Date set for final meeting in SSPX-Rome Dialogue talks

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmj1984
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm, one thing I’ve heard from some SSPX clergy is that the theology of the OF is not the same as the EF.

What is your take on this ? (if we can discuss it without pitting one form against the other )
I would not word it that way. I do believe that that there is a core theology that is present in all liturgy, EF, OF, and the different rites. Beyond that, it is reasonable that there are different theological approaches to liturgy.

I like to use this example. Imagine the liturgy as a train, people board it at different stations. They board the train from different starting points and they may be getting off at different stations. However, it’s the same train. The train does not change.

Let’s transpose this to liturgy. It’s the same liturgy. Just as the train has core attributes that make it the train that it is, so too liturgy has core attributes that are unchangeable. Those can be summed up in three words: Word, Sacrifice and Communion.

The rites and the forms within those rites are very human. They say something about the liturgy, but none of them says it all. Man simply cannot express the eternity of God. We can only represent bits and pieces.

Putting aside the other rites and their forms, they too have forms. Not every Byzantine mass is the same. There are at least three forms to it. Then there are the other rites and those have forms too. I think that the Maronites are the only ones who don’t have more than one form. I could be wrong and if I am, I hope that an Eastern Catholic will correct me.

Anwyway, putting aside the other rites, it is very possible to have one Latin Rite with a core theology and two forms that are rooted in two theological approaches to liturgy. It is possible and I believe true, that both theological approaches are valid.

I’m simplifying, for the sake of a post. I could write a book on this subject. In nutshell, the EF liturgy presents us with the trancendent while the OF presents us with the Incarnate. Both are true. We cannot deny that God is both.

The EF presents us with a Church that is on journey, hence you have everyone looking in the same direction. This is Truth.

The OF presents us with a Church that is an apostolic family, hence you have dialogue, greeting of peace, priest facing the people, lay involvement in the sanctuary. We can’t deny that this is true either.

That’s my take in very very brief ideas.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I would not word it that way. I do believe that that there is a core theology that is present in all liturgy, EF, OF, and the different rites. Beyond that, it is reasonable that there are different theological approaches to liturgy.

I like to use this example. Imagine the liturgy as a train, people board it at different stations. They board the train from different starting points and they may be getting off at different stations. However, it’s the same train. The train does not change.

Let’s transpose this to liturgy. It’s the same liturgy. Just as the train has core attributes that make it the train that it is, so too liturgy has core attributes that are unchangeable. Those can be summed up in three words: Word, Sacrifice and Communion.

The rites and the forms within those rites are very human. They say something about the liturgy, but none of them says it all. Man simply cannot express the eternity of God. We can only represent bits and pieces.

Putting aside the other rites and their forms, they too have forms. Not every Byzantine mass is the same. There are at least three forms to it. Then there are the other rites and those have forms too. I think that the Maronites are the only ones who don’t have more than one form. I could be wrong and if I am, I hope that an Eastern Catholic will correct me.

Anwyway, putting aside the other rites, it is very possible to have one Latin Rite with a core theology and two forms that are rooted in two theological approaches to liturgy. It is possible and I believe true, that both theological approaches are valid.

I’m simplifying, for the sake of a post. I could write a book on this subject. In nutshell, the EF liturgy presents us with the trancendent while the OF presents us with the Incarnate. Both are true. We cannot deny that God is both.

The EF presents us with a Church that is on journey, hence you have everyone looking in the same direction. This is Truth.

The OF presents us with a Church that is an apostolic family, hence you have dialogue, greeting of peace, priest facing the people, lay involvement in the sanctuary. We can’t deny that this is true either.

That’s my take in very very brief ideas.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
ok, I was just curious of your take on the difference.

I’m getting much more comfortable about the OF, and I’m eager for the revisions. Actually, the last 8 Masses I’ve been to were the OF (twice yesterday). The Christian family/unity part of it is not a bad thing imo, but I still think there is too much of it in the OF. I’m getting better at staying focused though, and finding it less of a distraction.

Perhaps I’m getting soft.
 
ok, I was just curious of your take on the difference.

I’m getting much more comfortable about the OF, and I’m eager for the revisions. Actually, the last 8 Masses I’ve been to were the OF (twice yesterday). The Christian family/unity part of it is not a bad thing imo, but I still think there is too much of it in the OF. I’m getting better at staying focused though, and finding it less of a distraction.

Perhaps I’m getting soft.
Yes. 😃

I’m sort of kidding, but I’d be curious to know if after a while, unless parishioners are in a traditional parish, people eventually open up, so to speak about the OF, especially if they find a relevant OF. How many staunch TLM advocates attend OF masses after 5 years, at least once in a while.

I’d love to do a poll, but I’m sure it will be seen as pitting, etc, etc.
 
