SSPX / RCC talks

[ProVobis]

How could you reform a fabrication until it is not a fabrication anymore?

Fair question.

I know it’s not what you asked but what I read as a “banal fabrication,” I see him describing a TYPICAL Mass which is badly in need of a reform. Now what exactly makes it banal? Perhaps that its typical usage is in everyday conversational language? Perhaps that it allows too many innovations and creativity? Perhaps because there seems to be very little mystery left for the parishioner?

Whatever his basis for calling it such, he seems to want to correct those things. More (if not completely in) Latin, Gregorian chant, organ, adherence to rubrics, control by the bishops. I don’t have all his documents on this, but certainly his way of saying the Mass says a lot.

 

[ProVobis]

The fact that “Summorum Pontificum” calls the Old Rite and the New Rite “two usages of the Roman Rite” …

I haven’t heard this. This is the actual letter accompanying the SP:

Art. 1. Missale Romanum a Paulo VI promulgatum ordinaria expressio “Legis orandi” Ecclesiae catholicae ritus latini est. Missale autem Romanum a S. Pio V promulgatum et a B. Ioanne XXIII denuo editum habeatur uti extraordinaria expressio eiusdem “Legis orandi” Ecclesiae et ob venerabilem et antiquum eius usum debito gaudeat honore. Hae duae expressiones “legis orandi” Ecclesiae, minime vero inducent in divisionem “legis credendi” Ecclesiae; sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani.

Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet. Conditiones vero a documentis antecedentibus “Quattuor abhinc annos” et “Ecclesia Dei” pro usu huius Missalis statutae, substituuntur ut sequitur:

In English, two expressions of the same “law of praying,” as promulgated by the Vatican.

Also the 1984 and 1988 directives and (much tighter) conditions were replaced with the SP.

 

[Melchior_1]

Pilgrim, can you point me to a link from the Vatican which calls the Ordinary Form the new Rite"? Everything so far points me towards “two forms within one Rite”.

You’re being very insistent on calling both individual Rites, so I’m assuming you have extensive documentation to refute what some of the posters here have posted regarding “two forms, one Rite”.

Thanks,

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

"PilgrimToChrist:

The fact that “Summorum Pontificum” calls the Old Rite and the New Rite “two usages of the Roman Rite” …

I haven’t heard this. This is the actual letter accompanying the SP

You said you hadn’t heard it and then you quoted it… “sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani.”
Summorum Pontificum:

Missale Romanum a Paulo VI promulgatum ordinaria expressio “Legis orandi” Ecclesiae catholicae ritus latini est. Missale autem Romanum a S. Pio V promulgatum et a B. Ioanne XXIII denuo editum habeatur uti extraordinaria expressio eiusdem “Legis orandi” Ecclesiae et ob venerabilem et antiquum eius usum debito gaudeat honore. Hae duae expressiones “legis orandi” Ecclesiae, minime vero inducent in divisionem “legis credendi” Ecclesiae; sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani.

Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet. Conditiones vero a documentis antecedentibus “Quattuor abhinc annos” et “Ecclesia Dei” pro usu huius Missalis statutae, substituuntur ut sequitur:

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.

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents ‘Quattuor abhinc annis’ and ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ are substituted as follows:

This would seem to indicate that “expression” (expressio), “use” (usus) and “form” (forma) are all equivalent terms. As I noted earlier, this terminology is never clearly defined and it seems distinct from the Uses of the Roman Rite (by region or religious order) which were established historically.

 

[laszlo]

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.

The term is defined by the use, and if teh Pope is using a term that in itself is a definition. He is the one who defines, for Catholic people.

One more this is what the Pope said:

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/resour…ontificum.html

No Catholic man or women can say that he knows better than the pope how many rites are the Mass. This is the essence and primary requirement of being Catholic: to accept the primacy and authority of the pope.

No. This is not infallible definition. It can be changed. But it is binding, and necessary to accept for the membership of the Catholic Church. It is not part of the faith, the gustibus et nominibus non est disputandum, it is part of the discipline.

 

[SouthpawLink]

Pilgrim, can you point me to a link from the Vatican which calls the Ordinary Form the new Rite"? Everything so far points me towards “two forms within one Rite”.

