio already said the 1962 readings could be done in English, the hype now - if I had to guess - is that some priest, somewhere, has actually wanted to have the readings in English.

There is some confusion on this issue as well. From what I have read on another blog is that the OBLIGATION has shifted to the next Sunday on some of those mid week feasts, BUT the feast can still be celebrated on whatever day of the week it falls on.

That is NOT the same as forcing a mid week feast day to be celebrated on the next Sunday. IF that is what the ED Commission is planning then there will be problems because that is clearly an attack on the 1962.

No what I have heard is that there is a plan to have the Traditional Mass use the reading from the new liturgical cycle, three year instead of one and completely replace the old readings with the new. Haiving the readings in English is not quite the same thing.

know of at least one indult Mass location where this has been done, although I don’t know if it is permanent or a temporary thing.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

I don’t know what’s wrong with having more access to the Scriptures being read. The idea that you will hear 80-90% of the Scriptures over a 3 year period as opposed to the same cycle each year is a bad thing is beyond me.

The Mass was changed during the reign of Ven. Pius XII and I don’t see how this new cycle of readings and the addition of a few awesome Martyrs is going to hurt the TLM. Don’t you want a Mass in honor of St. Maximilian Kolbe?

 

[AJV]

I don’t know what’s wrong with having more access to the Scriptures being read. The idea that you will hear 80-90% of the Scriptures over a 3 year period as opposed to the same cycle each year is a bad thing is beyond me.

The Mass was changed during the reign of Ven. Pius XII and I don’t see how this new cycle of readings and the addition of a few awesome Martyrs is going to hurt the TLM. Don’t you want a Mass in honor of St. Maximilian Kolbe?

http://www.tldm.org/News9/max.gif

I think these would be some of the reasons:

1. the new cycle is not perfect; neither is the old, but it has certain features in its advantage including its venerable nature.
2. the Scripture cycle does not accord with the Traditional calendar and its seasons
3. the Scripture cycle does not coincide with the Propers. Now, I do not claim that the Traditional lectionery was wholly designed to do so but in certain seasons it is. The lections also have a meaning of their own for e.g. in Lent, some of them are dictated by the “Station”
4. it is a change in the EF without any change in the OF. Now if it was going to be TLM for everyone, the change is understandable. However, such things currently make it seem as if only the EF is being altered, while the OF is left intact. Opening up the EF to certain types of changes in calendar, etc. is only worthwhile (and even then maybe not) if the EF is going to available more widely. As long as the OF is there, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Thus all we are left with is altered EF and non-modified OF which doesn’t really please anyone.

 

[japhy]

The former one-year cycle of readings is rather ancient (and I’m saying that in a good way). It could certainly have been supplemented (rather than redone altogether). For instance, there could be readings for all ferial days (not just those in Advent and Lent); there could, potentially, be a first and second reading on Sundays and solemnities (like there is now), without disrupting the older cycle’s “first” reading.

 

[HelenRose]

There are heavy rumors floating about concerning the replacing of the readings in the Traditional Mass or the Extraordinary Form of the Mass with the readings from the Pauline Rite or the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I know that the traditionalist sites are buzzing with this rumor and at least one Traditional Mass that I know of has started using the Pauline readings. Has anyone heard anything definite on this? It seems it would be problematic on several levels just on the face of it.

I would be surprised if changes to the TML were made.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the rumor was started in order to create arguments

 

[bpbasilphx]

** Don’t you want a Mass in honor of St. Maximilian Kolbe?**

**The Common of One Martyr could easily be used for him.

I’m not saying he’s not worthy of a proper mass, but this is what the various Commons are for–provision for newly canonized saints, among other reasons.**

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

** Don’t you want a Mass in honor of St. Maximilian Kolbe?**

**The Common of One Martyr could easily be used for him.

I’m not saying he’s not worthy of a proper mass, but this is what the various Commons are for–provision for newly canonized saints, among other reasons.**

Very good point. I actually didn’t think about that before. Personally though, I really would like a new designated feast for St. Padre Pio and Our Lady of Fatima in the “EF” calendar.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

No what I have heard is that there is a plan to have the Traditional Mass use the reading from the new liturgical cycle, three year instead of one and completely replace the old readings with the new.

