Common Rite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Friar_David_O.Carm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wsxyz said:
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.
Click to expand...
In addition to the your last paragraph, I would like to see a Greek Kyrie and a Latin consecration as mandatory (of course with the option to pray the whole Mass in Latin if desired), as well as a reintroduction of the final Gospel, and the requirement that offertory and communion hymns be traditional chants or Latin hymns. The entrance and recessionals could still be more popular, yet theologically accurate, vernacular hymns.
 
Seamus_L said:
Elimination of the TLM will just increase attendence at SSPX chapels.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree with you more. With increased attacks against them, no doubt.
Credo_in_Deum said:
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.
Click to expand...
It was better appreciated when it was the only language in the Latin Rite liturgy.

I guess the same could be said for slide-rules but that was a much better way of learning math than using calculators as they do today. And with the disuse of slide rules, math (as well as grammar and science) have become optional too.😦

That said, the Pope is doing his best to restore the Latin language.
 
Fuerza said:
In addition to the your last paragraph, I would like to see a Greek Kyrie and a Latin consecration as mandatory (of course with the option to pray the whole Mass in Latin if desired), as well as a reintroduction of the final Gospel, and the requirement that offertory and communion hymns be traditional chants or Latin hymns. The entrance and recessionals could still be more popular, yet theologically accurate, vernacular hymns.
Click to expand...
What a “Latin consecration”?
 
Credo_in_Deum said:
👍

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.
Click to expand...
Yes, when the majority of people understood Latin. Now the majority do not so attending a Mass in Latin is the same as attending a Mass in any other language a person does not know.

The unity is the form. Everyone will know what going on at Mass because they know it in their own language and (if they care to) they have a Missal with the Mass in their language. So its the same for those who don’t know Latin and read along with the Mass in English. Its the same thing.

I do not understand the unity idea as you have stated it anyways. The Eastern Churches have always used the vernacular and they are unified. Unity in theological thought, unity in form.
 
It would be simpler just to teach the basics of the old Mass and after a set period abrogate the new. The old Mass is not nuclear physics. It can be learnt. And it’s not as if your getting graces is dependent of understanding every word. Yet that seems to be the attitude.

Personally, I’m tired of all the changes. It looks absurd, if you’re aiming at instilling religious awe. Mass 2.0, 2.2, 2.75? Mass as a tinker-toy. Strange times we live in.
 
=ByzCath;7896803]What a “Latin consecration”?
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree [FOR NOW] on “a Latin Consecration.” With the amount of unbelief,
wrong understanding and misunderstanding; this the Sumit of our Faith ought to continue to mother thongues to aid the other pious manners employed.

God Bless you,

Pat
 
Many of us Traditional Catholics have the warmest regards for our brethren in the SSPX. We share a great deal in common with them, even if we don’t worship togather.
 
PJM said:
I respectfully disagree [FOR NOW] on “a Latin Consecration.” With the amount of unbelief,
wrong understanding and misunderstanding; this the Sumit of our Faith ought to continue to mother thongues to aid the other pious manners employed.

God Bless you,

Pat
Click to expand...
I understand your point, but as the consecration is the heart of the liturgy, it makes sense to me to carry it out in Latin. Latin is universal and unchanging, and making the consecration stand out in this way emphasizes it’s importance. People need to be taught the true significance of this aspect of the faith from the pulpit. Saying the prayer in Latin does not make it any harder to grasp as long as they understand the principle. Besides, Latin is not nearly as difficult as people make it out to be. Anyone can learn to understand 3 lines of it without much difficulty.
 
wsxyz said:
Does Church Slavonic count as “the vernacular”?
Click to expand...
Speakers of Slavic languages can understand Church Slavonic. Its just an older, more formal version of their language sort of like Shakespearean English to our English today. How many can understand Latin today using their own native languages?

Its not “vernacular” as in the common language today, but the Church language is easily understood by the native speakers.
 
ConstantineTG said:
But they have no ministry in the Church as of now. The Catholicity of their Masses is questionable.
Click to expand...
Not true. Their Masses are 100% Catholic.
Now if you were to say the lawfulness of their Masses is questionable, then you would be right.
 
ConstantineTG said:
If people will choose the form of the Mass over the Church, then so be it.
Click to expand...
Funny, when some have advocated for more orthodoxy or traditional practises, people have said that this would cause many people to leave the Church. The responce, “well let them go” and thus it is seen as a uncharitable responce. Just saying.
 
How many can understand Latin today using their own native languages?
Click to expand...
To say such and such is not possible because people “don’t understand Latin” is not a valid reason for suppressing it. This is an insult against the educational system and scholarship in general. What’s to stop them from learning it when they’re two or three using pictures and coloring books like we did for our “native” languages? Do we say let’s stop using legal expressions in law because people don’t understand them? Do we say let’s stop using musical notation because very few understand it? Do we stop giving weather forecasts because people don’t understand the physics behind them? It’s explained to them, no? Certainly there’s someone who can answer questions regarding the basic source of the Latin Rite Mass. A one-size-fits-all translation very seldom works.

One of the reasons Latin is especially suited for Catholic (Universal) worship is because it is NOT a national tongue. If it were a national language, it would no doubt draw many more worshippers in that country where it is national, but it would probably be more despised in other countries which might have hostile feelings against that country. Why is this so difficult to understand?
 
But they have no ministry in the Church as of now.
Click to expand...
So they can’t say valid Masses for pro-life or for other causes, even though they were ordained to do just that? Perhaps what the Pope meant needs some clarification. They are allowed to say Masses at the Vatican and a few other places, I understand.
 
Fuerza said:
I understand your point, but as the consecration is the heart of the liturgy, it makes sense to me to carry it out in Latin.
Click to expand...
You bet. It would prevent a lot of doubt as to the validity of its various translations even among the mainstream Catholics who have to be reassured hundreds of times that they are valid.

I think I’m done with this thread. I don’t see any compromises on a “common rite” coming soon.
 
ByzCath said:
Yes, when the majority of people understood Latin. Now the majority do not so attending a Mass in Latin is the same as attending a Mass in any other language a person does not know…
Click to expand...
Are you saying that we should use the venacular in the liturgy because we have become lazy and uneducated regarding Latin in our Latin Rite? I wonder if that defence would have worked in my spanish class 😃

Personally I hardly know a thing about latin, however, what I do know is that its a dead language, it doesnt allow for personalization, and that it has been the language used to unite catholics in worship since the Church has been founded. Now with that said I think the outlook regarding latin should never be “lets get rid of it” but rather “lets learn it since latin is part of our Rite and therefore part of our Catholic identity!”
 
ProVobis said:
So they can’t say valid Masses for pro-life or for other causes, even though they were ordained to do just that? Perhaps what the Pope meant needs some clarification. They are allowed to say Masses at the Vatican and a few other places, I understand.
Click to expand...
That is true. SSPX priests are regularly allowed to use Roman churches (including St. Peters) for private masses. They are also often (but not always) allowed to use pilgrimage churches around Europe when they make a pilgrimage with some group of the faithful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top