What, exactly, is the point of the "reform of the reform"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter excelsus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

excelsus

Guest
I mean, we already have the EF, which is basically this liturgy but more ornate. I don’t see the reasoning.
 
We already have a Catholic Mass. Fixing a protestantized liturgy, which is inherently broken by it’s very definition, fixes nothing. We already have a Catholic Mass.
 
Well, due to the Second Vatican Council mostly. And I don’t mean that to bash on the council. What I mean is, it was a council which set out some rules and changes in the Church. They were not followed correctly. So the reason for the reform of the reform is to set them out correctly.

Of course if it were me, it’d be great to see the Mass of St.Pius V used always. But Vatican II is a valid council with valid teachings, so we are no longer allowed to go back, unless we were to deny the Council’s teachings.
 
thunderballs75 said:
Well, due to the Second Vatican Council mostly. And I don’t mean that to bash on the council. What I mean is, it was a council which set out some rules and changes in the Church. They were not followed correctly. So the reason for the reform of the reform is to set them out correctly.

Of course if it were me, it’d be great to see the Mass of St.Pius V used always. But Vatican II is a valid council with valid teachings, so we are no longer allowed to go back, unless we were to deny the Council’s teachings.
Click to expand...
Interesting. What do you mean by “going back”? And what Council teachings would be denied?
 
ResR said:
Interesting. What do you mean by “going back”? And what Council teachings would be denied?
Click to expand...
If we decided to use the EF rather than the OF, we would be going to the pre-Conciliar liturgy. By doing this, we would be completely ignoring the constitution “Sacronsanctum Concilium”. It’d be like it never happened.

But the reform of the reform is necessary, because the current OF is in many ways deficient when it could be better and more Catholic. Whether the Council was correct in making a new liturgy is a whole other story. I think they deliberately watered down the Mass and protestantized it.* But my opinion is completely irrelevant and does not matter much. For the time being, we accept the Second Vatican Council as true, and we have to submit to its teachings and its reforms.

“Sacrosanctum Concilium”
*1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful(good); to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change(maybe modernism? I dunno’); to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ(protestants); to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church(non-Christians). The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy(let’s see what happens).
 
thunderballs75 said:
If we decided to use the EF rather than the OF, we would be going to the pre-Conciliar liturgy. By doing this, we would be completely ignoring the constitution “Sacronsanctum Concilium”. It’d be like it never happened.

But the reform of the reform is necessary, because the current OF is in many ways deficient when it could be better and more Catholic. Whether the Council was correct in making a new liturgy is a whole other story. I think they deliberately watered down the Mass and protestantized it.* But my opinion is completely irrelevant and does not matter much. For the time being, we accept the Second Vatican Council as true, and we have to submit to its teachings and its reforms.

“Sacrosanctum Concilium”
*1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful(good); to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change(maybe modernism? I dunno’); to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ(protestants); to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church(non-Christians). The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy(let’s see what happens).
Click to expand...
And nothing in that quote says “Let’s dump 85% of what we have now, cut and paste what we like just in a different order, leave things pretty wide open and see what happens”.

The way the EF is practiced today is what was envisioned by the council. Not the Novus Ordo. The EF today has very active participation. There is active education on what is happening at Mass and why. From what my grandparents tell me this was all missing when they were young. They went to the Latin Mass, but did not understand most of it or why things were done or what they represented.

Pope Benedict stated that the EF is one form the same rite. So I see no problem with a “FORM” of the Latin rite slowly fading out of use (The Novus Ordo) over time. Many older rites are still valid, just not used much anymore or at all.

As †Archbishop Sheen said in his narration of the Easter Mass in 1941 “It is a long established principal of the church never to completely drop from her public worship any ceremony, object or prayer which once occupied a place in that worship.”
 
excelsus said:
I mean, we already have the EF, which is basically this liturgy but more ornate. I don’t see the reasoning.
Click to expand...
the reform of the reform is just to improve the OF… just to make it more reverent and to give it a more correct translation 👍
 
RosaryCrusader said:
We already have a Catholic Mass. Fixing a protestantized liturgy, which is inherently broken by it’s very definition, fixes nothing. We already have a Catholic Mass.
Click to expand...
both the EF and the OF are Masses…because both have the Eucharist.

what they’re doing is they’re trying to make the OF less “Protestantized”…but it’s already a Mass.
 
excelsus said:
I mean, we already have the EF, which is basically this liturgy but more ornate. I don’t see the reasoning.
Click to expand...
The reform of the reformers basically want their Masses to be more Catholic looking.

But what they don’t understand is the issues surrounding the Second Vatican Council have more to do with the Catholic Faith and Tradition than just the Traditional Latin Mass. They miss the point entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top