SSPX / RCC talks

[PilgrimToChrist]

The Various Western “Rites” or Uses
Specific Approved Missals in regular (if not routine) use:
Roman OF
Roman EF
Ambrosian/Milanese
Mozarabic
Bragan
Dominican Missal
Roman OF with Dominican Propers*
Carthusian
Anglican Use

Still approved but might not be in use:
Carmelite
Dalmation (Old Church Slavonic version of the EF)
Sarum (approved as an EF for special occasions in UK Cathedrals only, almost never used. Anglican Church uses it in English and Latin from time to time, tho’.)

And I know I missed one, but can’t recall which one of the religious order’s rites. And this also is ignoring the specific ethnic adaptations approved by rome as indults for various places, like the African indult for liturgical dance, and the Yupic indult for both liturgical dance and for native deacons to use Kuspuk’s instead of dalmatic and alb.

*was used at Holy Family Cathedral in the 80’s and 90’s under approval from rome for said use by friars of the Western Dominican Priory, and I believe, all other dominican priories.

You missed the entire point.

I did not say that there are only two Rites in the whole Catholic Church, nor did I say that there are only two Rites in the West.

I simply said that there are two Rites which both claim to be the Roman Rite. The Rite of the Holy Sepulcher (Carmelite Rite), for instance, does not claim to be the Roman Rite. However, you confirmed my assertion by separating the “Roman OF” from the “Roman EF” – that the traditional Roman Rite is a distinct Rite from the New Rite.

 

[laszlo]

I simply said that there are two Rites which both claim to be the Roman Rite. The Rite of the Holy Sepulcher (Carmelite Rite), for instance, does not claim to be the Roman Rite. However, you confirmed my assertion by separating the “Roman OF” from the “Roman EF” – that the traditional Roman Rite is a distinct Rite from the New Rite.

The Roman Catholic Church has several rites, but the Extraordinary and the Ordinary form are the same rite only different form: same structure, mostly the same sentences. The Church did not intended to make new rite, and did not made new rite. In this question the Church is the authority

The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

sanctamissa.org/en/resources/summorum-pontificum.html

Do not mistake the inventions of those who believe that they are the Church and God gave them right to redo the liturgy at their will. The rite is defined by the books not by the unapproved innovations.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The Roman Catholic Church has several rites, but the Extraordinary and the Ordinary form are the same rite only different form: same structure, mostly the same sentences. The Church did not intended to make new rite, and did not made new rite.

I have already mentioned several times what the currently accepted terminology is, it was a compromise between those who say that the 1970 Missal changed the Roman Rite and those who say that they are two separate Rites. There were two claimants to the title of the Roman Rite and Pope Benedict XVI said that they can both be the Roman Rite, just in two different “forms”. The terminology of “form” with regards to a subdivision within a Rite is not yet established, but it seems to be comparable to the term “use” (e.g. the Sarum Use of the Roman Rite, commonly called the “Sarum Rite”, and SP states “sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani.” – “There are two usages of the one Roman Rite”), but the term “use” is only really applicable to minor liturgical customs, not a dramatic re-writing of everything in the Rite. That break with the organic development of the Roman Rite means a new Rite was created. Msgr. Klaus Gamber goes into much more detail in his book “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy” (which appears to be out-of-print, but there are used copies available).

The official terminology of “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite” (New Rite) vs. “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” (Old Rite) is a practical compromise, it does not oblige us all to use that terminology or hold that the New Rite is the same Rite. I do not use the term “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” because I do not agree with the philosophical implications, it is simply the Roman Rite. The New Rite is not the Roman Rite, once you break that organic bond and change everything in the Rite, it’s not the same Rite anymore and a papal document cannot change that reality, it would be like a pope stating that a capybara is a type of fish… It may be a practical consideration, but it doesn’t change reality. The term “Form” (forma) of a Rite is not even yet defined, it was simply used.

Do not mistake the inventions of those who believe that they are the Church and God gave them right to redo the liturgy at their will. The rite is defined by the books not by the unapproved innovations.

My concern is only with the New Rite in its ideal. The elimination of liturgical abuses rampant in the NO is a major concern of the “Reform of the Reform” movement and neo-conservatives in general. This is all well and good, as I said, in the short-term it is absolutely necessary in order to save souls who are being taught false things, falling away or even participating at invalid Masses (defect of Matter is the most common cause in places that make their own hosts, see “De Defectibus”) because of the rampant liturgical abuse.

