Some thoughts on the Society's Imminent Response to Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lamentabili
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This article poses an important question on the Traditional Mass. With Benedict’s plan for a hybrid Mass combining the NO and Traditional, does that mean the end of the Traditional Mass as we know it? If the SSPX is regularized and has to use the hybrid Mass, the only ones left saying the Traditional Mass will be pockets of Sedevacantists. Thoughts?
 
Lamentabili said:
With Benedict’s plan for a hybrid Mass combining the NO and Traditional, does that mean the end of the Traditional Mass as we know it?
Click to expand...
Just wondering were this plan is laid out. This is the first I have heard of it.
 
Lamentabili said:
This article poses an important question on the Traditional Mass. With Benedict’s plan for a hybrid Mass combining the NO and Traditional, does that mean the end of the Traditional Mass as we know it? If the SSPX is regularized and has to use the hybrid Mass, the only ones left saying the Traditional Mass will be pockets of Sedevacantists. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I’d love some links and news reports concerning a “hybrid” Mass.
 
ByzCath said:
Just wondering were this plan is laid out. This is the first I have heard of it.
Click to expand...
It is not an offical plan, just a thought that has been bandied about.

To answer the question about SSPX and “hybrid Mass,” neither SSPX nor FSSP or ICKSP are likely accept any sort of hybrid Mass.

Ideally there will be a traditionalized hybrid Mass as the only other option besides the traditional Mass, as a stepping stone to having only the traditional Mass.

I know many here won’t agree, though that’s what I’d like to see. In any case having only the “hybrid” – it’s not just the SSPX that would object.
 
Trying to answer this question is like playing “what if” with my kids. Don’t cross bridges until you get to them. we don’t get to vote on it anyway. 🙂
 
For what its worth, we had our priest over for dinner on Easter and he remarked that the April 15th date was not a “hard” date but was rather the news media’s interpretation of the statement that a response was due “in a month” (from March 15th).

So I wouldn’t be too surprised if April 15th passes and the only thing that happens is that some folks will be late filing their tax returns…
 
giuseppeTO said:
For what its worth, we had our priest over for dinner on Easter and he remarked that the April 15th date was not a “hard” date but was rather the news media’s interpretation of the statement that a response was due “in a month” (from March 15th).

So I wouldn’t be too surprised if April 15th passes and the only thing that happens is that some folks will be late filing their tax returns…
Click to expand...
LOL
 
newyorkcatholic said:
It is not an offical plan, just a thought that has been bandied about.

To answer the question about SSPX and “hybrid Mass,” neither SSPX nor FSSP or ICKSP are likely accept any sort of hybrid Mass.

Ideally there will be a traditionalized hybrid Mass as the only other option besides the traditional Mass, as a stepping stone to having only the traditional Mass.

I know many here won’t agree, though that’s what I’d like to see. In any case having only the “hybrid” – it’s not just the SSPX that would object.
Click to expand...
I expect that Ordinariates, Personal Prelatures and the like may be exempt from an eventual hybrid. I don’t see the Vatican, for instance, wanting to rock the boat with the new TAC converts by making them give up their Anglican Rite Mass - which may be more orthodox than even a hybrid Novus Ordo.

Also, Pope Benedict understands the error of the ‘overnight’ promulgation of the Pauline Mass and will more likely grow the OF into an HF over time. Of course, he is 85 and only God knows how many Pontifical years he has remaining. With collegiality at work, I find it hard to imagine how he could bring an HF into common use judging by the resistance to the 2011 changes and the ability of each council of Bishops to deny the implementation of the Pope’s plans.
 
giuseppeTO said:
I expect that Ordinariates, Personal Prelatures and the like may be exempt from an eventual hybrid. I don’t see the Vatican, for instance, wanting to rock the boat with the new TAC converts by making them give up their Anglican Rite Mass - which may be more orthodox than even a hybrid Novus Ordo.
Click to expand...
Are you aware what the opposite of orthodox is?

The Church can not teach heterodoxy.

The Ordinary Form is just as orthodox as the Anglican use or the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
 
giuseppeTO said:
With collegiality at work, I find it hard to imagine how he could bring an HF into common use judging by the resistance to the 2011 changes and the ability of each council of Bishops to deny the implementation of the Pope’s plans.
Click to expand...
Good point. Also, for better or for worse, there aren’t too many liturgists with the leadership skills of Bugnini out there to “get things done.”
 
I think a part of the problem is when we have people who get actively say things like “eventually I’d like to see such and such a Form be eliminated entirely”. Both Forms are valid, so what is to be gained by this? All that happens is you run the risk of your preferred Form getting nuked.
giuseppeTO said:
I expect that Ordinariates, Personal Prelatures and the like may be exempt from an eventual hybrid.
Click to expand...
Consecrated religious will be exempt for sure, not sure about Societies of Apostolic Life. Which at this time the SSPX is, so if a “hybrid Form” gets passed down the SSPX would have to conform to it.

