Common Rite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Friar_David_O.Carm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In all the protestant and evangelical churches I have taken communion in, I see people bow their head and pray while the wafer dissolves. Even though there is no belief in the real presence, there is the holy acknowledgment that Jesus Christ himself taught us to “Do this in remembrance of me” and they are meditating on Christ’s sacrifice.
In Polish and Slovak communities, where there is a very high percentage of Catholics, you will also find a opłatek communion where unconsecrated and unleavened bread (same ingredients as in the hosts) is exchanged at Christmastime. But this is done generally outside Church and there is no implication that it is the Body of Christ that is being exchanged amongst those there. You will also find that in these communities more of them do go to confession and fewer receive on a given Sunday. They apparently know the difference between the Real Presence and not. And show the proper respect.
 
Originally Posted by wsxyz
Councils are definitely infallible, when they teach doctrine and thereby bind the conscience of the faithful. When doing so they use the formula:
If any person says … … let him be anathema.
Perhaps doctrinal matters are infallible…but I am not sure all of the decisions that came with Vatican II were regarding liturgy…I think parts of it were just sort of guesses, about how to implement the changes ,and that is why we are getting the reform of the reform
FYI: Vatican made NO NEW Doctrine or Dogmas.

From the Code of Canon Law:

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI

Can. 747 §1. The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect the revealed truth reverently, examine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate right, independent of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples, also using the means of social communication proper to it.

§2. It belongs to the Church always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. ***The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; ***or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth

God Bless,
Pat
 
Originally Posted by GloriousOrder
To be perfectly honest, Credo in Deum, I believe Mark Thompson is making the point that the episcopal dignity was in almost total agreement when it came to reforming the liturgy. This nearly-unanimous consent with regards to our holy Mass sounds like the Ordinary Magisterium! Who are we to question their own decisions, even if they are based on a flawed set of rubrics for the council (the famous Rhine Bishops’ blueprints). As Catholics, we are obliged
The Magisterium; either Ordinary or Extrodinary REQUIRE a “Sign Off” by the Pope to be effective [have authority]

God Bless,

Pat
 
That was a nice interlude (not).

Can we now return to the original topic?
 
Is this what the common rite will look like?

Thanks ProVobis for posting a link to the Latin Novus Ordo.

The suggestion that a common rite might look like this is mine.
 
Is this what the common rite will look like?

Thanks ProVobis for posting a link to the Latin Novus Ordo.

The suggestion that a common rite might look like this is mine.
That’s just a plain old Novus Ordo Mass done right.

A “common rite” would not be so much about how it looked, as what the text of the Missal says.

When the New Mass was fabricated by a committee, the committee very carefully excised from the Mass almost every reference to sin, judgment, death, hell, sacrifice, penance, etc. etc.

At a bare minimum, the traditional offertory of the Mass needs to be reinserted into the “common rite”, the slight changes made in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) must be undone, and the propers of the Mass should be restored to undo the “editing” mentioned above.
 
That’s just a plain old Novus Ordo Mass done right.

A “common rite” would not be so much about how it looked, as what the text of the Missal says.

When the New Mass was fabricated by a committee, the committee very carefully excised from the Mass almost every reference to sin, judgment, death, hell, sacrifice, penance, etc. etc.

At a bare minimum, the traditional offertory of the Mass needs to be reinserted into the “common rite”, the slight changes made in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) must be undone, and the propers of the Mass should be restored to undo the “editing” mentioned above.
So your just looking for a restored EF.

I think the vernacular will be part of any “common rite”.
 
I think the vernacular will be part of any “common rite”.
The EF already has a proper place for the venacular and thats on the other side of the Latin text. 👍

Maybe what the Church can do is create a Venacular Rite and let those Catholics have their own, while the Latin Rite can do some restoration and bring back its altar cloths, patens, Gregorian Chants, beautiful High Altars, and etc. In this way everyone wins 😃
 
The EF already has a proper place for the venacular and thats on the other side of the Latin text. 👍

Maybe what the Church can do is create a Venacular Rite and let those Catholics have their own, while the Latin Rite can do some restoration and bring back its altar cloths, patens, Gregorian Chants, beautiful High Altars, and etc. In this way everyone wins 😃
Every other Rite in the Church has no qualms about the vernacular.
 