 

[Melchior_1]

I have already mentioned several times what the currently accepted terminology is, it was a compromise between those who say that the 1970 Missal changed the Roman Rite and those who say that they are two separate Rites. There were two claimants to the title of the Roman Rite and Pope Benedict XVI said that they can both be the Roman Rite, just in two different “forms”. The terminology of “form” with regards to a subdivision within a Rite is not yet established, but it seems to be comparable to the term “use” (e.g. the Sarum Use of the Roman Rite, commonly called the “Sarum Rite”, and SP states “sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani.” – “There are two usages of the one Roman Rite”), but the term “use” is only really applicable to minor liturgical customs, not a dramatic re-writing of everything in the Rite. That break with the organic development of the Roman Rite means a new Rite was created. Msgr. Klaus Gamber goes into much more detail in his book “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy” (which appears to be out-of-print, but there are used copies available).

The official terminology of “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite” (New Rite) vs. “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” (Old Rite) is a practical compromise, it does not oblige us all to use that terminology or hold that the New Rite is the same Rite. I do not use the term “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” because I do not agree with the philosophical implications, it is simply the Roman Rite. The New Rite is not the Roman Rite, once you break that organic bond and change everything in the Rite, it’s not the same Rite anymore and a papal document cannot change that reality, it would be like a pope stating that a capybara is a type of fish… It may be a practical consideration, but it doesn’t change reality. The term “Form” (forma) of a Rite is not even yet defined, it was simply used.

My concern is only with the New Rite in its ideal. The elimination of liturgical abuses rampant in the NO is a major concern of the “Reform of the Reform” movement and neo-conservatives in general. This is all well and good, as I said, in the short-term it is absolutely necessary in order to save souls who are being taught false things, falling away or even participating at invalid Masses (defect of Matter is the most common cause in places that make their own hosts, see “De Defectibus”) because of the rampant liturgical abuse.

And of course you will place the same amount of concern with those who receive “confession” from Priests who have had their faculties suspended (thus the Confessions aren’t valid)?

And surely you won’t promote people going to illicit Masses being celebrated by clergy who have had their faculties suspended?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

And of course you will place the same amount of concern with those who receive “confession” from Priests who have had their faculties suspended (thus the Confessions aren’t valid)?

And surely you won’t promote people going to illicit Masses being celebrated by clergy who have had their faculties suspended?

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[laszlo]

The terminology of “form” with regards to a subdivision within a Rite is not yet established, but it seems to be comparable to the term “use”

The Pope established that terminology, and he has the right and the power to do so.

Sharum is not approved version of the Mass (for technicality, but not approved). Otherwise unlike the Mozarabic and the Ambrosian rites, the structure of the Sharum version is the same as the Roman (Extraordinary or Ordinary) rite.

 

[pnewton]

The difference is what you mean ‘the Church’. Naturally people are part of the Church, but the Church is significantly more that just people.

Absolutely. I see that there is always a danger when the Church tries to introduce some balance into our spiritual lives, our communal live or our doctrine that some will take this balancing force and ignore that which it was intended to balance. If the direction of the Church is to balance a problem of going to Mass in our own little world and walking out the same, with the awareness of being family, community and body, it is a predictable danger that some will attempt to turn Church into a religious social club. I guess some here have had first hand experience with this. I have not and perhaps that is the difference.

I wasn’t a Catholic in the fifties, so I can not speak from experience on what motivated the Council to address these issues. However, just like some have been exposed to excessively social Catholics who have not clue to the spiritual realities, it seems there still can be those that mark the jot and tittle yet have no clue that we are a family too. If this was prevelant pre-Vatican II, then ecclesiology needed to be addressed.

 

[JReducation]

You missed the entire point.

I did not say that there are only two Rites in the whole Catholic Church, nor did I say that there are only two Rites in the West.

I simply said that there are two Rites which both claim to be the Roman Rite. The Rite of the Holy Sepulcher (Carmelite Rite), for instance, does not claim to be the Roman Rite. However, you confirmed my assertion by separating the “Roman OF” from the “Roman EF” – that the traditional Roman Rite is a distinct Rite from the New Rite.

There are not two Roman Rites. There is one Roman Rite, with two forms. The others are uses of the Roman Rite.

The breakdown goes like this:

ROMAN RITE

Ordinary Form

Various Uses​

Extraordinary Form

Various Uses​

For example: There is the Roman Rite and the Franciscan Use. The Franciscan Use can be in either the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form. What does this mean? It means that whether you’re celebrating using the NO or the TLM you’re still celebrating the Roman Rite. However, if you’re celebrating mass at a Franciscan parish or chapel, you must USE their missal, lectionary, calendar and their customs, hence the term “Uses”. They have a missal for the OF and another for the EF. The differences between them are going to be the same as you see in the Roman Missal for the OF and EF, except that since they are Franciscans, you will also see Franciscan traditions being inserted into the mass that you would not see at a diocesan parish. However, those Franciscan traditions are exactly the same in the EF and the OF.