Such a step would be a total disaster, worse than the de facto suppression on the TLM for 40 years. I would guess what you read was pure rumor, and apart from a credible source I would not worry too much about it.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

IMHO, we have nothing to worry about. Certain permissions were already given in SP, such as having the readings in Masses with the people in the vernacular. I believe this permission was given largely because in some places (e.g., parts of France) having readings in the vernacular only was common practice decades before VII. Currently, having readings in English only seems to meet with a lot of resistance, so, I doubt if you will see it commonly any time in the near future.

I seriously doubt that permission will be given to use the readings from the Missal of Paul VI, and even if permission were given, the option would be seldom used. First of all, the unity of the 1962 Missal and its calendar would be compromised. What would be done during the Season of Septuagessima? And what would be gained? Remember, the primary purpose of the Sunday homily, as JPII reminded us, is catechesis. The Mass is not a meant to provide us with tour of Scripture, which can be achieved more appropriately through other means. As a priest ordained six years, I have preached through the three year cycle twice. Some weeks, you are merely reading a different synoptic account of the same event, and usually the most appropriate one for catechesis is given in the cycle in use in 1962 (e.g., the temptation of Christ in the desert, or the Transfiguration). At other times in the three year cycle, you are often given very similar readings several Sundays in a row (e.g., the Easter season). And at other times, you are given readings that are difficult to preach on, and which many priests mess up terribly (I have heard several homilies about how the gentile woman who begged Jesus to heal her son taught him that his ministry was to more that the Jews alone! Can you think of a greater insult to our Lord? I guess He didn’t understand his mission, or who He is, or that He had to suffer and die… I am sick to death of such heresy!) The readings in the one year cycle of the TLM have the advantage that homilies of the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church are already available for quick reference (so you don’t have to reinvent the wheel), and it seems much easier to review the essentials of the faith each year with the one year cycle.

The addition of propers for new saints is always welcome, and has continued throughout the history of the TLM. If we stopped adding saints for all time with St. Anthony Mary Claret (~1961), then the TLM would be a dead liturgy. The addition of new saints means it is a living Missal in the Church today.

God bless,

Fr. Boyd

 

[JReducation]

Are you sure you have your information correct? I think you have heard whether the TLM readings will be (can be) in English rather than Latin. That is NOT the same as replacing the TLM readings with the NO readings.

I dont think the NO readings would replace the 1962 readings, as that would destroy the 1962 Missal at its core with the Propers and wreck other things, not to mention it would cause a huge uprising.

Honestly, Rome needs to be careful at this point and to not even think of “altering” the 1962 for at least 50 years. If Rome slips up here, they can expect an even greater RadTrad backlash, one in which Rome would never be trusted again.

The Motu Proprio already said the 1962 readings could be done in English, the hype now - if I had to guess - is that some priest, somewhere, has actually wanted to have the readings in English.

There is some confusion on this issue as well. From what I have read on another blog is that the OBLIGATION has shifted to the next Sunday on some of those mid week feasts, BUT the feast can still be celebrated on whatever day of the week it falls on.

That is NOT the same as forcing a mid week feast day to be celebrated on the next Sunday. IF that is what the ED Commission is planning then there will be problems because that is clearly an attack on the 1962.

The reason why the readings have to be changed is because Pope Benedict does not want the Tridentine mass to be a separate rite, but another form of the Roman Rite.

To protect the unity of the rite, the readings, the breviary and the liturgical calendar have to be the same. Of course some of the propers will have to be rewritten to fit the readings and the liturgical calendar.

Also, there is a request from exempt religious orders that the liturgical calendar of their orders be preserved. To do this, the missal has to be reorganized according to these calendars. We have three kinds of liturgical calendars: the universal liturgical calendar, the national liturgical calendar and the religious liturgical calendar.

These calendars have been in place for centuries. When the OF was created they had to do this very tedious work of making all of these calendars and readings mesh. It took years to do.

This will probably take years as well. There is another concern that has been brought up by some religious orders, that is the readings in Latin. These religious orders have to be attended, because they have certain rights that cannot be trodden on.

This is going to take time and patience on the part of everyone.

