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.
whyeyeman said:
Why do you think he wrote summorum pontificum? Because he wanted the mass to develop into something better and more traditional!
Click to expand...
No, he did that so the EF Mass could be more widely used.

Why didn’t he just promulgate a new Mass if that was his goal?
 
Because he realized the mess that was caused in 1970 by “just promulgating a new Mass.”
 
KMG said:
realized the mess that was caused in 1970 by “just promulgating a new Mass.”
Click to expand...
He could have suppressed the Pauline Mass and released an updated typical edition of the Johannine Missal.

He didn’t.

Why?
 
Maybe because unlike his predecessor, he didn’t believe in sudden rupture and constant change as an effective means for liturgical health.
 
Spyridon said:
He could have suppressed the Pauline Mass and released an updated typical edition of the Johannine Missal.

He didn’t.

Why?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that would have been that good of an idea. Sudden, overwhelming changes aren’t what the Faithful expect when they visit church on Sunday morning. When the vernacular N.O. mass was adopted, changes were done over a considerable length of time. There were transitional hybrid masses, innovations like the Dialogue Mass came down first as well, get the people used to doing something other than staying quiet in the pews.
 
The ordinary form was the result of liturgical research which had started during the reign of Pope Pius 10th and was ongoing through the subsequent papacies. It did not come out of nowhere; of course a committee was charged with doing the work that the bishops set forth in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It wasn’t going to form itself, and was not a one person task. You use the comment about committee as if that is somehowa disreputable way for the work outlined by the Council to be accomplished.

and as to your selected comment from Pope Benedict, I am not going to play a game of pickling a raft of other quotes. other quotes; it is sufficient to say that the Pope in effect contradicted himself in other writings. One example should suffice: in summoroum Pontificum, he said: " Pope John Paul II approved the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. In this way the Popes sought to ensure that “this liturgical edifice, so to speak … reappears in new splendour in its dignity and harmony.”

It also was the Mass he said constantly.
 
No he didn’t refer to the committee process. He was specifically referring to aberrations which took place subsequent to the OF being promulgated, and it is clear even from the context of the quote, let alone the parts you don’t quote.

Honesty helps. so does context.
 
The only reason you say it is not a good article resides in your ad hominem attack on the writer. Any honest person would place the quote in context; stooping to ad hominems simply shows you have no grounds upon which to stand.
 
otjm said:
The ordinary form was the result of liturgical research which had started during the reign of Pope Pius 10th
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that research is the right word, I would say that it was done incrementally.

The Faithful don’t like dramatic change,

If in 1930, the church just decided to implement the “new” mass overnight, finding EM’s and readers overnight would have been overwhelming.
 
You night actually try reading Summorum Pontificum; and while you are at it, the accompanying letter. The document is clear on the face of it, and that in short is that he wanted to widen the use of the EF on behalf of those who wanted it, by setting out specific protocols as to how those people would request it.

He didn’t need to write SP for the OF to develop in any way; the EF was already being said in various areas. Sp simply provided an orderly way to go about requesting the EF in other areas.
 
The Novus Ordo Missae was the product of a committee. If that bothers people…doesn’t change the historical reality.
 
Anyone interested in the composition can conveniently read the very helpful volume of its chief architect, Annibale Bugnini…supplemented by the smaller volume of Louis Bouyer, author of Eucharistic Prayer II (written in a trattoria in Rome to be rushed to Bugnini in the morning, as he laments).
 
No, he did not release SP “because he realized the mess that was caused in 1970 by “just promulgating a new Mass.” He released it because for the entire reign of John Paul 2, As Cardinal, Ratzinger was the go-between the SSPX and the Pope, and when he became Pope, he continued to have hope that he could get the SSPX back into the fold.

Furthermore, the mess was caused not by promulgating a new Mass; it was caused by too many priests taking liberties with what was released, and too few bishops exercising oversight of their priests, and working to eliminate the abuses.
 
Yes that was the short term impact, but the goal was mutual enrichment for both forms of the mass.
 
Liturgical research was conducted in large part by the Benedictines, although there were definitely others. And numerous bishops brought with them liturgical experts to Rome as the liturgy was one of the areas the Council was going to consider. Noted in reports of Vatican 2 was not only that fact, but also that the liturgical movement had been active for several decades prior to the Council.

You could substitute the word “scholarship” for the word "research if you wish; the point is, the issue of changes to the liturgy did not arise at the Council. There not only had been scholarly research done over the decades, but the result were also shared in Meetings, such as the Pastoral Liturgical Conference held in Assisi in 1956.

As an aside, much has been made about the move to the vernacular. What we tend to forget is that Latin is a western Europe language; but the Roman rite is not a western European rite; it is spread throughout the world. Interestingly, several of the strong proponents were from areas other than the West.

Bishop Willem van Bekkum of Ruteng, Indonesia was a strong proponent, and in fact had given a paper at the above noted conference.

The African born Archbishop Bernardin Gantin, head of the Cotonou archdiocese in Dahomey (now part of Benin, Africa was also a strong proponent of the vernacular, and was aware of how strongly other African bishops felt on the matter.

Archbishop Eugene D’Souza of Nagpur, India spoke at a press conference on the importance of the vernacular to a wider spread of Catholicism in India; likewise Bishop Lawrence Nagae of Urawa, Japan.

And while his comments are too long to reproduce here, Maximos IV Saigh, the Melchite Patriarch of Antioch, gave a rather blunt but rousing address to the Council.
 
Last edited:
It was not only the impact; but it also was the goal as stated in the document.
 
People are mixing separate topics here, causing confusion.
  • Yes, the Vatican II changes in the liturgy were approved by the highest authority. It is Pope Paul VI, not any committee, that approved it. There were committees, just as there were no doubt committees at Trent, doing some preparation or research. The committees did not approve the new Mass, the pope did, and his successors confirmed. If you throw out the authority of Pope Paul VI and his successors, you essentially throw out the popes of Trent and their successors, as well.
  • The fact that some liturgical abuses occurred does not invalidate the authorized liturgical changes. In my area, liturgical abuses were a serious problem a few decades ago, but are much less prevalent now. The English translation of several years ago greatly improves the OF.
  • Even people who support the new Mass as Ordinary Form can, and do, support continuation of the EF. I would go so far as to encourage Catholic schools and religious ed programs to visit, or host, one EF Mass each year.
 
Last edited:
What I heard is that the committee came up with 20 some Eucharistic Prayers but the Pope approved only four of them. Some were added later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top