A
Antonius_Lupus
Guest
As many of you know, I have been here before very critical and confused about Summorum Pontificum and the fact that there are now two expressions of the Roman Rite. Through God’s grace and recent coversations with friends, I have finally come to relax in the vision of the Holy Father.
In my conversation with my friends, both of whom are ardent lovers of the Extraordinary Form, I realized that their love of the Extraordinary Form (EF) was not to the exclusion of the Ordinary Form (OF). One in particular suggested that my new pastor’s reverent celebration of the OF Mass was sufficient. It then dawned on me that Pope Benedict’s allowance of the EF was a MERCY. I have been blessed to have attended a parish which celebrates the OF Mass according to the books, and even though my last pastor’s celebration wasn’t always as solemn or reverent as I may have liked, he always celebrated the Mass lawfully and with reverence. So many parishes around the world DO NOT celebrate the OF Mass according to the books. What if I was a Catholic who only had that kind of Mass to look foward to? For my friends, the EF Mass represented a refuge of reverence for them in a sea of irreverence. They weren’t attending the EF Mass because they had some ideological preference for the EF (as far as I could tell anyway)…they simply went because they wanted an orthodox and orthopraxic place to worship God. Could it be that they represent most of the people who are so “in love” with the EF?
Also, my new pastor reminded me a little while back about the fact that the Byzantine Rite has TWO expressions: the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of St. Basil. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is the PRIMARY (Ordinary Form) of the Byzantine Rite, but the Liturgy of St. Basil is celebrated from time to time for special occassions. Now, I am familiar with this fact because I frequent a Melkite Greek Catholic parish (they helped keep me from going into the Eastern Orthodox schism). Then I thought: “What is my fetish with a single expression of the Roman Rite???” Even now as I type there are probably Spanish priests in the Archdiocese of Toledo who are celebrating the Mozarabic Rite Mass though they are Roman Rite priests. Also, if I joined the Dominican Order (as I do desire), then I would be joining an Order that has its own rite: the Dominican Rite. YET, the Dominicans are Roman Rite priests and monks, but they sometimes still celebrate their own liturgy. The fact is that neither the OF or the EF are “better” than the other. Rather, they are merely somewhat different celebrations of a single Roman liturgy. Clearly the Ordinary Form is the primary expression of the Roman Rite, BUT the Extraordinary Form is, like the Melkite usage of the Liturgy of St. Basil, a special form of the ONE Roman Rite that can be celebrated by any priest. The Roman Rite is not divided by Summorum Pontificum…it is DEEPENED. As time progresses further, it is likely that the two expressions of the Roman Rite will “feed” each other and further make the Roman expression of Catholicism more profound. Indeed, I suspect my new pastor’s deep reverence in his celebration of the OF Mass is due in part because he is trained to celebrate the EF Mass.
Though I personally prefer the Ordinary Form, mainly because of its ancientness and that it is the rite into which I was initiated, I still cannot help but be happy with the beauty of the Extraordinary Form. Indeed, was I not excited and trembling after I received the Eucharist for the first time in the Extraordinary manner? And one more point: the Extraordinary Form was THE Roman Rite for 500 years or so. No other expressions of a primary Roman Rite were allowed, and many of the saints that I love and revere celebrated AND understood that the Extraordinary Form was the Roman Rite. What right have I to speak ill of the EF!!! What right have I to call the EF a “Gallican” liturgy and see it as a non-Roman or hybrid-Roman Rite??? The answer: I have NO right. The Roman Rite, as I have said before, is whatever the Pope says that it is. Why? Because we can trust the Pope of Rome to be faithful to the tradition of his own Patriarchate. Just as Ven. Pope Paul VI was being faithful to the Roman tradition by restoring the Old Roman Mass of the Patristic age in the Ordinary Form, so too was Pope Benedict XVI being faithful to the Roman tradition by allowing for the celebration of the Tridentine ROMAN Liturgy that was a our Rite for 500 years! There is no discontinuity between the two…they are both equally reverent and valid expressions of a SINGLE Roman Rite.
Thus, I will be attending any Mass, whether EF or OF, and rejoice in the vast beauty of my own Roman Rite.
Please forgive me, brethren, if I have somehow offended any of you with my previous words. They were but the fearful murmurings of a zealous youth.
