Why aren't people using the terms the Pope used?

[havemercy]

“God’s Fatherly plan” appears to be the Pauline Mass and not some hypothetical change that’s not about to happen.

How and why do you think it appears so? By the very fact that Pope Paul VI promulgated the missal? Because the Pope does this, or does that, it is automatically, in and of itself, God’s remedy for the Church? I’m thinking of many times in the history of the church when a pope did or said something that procured great suffering in the Church.

The most Benedict could do, it seems to me, would be to mandate an extensive reform the Pauline mass such that the prayers resembled more closely the Gregorian liturgy. The chasm between extraordinary and ordinary forms would be, in substance and form, far less. I also foresee a making the rubrics more strict so that celebrations resemble each other more in gestures, choice of prayers, and music.

Over time, I’d like to see the Classical Rite return to being the standard ritual of the church (it already is in essence), and the Pauline mass become something that requires papal indult. Widespread liturgy in the vernacular has lent itself to division and anxiety among the laity, and has been the spur to self-expression: something foreign to the spirit of liturgy. A reform of the Pauline mass is obviously in order, but hopefully a reform of the 1962 missal can occur either at the same time or at a later date. For while the mass of Pope John XXIII (as Benedict called it) is superior to the Pauline mass, it still has room to spread its wings. In my opinion and estimate, 10% of the Novus Ordo is worth retaining, and perhaps transferring over to the ‘Tridentine’ mass.

You present the hypothetical almost as if it would be the Pope’s preference were it not for the political fall-out, yet his actions suggest otherwise.

Which actions are these?

 

[Extraordinary]

How and why do you think it appears so?

It’s the normative Mass for the Latin Rite of the Church, and it’s not likely to be replaced anytime soon.

 

[Extraordinary]

How and why do you think it appears so? By the very fact that Pope Paul VI promulgated the missal? Because the Pope does this, or does that, it is automatically, in and of itself, God’s remedy for the Church? I’m thinking of many times in the history of the church when a pope did or said something that procured great suffering in the Church.

The most Benedict could do, it seems to me, would be to mandate an extensive reform the Pauline mass such that the prayers resembled more closely the Gregorian liturgy. The chasm between extraordinary and ordinary forms would be, in substance and form, far less. I also foresee a making the rubrics more strict so that celebrations resemble each other more in gestures, choice of prayers, and music.

Over time, I’d like to see the Classical Rite return to being the standard ritual of the church (it already is in essence), and the Pauline mass become something that requires papal indult. Widespread liturgy in the vernacular has lent itself to division and anxiety among the laity, and has been the spur to self-expression: something foreign to the spirit of liturgy. A reform of the Pauline mass is obviously in order, but hopefully a reform of the 1962 missal can occur either at the same time or at a later date. For while the mass of Pope John XXIII (as Benedict called it) is superior to the Pauline mass, it still has room to spread its wings. In my opinion and estimate, 10% of the Novus Ordo is worth retaining, and perhaps transferring over to the ‘Tridentine’ mass.

Which actions are these?

No, it’s not.

So you say.

There is absolutely no indication that the Tridentine will once again become the ordinary form of the Mass, with the Pauline Mass being relegated to an extraordinary form. That’s dreaming.

 

[arieh0310]

No, it’s not.

So you say.

There is absolutely no indication that the Tridentine will once again become the ordinary form of the Mass, with the Pauline Mass being relegated to an extraordinary form. That’s dreaming.

:byzsoc: When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are…

 

[Sure]

I use the term Traditional Latin Mass because Ordinary and Extraordinary Form seems to me to be a juridical term to reintegrate the TLM into the life of the Church. I don’t want the NO to be the ordinary form of mass for the Latin Rite, I want the mass that has grown organically over the course of 15 centuries and formed the lives of innumerable saints to be the ordinary expression of Catholic worship.

This is my favorite quotation on this thread. I could be wrong here, but maybe, just maybe, this isn’t all about what you personally want. Maybe it’s about what the Holy Spirit wants.

Just a thought.

