E
ethelzguy
Guest
Depends. Where do you stand on Eucharisic Prayer II, part of the NO, but not the TLM? It has VERY old “roots”.
- Status
G
GerardP
Guest
Not necessarily:
*Now, where did Canon Two come from? From what’s called the Canon of Hyppolytus, composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled to the Church and died a martyr. Around the year 215, he wrote an outline of how Mass was celebrated in Rome. It was probably never used as a liturgical text because in the early days of the Church there was no final, written formalization of the liturgy, so this was an outline to be used by the celebrant.
Thus, the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon. If it was, it ceased being used at least 1600 years ago. Yet from the Council, which says changes ought to come through organic growth and there should be no changes unless necessary, we come to liturgists saying, “Oh, let’s pull this thing out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth.” That’s not organic growth; that’s archeologism, specifically criticized by Pius XII in Mediator Dei.*–Fr. Joseph Fessio
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2000-10/article3.html
E
ethelzguy
Guest
An “opinion” which takes the words of a long-since deceased Pope out of context hardly trumps Rome where the Mass is concerned.
Threads where people rant about their “rights” before God and His Church on Earth amuse me no end.
C
cothrige
Guest
I had thought that this portion was meant to refer to situations in which a Church having OF Masses during the Triduum would refrain from having two Masses in different forms during that time, even if they had a stable group requesting the EF. I was under the impression that there was to be only one Good Friday service for instance, and so it should not be repeated in the EF if it was already done in the OF. But don’t some Churches or organizations, such as the FSSP, celebrate only in the EF and continue to do so even during the Triduum? I don’t believe that Summorum Pontificum is meant to ban all use of the EF during the Easter Triduum, even for groups like the FSSP.
M
mardukm
Guest
I would think that someone who focuses so much on what other people are doing at a Mass to the point of judging if they are irreverent or not is the one who is focusing more on man rather than God during the Mass.
Blessings,
Marduk
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Fortunately for the rest of us, and unfortunately for you, the Pope disagrees.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Are you for real? What is the purpose of capitalizing the first letter of every word in your post? Is that supposed to be the use of the royal “We”, taken to some weird extreme? At any rate, please don’t do that. It reminds me of the fraudelent e-mails “from Nigeria” that my spam filter fails to screen out.
As already pointed out, the Novus Ordo is still the Ordinary Form. It is going to remain the Ordinary Form. It is fully valid. Do what you have to in order to attend the Extraordinary Form, by all means, if you find that form more edifying. Praise its merits at every opportunity, encourage others to seek it out, and do every positive thing to promote it. Do not take it upon yourself to correct those who actually have the authority to define what is and is not acceptable liturgy, though. That is over the line. You have no right.
PS For those who can’t tell the difference between a Mass and a pentecostal service, catechesis can fix that, assuming that the student is willing.
U
Unitas
Guest
I trust the word of Fr. Fessio much more than I trust yours.
There’s really nothing to dispute here. EPII was written in the third century, disppeared for over a thousand years, then reappears in the new missal in the 20th. That is not organic growth.
You simply lable that as “opinion” so you wan’t have to deal with it.
R
redrosetea
Guest
It sounds to me like OP would love to get a mob to storm the Vatican with their pitchforks and torches…Good thing they have the Swiss Guard to protect the pope…honestly this is one of the more hateful posts I have seen here…
P
pnewton
Guest
Even though Queen’s English is the language of Nigeria, for many it is still their second language and often it is Pidgon English. No doubt the capitalization is just a quirk of language.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Demanding our “rights” before God, doncha know…It sounds to me like OP would love to get a mob to storm the Vatican with their pitchforks and torches…Good thing they have the Swiss Guard to protect the pope…honestly this is one of the more hateful posts I have seen here…
C
cathguy
Guest
This is insulting, does not further discussion, is in violation of forum rules, and should have been removed by a moderator.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
C
cathguy
Guest
With all due respect, this is wrong on many levels.
- The laity DO INDEED HAVE A RIGHT to the sacraments (this is Church teaching), and we also have a right to have those sacraments to be free of abuse. Please read the Church documents, the writings of our current Pope, the Catechism, and the Bible. The laity have rights. We especially have a right to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! Unless we are placed under indict we not only have a right to attend Mass, but we have a DUTY to do so as well! Consider the 3rd Commandment.
