"Even If"...The Pope Knows What He is Doing

[runningdude]

Look: for those who think I’m some sort of anti-EF troll or something, I apologize. That’s not why I am here.

I want HELP in understanding why the Pope is doing this. It is so odd when looked at from a liturgical historical and it only becomes even more disturbing when word of a “unified/hybrid rite” is spoken of in the shadows.

I for one love the current form of the mass. I’ve grown up with it, and have always seen it celebrated reverently. I’ve even chosen the Blessed John XXIII as my confirmation patron, so I would never speak ill of the true fruits of the Second Vatican Council!

I feel so alone, and I wonder if my research was all wrong…and I don’t know who to trust about the future of the rite. What the Pope is doing doesn’t make sense in light of Sacrosanctum Concilium and other movements of His Predecessors and the understanding of the Council when understood through a hermeneutic of continuity. If the Holy Spirit truly spoke at Vatican II, as St. Francis de Sales would have us believe about Ecumenical Councils, then what real use is there is splitting the Roman Rite in two and allowing the pre-conciliar rite to live in the same vigor that it did in times past…if not more so!

WHY!!!

I don’t think that was the Pope or Cardinal Koch’s goal to restore the Tridentine form to regular celebration. I think their goal is to preserve a beautiful and ancient form of worship and confection the holy Eucharist, and the institutional memory to understand this ancient mass’s significance. I attended a Tridentine Mass a few months ago, and even though I felt totally out of place, I did walk away with a great sense of awe and reverence.

I firmly believe that the work towards a “unified rite” is bit of a misnomer, as the goal is to inspire greater reverence in the current (ordinary) form, rather than replace it with yet another liturgy. It will be unified only in that there won’t be faction fighting for the preservation of the Tridentine form, claiming the ordinary is blasphemous.

Its about extending an olive branch to though who feel railroaded by poorly a poorly implemented transition to the new Order of the Mass, not a reversal of the Vatican Council’s reforms. Its about inspiring a unified sense of reverence throughout the entire Roman Rite!

 

[At_Trent]

… and it was Bl JPII who got the ball rolling by encouraging Bishops to provide the EF for those who desired it.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I don’t wish to be or sound un-Christian, but now with the resurection of the Mass in Latin, all of you younger people know how older Catholics who were taught that the Latin Mass was eternal in nature felt in the 1970’s when the Latin Mass was all but prohibited in the USA.
At the time, I was a fallen away Catholic, illicitly married a 2nd time to an Episcopalian who dragged me off to their services. My first exposure to the new Mass came when my father came to visit and I accompanied him to Mass on Sunday at a neighborhood church. To my shock, and my fathers disgust, it turned out to be a “Rock n’ Roll” Mass. My father almost walked out except that his feeling for religious obligation over-rode his being appaled.
I returned to the church in 2003, and to my amazement, the English wasn’t even a close translation of the Latin, and was very close to the Episcopal services I attended during the 1970’s. However, the early training I received in a Jeseut run parochial school kicked in and I humbly obeyed the contemporary teaching.
In my opinion, JPII had a terrible time handling the excesses of Vatican II, especially in the US. If he had cracked down at the time, he stood a very good chance of many dioceses becoming scismatic to a greater degree than Bishop Lefebre’s people., Now, enough time has elapsed that Pope Benedict can restore order and discipline in the Church, and I believe it. It is far better to have a smaller church with people who genuinly believe in and practice the faith than having nominal Catholics who attend Mass only at Christmas and Easter and are pro choice, believe in divorce, and believe one church is as good as another…and clergy who are “creative” with the Mass and make their parishes into a business.

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t wish to be or sound un-Christian, but now with the resurection of the Mass in Latin, all of you younger people know how older Catholics who were taught that the Latin Mass was eternal in nature felt in the 1970’s when the Latin Mass was all but prohibited in the USA.
At the time, I was a fallen away Catholic, illicitly married a 2nd time to an Episcopalian who dragged me off to their services. My first exposure to the new Mass came when my father came to visit and I accompanied him to Mass on Sunday at a neighborhood church. To my shock, and my fathers disgust, it turned out to be a “Rock n’ Roll” Mass. My father almost walked out except that his feeling for religious obligation over-rode his being appaled.
I returned to the church in 2003, and to my amazement, the English wasn’t even a close translation of the Latin, and was very close to the Episcopal services I attended during the 1970’s. However, the early training I received in a Jeseut run parochial school kicked in and I humbly obeyed the contemporary teaching.
In my opinion, JPII had a terrible time handling the excesses of Vatican II, especially in the US. If he had cracked down at the time, he stood a very good chance of many dioceses becoming scismatic to a greater degree than Bishop Lefebre’s people., Now, enough time has elapsed that Pope Benedict can restore order and discipline in the Church, and I believe it. It is far better to have a smaller church with people who genuinly believe in and practice the faith than having nominal Catholics who attend Mass only at Christmas and Easter and are pro choice, believe in divorce, and believe one church is as good as another…and clergy who are “creative” with the Mass and make their parishes into a business.