 

[arieh0310]

This is my favorite quotation on this thread. I could be wrong here, but maybe, just maybe, this isn’t all about what you personally want. Maybe it’s about what the Holy Spirit wants.

Just a thought.

I am glad you enjoyed it. I could be wrong here, but maybe, just maybe, objective liturgical tradition of 15 centuries of the Roman Rite should inform the organic development of the Latin liturgy rather than a commission of liturgical experts and Protestants over the course of 6 years. Maybe it’s about being able to anchor our spiritual life to the democracy of the dead (honoring our Fathers in the faith) rather than making the liturgy dependent to pure liturgical subjectivism.

Just a thought.

 

[SemperFidelis]

This is my favorite quotation on this thread. I could be wrong here, but maybe, just maybe, this isn’t all about what you personally want. Maybe it’s about what the Holy Spirit wants.

Just a thought.

I doubt the Holy Ghost wants something that has so obviously had bad fruits.

 

[Sure]

I doubt the Holy Ghost wants something that has so obviously had bad fruits.

Are you referring to the OF Mass? If the Holy Spirit didn’t want it don’t you think Pope Benedict would eliminate it? The bad fruit didn’t come from the Mass. Bad priests abused it. The Mass cannot abuse itself, it must have an agent.

 

[arieh0310]

Are you referring to the OF Mass? If the Holy Spirit didn’t want it don’t you think Pope Benedict would eliminate it?

If the Holy Spirit didn’t want the sale of indulgences, don’t you think He would have made Pope Alexander VI eliminate it? …oops…

 

[Sure]

I am glad you enjoyed it. I could be wrong here, but maybe, just maybe, objective liturgical tradition of 15 centuries of the Roman Rite should inform the organic development of the Latin liturgy rather than a commission of liturgical experts and Protestants over the course of 6 years. Maybe it’s about being able to anchor our spiritual life to the democracy of the dead (honoring our Fathers in the faith) rather than making the liturgy dependent to pure liturgical subjectivism.

Just a thought.

Of course liturgy should develop organically. And it seems that perhaps it was not as organic as it could have been…despite the fact that Pope Benedict says there is no “rupture” between the two. Make no mistake, the communion of saints and the angels are present at either form of the Mass. There is no need to denigrate one in order to hold the other in high esteem. The Holy Father desires us to have two forms of the roman rite, let us maybe consider that this is a wise move and should be embraced. There are a small handful of parishes that have done this in the US, and they are thriving. Let’s look to them as model of how it ought to be done.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Are you referring to the OF Mass? If the Holy Spirit didn’t want it don’t you think Pope Benedict would eliminate it? The bad fruit didn’t come from the Mass. Bad priests abused it. The Mass cannot abuse itself, it must have an agent.

I’m not saying the NO is inherently bad, but the way it has been celebrated certaintly is. However, don’t you think the Holy Ghost knew beforehand what kind of abuses would come about from the new Mass? I doubt he wanted the creating of a new Mass, if he already knew the consequences that would come from said action.

 

[Sure]

If the Holy Spirit didn’t want the sale of indulgences, don’t you think He would have made Pope Alexander VI eliminate it? …oops…

Oh, so Pope Benedict is in error on this one???

Can’t you open your mind to the possibility that he might be correct, that there might be some value in having two expressions of the roman rite, both with value and holiness? I’m willing to give his idea a try…are you?

 

[Sure]

I’m not saying the NO is inherently bad, but the way it has been celebrated certaintly is. However, don’t you think the Holy Ghost knew beforehand what kind of abuses would come about from the new Mass? I doubt he wanted the creating of a new Mass, if he already knew the consequences that would come from said action.

If the consequences did indeed come from the Mass…I’m not sure they did, at all. Who knows how the Lord works? I have heard many say that perhaps it was good that the extraordinary form was hidden away as modernism struck at the liturgy, perhaps it was protected, in a way.

The point I think is that we have been asked by the Holy Father to embrace two forms of the roman rite, I for one, think we ought to give it a shot…perhaps he’s on to something.