Yes. 😃

I’m sort of kidding, but I’d be curious to know if after a while, unless parishioners are in a traditional parish, people eventually open up, so to speak about the OF, especially if they find a relevant OF. How many staunch TLM advocates attend OF masses after 5 years, at least once in a while.

I’d love to do a poll, but I’m sure it will be seen as pitting, etc, etc.
I have no choice on weekdays, unless I want to go to an Independent chapel for the EF. I just need daily Mass, so I go to a fairly reverent OF.

As far as a poll, I don’t think it would be inherently bad. PM Mr Casey and ask him 🙂

EDIT: I should clarify, there are other daily EF Masses in the area, but my schedule won’t permit me to make them.
 
ok, I was just curious of your take on the difference.

I’m getting much more comfortable about the OF, and I’m eager for the revisions. Actually, the last 8 Masses I’ve been to were the OF (twice yesterday). The Christian family/unity part of it is not a bad thing imo, but I still think there is too much of it in the OF. I’m getting better at staying focused though, and finding it less of a distraction.

Perhaps I’m getting soft.
I’ve been through that darn handbook so many times that I’m having dreams about it. I mean it. I’ve taught it to our guys in formation to the Secular Franciscans and to the catechists so they can teach it to the kids. But like you, I’m dying to see it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
In the interests of honesty, no that isn’t the problem or the correct interpretation. A Group of FSSP priests back in 1999 wanted to celebrate the Novus Ordo, their superiors said no, they appealed to Rome and Rome told them no one superior or otherwise could forbid priests from saying the NO, removed their superior and imposed a new superior on them. So the interpretation is a little bit more complicated than that.
I believe this is a huge loss for the rest of RCs if people like the FSSP are not allowed to celebrate the OF. Who else to celebrate the OF the way it should than the FSSP? If the FSSP have a couple more parishes in every diocese celebrating the OF and people get exposed to their way of celebrating the OF, then this is true cross-fertilization between the OF and EF and people will now know what to expect from the OF.
 
I believe this is a huge loss for the rest of RCs if people like the FSSP are not allowed to celebrate the OF. Who else to celebrate the OF the way it should than the FSSP? If the FSSP have a couple more parishes in every diocese celebrating the OF and people get exposed to their way of celebrating the OF, then this is true cross-fertilization between the OF and EF and people will now know what to expect from the OF.
From the FSSP website:
The mission of the Fraternity is two-fold: first, the formation and sanctification of priests in the cadre of the traditional liturgy of the Roman rite, and secondly, the pastoral deployment of the priests in the service of the Church.
With the **full approval of the Holy See **and the permission of local bishops, the priests provide a full sacramental life for the faithful, administered according to the liturgical books of 1962.
 
Yes. 😃

I’m sort of kidding, but I’d be curious to know if after a while, unless parishioners are in a traditional parish, people eventually open up, so to speak about the OF, especially if they find a relevant OF. How many staunch TLM advocates attend OF masses after 5 years, at least once in a while.

I’d love to do a poll, but I’m sure it will be seen as pitting, etc, etc.
Na, I attended the OF for 4 years or so, left for the TLM and have never looked backed. Just saying 😃 Not pitting them against each other or anything!
 
I believe this is a huge loss for the rest of RCs if people like the FSSP are not allowed to celebrate the OF. Who else to celebrate the OF the way it should than the FSSP? If the FSSP have a couple more parishes in every diocese celebrating the OF and people get exposed to their way of celebrating the OF, then this is true cross-fertilization between the OF and EF and people will now know what to expect from the OF.
Not really I’m sure people can be trained to say the NO reverently 🙂
 
Who else to celebrate the OF the way it should than the FSSP?
Is this like saying a college professor should be able to teach first grade better than a tenured grade-school teacher?

Nothing wrong with first grade, mind you.
 
You have to take such comments with a grain of salt. Just because they appear on the SSPX site does not mean that they are the last word of SSPX authorities. There is a lot on that site the SSPX authorities and many of the SSPX clergy and religious do not subscribe to.
How are we to discern what the SSPX believe if we are not to take what the SSPX says on its official website as being such?
 
Is this like saying a college professor should be able to teach first grade better than a tenured grade-school teacher?

Nothing wrong with first grade, mind you.
From one IT guy to another, you know why we bring in consultants when we already have a bunch of IT people, right? 😉
 
They do vary a lot and I see this as a problem. No two novus ordo masses are alike.
But you know what, this is not unique to the Latin Rite. Even in my own Ukrainian Church, if I go to the next parish there are things they do differently. So I can also say that no two Divine Liturgies are alike. Maybe we should see diversity as a good thing rather than a bad thing. There are certain limits I agree, but to ask that it be celebrated the same exact way everywhere I guess is unreasonable. The reason every Liturgy of every Rite developed over the centuries is because of this diversification.
 