- Your second point is entirely wrong. Our rights come to us from God. The Church protects our rights, but does not give them to us apart from God.
- Just because the Holy Father does it, this doesn’t make it correct. Being Pope does not give one cart-blanche. Popes have made HUGE GIGANTIC mistakes in the past. Read history. (The best history of the Church in many volumes is Dr. Warren Carrol’s the History of Christendom series) The only thing the Holy Spirit guarantees is that a Pope will not teach error regarding dogma when he exercises the Petrine teaching office through the exercise of the ordinary or extraordinary magesterium.
With all due respect, you need to think more before you post. An evangelical reading your post would conclude that the Church teaches that the Pope is always and everywhere infallible. If that evangelical is knowledgeable about history, it would not be hard for him to laugh out loud at Rome’s claim of primacy. Of course, IT IS NOT the Church’s teaching that Popes are always and everywhere infallible, despite some simplistic notions to the contrary among uninformed members of the laity.
C
cathguy
Guest
I am carefully reading each post one at a time. No one here has claimed that the Ordinary Form is invalid.
The Pope himself has severely criticized the way the OF is commonly celebrated. To do so is acceptable. Michael Davies recently was Eulogized by the Pope. He spent his ENTIRE scholarly career arguing the EF was SUPERIOR to the OF. The Pope’s comments make clear that views like this are licit for the faithful to hold.
God Bless.
C
cathguy
Guest
This is a good post, but there is much here that needs more careful examination.What we have to understand here is that there are rights that are given to us by God and rights granted by legitimate authority.
God gives us the right to worship him in the liturgy.
The Church gives us the right to worship him using different rites.
As far as the Latin Rite is concerned, there are only two forms of the Latin Rite, extraordinary and ordinary.
Anyone who says that the ordinary form has not right to exist is in conflict with the Holy See. The Holy See has given the ordinary form the right to exist. It is not up to the laity or any other person in the Church to take away the right of the ordianry form to exist.
As to who may or may not celebrate it. The Motu Proprio is very clear. Every priest has the right to celebrate it. However, priests who belong to religious orders and religious congregations can be denied that right by their major superior as long as the mass is to be celebrated in a chapel or church that belongs to the community.
No major superior may take away the right of a priest who is a religious to celebrate the EF or the OF outside of their premisis. In their premisis the authority of the major superior is final.
In some religious communities, preists are not allowed to celebrate the OF or the EF, depending on the community, on their premises. They must celebrate the form approved by the community. However, if a local bishop or a pastor asks a religious to celebrate either form on diocesan property, the religious is free to do so.
The only priests who can celebrate both the EF and the OF without any intervention from superior are secular priests. The Motu Proprio was written for bishops. Bishops only have authority over secular priests, not over religious. Religious must comply with the wishes of the bishop only if they are on loan to a bishop or employed by a bishop. Other than that, they are bound by the rules and traditions of their religious community.
In the case of Franciscan University, the University is not part of the diocese. It belongs to the Order. Any friar who is also a priest is bound to follow the rules of his superior, not the Mout Proprio. In their case, the superior would not authorize the celebration of the mass in the extraordinary form on their permises. However, the superior did offer the students and faculty free transportation to the local parish where there is an EF mass and is only 10 minutes away. The local parish belongs to the diocese. The University had no obligation to facilitate transportation to a mass off campus, when they celebrate several masses on campus. That was the issue there. But they did offer to transport the students and faculty and they did offer to discuss the matter in their community chapter.
Yes we have a right to the extraordianry form, but it has been given to us by the Church. Christ gave us the right to the Eucharist. The Church decides the form in which it can be celebrated.
Remember, anyone who puts down the ordianry form is contradicting what the Motu Proprio said. The Motu Proprio is very clear that both forms are the same and equal in sanctity.
Yes, the Holy See is also clear that the extraordianry form may not be celebrated during the Easter Triduum This of course does not apply to religious houses such as the Sons of the Holy Redeemer or the chapels of the FSSP. Those are not part of the diocese. Any chapel or church that is part of the diocese must celebrate the Ordinary Form during the Easter Triduum.