So your just looking for a restored EF.
That’s what I’m looking for, but that’s not what I just described.

What I described did not eliminate eucharistic prayers 2-4. It did not eliminate the vernacular, It did not restore the prayers at the foot of the altar. It did not restore the last gospel. It did not remove new propers (just restored the ancient text of those propers that have been retained in the new Mass). etc. etc.
 
I think the vernacular will be part of any “common rite”.
That’s an oxymoron. What’s so common about people who speak different languages? Sure, keep them separated and let them bicker about translations, why not? It works well for the Protestants, not.
 
Elimination of the TLM will just increase attendence at SSPX chapels.
 
I don’t believe the “Common Rite” means a new form of the Mass to replace the EF or OF. There already exists a Common Rite, the Roman Rite, celebrated in two forms. This new talk of a common rite just refers to ending the bitter, bitter arguing about which is a superior form.

Rome is never going to admit that it made a mistake in creating a new form of the Roman liturgy. They will admit that the new form has not always been celebrated with due reverence, and the Holy Father wishes to correct this situation.

The ancient form of the liturgy will always have a legitimate following that the Church will embrace, but it simply won’t allow those who disparage the sacred Second Vatican Council to dictate future policy and discipline.
 
The Babel Rite? 🙂
👍

I just never understood why we do not appreciate the purpose Latin has in the liturgy. It’s not just to sound nice (which it surely does :D) but to allow unity in worship. I liked the fact that I could go to China, Japan, Germany, France, etc and still be able to know what the priest is saying and not because I know Latin but because I have my missal which has the english translation of the Latin in it. Now if anyone can tell me how introducing the venacular into the liturgy is going to improve that type of unity in worship then I am all ears.
 
I don’t believe the “Common Rite” means a new form of the Mass to replace the EF or OF. There already exists a Common Rite, the Roman Rite, celebrated in two forms. This new talk of a common rite just refers to ending the bitter, bitter arguing about which is a superior form…
But isnt that what we have now?
Rome is never going to admit that it made a mistake in creating a new form of the Roman liturgy. They will admit that the new form has not always been celebrated with due reverence, and the Holy Father wishes to correct this situation.

The ancient form of the liturgy will always have a legitimate following that the Church will embrace, but it simply won’t allow those who disparage the sacred Second Vatican Council to dictate future policy and discipline.
Well I dont think any true Catholic has a problem with Vatican II but rather the “spirit” in which some of the upper ups used the sacred council to enforce things the council didnt promote in the first place. Anyway I sure would like to know when this embracing of TLM parishes is going to start because there are still plenty of those misinformed people that look at the Tridentine Mass as if its some dead illicit form of liturgy that Catholics are practicing in the catachombs. Not to mention those same people that look at TLM Catholics as if we are some type of terrorist cell inside the Catholic Church thats trying to go against the Holy Spirit even though in retrospect we are probably the only Catholics that actually have practiced a form of liturgy that closely resembles what the Novus Ordo should have been in the first place.

Other than that everything you said I pretty much agree with.
 
That’s what I’m looking for, but that’s not what I just described.

What I described did not eliminate eucharistic prayers 2-4. It did not eliminate the vernacular, It did not restore the prayers at the foot of the altar. It did not restore the last gospel. It did not remove new propers (just restored the ancient text of those propers that have been retained in the new Mass). etc. etc.
Thanks for the clarification.

I can see what you are (more fully) describing here.

I would add that I would like a more regimented structure around the various Eucharistic prayers. Such as having the Roman Canon the main one with the others being allowed at certain times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top