If the friar who celebrates the mass in the OF does not use the communion rail, because Franciscans generally don’t have one, he won’t use it in the EF either. If he vocalizes the prayers in the OF, because that’s a Franciscan custom, he will do so in the EF also. The people will respond right along with the servers. If it’s a conventual mass, all of the friars will stand around the altar, be it an EF or an OF. The form changes, but the customs remain the same. These customs are what we refer to as Use or Usage. They vary from one major religious order to another. Not all religious communities have their own Use or Usage.

Dominicans, Carmelites and Carthusians have a rite. Franciscans, Jesuits, Augustinians have Usages, but follow the Roman Rite. Everyone else follows the Roman Rite without adding anything or taking anything out.

Prior to Summorum Pontificum, we did not have the word, “Form”. We only had “Use” and “Rite”. The Roman Rite had only one form. But the term “Form” is not foreign to the Catholic Church. The Byzantine Rite has many forms, because it is used bey several Eastern Churches. Even within those forms, there are uses, when you get into religious orders or ethnic groups.

The secular lay person has to simply choose the form that he or she prefers. As to the use, we have to accept the use of the local parish or chapel. If your parish is run by Franciscans, Augustinians or Jesuits, you have to use their customs. I believe that there are other orders that have uses, but I can’t recall which. The congregations do not have their own use. That is one of many differences between a religious order and a religious congregation.

But you really don’t have to worry about “uses” because the differences are so subtle that you may not even notice them. I think that most noticeable difference would be that in a Franciscan chapel or church, you will see everyone receiving communion at a communion station and not along the rail. Whether they stand or kneel is up to them. The friars do not place expectations on the people that are not part of their own custom, whether it’s EF or OF.

The other variations are very subtle. In the EF it may be that you have different collects, because you’re on a different calendar. It may be that you have a Gloria on a day when no one else has a Gloria. You may have a different reading from the rest of the Catholic Church. Unless you run down the street to the next church or chapel, you’ll never know, because the sequence of events at the mass and the gestures are exactly the same as any other celebration of the EF. The same would be the case with the OF. The differences would be such that you would not notice.

That’s what makes the difference between a Use and a Form. In forms, there are very noticeable differences. In uses, the differences are usually subtle and those that are not subtle are not major enough and in enough quantity to make it a different form.

It gets a little confusing, but after you’ve done it for a while, you get the hang of it and you can move back and forth easily. One has to be patient with oneself.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The Pope established that terminology, and he has the right and the power to do so.

He has not defined the term, that is my point. But he does not have the authority to change reality. It is a big stretch to say that the Old Rite and the New Rite are the same Rite.

 

[JReducation]

He has not defined the term, that is my point. But he does not have the authority to change reality. It is a big stretch to say that the Old Rite and the New Rite are the same Rite.

What reality did the Pope change?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I wasn’t a Catholic in the fifties, so I can not speak from experience on what motivated the Council to address these issues. However, just like some have been exposed to excessively social Catholics who have not clue to the spiritual realities, it seems there still can be those that mark the jot and tittle yet have no clue that we are a family too. If this was prevelant pre-Vatican II, then ecclesiology needed to be addressed.

As +Williamson often states, our goal is not a return to the practice of the 1950s as some sort of ideal Catholic utopia, what he calls “Fiftiesism”, which is a pernicious confusion about the purpose of Traditionalism. The problems which later came to the surface in the decades following had already become pervasive in the 1950s and even before (if you saw my photo of Mass facing the people in 1940, which I either posted much earlier in this thread or in one of the Communion-in-the-Hand threads).

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

What reality did the Pope change?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The assertion made in “Summorum Pontificum” that the Old Rite and the New Rite are “two usages of the Roman Rite” – the “Ordinary Form” and the “Extraordinary Form” – does not overrule the quite strong evidence that the New Rite simply does not belong to the Roman Rite family since there is no organic continuity with it.

 

[JReducation]

As +Williamson often states, our goal is not a return to the practice of the 1950s as some sort of ideal Catholic utopia, what he calls “Fiftiesism”, which is a pernicious confusion about the purpose of Traditionalism. The problems which later came to the surface in the decades following had already become pervasive in the 1950s and even before (if you saw my photo of Mass facing the people in 1940, which I either posted much earlier in this thread or in one of the Communion-in-the-Hand threads).

