Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Jul 30th 2013 new
Woops! Bryan, it looks like you spoke too soon. The Holy Father has abrogated the "extraordinary form" from the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal.
Jul 31st 2013 new
(quote) Lynea-297530 said: Woops! Bryan, it looks like you spoke too soon. The Holy Father has abrogated the "extraordinary form" from the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal.
That could be a very disturbing occurrence.

Can you supply a source for this that contains more detailed information?




Jul 31st 2013 new
Woops, look like someone spoke a bit too soon. If the FFI can be suppressed and have the new Mass imposed upon then, I think we should rather say "La Messa antica stato toccato e ferito molti", the old Mass has been touched and has hurt many...
Jul 31st 2013 new
(quote) John-971967 said: What? Who thought these bishops this?

Perhaps the wayward practices of "cafeteria" Catholics, and apparently some bishops, causes division in the church instead???? Sedevacantists too, are "cafeteria" Catholics in my opinion who excommunicate themselves by refusing to acknowledge the successor of Peter.

The Tridentine Mass is unifying and one continuity link for the post-Vatican II era to that of Christ. Why break the connection? The papal bull of St Pius V infallibly proclaims that the Tridentine Mass is never to be abrogated. It will be celebrated in perpetuity until He comes!

To the pope's reply: Long Live Pope Francis for putting it most simply and Pope -Emeritus Benedict XVI for making this point clear in Summorum Pontificum!

Viva il Papa!!!!
www.catholicnewsagency.com


I think you are mistaken.
Jul 31st 2013 new
(quote) John-971967 said: Jerry,

Thanks for your comment. I would appreciate it if you could direct my attention to the sources of the explanations to this.

I could agree with the point you make, at face value, if the issue is simply one of discipline. But I am under the impression that Quo Primum deals with more - with doctrine also.

I whole heartedly understand that certain aspects of the Mass can be changed. If I did not, I would not be attending the Novus Ordo.
Whoa!

The three essential parts of the Liturgy of the Eucharist were never to be changed, and yet, what happened to the Offertory in the Novus Ordo? It is essentially a new liturgical rite, but no one wants to ever admit that (at least not from the 'top').
Jul 31st 2013 new
(quote) Lynea-297530 said: Whoa!

The three essential parts of the Liturgy of the Eucharist were never to be changed, and yet, what happened to the Offertory in the Novus Ordo? It is essentially a new liturgical rite, but no one wants to ever admit that (at least not from the 'top').
Just to clarify, I'm not saying the Pope doesn't have the right to do that, but it's still not completely accurate by definition to call it a different form. I recognize the Pope has the right to do that, but it doesn't change the definition of form versus rite.
Jul 31st 2013 new
(quote) Lynea-297530 said: Just to clarify, I'm not saying the Pope doesn't have the right to do that, but it's still not completely accurate by definition to call it a different form. I recognize the Pope has the right to do that, but it doesn't change the definition of form versus rite.
The only thing that cannot be changed in the Mass by a Pope are the words of Consecration and the essential structure; that is theMass must have an Offertory, Consecration and Communion.

Everything else can be and has been changed since the beginning. And no Pope can bind a future Pope as to the form of the Mass except for the points noted above which come from Christ Himself.

Without reference or trying to argue one form of the Mass being better (there is no such thing of one form being inherently better thn another one theologically speaking) than another the MNistake Paul VI made was that if He wanted to institute the Novus Ordo as the ritual to be used, he should have suppressed all other forms.

We would, thereby, have avoided the inane arguments about this or that form being superior.

If one wants to argue on the basis of esthetics as opposed to the theological value of the Mass, then one can make a clear distinction based on one's own personal esthetic sense. But then you would still have differences of opinion.