As to what happens in FSSP chapels, I have no idea. The Sons of the Holy Redeemer are exempt from this prohibition, because they are religious. FSSP are not religious. They are secular priests. I don’t know what exceptions Rome makes for secular priests under these circumstances.
Religious communities are exempt from many rules that diocesan priests and bishops must follow. By virtue of their vows, their status in the Church is very different from the rest of us.
Hope this clears up the confusion.
JR
You say that to criticize the way the OF is commonly practiced contradicts the Motu Proprio. With all due respect, this is silly. The Pope himself has criticized the way the OF is commonly celebrated, and has praised lay scholars (like Michael Davies) who have spent their careers arguing the same.
Furthermore, our RIGHT to the Tridentine Mass comes to us from the Church yes, but NOT from the whim of Popes and Cardinals. The LAW applies to them as well. To quote Dr. Thomas Woods (my emphasis):
"A blue-ribbon commission of prominent cardinals had concluded in 1986 that although Pope Paul VI had hoped his new missal would supplant the old, no action officially suppressing the older missal was ever taken, and thus, the 1962 missal, even if largely eclipsed in practice, was NEVER FORMALLY SUPPRESSED and CONTINUED TO BE A LIVING PART OF THE CHURCH. The 1986 commission added that any priest OUGHT TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE which missal he wanted to use. Pope John Paul II looked at the the question from the point of view of Church politics: with just about everyone in the hierarchy against such a move, he was fearful of taking so bold a step.
But the commission’s finding is now the conventional wisdom…"
Wow.
I have not seen ANYONE in this thread argue that the OF should be abolished. They are saying the EF is SUPERIOR to the OF. They are saying that the OF the way it is commonly celebrated constitutes an abuse. These are VERY conservative opinions, but they are VALID and LICIT opinions for even laity to hold.
I am under the impression that Franciscan now allows the TLM to be celebrated on campus. Am I wrong? Franciscan University’s attempt to block the Motu Proprio and deny the students their RIGHT to the Gregorian Mass, which had NEVER been abrogated, was an act of disobedience. The excuse you give is pharisaical hair splitting. The will of the Holy Father is clear. There was no reason for the Order to deny its priests the right to celebrate the Mass for their community, but that is their right. HOWEVER, it is NOT their right to deny stable groups of LAITY their right to the Mass. Offering to transport “troublesome students” off campus sends a TERRIBLE message. Franciscan should be ashamed it ever allowed this. However, as I said, I am under the impression this abuse has stopped.
You are correct the Church decides the form. Despite the opinion of MANY prelates and some Popes, the Church Herself gives us the OF as a valid option, and has consistently, even in the years immediately following the Council. This is clear now. Why are we still hairsplitting?
C
cathguy
Guest
See the Church documents. Laity have a RIGHT to the EUCHARIST because God MADE IT THAT WAY.
Deus Caritas Est. OR, in your view, is a God a capricious lover who spurns or caresses on what ever human-like whim catches His fancy?
We cannot earn our own Salvation. God’s Grace is a gift freely given. All this is correct. But you are confusing points. We DO have a RIGHT to the Eucharist. This does not in any way take away from the fact that God’s grace is a gift freely given.
C
cathguy
Guest
A group of unborn Children “rant” about their “right” to live.
A group of people locked in slavery “rant” about their “right” to be free.
A group of Christians “rant” because they love our Eucharistic Lord and want their “right” to worship Him authentically respected, but abuse of Him offends them so much.
And some have always loved the status quo and blamed the victim.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
sI totally agree that the Tredentine Mass is your right. I also state that the Novus Ordo is my right. I just hope and pray that we can each respect the rights of our fellow Catholics in whatever form of the mass he/she prefers. Remember, each is equally efficacious, as infiniteness has no degrees.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
C
cathguy
Guest
OR, they are avoiding the situation by assisting at the EF and complaining because they find the abuses so DISTRACTING. Why assign the worst motives to the traditionalists?I would think that someone who focuses so much on what other people are doing at a Mass to the point of judging if they are irreverent or not is the one who is focusing more on man rather than God during the Mass.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status