Those who consider facing the people a major problem don’t know what liturgical problems are. Mass facing the congregation was not a common practice. It was usually found only in religious houses and in some Eastern Churches. But it’s not a new idea. One may argue about the merits of doing it with the laity present in the Latin Church. That’s always an interesting question. One may not say that it’s an aberration, since it has been part of the Catholic Church for centuries.

The same is true about CITH. It was a very special practice in some religious communities. One can ask, should it have been allowed among the laity? That’s a valid question. Is it an aberration? That’s a non question for something that has been around for more than 1,000 years.

Some of the issues that the good bishop points to are really a matter of practices that were once limited to a select group and are now widely available. I think that’s the problem here. The question is not being asked correctly. The question on the table is, “Is this good?” If it were evil, it would never have been done. The question should be, “Is it good to include the lay faithful in this practice?”

I for one would be willing to entertain that question. I DO believe that the lay faithful in the Latin Church are not spiritually and psychologically formed for certain practices. They did not grow up with them or they were not properly educated in them. The lay faithful were simply thrown into the pool and told to swim. Hindsight is always 20/20. In retrospect, I can see that this was not a good idea. What we did inside the cloister we did with many years of formation behind us and a long tradition, as well as rules written by our founders that explained and governed such practices. The person in the pew does not have this background, unless he goes out and studies it on his own.

Fortunately, there are some very good schools of theology out there and there are some lay people who are getting formed in these different schools of spirituality; but they are still a minority.

The problem with Bishop Williamson is that not having been a Catholic and not having lived the consecrated life, he is really out of the loop on many things that to many of us are common knowledge. An Augustinian, Carmelite, Franciscan, or Trappist (for example) would look at the Bishop and ask, “What are you talking about? We’ve always done this. When did it become wrong?” The bishop would probably look at them and say, “How was I supposed to know? I do not live the consecrated life and have little contact with the orders.”

When entering into a dialog, it is important to know how to ask the question. Because if you frase the question incorrectly, you’re going to get static from the other side.

I know for a fact that there are religious orders that want nothing to do with the SSPX bishops, because they don’t understand the questions. The reason is that the bishops don’t know the orders. They are secular priests. Why should they know anything about the consecrated life? Therefore, it stands to reason that they would not know that many of the “new” liturgical implementations were “borrowed” from religious. Notice my quotation marks.

The fact that neither side understands the other creates a distance. I’m not sure how to bridge that distance, except for men like Bishop Williamson to trust that the Holy Father knows what he’s doing.

 

[JReducation]

The assertion made in “Summorum Pontificum” that the Old Rite and the New Rite are “two usages of the Roman Rite” – the “Ordinary Form” and the “Extraordinary Form” – does not overrule the quite strong evidence that the New Rite simply does not belong to the Roman Rite family since there is no organic continuity with it.

The problem that you have here is that the Pope can bind and unbind. I can see what you’re saying when you say “organic continuity.” However, you must remember who coined this term. It was Father Ratzinger, many years ago. It’s his term. He knows what he meant when he used it. He pulled it from Augustine and Bonaventure, who were masters in Theology of History. That term has an explanation as long as the Summa (I’m exaggerating, but you get the idea).

He has the authority to overrule organic development. If you want to throw in that term. Why? Because organic development is not a doctrine. It’s a concept from Theology of History. What the concept says is that if you leave something alone, it will develop according to God’s plan. It does not say that it is contrary to God’s plan for the Pontiff to make changes in disciplines.

In fact, as time goes by, those changes become part of the organic development. Right now they are new, just as the Tridentine mass was new once upon a time.

As to the term “New Rite”. It is not a new rite. The pope has made that very clear and we cannot overrule that. It is a new form. But once upon a time, the Tridentine Form was a new form too. The Tridentine form was pulled from an old Franciscan form. Were you aware of that?

In the 13th century, St. Francis did not like the form of the mass that they had in the Diocese of Assisi, because it required too many books. His brothers were too poor to buy so many books. In addition, they were itinerant religious and they were not to be an order of priests. They had very few priests among the friars. It was necessary that these priests who became brothers leave behind their former way of celebrating the mass, if they were to be assimilated into this new brotherhood of itinerant mendicants . . . sort of monks without walls.

