www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Traditional Liturgy to be freed?

This discussion has been going on since the end of Feburary on other Catholic forums.

"unless there is someone working at the Vatican with the last name of Unnamed and if there is he is a very busy man."

Anyone in the least familiar with the Vatican's unique methods will bear witness that there is indeed such a person - in fact there are quite a few of them - and they manage to keep very busy. To take a simple example, just try to find out who is genuinely responsible for a given episcopal appointment [Since there are well over three thousand episcopal posts in the Catholic Church, and there are at least three candidates for each such post, it is clearly impossible for the Pope to know them all personally.]

Or read both [email]Euntes in Mundum[/email] AND Magnum Baptismi Donum. Since the two documents are a tad inconsistent with each other, are we really supposed to believe that the same person wrote them both, at substantially the same time?

And on, and on.

Incognitus

Haven't these rumors been going on for nearly a decade now?

Honestly, I think it would be help the Roman Rite in the long run if it allowed the use of the older missal on an equal footing with the newer one.

I have a weird question.

If the AOC has a Western Rite Vicariate, why can't an Eastern Catholic Church make a place for Tridentines (the Melkites for example) and allow them to keep parishes with the Tridentine Rite. Could this be a sollution?

This way you don't have to touch the Latin Bishops' authorities and the Tridentine people would have a separated place. If I'm not mistaken there is no explicit legislation forcing an Eastern Catholic Church to use "one rite" exclusively.

Is this technicaly possible?

NO WAY! They are the Latins problem don't wish them on us. Why should the Latins have it easy? How else are they going to get to heaven? If they come our way they abandon all that Latin stuff (all of it & yes we do check pockets) and go Byzantine.

What a terrible thought and just before Easter...I need nice smooth dark chocolates

XB!

Nice, smooth, dark chocolates - what an inspiring thought! Now to go and find some . . . Kali Anastasi!

Incognitus

I don't think it would be right to allow the Old Latin mass be held again. The Second Vatican Council was a VALID, ECUMENICAL Council and its decisions should be respected just as we respected the Council of Trent. I agree the Old Latin mass was beautiful but so is the New Latin mass, which was the reason I converted in to first place.

Armando

The "Old Latin Mass " was never banned so you can't say
What is really needed is that Mass is Celebrated with reverence and due consideration given to the Rubrics.

If that is done then there should be no problem at all

Mass is not a 'Do your own thing ' Liturgy

The mass, as promulgated by Vatican II, was beautiful. It was what Pope Paul VI did to to the mass several years after the council ended, that is the problem. The Novus Ordo was not a work of the council. I think the east has every reason to be leery of giving one man that kind of authority.

Dear Armando - CHRIST IS RISEN!

You write that "The Second Vatican Council was a VALID, ECUMENICAL Council and its decisions should be respected just as we respected the Council of Trent."

I wasn't around at the time of the Council of Trent, so I can't claim to have respected it when it took place nor in its immediate aftermath. Still, my current crop of grey hairs perhaps gives me some claim to be able to say that we read the decrees and decisions of Trent with a certain care, bearing in mind the context in which they were written and elaborated.

I do not dispute the Second Vatican Council - it is an authentic General Council and its documents are still very much worth reading, although a trifle uneven (after a mere 40 years the document on Communications - a topic not subject to infallibility - will bring more than one smile to the face of the reader, because of the remarkable changes in communications since Vatican II).

Vatican II did not in any way "exclude" the Missal in use prior to and during that Council. Vatican II did not exclude the use of Latin, nor the use of Gregorian Chant, nor the celebration of Mass facing the East . . . and so forth. Quite the contrary.

So it is better not to imply that anyone who prefers the form of Mass in use prior to and during Vatican II to the form of Mass later published by Pope Paul VI is therefore defying the Second Vatican Council, or showing disrespect for the Council's decisions.

CHRISTUS RESURREXIT E MORTUIS, MORTE MORTEM CALCAVIT - ET HIS IN SEPULCHRIS, VITAM DONAVIT!

Incognitus

Incognitus,

Amen...I commend you on your Latin usage...I often wonder if in the Orthodox/Eastern communities...are the Old Believers persecuted and frowned upon as the Traditionalists in the Latin Rite ? I really should not use the term "Latin"...there is sparse use in the U.S. and present forms of translations hardly resemble the Latin originals...

PAX
james

Dear James - CHRIST IS RISEN! Thanks for the commendation. I found it necessary to amend that translation slightly. The original translation reads, of all things "et entibus in sepulchris vitam donavit", which is downright barbaric. Possible alternatives include "et his in sepulchris" - which is what I use - "et mortibus in sepulchris", which is an accurate paraphrase, or simply "et in sepulchris", which is linguistically good but makes the chant a bit more difficult.

For those who wonder what this is all about - "ens, entis" is an obscure Latin word which does not occur in the plural in tolerable Latin. "Entibus" is someone's quite unsuccessful effort to translate the Church-Slavonic "сущым" into Latin (but it's really pig latin).

The Old-Ritualist Church-Slavonic text (in other words, the Church-Slavonic text from before the Nikonian reform) is actually more accurate: "и гробным живот дарова", or in Latin "et in sepulchris . . ."


The Old Ritualists have certainly been persecuted, using state power in the Russian Empire until 1905, and again during much of the Soviet period. Now things are at least easier, thanks be to the Risen Lord!
Christ is Risen!

Incognitus

Vatican II did not promulgate any Mass. All it said was that there should be a reform of the Mass.

As for the East nothing giving the pope the authority to make decision for the Church he is patriarch of, I highly doubt that they care. Its when he makes decisions for the whole Church that they have issues.


David, Byzantine Catholic and Carmelite pre-novice

In a sense I would consider you mistaken. I am holding a copy of the Roman Missal containing the English translation approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States, copyright 1964. It contains all the changes mandated by the Council and includes the Council documents calling for those changes. I am old enough to remember using that missal until Pope Paul VI decreed the Novus Ordo in 1969. The changes to the Roman Missal of 1964 are supported by Council documents calling for those specific changes.

ByzanTN,

Yep, you have a copy of the 1965 Missal...many believe that this represents the true intent of V II and should have been retained...

james