Thank you for sharing your story.

It always helps to have a first-hand account from someone who was there.

 

[At_Trent]

I don’t wish to be or sound un-Christian, but now with the resurection of the Mass in Latin, all of you younger people know how older Catholics who were taught that the Latin Mass was eternal in nature felt in the 1970’s when the Latin Mass was all but prohibited in the USA.
At the time, I was a fallen away Catholic, illicitly married a 2nd time to an Episcopalian who dragged me off to their services. My first exposure to the new Mass came when my father came to visit and I accompanied him to Mass on Sunday at a neighborhood church. To my shock, and my fathers disgust, it turned out to be a “Rock n’ Roll” Mass. My father almost walked out except that his feeling for religious obligation over-rode his being appaled.
I returned to the church in 2003, and to my amazement, the English wasn’t even a close translation of the Latin, and was very close to the Episcopal services I attended during the 1970’s. However, the early training I received in a Jeseut run parochial school kicked in and I humbly obeyed the contemporary teaching.
In my opinion, JPII had a terrible time handling the excesses of Vatican II, especially in the US. If he had cracked down at the time, he stood a very good chance of many dioceses becoming scismatic to a greater degree than Bishop Lefebre’s people., Now, enough time has elapsed that Pope Benedict can restore order and discipline in the Church, and I believe it. It is far better to have a smaller church with people who genuinly believe in and practice the faith than having nominal Catholics who attend Mass only at Christmas and Easter and are pro choice, believe in divorce, and believe one church is as good as another…and clergy who are “creative” with the Mass and make their parishes into a business.

Well said. Reminds me of these words…

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
St. Athanasius

 

[ElToro]

Even if Summorum Pontificum marks the end of 500 years of Roman Rite unity…even if the misconceptions & falsehoods about the Ordinary Form become common belief…even if the Extraordinary Form once again becomes the primary usage of the Roman Rite…even if the liturgical principles given by the Holy Spirit at Vatican II are completely ignored…even if the restored Roman Missal is destroyed…The Pope knows what he is doing. And I will trust him.

But I won’t say that it doesn’t hurt.

I spent years of my life in study and research to finally come to the conclusion that the Ordinary Form represents one of the greatest expressions of the Patristic and traditional Roman Rite. Now Pope Benedict is pushing the expansion of the Extraordinary Form and my own pastor wishes to bring this medieval, Gallican Missal to my parish.

What am I supposed to do? It was the Ordinary Form that I have loved and served God in, and now it seems that all the fruits of it are going to be swept away before it even has a chance to blossom.

**The Pope has, IN PRACTICE, split the Roman Rite in two. **

Am I the only one who sees this? Am I the only traditional Roman Catholic left who sees the Ordinary Form for what it really is: a restoration of the ancient Roman Rite?

Or am I just wrong?

But he is the Pope…and all I can do is trust that he knows what he is doing.

But it hurts like hell to see the Roman Rite, so long united as one, be divided by the very liturgy that gave it its unity.

WHY?!?!?!? :banghead:

You’re just wrong. There is only ONE Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. There are two forms of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass within the Latin Rite. Please don’t confused a Rite of the Church with a form of the Mass. Apples and Oranges.

The divisive squawking you hear from a teeny-tiny minority of the Latin Rite (far less than 1/2 of 1%) is the very reason many bishops simply did not allow the EF in years past.

 

[ElToro]

Don’t blame the Pope. Blame the Bishops and priests who ignored Vatican II and treated the Mass as their own playground. If we didn’t have to tune into EWTN to see a reverent OF Mass I doubt you would have seen SP. Even the current translation (not the new one) ignores some of the key principles of Vatican II. We shouldn’t have to go to an EF Mass to hear the prayers in Latin - that was actually required by Vatican II but almost 100% of the priests and bishops ignored it. We shouldn’t have to go to an EF Mass to experience reverent silence which was called for in numerous documents since VII. Maybe SP was bitter medicine to some. But it is medicine to treat a deadly disease.

Untrue. More urban legend. More corrosive nonsense.

 

[JReducation]

Even if Summorum Pontificum marks the end of 500 years of Roman Rite unity…even if the misconceptions & falsehoods about the Ordinary Form become common belief…even if the Extraordinary Form once again becomes the primary usage of the Roman Rite…even if the liturgical principles given by the Holy Spirit at Vatican II are completely ignored…even if the restored Roman Missal is destroyed…The Pope knows what he is doing. And I will trust him.

