EF Mass Preferers now demand "right" of all sacraments under "old form"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s some of what changed between the 16th and mid 20th centuries, not including additions or subtractions or modifications of certain feasts.

The Roman Missal was subjected to general revisions whenever a new “typical edition” (an official edition whose text was to be reproduced in printings by all publishers) was issued.

After Pius V’s original Tridentine Roman Missal, the first new typical edition was promulgated in 1604 by Pope Clement VIII, who in 1592 had issued a revised edition of the Vulgate. The Bible texts in the Missal of Pope Pius V did not correspond exactly to the new Vulgate, and so Clement edited and revised Pope Pius V’s Missal, making alterations both in the scriptural texts and in other matters. He abolished some prayers that the 1570 Missal obliged the priest to say on entering the church; shortened the two prayers to be said after the Confiteor; directed that the words “Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in meam memoriam facietis” (“Do this in memory of me”) should not be said while displaying the chalice to the people after the consecration, but before doing so; inserted directions at several points of the Canon that the priest was to pronounce the words inaudibly; suppressed the rule that, at High Mass, the priest, even if not a bishop, was to give the final blessing with three signs of the cross; and rewrote the rubrics, introducing, for instance, the ringing of a small bell.

The next typical edition was issued in 1634, when Pope Urban VIII made another general revision of the Roman Missal.

There was no further typical edition until that of Pope Leo XIII in 1884. It introduced only minor changes, not profound enough to merit having the papal bull of its promulgation included in the Missal, as the bulls of 1604 and 1634 were.

In 1911, with the bull Divino Afflatu, Pope Pius X made significant changes in the rubrics. He died in 1914, so it fell to his successor Pope Benedict XV to issue a new typical edition incorporating his changes. This 1920 edition included a new section headed: “Additions and Changes in the Rubrics of the Missal in accordance with the Bull Divino afflatu and the Subsequent Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites”. This additional section was almost as long as the previous section on the “General Rubrics of the Missal”, which continued to be printed unchanged.

Pope Pius XII radically revised the Palm Sunday and Easter Triduum liturgy, suppressed many vigils and octaves and made other alterations in the calendar (see General Roman Calendar of Pope Pius XII), reforms that were completed in Pope John XXIII’s 1960 Code of Rubrics, which were incorporated in the final 1962 typical edition of the Tridentine Missal, replacing both Pius X’s “Additions and Changes in the Rubrics of the Missal” and the earlier “General Rubrics of the Missal”.

@whyeyeman, again I urge you to research the scholarly material on the evolution of the Liturgy and stop reading traditionalist propaganda.
 
Last edited:
If people wish to receive the older forms of the sacraments, then I can’t really see what the problem is.
There’s no problem that I can see UNTIL those seeking the EF Mass become divisive – often it seems in the form of “communities.” Many don’t seem to be content with attending St. John’s Catholic parish with a preference for the 11:30 Mass which happens to be the EF Mass.

No matter how supportive St. John’s might be, they make it very well known that they cannot wait until they can branch off as something along the lines of “The tlm community of Bl. Solanus Casey, OFM”, or something along those lines.

All too often when they do that, they create controversy in the St. John parishes of the world AND they put an ugly face on the EF Mass to many which is most unfortunate.
 
I know this will upset some, but I would really like to see Pope Francis promulgate a new Franciscan Mass.

Bring back the prayers before the altar.

Mandate that the Mass be celebrated ad orientem or liturgical East.

Mandate that in most circumstances, the Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei are said in Latin.

Bring back the Tridentine Form of the Confiteor and mandate that the Confiteor and Kyrie are the penitential Rite to be used in all Masses.

Mandate reception of Communion on the tongue, and limit the number of EMHC’s and make the occasions for their usage less numerous.

Severely restrict the usage of any musical instruments besides the Pipe organ, and strongly encourage the use of polyphony and Gregorian chant when able.

Mandate that on most Sundays and Solemnities the Roman Canon is the appropriate Eucharistic prayer to be utilized.

Make it an option for Bishops to determine whether they want Communion received in a line or at an altar rail in their Dioceses.

Make it optional to read the Prologue to John after the Concluding Rites (though this is technically already an option, encourage the practice).

Take this new Fransican Mass and promulgate it, and strictly forbid any older form of Roman Rite Mass from being used - totally suppress both the Tridentine and Pauline Masses in favor of the Franciscan Mass.

This is a pipe dream, but I would be 100% on board with such a thing.

It would act as a good compromise between the EF and OF, and it would hopefully help quell the division which we see now cropping up more and more.
I think this would make an excellent thread on its own. I would like to discuss it further…
 
Pope Benedict.

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA”
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970
 
So it wasn’t as cut and dry as I layed out in my brief overview. My point still stands.
 
I’m curious why so many EF Mass Preferers (EFMPs) are so intent on creating their own “tlm-only” parishes

Now this might just be EFMPs’ excuse for what seems to be their desire for ever-growing division? Their continued attempt to treat another form of the Mass as if it were another rite entirely? Has anyone else here noticed this?

It seems like a rather larger percentage of EFMPs are intent on cleaving
I’m curious why so many Extraordinary Form Opponents (EFOs) have so little to do. They find sufficient time to measure “intent” of people who like the Latin Mass, something trained psychologists say takes a lot of skill and effort. In addition they find resources for monitoring the Latin Mass goers’ “excuses”, their “desires”, and they unmasked the Latin Mass goers’ secret plan for “division”. Computer research by Extraordinary Form Opponents has picked up new data confirming the Latin Mass goers’ “cleaving” proclivities. (yes, cleaving).