JR

 

[SemperFidelis]

I would be surprised if changes to the TML were made.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the rumor was started in order to create arguments

The TLM has already been changed (the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews). It wouldn’t suprise me if Rome wanted to make further changes. Funny how it takes years for the Vatican to implement the change of one word in the Novus Ordo Canon back to what it has always been, but when it comes to changing the TLM, they can do it overnight. And the Vatican wonders why the SSPX wants to stay in their irregular position. I can’t say I really blame them.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Also, there is a request from exempt religious orders that the liturgical calendar of their orders be preserved. To do this, the missal has to be reorganized according to these calendars. We have three kinds of liturgical calendars: the universal liturgical calendar, the national liturgical calendar and the religious liturgical calendar.

I’m not certain I understand. Why does the Missal need to be reorganized? These religious orders already have calendars that were in use in 1962. I am a Third (Secular) Order Discalced Carmelite; the calendar and propers are all well organized in the EF. We do need to add some recent saints, but then that has to be done for the universal calendar as well.

 

[JReducation]

The TLM has already been changed (the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews). It wouldn’t suprise me if Rome wanted to make further changes. Funny how it takes years for the Vatican to implement the change of one word in the Novus Ordo Canon back to what it has always been, but when it comes to changing the TLM, they can do it overnight. And the Vatican wonders why the SSPX wants to stay in their irregular position. I can’t say I really blame them.

You have to remember that the will of the people is not what drives the Church, but revelation and discipline as interpreted by the Pope and the bishops in communioin with him.

The laity has no voice in matters of liturgy, dogma or morals. If that were the case, Humanae Vitae would have been overruled a long time ago.

Fr. John Trigilio, PhD recently explained that in terms of metaphysics, systematic theology, liturgy, mystical theology, catechesis is not deducted from the mind of the laity, but from revelation. And only the Pope has the authority to approve interpretations of revelation or a council in union with the Pope. He explained how many traditionalists and liberals want to tell the Church what to do, but this is not the role of the lay person. This behaviour is the clericalization of the lay man or woman.

The reason why we have clerics and laity, is because their roles are different. If the bishops and Pope teach something, the laity can respectfully disagree, but may not disobey.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I’m not certain I understand. Why does the Missal need to be reorganized? These religious orders already have calendars that were in use in 1962. I am a Third (Secular) Order Discalced Carmelite; the calendar and propers are all well organized in the EF. We do need to add some recent saints, but then that has to be done for the universal calendar as well.

Hi Fr

That is one of the requests that has been made. That’s why I said that they are very minor details that are going to be changed. The other request that was made, which is also very minor, has nothing to do with the form of the mass, but with clarification as to who may decline to celebrate the EF.

This was an issue that came up at Franciscan University where a group of students and faculty wanted the EF on campus. The friars said that they were not bound to celebrate the EF, because the University belongs to the Order and as a religious community they had decided not to embrace the EF. I’m not sure if that meant the local community, the province or the order. The report did not specify. Some major superiors would like to see a clarification for the benefit of the laity.

I feel badly that some people panic when they hear the word “change”. I believe that the Church truly wants to preserve the EF. She wants to preserve the one rite both in fact and in mind.

JR

 

[SemperFidelis]

If the bishops and Pope teach something, the laity can respectfully disagree, but may not disobey.

When said Popes and Bishops are in conformity with the Ancient Faith and its Dogmas and Doctrines, then no, no one can rightfully disobey. But when they are not in conformity, it is not only necessary to resist, but it is our duty. Read the true and false notions of obedience as espoused by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa, and read the several Popes, Doctors, and Saints that I have quoted in post #59 of this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=224170&page=4&highlight=St.+Vincent

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The TLM has already been changed (the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews). It wouldn’t suprise me if Rome wanted to make further changes. Funny how it takes years for the Vatican to implement the change of one word in the Novus Ordo Canon back to what it has always been, but when it comes to changing the TLM, they can do it overnight. And the Vatican wonders why the SSPX wants to stay in their irregular position. I can’t say I really blame them.

The two things Im banking on is that they dont want to permanently drive away the SSPX and more importantly Divine Providence.

Screwing with the TLM at this point will actually cause worse problems than ever before.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The two things Im banking on is that they dont want to permanently drive away the SSPX and more importantly Divine Providence.

Screwing with the TLM at this point will actually cause worse problems than ever before.

I agree. Hopefully the Holy See will refrain from further tampering with the TLM, especially since there is a much more pressing need to fix the Novus Ordo.