Interview with Secterary of the Pontifical Comission Ecclesia Dei negotiations with the Society of St. Pius X.?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder what the comment about a “reunification” of the tridentine and novus rites meant?

It appears around minute 11 and a half.

How can two things that were never “united” be “reunited”? It’s like saying Fred and Betty are getting “remarried.”

Sometimes it seems the more one hears, the less one understands.
 
Warrenton said:
I wonder what the comment about a reunification of the tridentine and novus rites meant?
Click to expand...
It means that in the future, it is desirable that, after a time of enrichment, the two rites should become one.
 
Warrenton said:
I wonder what the comment about a “reunification” of the tridentine and novus rites meant?

It appears around minute 11 and a half.

How can two things that were never “united” be “reunited”? It’s like saying Fred and Betty are getting “remarried.”
Click to expand...
You sound periously close to saying that the OF is foreign to catholicism, no?
 
manualman said:
You sound periously close to saying that the OF is foreign to catholicism, no?
Click to expand...
I don’t think he’s saying that. They are just…different. 🙂

Personally, I do believe there will be a hybrid mass 100 years from now.

The truth is, most Catholics attend the OF mass and some vehemently oppose the EF and vice versa, so unless we have two different masses side by side forever, or unless the EF becomes its own rite, I see a melding of the two happening little by little.
 
manualman said:
You sound periously close to saying that the OF is foreign to catholicism, no?
Click to expand...
No. I am saying the secretary talked about “reunifiying.” Only things that were once unified can be re-unified. The two forms of the mass were never unified. There was the tridentine mass. Then, in the late 60s, it was replaced by the n.o. The two forms are distinct and always have been.

A man of his erudition knows this, so I do not assume a chance mistaken use of words.

If, as has been suggested, the secretary means there are plans to create some sort of a hybrid, why not just come out and say it? What purpose would circumlocution serve?

If the answer is “trad caths won’t accept it” isn’t it better to cross the brook now?

On the other hand, if the truth is that there are no plans to create a hybrid, is this a sop to libs, offering them “peace with honor” to use Nixon’s phrasing? If so, again, is it not better just to deal with it in the present?

There may be other possibilities. In fact, I hope there is a different explanation. As I said, I really can’t fathom what he meant. :confused:
 
Warrenton said:
No. I am saying the secretary talked about “reunifiying.” Only things that were once unified can be re-unified. The two forms of the mass were never unified. There was the tridentine mass. Then, in the late 60s, it was replaced by the n.o. The two forms are distinct and always have been.
Click to expand...
Actually the Tridentine became disunited during the 60’s before the NO. By that time people became used to mass facing the people and in the vernacular with many canons, receiving standing, and decreasing silence in the Mass, the new mass was not exactly filled with too many surprises for the congregations. What were added were readers and the exchange of peace but many welcomed those additions.

I can’t see a “hybrid” with readers and the exchange of peace inter alia removed. That’s become too ingrained in the Roman Rite. Just saying.
 
ProVobis said:
By that time people became used to mass facing the people and in the vernacular with many canons, receiving standing, and decreasing silence in the Mass,
Click to expand...
That is to say, some of the people who didn’t leave might have gotten used to it.
 
YoungTradCath said:
It means that in the future, it is desirable that, after a time of enrichment, the two rites should become one.
Click to expand...
May God in His infinite mercy forbid such a thing from ever happening!

Oh, and what happened to Pope Benedict’s expression, “two forms of the same Roman rite”?
 
At the moment, it is. But after a long time, cross pollination between the two forms will happen. Think of moments when the Latin Church still have a plethora of rites. Cross pollination happens.
At that time, when our generation already pass away, the future Pontiff may unite the uses.
It is for the future generation to see. For now, we are living in a very interesting moment when the Roman Rite again have several uses in force.
 
Alfonsus said:
At the moment, it is. But after a long time, cross pollination between the two forms will happen. Think of moments when the Latin Church still have a plethora of rites. Cross pollination happens.
Click to expand...
In botany maybe, but when it impacts 1.6 billion and now 500 vernaculars and many options, it may get quite complicated.
 
Warrenton said:
No. I am saying the secretary talked about “reunifiying.” Only things that were once unified can be re-unified. The two forms of the mass were never unified. There was the tridentine mass. Then, in the late 60s, it was replaced by the n.o. The two forms are distinct and always have been.
Click to expand...
There still seems to be an unspoken assumption on your part that the mass was an unchanging fixed liturgy for nearly all time until it changed radically in the 1960’s into something utterly different. The Cardinal, on the other hand, seems to consider the revisions in the liturgy merely a larger than usual level of change in the countless revisions made over history. Thus, his view may be that the mass is not a fixed and immutable thing like Scripture, but that the liturgy must retain the essential content, but can and has had variations in form of expression over the years. He seems to consider BOTH forms to be expressions of THE MASS. Seems appropriate to me to speak of the potential for further reforms in the future to “reunite” the EF and OF into a single liturgy that (long term) meets the concerns of all faithful catholics. That is a way in which the two different expressions are reunited, because both are expressions of the same mass.

I can see how his comments would make no sense if you see the EF as something like the “golden plates” mormons believe God delivered to Joseph Smith. But such a view would necessitate a rejection of the validity of the OF. I may just not be erudite enough to understand your objection… 😉
 
manualman said:
There still seems to be an unspoken assumption on your part that the mass was an unchanging fixed liturgy for nearly all time until it changed radically in the 1960’s into something utterly different. The Cardinal, on the other hand, seems to consider the revisions in the liturgy merely a larger than usual level of change in the countless revisions made over history.
Click to expand...
When have I said or implied that the Roman rite never changed at all? Attending both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo should be enough to establish that the two are very different. Anyone who has eyes to read the missal knows that Our Lady of Victory was not celebrated before Lepanto, or that the St. Francis’s feast could not have been celebrated in 900.

Under the reasoning you ascribe to the Secretary, no change ever really “changes” anything. That seems like saying if a house burns down, it’s still a house, because at some point someone painted it pink instead of blue, or added a porch.

In form, the Novus Ordo mass is more different from the Tridentine mass than the 1928 Book of Common Prayer Communion Service is from the Tridentine. Is the Anglican service, therefore, the same thing as the Tridentine mass?

Moreover, the revisions that were made previously were not countless. If one went back in time to the Rome of the 700s, one would see a service almost the same as the Tridentine mass. No one ever saw a mass like the Novus Ordo until the 1960s. The Russian Orthodox mass is not like it, and the Greek Orthodox mass is not like it. The original Anglican mass is not like it. Nothing else is like it, except maybe some Lutheran and Presbyterian services.

I am not claiming that the N.O. is not perfectly licit, or effective. I’m not saying anything negative about it at all. Clearly, however, it is different from the Tridentine mass.

And this simply reflects the logic of history. If the N.O. is the same as the Tridentine mass, why did any one bother to implement it? Who ever said, between the 1960s and the 1980s, that it was “the same?” Indeed, they said the exact opposite. They focused - even trumpeted, the need to change the mass. If it’s just the same, why all this doctrinal disputation? Why the virtual suppression of the Tridentine mass for 40 years?

I understand fully the need to preserve the form that Church leaders never make mistakes. It is part of our diplomatic heritage, that the king never does wrong. Under what lawyers call a legal fiction, corrupt ministers twist the king’s “true” intentions to suit their own ends. A classic example is the murder of St. Thomas Becket. The knights misunderstood the king’s cry “will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”

However, we can not even honor our tradition of correcting the Church if we insist that “nothing changed.” That is mere denial. Living in denial does not help the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top