On the theological level, there is no difference between any of the approved forms of the Mass in use in the church, including those of specific Religious Orders which are approved but on the whole are not used today.
Jul 31st 2013 new
(quote) Lynea-297530 said: When the New Mass was promulgated, it was never promulgated, incidentally, by the Pope, it was just the changing of some prayers in the new missal, but it never said that it was to be used to replace the "old rite". The Sacred Congregation merely allowed the publication of the new missal. It was the Pope's place to order it to be used. We are bound by pain of mortal sin to use the old rite Mass until ordered not to do so, because we have never been ordered by the Pope to use the New Mass. But the Holy Ghost has protected the Church from this, and the obedience of the laity has been out of confusion by confused prelates, and also by those few cardinals that wished to disobey the authority of the Pope. The new Popes have simply enforced it de facto, but never officially. The fact that they celebrate it themselves does not imply the enforcement of this Mass.


I do follow your logic, Lynea, but you need to be careful not to oversimplify what actually transpired. What I recollect is that Rome had set up varied commissions to deal with various aspects. One such commission was the ICEL, which dealt with all the liturgical changes. For better or worse, that commission for example carried a lot of weight in the halls of the Vatican Curia and it pushed through the CDF a lot of changes under the pope's delegated authority during Pope Paul VI's reign as the Vicar of Christ. In a way, after Vatican II, much of the previous papal involvements were set aside or better put, were "delegated", to commissions.

Whether this was done properly and with true authority was then and is still now being debated, discussed, researched, etc.

Taking rigid and inflexible positions prematurely is what gets some Traditionalists in trouble. Radical reformists have also suffered going so far off the path that they are lost in the wilderness now.
Jul 31st 2013 new
(quote) Lynea-297530 said: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/franciscans-of-the-immaculate-decree-worries-traditionalists/


I think you are mistaken.
Lynea, can you be more specific :) What part am I mistaken about? I have made a number of statements there. If it should be obvious, guess what, I'm "slow" today laughing
Jul 31st 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: The only thing that cannot be changed in the Mass by a Pope are the words of Consecration and the essential structure; that is theMass must have an Offertory, Consecration and Communion.

Everything else can be and has been changed since the beginning. And no Pope can bind a future Pope as to the form of the Mass except for the points noted above which come from Christ Himself.

Without reference or trying to argue one form of the Mass being better (there is no such thing of one form being inherently better thn another one theologically speaking) than another the MNistake Paul VI made was that if He wanted to institute the Novus Ordo as the ritual to be used, he should have suppressed all other forms.

We would, thereby, have avoided the inane arguments about this or that form being superior.

If one wants to argue on the basis of esthetics as opposed to the theological value of the Mass, then one can make a clear distinction based on one's own personal esthetic sense. But then you would still have differences of opinion.

On the theological level, there is no difference between any of the approved forms of the Mass in use in the church, including those of specific Religious Orders which are approved but on the whole are not used today.
"Without reference or trying to argue one form of the Mass being better (there is no such thing of one form being inherently better thn another one theologically speaking)"

No way! That is absolutely incorrect. Higher reverence that more reflect our Catholic truths is objectively always more efficacious worship.

I disagree with you entirely. Fr. Chad Ripperger is one of the highest regarded theologians not just still living, but in the past century and including today, and yet he would whole-heartedly disagree with you, based on the teachings of the Church.

On a theological level, one expresses more clearly our beliefs and the other waters that expression down purposely with the intention to "welcome our absent brethren." At least, that was the repeated slogan by those that first introduced and pushed the New Order Missae. By that very motive, the theology has a tinge of immanentism, because it caters to unbelievers, rather than towards the end of worship itself, which is to be oriented first and lastly to God and HIS Sacrifice.

Did you hear me mention aesthetics? That is another story altogether, but then, to say that a campfire hymn is as efficacious as liturgical Gregorian chant is not a discussion pertaining to the liturgical FORM, but it is a matter of understanding theology. If you think everything has equal holiness based on one's intention for its application and context, then you are wrong, theologically speaking.

The Offertory WAS changed with the Novus Ordo Mass, from the words that were believed by tradition to be the words that St. John the Apostle. Whether or not one believe that, the main point is that the prayer was very, very ancient and proven to be from the earliest origins of the Church.

Calling an argument "inane" doesn't give credence to your point of view.

Pope Benedict, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, made the distinction between the Novus Ordo Missae and the traditional Mass (of the saints) as the difference between milk for babies and steak for adults (respectively) in "Salt and Light", back circa 1984.








Posts 31 - 40 of 51