Common Rite?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I know this is a news story but I felt that it fit better here.

The article is titled "Pope’s ‘reform of the reform’ in liturgy to continue ".

The second paragraph says;
The pope’s long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a “common rite” that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

What is the feeling out there?
Do you buy into this, that is do you really think Pope Benedict is trying to do this?
What would the “common rite” look like?

Do you really think that Cardinal Kock used the term “rite” rather than “forms” because, afterall, the documents do state that these are two forms of the one rite?

 

[archangel04]

I know this is a news story but I felt that it fit better here.

The article is titled "Pope’s ‘reform of the reform’ in liturgy to continue ".

The second paragraph says;
The pope’s long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a “common rite” that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

What is the feeling out there?
Do you buy into this, that is do you really think Pope Benedict is trying to do this?
What would the “common rite” look like?

Do you really think that Cardinal Kock used the term “rite” rather than “forms” because, afterall, the documents do state that these are two forms of the one rite?

i have felt this has been his aim all along! If he had wanted to do away the OF he would have required new priest and seminarians to learn latin and that EF form and slowly phase out the OF. He would also required the Bishops to have the EF in many parishes. This was not the case, but he did liberate the use of the EF. Although I think he knows he will not live to see that day, nor will many of the older generations, I would say the young ones will. I think the plan is just to allow the older generations who hold “extremist” views on both side to just basically die out. Newer generations will be more accepting as they get exposed to the EF. If this is to happen the rite will have heavy influenced elements of the EF. Again thats just my opinion and it’s what I feel will probably happen. I just hope that ad orientem is the norm!

 

[angelic06]

I am confused as to what His Eminence Cardinal Koch is really saying. Is he trying to say that we Latins will have one Mass, with (name removed by moderator)ut from both? Does he believe that both will continue to exist, with both becoming more like the other in some respects? Your guess is as good as mine, if not better.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am confused as to what His Eminence Cardinal Koch is really saying. Is he trying to say that we Latins will have one Mass, with (name removed by moderator)ut from both? Does he believe that both will continue to exist, with both becoming more like the other in some respects? Your guess is as good as mine, if not better.

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.

 

[ZDHayden]

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.

This is how I read it as well, but I think the change will be far more organic and gradual than the creation of the Ordinary form was.

 

[runningdude]

My thoughts are that the Church’s goal is liturgical unity and ecclesial union.

The two forms are already valid and licit forms of the Roman Rite, but some hold the older form as a sacred cow, rejecting the Holy See in the process, and some hold the new form as the wave of the future, again, rejecting the Holy See in the process.

For instance, however strongly a Sede Vacante sect holds to the rubrics of the old form, it breaks the liturgical tradition by breaking ties to the current pope. Likewise, no matter how valid an overzealous priest in the 1960’s might have though a “consecrated” cookie to be, it simply wasn’t valid, and did nothing but confuse the faithful.

I don’t think he means to necessarily replace either the Tridentine or ordinary form, as their will always be a legitimate yearning for both, but to heal the rift caused by abuses of either extreme have caused. They hope to achieve this through clear catechism, and reverent standards.

 

[angelic06]

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

That is what I was starting to think, though I fear in the future, if not during my lifetime, that of my children, the requests for new indults, if not downright schism, will start up again if we end up with one and only one Mass of the Latin Church again.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

What I dont understand is why do we have to reform anything regarding the Tridentine Mass? Why dont we just go back to making it the Ordinary Form? What happened to the saying if its not broke dont fix it? Why cant those in the upper up just come out and say: “Okay everyone we tried something out and it didn’t work so lets go back to what was working”

Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye on the ways, and see and ask for the old paths which is the good way, and walk ye in it: and you shall find refreshment for your souls.–Jeremiah 6:16

Didn’t anyone ask the questions: why should we tinker with our Liturgy in order to get converts? Why would we make our Liturgy similar to those Churches Liturgies that do not believe in the things we hold as being true e.g., the real presence, communion with the saints, etc? Arent the Liturgies of the Protestants the way they are because they dont believe what we believe?

Take our belief in the Real Presence. When you walked into a Catholic Church and you saw people kneeling at the altar rail, hands underneath an altar rail cloth, paten held by the altar server and receiving communion on the tongue from the priest, you could tell by these practices that those people believe in something very very special about what they are receiving.

No when you walk into a Protestant Church and look at the communion service and watch people walking up to the minister, holding out their hands, and then popping the communion bread into their mouth like its a Golldfish cracker, you know by their service that these people see communion as a symbol and not as Christ being truly present in the species of the wine they drink or the bread they consume.

It is important that the Liturgy and its rubrics be so particular and specific to such a degree that they outwardly convey and express the doctrines of our Faith so those that know nothing of the Faith could come to a Catholic Mass and then leave it saying: “Wow those Catholics must really believe that Christ is in front of them and in communion.”

 

[redrosetea]

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.