Thank you all again for helping me understand and deepen my trust in the Patriarch of Rome…my Patriarch.
In my conversation with my friends, both of whom are ardent lovers of the Extraordinary Form, I realized that their love of the Extraordinary Form (EF) was not to the exclusion of the Ordinary Form (OF). One in particular suggested that my new pastor’s reverent celebration of the OF Mass was sufficient. It then dawned on me that Pope Benedict’s allowance of the EF was a MERCY. I have been blessed to have attended a parish which celebrates the OF Mass according to the books, and even though my last pastor’s celebration wasn’t always as solemn or reverent as I may have liked, he always celebrated the Mass lawfully and with reverence. So many parishes around the world DO NOT celebrate the OF Mass according to the books. What if I was a Catholic who only had that kind of Mass to look foward to? For my friends, the EF Mass represented a refuge of reverence for them in a sea of irreverence. They weren’t attending the EF Mass because they had some ideological preference for the EF (as far as I could tell anyway)…they simply went because they wanted an orthodox and orthopraxic place to worship God. Could it be that they represent most of the people who are so “in love” with the EF?
Also, my new pastor reminded me a little while back about the fact that the Byzantine Rite has TWO expressions: the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of St. Basil. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is the PRIMARY (Ordinary Form) of the Byzantine Rite, but the Liturgy of St. Basil is celebrated from time to time for special occassions. Now, I am familiar with this fact because I frequent a Melkite Greek Catholic parish (they helped keep me from going into the Eastern Orthodox schism). Then I thought: “What is my fetish with a single expression of the Roman Rite???” Even now as I type there are probably Spanish priests in the Archdiocese of Toledo who are celebrating the Mozarabic Rite Mass though they are Roman Rite priests. Also, if I joined the Dominican Order (as I do desire), then I would be joining an Order that has its own rite: the Dominican Rite. YET, the Dominicans are Roman Rite priests and monks, but they sometimes still celebrate their own liturgy. The fact is that neither the OF or the EF are “better” than the other. Rather, they are merely somewhat different celebrations of a single Roman liturgy. Clearly the Ordinary Form is the primary expression of the Roman Rite, BUT the Extraordinary Form is, like the Melkite usage of the Liturgy of St. Basil, a special form of the ONE Roman Rite that can be celebrated by any priest. The Roman Rite is not divided by Summorum Pontificum…it is DEEPENED. As time progresses further, it is likely that the two expressions of the Roman Rite will “feed” each other and further make the Roman expression of Catholicism more profound. Indeed, I suspect my new pastor’s deep reverence in his celebration of the OF Mass is due in part because he is trained to celebrate the EF Mass.
Though I personally prefer the Ordinary Form, mainly because of its ancientness and that it is the rite into which I was initiated, I still cannot help but be happy with the beauty of the Extraordinary Form. Indeed, was I not excited and trembling after I received the Eucharist for the first time in the Extraordinary manner? And one more point: the Extraordinary Form was THE Roman Rite for 500 years or so. No other expressions of a primary Roman Rite were allowed, and many of the saints that I love and revere celebrated AND understood that the Extraordinary Form was the Roman Rite. What right have I to speak ill of the EF!!! What right have I to call the EF a “Gallican” liturgy and see it as a non-Roman or hybrid-Roman Rite??? The answer: I have NO right. The Roman Rite, as I have said before, is whatever the Pope says that it is. Why? Because we can trust the Pope of Rome to be faithful to the tradition of his own Patriarchate. Just as Ven. Pope Paul VI was being faithful to the Roman tradition by restoring the Old Roman Mass of the Patristic age in the Ordinary Form, so too was Pope Benedict XVI being faithful to the Roman tradition by allowing for the celebration of the Tridentine ROMAN Liturgy that was a our Rite for 500 years! There is no discontinuity between the two…they are both equally reverent and valid expressions of a SINGLE Roman Rite.
Thus, I will be attending any Mass, whether EF or OF, and rejoice in the vast beauty of my own Roman Rite.
Please forgive me, brethren, if I have somehow offended any of you with my previous words. They were but the fearful murmurings of a zealous youth.
Thank you all again for helping me understand and deepen my trust in the Patriarch of Rome…my Patriarch.