Common Rite?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

That “majority”, as you call it, was guided by the Holy Spirit as it is the belief of the Catholic Church that all Ecumenical Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[wsxyz]

That “majority”, as you call it, was guided by the Holy Spirit as it is the belief of the Catholic Church that all Ecumenical Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit.

This is false. Ecumenical councils are protected by the Holy Spirit from doctrinal error. They are not “guided by the Holy Spirit”.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

That “majority”, as you call it, was guided by the Holy Spirit as it is the belief of the Catholic Church that all Ecumenical Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit./Quote}

Was everything that came from Vatacin II actually from Vatacin II and thus infallible and inspired by the Holy Spirit?

 

[GloriousOrder]

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.

Well hey, I’m just a neophyte who was given a bunch of Catechism passages to read up on every week. The C.C.C. makes a lot of statements, but the arguments aren’t exactly substantial. It makes simple affirmations, a style which doesn’t really appeal to me. I need in-depth reasons, so I look around for explanations and logical exegesis. Someone told me that the Ordinary Magisterium of all the bishops assembled is infallible, but apparently only on matters where the individual questioned agrees or disagrees. It’s very abstract and irritating.

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.

Well ordering ‘changes’ in an abstract way is hardly all that helpful. Anyone can just ask for ‘change’ and ‘progress’. It sounds rather pointless to convene a whole ecumenical council just for that.

I think GloriousOrder knows this my friend.

To be honest I have no idea what I’m talking about. The entire vagueness of the Magisterium confuses me deeply. I’m very simple when it comes to the Mass. If the “Common Rite” does come about, I just want it to be reverent, beautiful, and holy and God-centered. The rest of debate is just extraneous fat flapping about in the wind.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I dont understand why everyone says if your against the liturgical reforms from Vatacin II then your against the Holy Spirit? What part of these reforms have been doctrinated? If they arent doctrine then they can be changed and if they can be changed then they can be mistakes and if they can be mistakes then how can they be infallible and if they are not infallible then how am I acting against the Holy Spirit, The Church, or Vatacin II?

 

[wsxyz]

Was everything that came from Vatican II actually from Vatican II and thus infallible and inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Not everything from any council is infallible. When the council chooses to make infallible statements, it does so. Anything else said by the council is not necessarily infallible.

 

[laszlo]

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.

These substantial revisions were made by 1967: vernacular for the readings and Gospel, eliminating the later additions to the Mass (like Psalm 42, last Gospel) making logical the communion and conclusion rites.

The additions in 1970 : the entrance process, the revised lectionary, the prayers of the faithful, and the audible vernacular for the whole Mass, exit process are positive changes.

The rest: the innovations, adlibiting, handshakes, orans position, communion in hand, optional penitentiary rite and Canon is optional, any parish can abandon them at will of the pastor.

I am fortunate to attend Masses were both form are very-similar at least from the pew representing the Mass of All Ages.

As for the Common Rite, the TLM is already enriched by the almost always Missa Cantata instead of the previous entirely silent Masses. Also in many places there is a change toward the reverent Masses in the new form, where God and not the People are the center.

The Mass is the unity of Jesus Christ with the Church, not the external form

 

[wsxyz]

Well hey, I’m just a neophyte who was given a bunch of Catechism passages to read up on every week. The C.C.C. makes a lot of statements, but the arguments aren’t exactly substantial. It makes simple affirmations, a style which doesn’t really appeal to me. I need in-depth reasons, so I look around for explanations and logical exegesis. Someone told me that the Ordinary Magisterium of all the bishops assembled is infallible

All of the bishops assembled in council are infallible when they choose to be. If they do not bind the conscience of the faithful then they are not infallible.

To be honest I have no idea what I’m talking about. The entire vagueness of the Magisterium confuses me deeply.

This is the biggest problem with Vatican II and the post-Vatican II magisterium. Before that council, the statements of the magisterium were much clearer and more easily understood. Vatican II introduced bureaucratese into magisterial documents – the result being confusion.

 

[redrosetea]

I think only the pope is infallible…not the councils…being led by the Holy Spirit isn’t the same thing…We still can make mistakes …The Pope is only infallible when he speaks excathedra, on faith and morals (not if he says chicken tastes better than fish)

 

[wsxyz]

I think only the pope is infallible…not the councils…being led by the Holy Spirit isn’t the same thing…We still can make mistakes …The Pope is only infallible when he speaks excathedra, on faith and morals (not if he says chicken tastes better than fish)

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.

 

[redrosetea]

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

 

[wsxyz]

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

Vatican II made no such doctrinal statements. There are two “Dogmatic Constitutions” that ramble on about various topics, but there are no clear statements of binding doctrine in either of them. Certainly nothing in the form I have described.

 

[ProVobis]

There are two “Dogmatic Constitutions” that ramble on about various topics, but there are no clear statements of binding doctrine in either of them. Certainly nothing in the form I have described.

Each of those two Dogmatic Constitutions affirmed the teachings of previous councils. In that respect they were heavily binding.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Each of those two Dogmatic Constitutions affirmed the teachings of previous councils. In that respect they were heavily binding.

Everything from the Council is binding. All discipline is binding upon Catholics.

I do not understand how some people think they can thumb their nose at discipline.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

The Eastern Rites have several forms of Liturgy that they use at the same time. I wonder why not do the same for the Roman Rite? I was hoping that a High Mass Tridentine Mass in the vernacular is something that will be used for Feast Days and Sundays of Advent, Christmas, Lent and Easter. While the OF would be used for all the other times. I really appreciate the difference in the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil that gives you a sense of the season, coinciding with the different music sets for the hymns and chanting. Aside from Eastern Vigil where the Mass is significantly different, most people can’t tell the difference no matter what time of year.

 

[wsxyz]

Everything from the Council is binding. All discipline is binding upon Catholics.

Not everything from the II Vatican Council falls under the categories of discipline and doctrine. There is a lot of text in the documents that is neither.

To the extent that the II Vatican Council prescribed certain discipline, it is binding, but that does not mean that the binding discipline isn’t a horrible mistake.

 

[laszlo]

To the extent that the II Vatican Council prescribed certain discipline, it is binding, but that does not mean that the binding discipline isn’t a horrible mistake.

Jesus Christ stands behind that. He head to deal with imperfect beings, us. We have no rights to label it as horrible.

 

[ProVobis]

Here’s a decent attempt in explaining doctrine, dogma, infallible, and authoritative.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=1&recnu=3

…
Authoritative. Finally, the Church teaches things which are neither proposed as formally revealed or definitively proposed. This is the category of authoritative teaching. Anything in the Catechism or a pope’s writings and addresses that is not “of divine and catholic faith” if clearly meant to take a position, without deciding it by proposing it as revealed or as definitive, is authoritively taught. It should receive “religious obedience of intellect and will,” as opposed to the assent of faith. Such obedience is an act of justice. It shows the respect Catholics owe the Pope, and it humbly acknowledges that by charism and grace of vocation the Pope is more likely to be right than those who disagree with him. As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope.

 

[TrueLight]

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.

I take offense to that. 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.

But I digress from the main topic.

Back to the “if ain’t broke” analogy. I wasn’t around and I am new to all this, but I take it some people thought it was broke.

 

[Fuerza]

Maybe the Pope is thinking of something along the lines of the 1965 Missal; a largely EF-based structure,slightly modified to allow a little more lay participation, with both chant and theologically accurate modern hymns, and largely in an approved vernacular translation with the Canon (or at least the Words of Institution) remaining in Latin. I’ve obviously never experienced that Missal, but from reading the layout it is at least theoretically the perfect balance.