That is how I took it…Perhaps principal prayers could be in Latin, like the Our Father, and the Creed…I also read they want the Eucharist to retain a sense of Pascal Mystery and in some what this part will be changed…I have no idea how…unless these prayers could be in Latin?

 

[MarkThompson]

What I dont understand is why do we have to reform anything regarding the Tridentine Mass? Why dont we just go back to making it the Ordinary Form? What happened to the saying if its not broke dont fix it?

Well, Sacrosanctum Concilium called for substantial changes and revisions to the old form, and the vote of the world’s bishops to approve it was 2,147 to 4. So apparently 99.8% of the bishops – all of whom, of course (except maybe some Eastern bishops) had grown up, been ordained, and been consecrated in the old form – thought there were things to fix.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Well, Sacrosanctum Concilium called for substantial changes and revisions to the old form, and the vote of the world’s bishops to approve it was 2,147 to 4. So apparently 99.8% of the bishops – all of whom, of course (except maybe some Eastern bishops) had grown up, been ordained, and been consecrated in the old form – thought there were things to fix.

Well Mark I guess this taught everyone an important lesson that majority is not always right. The majority of Jews also picked Barabbas over Jesus but were they right? Nope Yet God brings a greater good from our actions so I have faith He will do the same with our actions toward our Liturgy.

 

[MarkThompson]

Well Mark I guess this taught everyone an important lesson that majority is not always right. **The majority of Jews also picked Barabbas over Jesus **but were they right? Nope Yet God brings a greater good from our actions so I have faith He will do the same with our actions toward our Liturgy.

You do know we’re talking about the successors to the Apostles here, right? I’m sure the “modernist newbishops are evil judases” line gets big laughs and applause in some places, but not generally on this forum.

As a rule of thumb, if you don’t understand something (“What I dont understand is why do we have to reform anything?”), and 99.8% of well-educated and well-meaning people do understand it, it’s pretty good evidence that you’ve got a lot to learn.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

You do know we’re talking about the successors to the Apostles here, right? I’m sure the “modernist newbishops are evil judases” line gets big laughs and applause in some places, but not generally on this forum.

As a rule of thumb, if you don’t understand something (“What I dont understand is why do we have to reform anything?”), and 99.8% of well-educated and well-meaning people do understand it, it’s pretty good evidence that you’ve got a lot to learn.

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.

 

[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 to believed that the most Holy Spirit of God guided those princes of the Church.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

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 to believed that the most Holy Spirit of God guided those princes of the Church.

 

[PJM]

=ByzCath;7890321]I know this is a news story but I felt that it fit better here.

The article is titled "Pope’s ‘reform of the reform’ in liturgy to continue ".

The second paragraph says;
The pope’s long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a “common rite” that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

What is the feeling out there?
Do you buy into this, that is do you really think Pope Benedict is trying to do this?
What would the “common rite” look like?

Do you really think that Cardinal Kock used the term “rite” rather than “forms” because, afterall, the documents do state that these are two forms of the one rite?

COUNT me infavor of it. The Mass is the most profound prayer of the faithful and the only prayer for some

Post Vatican II has taken a GREAT deal of the 'Awe and Wonder"; and the Mystery out of this most perfect of prayers. Any return to focus on God and a lessening of the roles for laity has to be better for SOULS.

Dear Lord; Please let it be. AMEN!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[wsxyz]

As Catholics, we are obliged to believed that the most Holy Spirit of God guided those princes of the Church.

That is not true at all. We are obliged to believe that the Holy Spirit protected the council from doctrinal error, not that the the disciplinary decisions of the council were guided by the Holy Spirit. It is possible that the decision to reform the Latin Rite was a horrible mistake, no matter how many votes it gained at the council.

 

[ProVobis]

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).

Yes, changes were ordered but mostly in a general and abstract way. (Who doesn’t want some reform in anything? Is everything perfect?) Where specifics were involved, Latin in liturgy, pipe organ, Gregorian chant, etc., those orders fell very short of their mark; in fact, were defiantly resisted in time. Just saying.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

That is not true at all. We are obliged to believe that the Holy Spirit protected the council from doctrinal error, not that the the disciplinary decisions of the council were guided by the Holy Spirit. It is possible that the decision to reform the Latin Rite was a horrible mistake, no matter how many votes it gained at the council.

I think GloriousOrder knows this my friend.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What I dont understand is why do we have to reform anything regarding the Tridentine Mass? Why dont we just go back to making it the Ordinary Form? What happened to the saying if its not broke dont fix it? Why cant those in the upper up just come out and say: “Okay everyone we tried something out and it didn’t work so lets go back to what was working”

Yes, if its not broke then don’t fix it. But I disagree with you on the EF not being broke. I do support it and am glad the Holy Father has eased up its use, but out of the two forms I prefer the OF (but again, I am not saying that it (the OF) is not also broken).