Common Rite?

[ZDHayden]

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.

Wow. Just wow.

Is it possible that there is not a Common Rite in plan, but simply making the Ordinary Form how it is supposed to? I’ve thought about this quite a bit since my first post on this thread. There would be too much political drama if the two Forms were coalesced, at least right now. The video you linked to, TrueLight, definitely marks this: The Novus Ordo and the Tridentine were never supposed to be as dissimilar as they are practiced now.

The Tridentine, I do certainly believe, is needed to help priests and laity realize what the Novus Ordo is supposed to be. It is a patient game. Other than, as a few have pointed out, a few textual differences, the two Forms are, when properly done, not so dissimilar - the Novus Ordo seemed in the video an organic development from the Tridentine rather than the artificial break it frequently seems.

 

[TrueLight]

Other than, as a few have pointed out, a few textual differences, the two Forms are, when properly done, not so dissimilar - the Novus Ordo seemed in the video an organic development from the Tridentine rather than the artificial break it frequently seems.

Yeah and they’re even receiving on the tongue, kneeling!

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

What makes something Catholic or not Catholic? Let me give you an example. Whats the difference between the Divine Liturgy or a Byzantine Catholic than that of an Eastern Orthodox? Other than mentioning the Pope in commemorating the heads of the Church, nothing. So what makes one Catholic and another not? The Orthodox priests are valid priests. If they convert to Catholicism they do not have to be re-ordained. So their priests have the same mark of the priest as our priests have for we have one priesthood.

If you do something that the Church says you cannot do, how is that representative of the Church and her faith? If your ministry is not part of the Church, then how is it Catholic? Of course that doesn’t change the priests. They are still Catholics themselves, they are still priests. But the Church says they cannot minister to the people at this time. So how is defying the wishes of the Church being Catholic?

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Would you go to Father Cutie’s Mass if it was pro-life? He was ordained to do just that.

What clarification does “no ministry” need? If the Pope said this of a liberal priest, I’m sure you wouldn’t ask for a clarification and would understand it clearly. But just because it is said of the SSPX who is a traditional group, suddenly we do not know what it means? Lets not play double standards here. What else is the ministry of the priest?

 

[Alfonsus]

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.

Interesting video… I thought this is Anglican Use Mass? But Anglican Use do not use Latin. But the way they do it is not proper of the Ordinary Form either…

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting video… I thought this is Anglican Use Mass? But Anglican Use do not use Latin. But the way they do it is not proper of the Ordinary Form either…

I too thought the Anglicans despised the Latin and that it was a strange mix (Anglican Use and Latin OF) at a parish. And it’s obvious the congregation (mostly composed of the kids in that video) know the Latin responses quite well.

The Latin OF is also said at St John Cantius and draws more than either of the two EFs and an English OF.

Here’s a sample of that. (The consecration is awesome.)

youtube.com/watch?v=yD-xzhTfZIw

Don’t forget too that this parish offers classes in Latin and some Greek. And an excellent library of books.

 

[Aramis]

From the quoted part I put in this thread Cardinal Koch is quoted as saying that there will be a “common rite” that will draw from the two forms.

So I think he is saying is that we will have a new form that will replace the current two forms.

At least that is how I read it.

I read it that way as well.

 

[Aramis]

Does Church Slavonic count as “the vernacular”?

You’ll be able to understand Church Slavonic with a year of college study of almost any slavic language. (Not Polish, tho’.)

 

[Corki]

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.

Isn’t that a bit of a circular argument? The majority of people who understood Latin did so because they were regularly attending a Mass said in Latin. Now the majority do not understand Latin because they rarely, if ever, hear it at Mass.

Interesting video… I thought this is Anglican Use Mass? But Anglican Use do not use Latin. But the way they do it is not proper of the Ordinary Form either…

The Angllican Use does indeed use Latin. In fact, the Anglican Use Latin Mass is one of only three Latin choices we have in our diocese (one EF, one OF, one AU).

(… still waiting for our Ordinary to get the memo (SP)- sigh)

 

[wsxyz]

What makes something Catholic or not Catholic? Let me give you an example. Whats the difference between the Divine Liturgy or a Byzantine Catholic than that of an Eastern Orthodox? Other than mentioning the Pope in commemorating the heads of the Church, nothing. So what makes one Catholic and another not?

Eastern “Orthodox” priests are not Catholics because their church is in schism. But their Masses are valid and the rite they use is a Catholic rite, so in some sense, their Mass is Catholic too, although the priests aren’t Catholic.

SSPX priests not only say valid Masses in a Catholic rite, they are also not schismatic. They are Catholics. So, valid Masses celebrated by Catholic priests in a Catholic rite are certainly Catholic Masses.