Thanks,

In audiences given on 19 and 26 November 1969, Pope Paul VI explicitly calls the Novus Ordo Missae “the new rite of Mass” and the “new liturgical rite”. In fact, he used the phrase, “new rite” no less than six times in those two speeches:

“We want to draw your attention on the event that is about to take [place] in the Latin Catholic Church, and which will have its mandatory application in the Italian diocese from the next first Sunday of Advent, which this year falls on November 30, and that’s [the] introduction into the liturgy of the new rite of Mass. The Mass will be celebrated in a form quite different from what, for four centuries now, that is, S. Pius V after the Council of Trent, we are used to celebrate. … And if placed in the new rite will find greater clarity in the relationship between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist itself…” (Audience of 19 November 1969).

vatican.va/holy_father/pa…691119_it.html

“Again we want to invite your mind to turn to the novelty of the **new liturgical rite ** of the Mass, which will be established in our celebrations of the Holy Sacrifice, beginning next Sunday, the first Sunday of Advent, November 30. New rite of Mass is a change, which concerns a venerable old tradition, and therefore affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy having unintangibile of fixity, and having to carry on our lips the prayer of our ancestors and our Saints, and give us the comfort of a fidelity to our spiritual past, which we then forward it makes present to the coming generations. … As we said last time, you know that we understand the reasons for which this major change is introduced: obedience to the Council… But then the new rite of Mass states that the faithful “should know how to sing 'together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, the Our Father” (n. 19). … If they use the new rite should follow the official text in the vernacular with the concessions outlined above” (Audience of 26 November 1969).

vatican.va/holy_father/pa…691126_it.html

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Pilgrim, can you point me to a link from the Vatican which calls the Ordinary Form the new Rite"? Everything so far points me towards “two forms within one Rite”.

That is the new terminology and understanding expressed by Pope Benedict XVI’s “Summorum Pontificum” in 2007, yes. I am very thankful for SP, of course, as it helped free the Traditional Mass from those bishops who were trying to squash it (although, in practice, they are still able to do so). But that does not mean I agree with everything stated within it nor is it disobedient to do so, we are not bound to believe exactly whatever the currently reigning pope believes on any given topic.

You’re being very insistent on calling both individual Rites, so I’m assuming you have extensive documentation to refute what some of the posters here have posted regarding “two forms, one Rite”.

What evidence is there that the New Rite is part of the Roman Rite, other than that pope’s words? It is, at least prima facie, a different and totally new Rite, even if it includes a substantially similar Roman Canon as an option. There is no fundamental continuity between the Old Rite and the New. It takes bits and pieces of different liturgies and many things invented out of whole cloth and roughly slaps them together in order to satisfy the demands of certain radical liturgists. It has no place in which to live, no reason to exist. It is like putting a plastic plant in a garden, it cannot grow and you cannot declare it to be part of another plant simply by fiat because that is not its reality. It is an artificial construct, like a plastic plant, not something alive and growing. It cannot be grafted onto the Roman Rite tree or simply declared to be part of the tree even though it is not attached. This is the reality, even the pope cannot change reality – people in Venezuela may be allowed to eat capybaras during Lent (this is a practical consideration), but that doesn’t make them fish (this is reality). The pope may make a practical decision, a compromise between the two positions on the place of the 1970 Missal, but that doesn’t change reality.

 

[laszlo]

What evidence is there that the New Rite is part of the Roman Rite, other than that pope’s words?

The structure and the words of the two forms.

Above that the pope’s words are binding for Catholics. He is the rulemaker.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

In audiences given on 19 and 26 November 1969, Pope Paul VI explicitly calls the Novus Ordo Missae “the new rite of Mass” and the “new liturgical rite”. In fact, he used the phrase, “new rite” no less than six times in those two speeches

Ah, but the essence of this Papolatry (to adopt a Protestant attack) or neo-ultramontanism is that it doesn’t matter what previous popes have said on an issue, only what the currently reigning pope says. So thus the New Rite was a separate Rite when Pope Paul VI was pope but now under Pope Benedict XVI it is not a separate Rite but just a new “expression”, “use” or “form” of the Roman Rite. Thus is the problem of the positivist neo-conservative mentality – a proposition can be true one day and false the next depending on the whims of the pope or a change in popes. It is the idea that we must be always “up-to-date” on whatever the most current thoughts of the currently reigning pope are in order to be “truly Catholic” and “obedient”.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The structure and the words of the two forms.