But you know what, this is not unique to the Latin Rite. Even in my own Ukrainian Church, if I go to the next parish there are things they do differently. So I can also say that no two Divine Liturgies are alike. Maybe we should see diversity as a good thing rather than a bad thing. There are certain limits I agree, but to ask that it be celebrated the same exact way everywhere I guess is unreasonable. The reason every Liturgy of every Rite developed over the centuries is because of this diversification.
But the Catholic Church is universal, we cannot have priests doing whatever they like. I am not talking about minor differences. I saw one novus ordo mass in which many parishinors were asked to come into the sanctuary and stand in a circle with the priest as he did the consecration. I saw one novus ordo mass in which african tribal dance was performed right in front of the tabernacle. These are not minor differences, such as how many times to ring bells at certain times.
 
The unspoken assumption I see several posts (and posters) take is that the Extraordinary Form is (and always has been) free from abuses all time every time, and has never had any changes throughout the last few years.
 
But you know what, this is not unique to the Latin Rite. Even in my own Ukrainian Church, if I go to the next parish there are things they do differently. So I can also say that no two Divine Liturgies are alike. Maybe we should see diversity as a good thing rather than a bad thing. There are certain limits I agree, but to ask that it be celebrated the same exact way everywhere I guess is unreasonable. The reason every Liturgy of every Rite developed over the centuries is because of this diversification.
But the Catholic Church is universal, we cannot have priests doing whatever they like. I am not talking about minor differences. I saw one novus ordo mass in which many parishinors were asked to come into the sanctuary and stand in a circle with the priest as he did the consecration. I saw one novus ordo mass in which african tribal dance was performed right in front of the tabernacle. These are not minor differences, such as how many times to ring bells at certain times.
You’re both right. There have to be rubrics for each rite and each form within the rites. At the same time, there has to be room for local customs.

As much as people like to say that the EF is “custom safe” that’s soooooooooooo not true. I’m wondering if the people saying this are Americans. Before Vatican II the Latin Church had four rites and 7 forms. That’s first. Second, even within the one ordinary or normative form, there were details that were very particular to certain countries and cultures. The difference was that we did not have internet, iPods, too much TV and people didn’t travel as much as we do today. People did not know much outside of their parish or their diocese.

Even today, the EF has what I call details that vary from one place to another because of local circumstances, resources or whether the priest is secular or religious. There is no such thing as a static way of celebrating mass.

That being said, there are rubrics that must be followed. Each form has its rubrics and each rite does too. People need to comply with them.

Recently, I received a PM from a poster on TC Forum who told me that the attended the EF mass celebrated at his parish, which is an FSSP parish. Apparently, the gentleman was serving. They had a visiting priest. The gentleman noticed that the priest said the prayers audibly and waited for the congregation to respond.

When he brought the water and dish for the lavabo the priest picked up the chalice and nodded away the dish. He did not wear an amice and the mass that he celebrated was not the mass of the day. He held the host with all fingers, not with the thumb and index finger. He told me that the congregation was a little confused, because they couldn’t find that mass in their missal.

The gentleman knew something that the congregation did not know or had not been told. The priest belonged to one of the Franciscan obediences. I’m not sure which, because the gentleman did not know. He just recognized the chord with the knots and the cowl over the vestments. The obediences have little differences that most people would not notice unless they are used to a secular priest such as a Diocesan or FSSP.

My guess is that the priest was following the Franciscan liturgical calendar. That would explain why the congregation could not find the mass in their missal. You have to know where to look. That day happened to be the Solemnity of St. Clare, which must be celebrated as a high mass, if you’re going to use the EF and must have three readings, Gloria and Creed, if you’re using the OF. Even if you’re at an OF mass, that day, your missalette is useless, because it’s not in there. St. Clare is a minor holy day in the Latin Church and not on the calendar in most Eastern Churches, unless the priest is a Franciscan.

Then there have always been certain cultural details that are reflected in more and in less obvious ways. If you’re in Spain or the Philippines, there are very Spanish customs in their celebration of the EF, the way they build churches, their music, even holy days, which the Spanish culture holds very dear.

Again, we must allow for these diversities and at the same time, we must follow the rubrics for both forms. The example of the dancers and the people in the sanctuary is a violation of the rubrics in most countries. Only certain countries have been given permission to have dance during mass.

The congregation is allowed to stand around the altar at retreat houses and masses celebrated in the chapel of religious. In that case, if the religious superior is male, he can allow this or the law of his religious community may demand this. Notice that I said the chapel, not the parish. Parishes are a little tricky. Normally, they do not belong to the religious who administer them. In those cases, if the community has customs of its own, it may use them. If it has its own liturgical calendar and books it may use them and the parishioners adapt, but something like standing around the altar is not done, because it cannot be done without havoc. The number of people at mass is much larger.

Diversity due to local cuture and religious traditionas of orders and congregations are always going to be part of our liturgical life. The rubrics, as they are written, allow for these differences without people going crazy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top