Innocent III gave Francis an old missal that had a very simple form of the mass, which had not been in use for a long time. Francis mandated that all the priests who became brothers use this form. Why? Because it was easy to use. It required only one book and the Gospel book. So off they went. This was not an organic change. It was a sudden departure from the usual for these priests. However, they carried this with them throughout Europe and it became very popular.

Through the centuries, various adaptations of this form were made. Finally, at Trent, it was decided to unify the Latin Church under this form, with the exception of those forms that had been in place for 200 years or more. However, it did not kick in for another 40 to 50 years when Pius V, rewrote it again. Once again, it was new and sudden to the people of that time. They had to give up their usual forms, with those exceptions that I mentioned.

This is the same today. The Pope, in his capacity is the supreme liturgist and supreme Law Giver is making another adaptation. If we look at this long history of adaptations made by different popes and different religious superiors, this concept that is being introduced by Summorum Pontificum is no different from the other times when new concepts were introduced. Today, no one looks back at the 13th century and questions Francis of Assisi and Pope Innocent III. Most people don’t even know this story. It passes into history and becomes a blur. The same will happen with Summorum Pontificum. In the future, no one will stop to think about it. People will simply know that there are two forms of the Roman Rite and not know how they came to be, unless they are into liturgical history.

But to say that the pope does not have the authority to make this change is contrary to reality. The reality is that he just did exactly that. He made the change and we are all bound to it. We’re not being asked for our opinions. Pope Benedict does not really care what you and I think about it. He only cares that you and I comply and assent to what he has determined, until another pope comes along and makes another change for whatever reason.

Innocent III never expected to see this old form recover and take over Europe, but it did. No one questions it today. Why should we?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Those who consider facing the people a major problem don’t know what liturgical problems are. Mass facing the congregation was not a common practice. It was usually found only in religious houses and in some Eastern Churches. But it’s not a new idea.

I’m not sure which Eastern Churches traditionally face the people. I have seen (via YouTube) the Liturgy of St. James facing the people, but that is only usually celebrated on his feast day and sometimes also the day after Christmas (although there are few places where it is the primary liturgy). I have also seen it said facing East, so I don’t know which practice is more ancient. (I am also speaking here of Orthodox practices, as I have a little more knowledge of Eastern Orthodox practice through EO friends than I do of Eastern Catholic practices, in instances where they vary).

However, it does not matter whether the Liturgy of St. James is at least sometimes said facing the people, it is not the Roman Rite. We are only interested in this practice within the Roman Rite (and, to a limited extent, the New Rite and those, like the Maronites, which have adopted it recently for the same reasons as the NO), not in other Rites. The reason that people have been trying to turn the altar to face the people in the Roman Rite since Martin Luther has nothing to do with preserving Apostolic custom, like with regards to the Liturgy of St. James. The reasons are very different and its meaning is very different.

It is the same with standing, for instance. The East stands on Sunday, they do not kneel, and it is a right and good thing. But when churches in the West start taking out kneelers and refusing to kneel at certain parts, in some churches, even during the consecration (I’ve been to churches like this), it is an abuse. The East does it for the right reason, but when it is done in the West, it is done for the wrong reason. We cannot simply copy Eastern practice into the West, the philosophy is different and thus it has a different meaning, a negative meaning.

One may argue about the merits of doing it with the laity present in the Latin Church. That’s always an interesting question. One may not say that it’s an aberration, since it has been part of the Catholic Church for centuries.

It is an aberration within the Roman Rite.

The same is true about CITH. It was a very special practice in some religious communities. One can ask, should it have been allowed among the laity? That’s a valid question. Is it an aberration? That’s a non question for something that has been around for more than 1,000 years.

There are reasons that the practice of Communion-on-the-Tongue and only under one Species has become the norm. The reasons people want to adopt the practice of Communion-in-the-Hand and under both species are what we should consider. We do know that CitH was done at least in some places in the early Church and Communion under both Species was the norm for the first millennium. But there is no reason to return to older practices simply because they are older (and, sometimes even this is questionable, there are many false ideas in this area). The Rite has developed organically and this is a good thing.

Remember what Pope Pius XII said about the Jansenistic “exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism” (“Mediator Dei”), which had permeated some parts of the Liturgical Movement.

Some of the issues that the good bishop points to are really a matter of practices that were once limited to a select group and are now widely available. I think that’s the problem here. The question is not being asked correctly. The question on the table is, “Is this good?” If it were evil, it would never have been done. The question should be, “Is it good to include the lay faithful in this practice?”