Have to conform.
giuseppeTO said:
I don’t see the Vatican, for instance, wanting to rock the boat with the new TAC converts by making them give up their Anglican Rite Mass - which may be more orthodox than even a hybrid Novus Ordo.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the Ordinary Form is inherently unorthodox?
 
There is no formal plan for a blending of the two forms of the mass. There have been suggestions, but none that the Holy See has taken seriously.

There is a formal discussion on the table concerning the liturgical calendar, but that will take years to work out. That’s not a surprise to anyone. Pope Benedict himself said that it would be good to have some of the newer saints on the liturgical calendar used with the Tridentine missal. Liturgical calendars are not an easy thing to put together and are not something that are put at the top of the heap. There are other priorities.

One of the biggest issues will be the place of the SSPX bishops. They will probably want to remain part of the Society. In which case, it could make impossible to give them a diocese or assign them as auxiliaries. Even when a bishop comes from a religious order with its traditions and history, he is allowed to bring that to his diocese, but he is not allowed to discourage what is in place with the Church’s blessing I can’t imagine any of the SSPX bishops feeling comfortable with that situation. At the same time, only one of them can be at the head of the SSPX.

The other important issue that has to be addressed is incardinatioin of their priests. These are secular priests. If I understand it correctly, the SSPX was a diocesan society of apostolic life and it was suppressed. If that suppression still stands, those priests cannot be incardinated into a society that has no canonical life. That would have to run through the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life who will review the constitutions of the SSPX, make suggestions for changes, if needed and then inform Cardinal Levada that the Society meets all of the canonical requirements for erection. These priests have to be incardinated somewhere. There is no such thing as a homeless priest. Either he belongs to a diocese or to an institute.

If the institute’s constitutions have never received approval, that has to happen very quickly. This happened with the Transalpine Redemptorists. It took a year before they could accept new members, while their constitution was being edited and sent back and forth between them and the Holy See. There was no question that they were back in full communion. The issue was that the community, not the individuals, had no canonical status. It had to be erected. Everyone knew it was going to be erected. It was just a matter of crossing the tees and dotting the eyes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
There is no formal plan for a blending of the two forms of the mass. There have been suggestions, but none that the Holy See has taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Brother, it seems like a lot more than suggestions. Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, explained this plan, not as his own, but as the Pope’s own plan. Thus it comes from the Holy See itself, which means it does take it seriously.

See here: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101922.htm
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Pope Benedict XVI’s easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a “reform of the reform” in liturgy, the Vatican’s top ecumenist said.
Click to expand...
The pope’s long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a “common rite” that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.
Click to expand...
and
Cardinal Koch said “Summorum Pontificum” is “only the beginning of this new liturgical movement.”
Click to expand...
“In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
In his personal writings, the Holy Father has reflected here and there on how aspects of the traditional Mass would improve the new Mass. Except for a vague statement that they can be “mutually enriching” I haven’t seen him take the reverse tack.

I pray that someday the EF will become the ordinary form, perhaps with permission to celebrate it in the vernacular to aid the transition. It’s in the Holy Father’s hands: let pray for him.
 
Rich_C said:
I pray that someday the EF will become the ordinary form
Click to expand...
Are others allowed to say they they pray the status-quo remains? Or pray that there is only one common Form, with the currently Ordinary Form being that one?
 
JReducation said:
There is no formal plan for a blending of the two forms of the mass. There have been suggestions, but none that the Holy See has taken seriously.
Click to expand...
The reason for the current notion of a hybrid mass comes directly from the Vatican. Vatican authorities are the cause of the notion, as it was circulated from Vatican officials shortly after (within a week, if I recall) the promulgation of *Summorum Pontificum *that, indeed, there was a view toward an ultimate synthesis of some kind. Before then no one anywhere thought or spoke of a/the “hybrid mass”, except perhaps privately and whimsically as some sort of a potential ideal; it had no authoritative basis for an actual realization, as it does now thanks to the aforementioned comments by Vatican officials after SP.
JReducation said:
There is a formal discussion on the table concerning the liturgical calendar, but that will take years to work out. That’s not a surprise to anyone. Pope Benedict himself said that it would be good to have some of the newer saints on the liturgical calendar used with the Tridentine missal. Liturgical calendars are not an easy thing to put together and are not something that are put at the top of the heap. ** There are other priorities**.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine.)

(Other priorities) such as? Do you have any sources for this? How do you know so much more than everybody else about the Vatican’s “priorities”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top