 

[arieh0310]

Of course liturgy should develop organically. And it seems that perhaps it was not as organic as it could have been…despite the fact that Pope Benedict says there is no “rupture” between the two. Make no mistake, the communion of saints and the angels are present at either form of the Mass. There is no need to denigrate one in order to hold the other in high esteem. The Holy Father desires us to have two forms of the roman rite, let us maybe consider that this is a wise move and should be embraced. There are a small handful of parishes that have done this in the US, and they are thriving. Let’s look to them as model of how it ought to be done.

I know what B16 wrote in the accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum, and it seems to be pastoral. It can also be interpreted as “there should be no rupture.”

But check out what Ratzinger wrote just a few years ago as a preface to Msgr. Gamber’s book “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy” (which was extremely harsh on the NO mass):

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.

We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.

 

[SemperFidelis]

If the consequences did indeed come from the Mass…I’m not sure they did, at all. Who knows how the Lord works? I have heard many say that perhaps it was good that the extraordinary form was hidden away as modernism struck at the liturgy, perhaps it was protected, in a way.

The point I think is that we have been asked by the Holy Father to embrace two forms of the roman rite, I for one, think we ought to give it a shot…perhaps he’s on to something.

Fair enough.

 

[Sure]

I know what B16 wrote in the accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum, and it seems to be pastoral. It can also be interpreted as “there should be no rupture.”

But check out what Ratzinger wrote just a few years ago as a preface to Msgr. Gamber’s book “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy” (which was extremely harsh on the NO mass):

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.

Thanks I’m aware of what he wrote. It’s interesting that he says that Mass everyday, he must not hate it too much. It seems to me that his writings of late indicate his desire to embrace both…must we chalk that up to “pastoral” (wink, wink) or could it be that maybe, he means it. I am willing to take him at his word, that he means it, and give it a try…are you?

 

[arieh0310]

Oh, so Pope Benedict is in error on this one???

Can’t you open your mind to the possibility that he might be correct, that there might be some value in having two expressions of the roman rite, both with value and holiness? I’m willing to give his idea a try…are you?

Oh, I think he is quite right in the approach he is taking. To radically change the liturgy back overnight would be disastrous (even if we got back the Roman Rite’s true liturgical patrimony). St Thomas Aquinas says as much in his Summa, that to change custom, even for a good reason, should be done with great caution. If only Paul VI had followed that advise.

 

[Sure]

Oh, I think he is quite right in the approach he is taking. To radically change the liturgy back overnight would be disastrous (even if we got back the Roman Rite’s true liturgical patrimony). St Thomas Aquinas says as much in his Summa, that to change custom, even for a good reason, should be done with great caution. If only Paul VI had followed that advise.

But maybe rather than thinking he has some secret plan to eliminate the OF Mass, we could just take him at his word. I mean, what’s the risk in that??? It seems odd to me that you don’t want to fully support his statements unless his statements conform to your personal view that the OF Mass ought to be eliminated.

 

[arieh0310]

Thanks I’m aware of what he wrote. It’s interesting that he says that Mass everyday, he must not hate it too much.

I have a priest friend who is devoted to the traditional mass, yet has to say the NO almost exclusively. He has told me that saying the new mass is a cross he must bear, but he celebrates the NO with as much dignity and reverence and tradition as possible.

I can’t read Benedict’s mind, but that kind of experience isn’t unique.

 

[arieh0310]

It seems odd to me that you don’t want to fully support his statements unless his statements conform to your personal view that the OF Mass ought to be eliminated.

I do fully support the Holy Father, but the intro letter to SP sure doesn’t look like a complete program for liturgical reform. The former Cardinal Ratzinger has been critical of the NO, has called for a reform of the reform, called for the freedom of the TLM, etc. Now as pope he has freed the TLM, is introducing ad orientem in papal masses, is using traditional vestments, and even used the Classical form of Baptism as an example in Spe Salvi rather than the new form of Baptism. Something more is up that what is indicated in that letter. I am going to use the writings of Ratzinger to inform me of what I think Benedict’s liturgical intentions are. He has called the NO a banal, on the spot fabrication before, I think he still means it.