I for one would be willing to entertain that question. I DO believe that the lay faithful in the Latin Church are not spiritually and psychologically formed for certain practices. They did not grow up with them or they were not properly educated in them. The lay faithful were simply thrown into the pool and told to swim. Hindsight is always 20/20. In retrospect, I can see that this was not a good idea. What we did inside the cloister we did with many years of formation behind us and a long tradition, as well as rules written by our founders that explained and governed such practices. The person in the pew does not have this background, unless he goes out and studies it on his own.

Fortunately, there are some very good schools of theology out there and there are some lay people who are getting formed in these different schools of spirituality; but they are still a minority.

Yes, the 1960s and '70s were a period where many people were scandalized and left the Church because of the changes. My own family members being among them. People had to have a very strong faith to stay Catholic in that time and even in the continuing crisis we are in today, cultural Catholicism (as my family was) just couldn’t cut it. There are usually both personal and objective reasons that people take strong stances on any particular issue. I have very much objective reasons for the criticisms that I make but I also have that personal drive, which was seeing how my family members fell away from the Church because they were scandalized by the changes.

I have never stated that Mass said facing the people is always and everywhere a bad practice or that Communion in the Hand is always and everywhere a bad practice. But we can look at the reasons people wanted these changes in the Roman Rite (and this goes back to the Protestant Rebellion) and to the fruits of these practices and see that they were a mistake to have been allowed (neither is the norm, CitH is just an indult).

(cont.)

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

(cont.)

The problem with Bishop Williamson is that not having been a Catholic

Um… excuse me?

and not having lived the consecrated life, he is really out of the loop on many things that to many of us are common knowledge. An Augustinian, Carmelite, Franciscan, or Trappist (for example) would look at the Bishop and ask, “What are you talking about? We’ve always done this. When did it become wrong?” The bishop would probably look at them and say, “How was I supposed to know? I do not live the consecrated life and have little contact with the orders.”

Again, we are only looking at reasons for and the fruits of these practices as they have been done within the Roman Rite and within the larger Church. The customs, Uses and Rites of regions and religious orders have their own place and honor. Indeed, one of the saddest things about the Council of Trent was the necessary evil of the codification of and the standardization of the Roman Missal. It was a necessary evil in order to combat the profanations and perversions of the Mass done by crypto-Protestants. But it gave birth to this idea that the Liturgy is something produced in a top-down fashion, that it is a product of the Holy See imposed upon the people, rather than a compilation of local religious customs, held together by piety (practicing what our fathers practiced).

The standardization on the Roman Rite, which happened at Trent and slowly happened over the years (such as the loss of the Mozarabic Rite) and then happened after Vatican II (when the Dominican and Carmelites switched to the New Roman Rite) is something that is sad. I love the (traditional) Roman Rite, don’t get me wrong, it is what I attend every Sunday and Holy Day and sometimes weekdays. But it is bad for the same reason that agricultural monoculture is bad, we need a diversity of Rites and Usages which shows the catholicity of the Church and to protect against blight, that is, heresy.

I know for a fact that there are religious orders that want nothing to do with the SSPX bishops, because they don’t understand the questions. The reason is that the bishops don’t know the orders. They are secular priests. Why should they know anything about the consecrated life?

And there are religious orders that are Traditionalist (SSPX or Ecclesia Dei). It would seem that the Traditionalist orders have a bright future. I visited the Benedictine monastery (now abbey) at Clear Creek, Oklahoma, two years ago. It is thriving and so is the lay community which surrounds it (many of whom are oblates). They use the Old Rite (1962 – with their own approved customs*, and utilizing the new propers for new saints), the traditional Benedictine Breviary (1961) and have a strict adherence to the Rule. The Carmelite monks in Wyoming are diocesan-right and so they can use the Rite of the Holy Sepulcher (both Carmelite orders are all-NO, the Carmelite hermits from Texas [O.Carm] I spoke to, when they happened to be visiting Clear Creek when I was, said they use as much from the Carmelite Rite as they can and are petitioning the order to use the Carmelite Rite). The monks of Papa Stronsay were SSPX-affiliated but are now under Ecclesia Dei. There are both SSPX-affiliated and non-SSPX Traditionalist religious orders, I see no reason why Traditionalism and the religious life should be seen as opposed, indeed they go together hand-in-hand quite nicely.

Traditionalism means the return of the lifeblood of the Church – the traditional Mass and other Sacraments, the traditional Office (Benedictine, Roman, etc.), marriage and family life, and religious life. We have gone far enough down this road of the New Theology and the New Rite to know that the fruits of it are not good and we need a restoration of the authentic Liturgical Movement and to develop a true love of our liturgical and theological/philosophical patrimony.

