Extraordinary Form of the Mass- Roman Rite

[corsair]

Constancio05,

I am, currently, an attendee of the EF Mass at an FSSP parish. However I used to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel until 1988. I will grant you that without the good Archbishop Lefebvre there would be no trace of the TLM.

Thank God for his resistance. Even St. Athanasius would be proud of him.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Your comments don’t surprise me father. I count a fair number of Roman priests among my friends, and I can tell you that I am constantly shocked by how insufficiently prepared they are to shepherd souls. I am even occasionally able to talk with them openly about this, and ultimately these talks dissuaded me from becoming a priest myself, at least,in the Roman rite.

In fact in the Roman diocese I was formally a member of the only mass I ever attended in the whole Diocese that was actually faithful to Sacrosanctum Concilium was, ironically enough, the Mass under the 1962 missal. So I would say your reasoning about the need for reforms and what the Bishops hoped to achieve by them is much mistaken.

The Mass under the 1962 Missal is no longer celebrated like it was before Vatican II–that is to say that the liturgical issues that prompted the misguided reforms of the liturgy that had been developing in the Roman Church since the middle ages have largely been addressed, ironically, by the destruction of the liturgy carried out in the “spirit” of Vatican II. Consequently, if you go to a Roman rite mass today (as opposed to a New Order Mass) then you will likely find the full and active participation of the Mass that this woman is herself, seeking. After all if she was content to do a private devotion while Mass was being said she wouldn’t be here asking this question now would she?

Interestingly **if you actually read the Constitution on the Liturgy from Vatican II then you may comprehend **that it really seemed to aim at bringing the Roman liturgy more in line, in terms of participation, with the Eastern Liturgies. The problem here however is that such liturgies are created from the bottom up and not the top down. They are created by fully developed local churches, and a large part of the problem of the Roman Church is that it has insufficiently developed local churches. In my opinion this is why so many Roman rite Catholics are leaving the Church. In reality there is no other entry point into the Universal Church except for the local church and without a local Church no real liturgy (work of the people) is possible.

As a professor liturgy and sacraments, I TAUGHT Sacrosanctum Concilium. I comprehend it very well.

As for the rest of your posts, I highlight those elements that will help the moderator identify conveniently those elements which contravene the rules of the forum.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

As a professor liturgy and sacraments, I TAUGHT Sacrosanctum Concilium. I comprehend it very well.

As for the rest of your posts, I highlight those elements that will help the moderator identify conveniently those elements which contravene the rules of the forum.

Well it certainly wasn’t my intention to contravene any rules of the forum here. If I did violate any of the rules it wasn’t done intentionally or with any malice. However given the tone of your replay might it not be the case that this is only your biased and subjective opinion?

I have no doubt that you may have taught Sacrosanctum Conscilium as many have these last 50 odds years and mostly in a way that best fit their agenda and biases, which has been a large part of the problem. Given your other comments here what evidence can we find in them to suggest that this wasn’t the case with you?

I am pretty sure that intentionally trying to derail a thread is a violation of the forum rules. To tell you the truth, though, I haven’t actually read them, but I will now to be sure that in the future I don’t inadvertently contravene them.

In any case father, I will pray for you–and I mean that in all sincerity.

P.S. by the rules your reply it seems would have been served as private message to me. In the future, now that I know better, I will not respond on a thread to these types of off topic comments. Although I have to admit I fail to understand how me saying that you may be mistaken about something is a contravention of the rules (not to mention the other items). I don’t know perhaps you believe this was a personal attack?

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

As a professor liturgy and sacraments, I TAUGHT Sacrosanctum Concilium. I comprehend it very well.

As for the rest of your posts, I highlight those elements that will help the moderator identify conveniently those elements which contravene the rules of the forum.

I would like to clarify one thing as I can see how it could have been misconstrued. I meant to write “Roman Mass” and not “Roman rite Mass”. In other words I wasn’t attempting to say one is proper and the other improper. The fact is that there really aren’t any good terms to speak of these two particular forms of the Roman rite today–and we would also do well to remember that there are also still other active forms of the Roman rite.

Latin Mass isn’t a good name because all Roman rite masses are still nominally Latin masses (sometimes people forget that).

Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form doesn’t quite do the distinction justice either, every Roman catholic has the right for their “ordinary” experience of the Mass to be the so-called “Extraordinary Form”.

Of course Vetus Ordo and Novus Ordor are pretty good, but this still gives a false impression that somehow the Vetus Ordo is a thing of the past (certainly there are many in the Church who wish for just this).

Also Tridentine isn’t quite correct either because it ignores the fact that substantive parts of the Roman Mass were around long before the Council of Trent. Certainly parts of the Roman mass have been with us since the 4th century if not all the way back to the 2nd. Although, to be fair many of these same parts are largely preserved in the New Order form as well so maybe my convention of terming one the Roman Mass and the other the New Order Mass isn’t yet perfect either.

In any case the one thing I like about the latter designation for at least the form of the Roman rite developed after Vatican II is the reflection that this was not a form of the Mass that developed organically from the ground up, but one that was imposed upon the faithful from the top down. In saying this I am simply stating a historical fact. The salient point here, however, is that it turns the whole idea of the liturgy (the work of the people) on its heard.

In any case the point of my terminology is an attempt to speak more clearly about these two forms of the Roman rite and not to denigrate either one of them.

Other issues such as me speaking of the destruction of the liturgy carried out in the "spirit’ of Vatican II should be clear enough weren’t in any way intended to be taken as a refutation of the Council or the Novus Ordo Missa. This opinion simply echos many members of the curia and even a retired Pope.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed pending review by moderator Thomas Casey