But I won’t say that it doesn’t hurt.

I spent years of my life in study and research to finally come to the conclusion that the Ordinary Form represents one of the greatest expressions of the Patristic and traditional Roman Rite. Now Pope Benedict is pushing the expansion of the Extraordinary Form and my own pastor wishes to bring this medieval, Gallican Missal to my parish.

What am I supposed to do? It was the Ordinary Form that I have loved and served God in, and now it seems that all the fruits of it are going to be swept away before it even has a chance to blossom.

The Pope has, IN PRACTICE, split the Roman Rite in two.

Am I the only one who sees this? Am I the only traditional Roman Catholic left who sees the Ordinary Form for what it really is: a restoration of the ancient Roman Rite?

Or am I just wrong?

But he is the Pope…and all I can do is trust that he knows what he is doing.

But it hurts like hell to see the Roman Rite, so long united as one, be divided by the very liturgy that gave it its unity.

WHY?!?!?!? :banghead:

I think you need do two things.

First:

You need to go back and read SP again. The Holy Father makes it very clear that the 1962 missal is the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite. He is not pushing to have it replace he Pauline Missal, but to have the two exist side by side.

Second:

You need to show a little more respect for the Extraordinary Form. It is the holy mass

As to your pastor, he can bring the EF to the parish. What he cannot do is abolish the OF. He has to allow both to co-exist. If he’s simply introducing the EF to the parish, there is nothing wrong with that. If he is discontinuing the OF, that is a serious problem. However, that’s not what you said.

I’m not too sure I understand your concern here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ElToro]

The EF is the Mass of the Ages, never abrogated, unmatched in it’s richness of doctrine, and in fact, the Highest Prayer of Holy Mother Church. (RCC)

Quotes below from before the SP

Nonsense! No way does SP suggest the EF is “unmatched in it’s richness of doctrine” with respect to the OF. That’s just not true. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (AND ALL other valid Catholic Sacrificial liturgies) ARE the Highest Prayer of “Holy Mother Church.” To suggest it applies only to the EF is ludicrous.

I really do see now why some bishops even today are leery of the EF – it breeds division in some people.

 

[JReducation]

Nonsense! No way does SP suggest the EF is “unmatched in it’s richness of doctrine” with respect to the OF. That’s just not true. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (AND ALL other valid Catholic Sacrificial liturgies) ARE the Highest Prayer of “Holy Mother Church.” To suggest it applies only to the EF is ludicrous.

I really do see now why some bishops even today are leery of the EF – it breeds division in some people.

You’re right. We have to be careful with how we use words and how we read them. The Church has not said that the EF is the highest prayer of the Church. When she speaks thus, she’s speaking about the mass. To single out the EF as the highest expression of prayer is out of balance. One can go to extremes and extremes are dangerous.

Just take that sentence, “The EF is the highest form of prayer of the Church.” How would that resonate with the 22 other Catholic Churches who do not use the EF? How would that resonate with the many religious orders that have never used the EF, but have always used their own forms or their own rites?

The problem is that we seem to be getting into some kind of competition about this form or that form of the mass. Such a competition should not exist. It’s wrong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PA650]

Even if Summorum Pontificum marks the end of 500 years of Roman Rite unity…even if the misconceptions & falsehoods about the Ordinary Form become common belief…even if the Extraordinary Form once again becomes the primary usage of the Roman Rite…even if the liturgical principles given by the Holy Spirit at Vatican II are completely ignored…even if the restored Roman Missal is destroyed…The Pope knows what he is doing. And I will trust him.

But I won’t say that it doesn’t hurt.

I spent years of my life in study and research to finally come to the conclusion that the Ordinary Form represents one of the greatest expressions of the Patristic and traditional Roman Rite. Now Pope Benedict is pushing the expansion of the Extraordinary Form and my own pastor wishes to bring this medieval, Gallican Missal to my parish.

What am I supposed to do? It was the Ordinary Form that I have loved and served God in, and now it seems that all the fruits of it are going to be swept away before it even has a chance to blossom.

The Pope has, IN PRACTICE, split the Roman Rite in two.

Am I the only one who sees this? Am I the only traditional Roman Catholic left who sees the Ordinary Form for what it really is: a restoration of the ancient Roman Rite?

Or am I just wrong?

But he is the Pope…and all I can do is trust that he knows what he is doing.

But it hurts like hell to see the Roman Rite, so long united as one, be divided by the very liturgy that gave it its unity.