---

• One of several example of the local custom of the Clear Creek abbey is that they would seem to have dropped the Last Gospel. But this is not so, rather they have returned to the pre-Trent practice of saying the Last Gospel as part of the thanksgiving prayers rather than at the altar and so the priest says it to himself while he leaves. (I found this out from the Guestmaster.)

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The problem that you have here is that the Pope can bind and unbind. I can see what you’re saying when you say “organic continuity.” However, you must remember who coined this term. It was Father Ratzinger, many years ago. It’s his term. He knows what he meant when he used it. He pulled it from Augustine and Bonaventure, who were masters in Theology of History. That term has an explanation as long as the Summa (I’m exaggerating, but you get the idea).

He has the authority to overrule organic development. If you want to throw in that term. Why? Because organic development is not a doctrine. It’s a concept from Theology of History. What the concept says is that if you leave something alone, it will develop according to God’s plan. It does not say that it is contrary to God’s plan for the Pontiff to make changes in disciplines.

What occurred was not a change in disciplines. For example, the change to 1st, 2nd, 3rd Class feasts or the restoration of the importance of Sundays over most feasts did not break the Rite or adding St. Joseph to the Canon, these were developments, cultivation of the Rite. Whether we see them as positive or negative developments, it doesn’t matter, they are still part of the Roman Rite. Even the changes made after the Council (the “Ordo Missae” or “1965 Missal”), such as allowing the vernacular, allowing the Mass said facing the people, allowing Communion-in-the-Hand, allowing folk hymns/guitar Masses, etc. did not break the Rite, it was still the same Rite even if it looked like what we think of when we think of celebrations according to the Novus Ordo Missae (and celebrations of the New Mass can be celebrated as something that looks much more like the traditional Mass). Regardless of the changes and allowances, it was still the Roman Rite.

But the 1970 books was something else altogether – everything was changed. Fr. Ripperger, FSSP (a professor of the FSSP’s US major and minor seminary), has said that it was “almost a compulsion”, that “they couldn’t leave anything alone” and indeed this was true. Almost everything was changed, from the Mass to the other Sacraments to the change from Roman Breviary to the “Liturgy of the Hours” to the change from the Rituale Romanum to the “Book of Blessings” to the vestments (change from the Roman to Gothic and the disappearance of the maniple), the change of the Calendar, the change of the Lectionary, everything is different, everything is new. This new Rite cannot become or replace the Roman Rite simply by fiat. The new books did not effect the Roman Rite, nothing was actually changed, but rather something new, a new Rite, was created.

In fact, as time goes by, those changes become part of the organic development.

Rites can sometimes be grafted or merge together (as we saw happen with the Roman and Gallican Rites) but because of the artificial nature of the new Rite, this seems quite unlikely to happen and undesirable, even though it is the express desire of the Holy Father (what he calls “mutual enrichment”). If it means adopting the propers for new saints developed for the New Rite into the Roman Rite, as I mentioned is done at Clear Creek, then I don’t really have a problem with it. But if it means that we see things like Mass facing the people, Communion-in-the-Hand and altar girls at traditional Masses, it is not a good thing. There are already places (and this is authorized) where the the readings will be done in the vernacular during the Mass (which is distinct from the common practice of reading them outside of the Mass, right before the homily), which is a confusion adopted from the practice of the New Rite – the readings in the Traditional Mass are not meant for the edification of the faithful but rather they are being prayed, that is why they are done in Latin and not facing the people.

Right now they are new, just as the Tridentine mass was new once upon a time.

Yes, it was, when it was begun by St. Peter. Historically, it goes back to Pope St. Damasus I in the 4th c. but it has always been held that at least parts of the Roman Canon go back to St. Peter. We have a continuous Rite that extends back to the Apostles, older than any of the Eastern Rites (although the Liturgy of St. James may also be Apostolic).

As to the term “New Rite”. It is not a new rite. The pope has made that very clear and we cannot overrule that. It is a new form.

It is not a matter of authority (“overrule”), it is a matter of factual accuracy. Again, calling the capybara a fish may be a practical solution, but it does not change the reality that the capybara is not a fish. Calling the New Rite a different “form” of the Roman Rite may be a practical solution, but it does not change the reality that the New Rite is not part of the Roman Rite. The sharp break between the Old Rite and the New Rite and such dramatic differences means that the New Rite cannot be seen as merely a different use, or form, of the Roman Rite (such as the York or Sarum Uses) but as something entirely new (although stitched together like patchwork from various sources).