Which are strikingly different.

Above that the pope’s words are binding for Catholics. He is the rulemaker.

Not every opinion of every pope (or even of the currently reigning pope) is binding for Catholics. You need to go back and read Vatican I.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

There are two equal and opposite errors which currently plague the Church. They derive from an error known as “neo-ultramontanism”. Ultramontanism (“beyond-the-mountains”) is the belief that what the pope says is more important than what the local bishop says, this has been confirmed as orthodox.

However, a perversion of this doctrine arose called *neo-*ultramontanism. It originated with an Anglican-turned-Catholic who was a bit too over-zealous for his newfound papism. Pretty much, he utilized and defended the idea that because the pope is the leader of all Christians (in particular, Catholics), if the pope says or does something contrary to the Faith, people will be led astray. Therefore, he argues, everything the pope says and does publicly with regards to the Faith must be right.

So in the modern day, we have these two equal and opposite errors based on this condemned thinking:

The first says that everything the pope says and does is right, therefore we must always adhere to whatever he says and trust that he is led by God. This is called "neo-conservatism"

The second says that everything the pope says and does is right, but clearly some things that this pope says and does are wrong, so therefore he is not the pope. This is called “sedevacantism”.

Thus there are two errors which stem from the same fundamental error regarding the role of the papacy – neo-conservatism and sedevacantism. The solution is to understand the true role of the pope in the Catholic Church.

 

[ProVobis]

You said you hadn’t heard it and then you quoted it… “sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani.”

I missed it. Thanks.

 

[Melchior_1]

What evidence is there that the New Rite is part of the Roman Rite, other than that pope’s words?

Considering that several elements of the Ordinary Form are strikingly similar to what is written by some of the early Church writings, one could say it’s fairly traditional.

Also, Mass used to be said in the vernacular as well way back when as well, so that’s nothing new.

Oh, plus the whole “Sacraments” business.

 

[laszlo]

Not every opinion of every pope (or even of the currently reigning pope) is binding for Catholics. You need to go back and read Vatican I.

Enlighten me please. In my copy of the XX Ecumenical council the serch bind provides only one result

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

 

[ProVobis]

Considering that several elements of the Ordinary Form are strikingly similar to what is written by some of the early Church writings, one could say it’s fairly traditional.

One could also say it’s antiquarianistic too.

Oh, plus the whole “Sacraments” business.

 

[Melchior_1]

One could also say it’s antiquarianistic too.

Can’t I say the same thing about some lower-case traditional practices?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Considering that several elements of the Ordinary Form are strikingly similar to what is written by some of the early Church writings, one could say it’s fairly traditional.

No, it’s patchwork “senseless antiquarianism”, various parts from various Rites in various ages slapped together with some made-up glue and a lot of “optional” parts. It is not merely a variation on the Roman Rite, it is something else entirely, as Pope Paul VI stated.

Also, Mass used to be said in the vernacular as well way back when as well, so that’s nothing new.

That’s a practice that is not part of the question.

Oh, plus the whole “Sacraments” business.

Yes, they both have seven Sacraments… what of them? Why did they change the form of every single one of them and the form of every blessing?

 

[Melchior_1]

Pilgrim, the same questions you’re asking were asked when the Tridentine Mass came around. What makes then so much better than now? Back then they certainly didn’t see it as “organic development”. It was different then what they were used to, different from what was used before.

But obviously they assented to the Pope and Rome, as we’re all here.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Pilgrim, the same questions you’re asking were asked when the Tridentine Mass came around. What makes then so much better than now? Back then they certainly didn’t see it as “organic development”. It was different then what they were used to, different from what was used before.

But obviously they assented to the Pope and Rome, as we’re all here.

Because when the “Tridentine” Mass came around, we were moving from Judaism to Christianity and that was a significant development.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Because when the “Tridentine” Mass came around, we were moving from Judaism to Christianity and that was a significant development.

HUH???

didn’t we make that move some 1400 years before the Council of Trent?

I am not quite sure what exactly your agenda is here Pilgrim, but I really have to wonder about you identifying yourself as “traditional”. Most of the “traditional” catholics do not think that their opinions are higher and more accurate than that of a sitting Pope.