The problem is that SSPX priests are not allowed to celebrate public Masses and yet they do it anyway. The only reason anyone cares whether SSPX priests are allowed to celebrate Mass is because they are Catholic and, being Catholic, they are expected to obey the Pope.

Note that no one worries at all about whether or not Eastern “Orthodox” priests are allowed to celebrate Mass, because they have separated themselves from the Church and aren’t Catholics at all.

 

[wsxyz]

Interesting video… I thought this is Anglican Use Mass? But Anglican Use do not use Latin. But the way they do it is not proper of the Ordinary Form either…

Not true, Alfonsus. That Mass is the Ordinary Form Mass, in Latin, celebrated exactly according to the Missal. It is entirely proper and correct.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Mark I dont appreciate you putting words in my mouth. The successors of the Apostles are not above making mistakes and neither were the first Apostles (their lives clearly show this since I believe it was just 1% that stayed with Christ throughout his entire Passion and death). The changes the Bishops made while for good intentions could also have been a huge mistake but regardless of this I do not view them as “Judases” but rather as good Bishops that are trying their best to look out for their flocks. The article itself is a good indicator that these Bishops are trying to say that they might have made a mistake(s).

Furthermore the reference I made regarding the Jews and the choice they made between Barabbas and Christ is a realization that not only can the majority be wrong but also that I have noticed that Gods greatest gifts are usually put through a Passion by His chosen people and that this is always permitted by God in order to glorify Him ever the more.

That is, however, the point of an hierarchical church. The bishops don’t answer to us, we answer to them. These were the successors to the Apostles gathered in council under the Holy Father. While these were matters of discipline, not doctrine and dogma and so not immutable, I’d go with the 99.8% over the overwhelming minority that proposed the changes…esp. when the changes were ratified by the Vicar of Christ on earth. Because the liturgy is a matter of discipline, you are of course entitled to your opinion.

Why might we want to modify the liturgy to gain converts? To save souls? Esp. when whatever form approved by the Church does what it proports to do…confect the Holy Sacrifice. Salvation of souls is a must, the form which clothes the Holy Sacrifice is secondary.

All that said, I don’t understand the need for a blending. Prune the EF of what is overly repetitive, perhaps allow the Consecration to be said audibly, and allow it in the vernacular and in Latin. One liturgy for one rite of the Church, offered in either Latin or the vernacular in every Latin Rite parish in the world. As fond as I am of the Mass in my own language, the prose of the EF is sublime. Compare the “Receive, Holy Lord, God Almighty and Everlasting, this unblemished host which I offer to thee, my Living and True God” to “Blessed are you, Lord God, King of the Universe” in the Offeratory. You can’t because they don’t compare!

I think that would virtually end the liturgy wars in the Church, except for the truly paleotraditionalists and the ultra “God is a chick” progressivists.

 

[At_Trent]

The EF should not be tampered with. So many have waited so long for it to be freed of indult.

Besides…

"In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata."
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.

 

[Seamus_L]

We have Catholic people here who see nothing wrong with attending an SSPX mass just as we have other Catholics here who believe that attending an Orthodox Church fulfills there Sunday obligation. I don’t see us coming to an agreement on that any time so, but that was never my point. Simply put, if the TLM is eliminated I believe alot of people will begin attending SSPX chapels.

 

[Revert_43]

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!”

Latin is regularly used in the Church, Law and Science, if lawyers and scientists don’t have a problem with it neither should Catholics. I agree it’s part of our identity and we should know enough of it to attend the mass.

With that said, I’d focus more on restoring reverence to the mass and focus less on the language. Don’t get me wrong I’d like to see more use of Latin, it’s the language of the church, but a Novus Ordo mass done reverently works also. By putting so much focus on the language we (Catholics) remain separated. We need to find a common ground and come together on this, eternity is at stake…

 

[Alfonsus]

Not true, Alfonsus. That Mass is the Ordinary Form Mass, in Latin, celebrated exactly according to the Missal. It is entirely proper and correct.

But it did not following the OF rubrics.
For instance, OF ask for genuflection once during the whole beginning of Mass.
Also to kiss the altar first, then censing.

It was a beautiful and reverent Mass. I didn’t know that the Anglican Use in US is also celebrated in Latin. If so, perhaps this is Anglican Use Mass in Latin, instead of OF Mass.

 

[wsxyz]

But it did not following the OF rubrics.
For instance, OF ask for genuflection once during the whole beginning of Mass.
Also to kiss the altar first, then censing.

Whoops yeah I guess you’re right.

It was a beautiful and reverent Mass. I didn’t know that the Anglican Use in US is also celebrated in Latin. If so, perhaps this is Anglican Use Mass in Latin, instead of OF Mass.

I looked up the parish website and it is an Anglican use parish. I’d guess they’re mixing the Latin OF Mass text with Anglican use rubrics.