(cont.)

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

(cont.)

But once upon a time, the Tridentine Form was a new form too. The Tridentine form was pulled from an old Franciscan form. Were you aware of that?

In the 13th century, St. Francis did not like the form of the mass that they had in the Diocese of Assisi, because it required too many books. His brothers were too poor to buy so many books. In addition, they were itinerant religious and they were not to be an order of priests. They had very few priests among the friars. It was necessary that these priests who became brothers leave behind their former way of celebrating the mass, if they were to be assimilated into this new brotherhood of itinerant mendicants . . . sort of monks without walls.

Innocent III gave Francis an old missal that had a very simple form of the mass, which had not been in use for a long time. Francis mandated that all the priests who became brothers use this form. Why? Because it was easy to use. It required only one book and the Gospel book. So off they went. This was not an organic change. It was a sudden departure from the usual for these priests. However, they carried this with them throughout Europe and it became very popular.

The fact that St. Francis restored the old Roman Rite and spread its use throughout Western Europe does not mean that the Seraphic Father created a new Rite. When Pope Clement V started using this restored Roman Rite, it did not make it a new Rite. When Trent codified the Rite and promulgated books based on it, it did not make it a new Rite. These are not new Rites, this is simply the Roman Rite passing through different hands and being developed and cultivated.

I do not use the term “Tridentine Mass” because it makes it sound like the Roman Rite was begun at Trent rather than simply codified and standardized.

Through the centuries, various adaptations of this form were made. Finally, at Trent, it was decided to unify the Latin Church under this form, with the exception of those forms that had been in place for 200 years or more. However, it did not kick in for another 40 to 50 years when Pius V, rewrote it again. Once again, it was new and sudden to the people of that time. They had to give up their usual forms, with those exceptions that I mentioned.

This is the same today. The Pope, in his capacity is the supreme liturgist and supreme Law Giver is making another adaptation.

Pope St. Pius V did not “rewrite” the Roman Rite, he codified the Missal of the Roman Curia, which was already in use. The changes he made were utterly minimal.

But the pope cannot abrogate the Roman Rite. It was attempted but it failed, both Popes John Paul II (even though it was claimed to be only an “indult”, a commission under him found that the Old Rite had never been abrogated) and Pope Benedict XVI (as affirmed in “Summorum Pontificum”). The Roman Rite will not be done away with. All we have is the introduction of a New Rite, separate from the Roman Rite. This introduction of the New Rite did not replace the Roman Rite. The Rite is bigger than the pope.

If we look at this long history of adaptations made by different popes and different religious superiors, this concept that is being introduced by Summorum Pontificum is no different from the other times when new concepts were introduced. Today, no one looks back at the 13th century and questions Francis of Assisi and Pope Innocent III. Most people don’t even know this story. It passes into history and becomes a blur. The same will happen with Summorum Pontificum. In the future, no one will stop to think about it. People will simply know that there are two forms of the Roman Rite and not know how they came to be, unless they are into liturgical history.

People will not know that there are two forms of the Roman Rite because by the time that will happen, there will be only one form of the Roman Rite.

But to say that the pope does not have the authority to make this change is contrary to reality. The reality is that he just did exactly that. He made the change and we are all bound to it. We’re not being asked for our opinions. Pope Benedict does not really care what you and I think about it. He only cares that you and I comply and assent to what he has determined, until another pope comes along and makes another change for whatever reason.

This change that the New Rite goes from being a separate Rite to being simply a different Use or Form of the Roman Rite? Again, your positivism here is striking, the Faith is bigger than any one person, even a pope. The fact that “Summorum Pontificum” calls the Old Rite and the New Rite “two usages of the Roman Rite” doesn’t make it so, it just means that this is the official view of things, it does not mean all other views – other understandings of the present crisis – are condemned.

 

[ProVobis]

(cont.)

Um… excuse me?

He is not a cradle Catholic. Bishop W had been an Anglican until 1971.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Williamson_(bishop

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/sspx-bp-williamson-v-the-pope-of-christian-unity/

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

He is not a cradle Catholic. Bishop W had been an Anglican until 1971.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Williamson_(bishop

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/sspx-bp-williamson-v-the-pope-of-christian-unity/

Okay, yes, this is true. I misunderstood his assertion as saying that +Williamson is not currently Catholic because of some belief that the SSPX is not part of the Catholic Church.

I’m not particular to +Williamson, I just mentioned him above as to why I quoted Cardinal Ratzinger – since Ratzinger is something of a moderate compared to Williamson on one side or von Balthasar on the other.