WHY?!?!?!? :banghead:

Perhaps you would appreciate the following book from His Excellency Bishop Marc Aillet, The Old Mass and the New - Explaining the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI.
ignatius.com/Products/OMN-P/the-old-mass-and-the-new.aspx

An insightful book regarding the current state of the liturgy in the Roman Rite.

 

[At_Trent]

Just take that sentence, “The EF is the highest form of prayer of the Church.” How would that resonate with the 22 other Catholic Churches who do not use the EF? How would that resonate with the many religious orders that have never used the EF, but have always used their own forms or their own rites?

Such a competition should not exist.

Sure, exclude the RCC part I made sure to specify, so you can drag the East into a Roman Catholic topic.

I get so sick of that.

 

[At_Trent]

"The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is also the fount from which all her power flows…
Sacrosanctum Concilium 1963

 

[PiousTemplar]

Thank you for sharing your story.

It always helps to have a first-hand account from someone who was there.

Are you excited. Tonnes of young male Catholics are liking the tradition. Soon enough we will have hundreds of EF priests. I have watched the EF extensively on videos and so forth, and FSSP training videos, and from what I see I think is wonderful.

 

[At_Trent]

“Hence the Mass is to us the crowning act of Christian worship.”
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

 

[JReducation]

Sure, exclude the RCC part I made sure to specify, so you can drag the East into a Roman Catholic topic.

I get so sick of that.

"The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is also the fount from which all her power flows…
Sacrosanctum Concilium 1963

“Hence the Mass is to us the crowning act of Christian worship.”
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

Your last two posts are my reason for excluding the RCC part. Because the Church always speaks about the mass, not the Latin Church’s liturgy.

She does speak about the liturgy of the Latin Church, but in documents that are very specific to the Latin Church. But when speaking of the summit of Christian prayer, she does not zero in on the Latin Church, but on the Universal Liturgy. This not only includes all of the Churches, orders and rites, but all of history. There is no one form of the mass that is THE ultimate expression of liturgy. Every form is. There may be forms that are more beautiful than others, easier to follow, more popular, more widely used, older, younger, etc. All that is possible. But they are all liturgy and as your quotes correctly say. The mass is the summit of Christian worship. That’s why I was trying to correct the misimpression that we can give when we make that statement and use RCC with it. That statement is not about the RCC. It’s about the mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

But it hurts like hell to see the Roman Rite, so long united as one, be divided by the very liturgy that gave it its unity.

Interesting that you would come to that conclusion.

In 1974, Pope Paul gave us the Jubilate Deo. In the document he wrote:

…Gregorian Chant
At the same time, the liturgical reform does not and indeed cannot deny the past. Rather does it “preserve and foster it with the greatest care.”[7] It cultivates and transmits all that is in it of high religious, cultural and artistic worth and especially those elements which can express even externally the unity of believers.
This minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant has been prepared with that purpose in mind: to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living traditions of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse to Gregorian chant the place which is due to it. And this becomes all the more imperative as we approach the Holy Year of 1975, during which the faithful of different languages, nations and origins, will find themselves side by side for the common celebration of the Lord…"

adoremus.org/VoluntatiObsequens.html

Now why did he say that if the reforms had already brought about the unity already? Seems to me the vernacular had already split the various Catholic communities. And where is the Jubilate Deo today which was supposed to unify Catholics?

 

[ProVobis]

Untrue. More urban legend. More corrosive nonsense.

The SC is corrosive nonsense?

1. §1. Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.

Looks like there’s a period at the end of that sentence.

 

[At_Trent]

Your last two posts are my reason for excluding the RCC part. Because the Church always speaks about the mass, not the Latin Church’s liturgy.

She does speak about the liturgy of the Latin Church, but in documents that are very specific to the Latin Church. But when speaking of the summit of Christian prayer, she does not zero in on the Latin Church, but on the Universal Liturgy. This not only includes all of the Churches, orders and rites, but all of history. There is no one form of the mass that is THE ultimate expression of liturgy. Every form is. There may be forms that are more beautiful than others, easier to follow, more popular, more widely used, older, younger, etc. All that is possible. But they are all liturgy and as your quotes correctly say. The mass is the summit of Christian worship. That’s why I was trying to correct the misimpression that we can give when we make that statement and use RCC with it. That statement is not about the RCC. It’s about the mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

How many Eastern churches call their liturgy "Mass " ?

 

[runningdude]

How many Eastern churches call their liturgy "Mass " ?

The Mass and Divine Liturgy have the same goal, consecrate the most Holy Eucharist. It would be at a minimum awkward to say that the “Mass or Divine Liturgy” is the highest form of worship.

The Eucharist is the highest form of human worship, and either word is appropriate to describe its universal celebration.