This level of analysis about Latin Mass goers’ is far more sophisticated than anything CARA, the USCCB, or the Vatican social scientists can meet. The EFOs must be backed up by a powerful government.

Question: “Has anyone else here noticed this?” (referring to the Cleavers, and I don’t mean Ward, June, Wally and Beaver).

Answer: Don’t Extraordinary Form Opponents have other stuff to notice in life?
 
Last edited:
Whatever their intent, I ask again, what is the problem? If their pastor and Bishop agree, what is the problem?
 
I wonder if Zubik is taking the right tack? Sounds like he might be…

Place all the EFMPers in a single parish before they do harm to other parishes? Before they begin their cries of needing to start their own “community” that meets in a tiny mortuary chapel, rather than being an integral part of an existing Catholic parish?

More and more I am better understanding the reticence of ordinaries in allowing the EF Mass in their dioceses prior to SP. It really is a hugely divisive issue.
This is very uncharitable thing to say. You are implying that all people who attend the EF are like devotees of the SSPX or worse, the SSPV.

Are some people ridged, yes. But there are equally (if not more) ridged people who want to force everyone into the Ordinary Form and/or Dan Schutte hymns on everyone.

And this is from someone who normally attends the Ordinary Form, only attending the EF on special occasions.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
40.png
Brendan_64:
If people wish to receive the older forms of the sacraments, then I can’t really see what the problem is.
There’s no problem that I can see UNTIL those seeking the EF Mass become divisive – often it seems in the form of “communities.” Many don’t seem to be content with attending St. John’s Catholic parish with a preference for the 11:30 Mass which happens to be the EF Mass.

No matter how supportive St. John’s might be, they make it very well known that they cannot wait until they can branch off as something along the lines of “The tlm community of Bl. Solanus Casey, OFM”, or something along those lines.

All too often when they do that, they create controversy in the St. John parishes of the world AND they put an ugly face on the EF Mass to many which is most unfortunate.
Again: I ask WHY is this an issue? If we allow foreign cultures to have their own parishes when they can support it, why not do the same with the EF?

We don’t force Anglican Use of the Roman Rite communities (like the Extraordinary Form is another form of the Roman Rite) to only have their mass as part of a territorial parish.

So if Anglican Use communities are allowed to have their own parishes (even before the Ordinariate was created), why can’t the EF?

Again: this as to do with differences regarding how to decorate the Church, devotions the parish will regularly schedule, adult faith formation courses, child faith formation courses, etc.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
EFMPers?
Do you realize what you did here?

It’s’people who prefer the EF’ --not a catchy little ‘label’ that depersonalizes an entire group so that they can all be presumed to have all the characteristics of that label which will gradually start coming out as the thread moves along. . .

“Rad-trad”. “Latin-loving.” “Living in the past”. “Rigid.” “Against Pope Francis”. "Demanding’. "Disrespectful of the people who like OF --and I’ll bet you never call THEM "OFMPers either. "Divisive’. “Holier than thou, and nasty to boot.”. . . and above all, "Totally humorless and obviously have a guilty conscience for going 'overboard over some petty (but obviously very ‘useful’) little abbreviation meant to make things ‘easier’ to read (and immediately addressed by posters with “I don’t see anything WRONG with using EFMP” and variations meant to paint the objector as showing just exactly how ‘right’ it is to criticize those sad, bad people). . .

Yep pretty soon all a person will have to say is that they like the ritual of the EF. . .and they won’t have to give any reason why because all that will be necessary is for another person to say, “You’re an EFMPer” and immediately any and all communication from that first person will be viewed through the lens of that label. . . they will be known to be rigid, disrespectful of the OF, demanding, whiny, hateful, etc. Every word they utter will be ‘heard’ as if uttered in a rigid disrespectful way even if the very same words, were they uttered by an "OFMPer’, would be greeted with acclaim and praise for their tolerance, wisdom, and all around niceness.

I’ve seen it happen, over and over and over. Right here. And the majority of the people reading won’t even blink as they absorb how they are ‘meant to think’ about another group, or how they’ve been conditioned to respond to code words or how they have already started to suspect others of ill will based on 'what those others like, or don’t like."
 
Last edited:
It is no more a lie than your comment that the OF was "designed by some committee and spang up out of nowhere.

Your lack of knowledge of liturgical research prior to Vatican 2 is complete.
 
The Novus Ordo was designed by a committee. That’s an historical fact, well documented by…well…the members of the committee.
 
“What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced—as if it were a technical production—with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.” - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
 
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
That quote is taken out of context in a major way.

He was referencing liturgical abuses which became common in the years immediately succeeding VII - he was NOT talking about the Pauline Mass.

Think about it - Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI - if that paragraph was referencing what he thought of the Pauline Mass, why in the world would he not have promulgated either a new Benedictine Mass or went back to the Tridentine Mass in the nearly a decade which he was Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Church? That alone proves that you’ve done a major disservice to that quote.
 
Last edited:
That’s one potential interpretation of the quote.

Still, to use it as a club on the Pauline Mass is wrong… Very wrong.

Here’s a good article to read.

 
Not a good article. Written by an ultramontanist whose principal goal is to twist everything into pretzels so there can never be legitimate criticism of the Novus Ordo. Though strangely, criticism of the Tridentine Mass is almost encouraged.
 
Why do you think he wrote summorum pontificum? Because he wanted the mass to develop into something better and more traditional!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top