FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The Rite Choice (why can't there be more than 1 roman rite?)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
I was thinking about this thread today and I wanted to ask a question without totally derailing it.

Why can't there be 2 Roman Rites? I mean, why are there other Catholic rites to begin with? I would assume that from a historical perspective, the different rites all come from the same "source" material, but why did the different rites diverge in the first place? Did any grow out of another, or did they all branch from the root of the early Church? Why can't we create a new rite now?

It seems to me that the creation of a new (old?) rite would solve a lot of problems. But most of what I've heard of the idea (from either side of the debate!) seems to think it's a terrible idea, but I"m unclear as to why.
(03-31-2016, 08:14 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking about this thread today and I wanted to ask a question without totally derailing it.

Why can't there be 2 Roman Rites? I mean, why are there other Catholic rites to begin with? I would assume that from a historical perspective, the different rites all come from the same "source" material, but why did the different rites diverge in the first place? Did any grow out of another, or did they all branch from the root of the early Church? Why can't we create a new rite now?

It seems to me that the creation of a new (old?) rite would solve a lot of problems. But most of what I've heard of the idea (from either side of the debate!) seems to think it's a terrible idea, but I"m unclear as to why.

Up until the Council of Trent, it was mostly up to the local bishop, and different places had different things in the Mass, like more sequences, or longer psalms, or different readings. The Sarum Use is one example of such rites. By the time of Council of Trent, it was felt that it had got a bit out of hand, and there were concerns about the liturgy remaining orthodox with the Protestants separating themselves from the Church, and suppressed everything that wasn't at least 200 years old.

There's no reason why a new rite, or at least a new use, can't be created - Pope Benedict XVI did that for the Anglicans that returned to the Church, where it was basically the Book of Common Prayer made Catholic. Maybe the reason nobody likes the idea is that one side doesn't want the traditional rite back at all, and the other thinks the new Mass needs to disappear.
I was going to point out the historic stuff Paul mentioned . . .  He beat me to it.

I think the problem is the adversarial nature of the relationships at this point.  There's been so much struggle just to have the TLM, that many who love it don't want to see it corrupted by the NO.  I understand their perspective - at least to some extent.

I personally think it is possible for the two to exist side by side and thrive in the same parish.  There are some drawbacks, however.  You can kiss elements of traditional parish life good bye.  They aren't going to happen.  The struggle in our area is in establishing a sense of community within the TLM that is both separate from the NO group and supportive of the parish itself.  This is not easy.  We are lucky that both priests in our location are studying the TLM in addition to bringing in a retired priest to serve our needs now.  There is hope.  It will require a lot of effort on our part, however.  We have a group of 20 or so altar servers driving to Denver in order to learn how to serve at Mass.  We have a group of women just starting to come together.  There is an email list and we ordered some St. Edmund Campion Missals to replace our somewhat threadbare red books.  Now, we need to work on traditional vestments for the parish (I posted on this topic recently).  The more energy we put into all of this, the more the parish will perceive us as a strong, vibrant group and support us in turn.  At least that's the theory. 

The TLM in our area has been in 3 separate churches and has been shut down twice.  This new location is really our best option and has been the most supportive.  The group is growing as well - another good thing.
Yes, there are other Rites from the Roman Rite : the Ambrosian Rite, the Dominican Rite, etc. The basic thing about Rites is that they always refer back the some Apostolic See : Rome, Antioch, etc. These two gave us the most popular rites in the Church, the Roman and the Byzantine (which comes from Antioch, really). When a region goes on to evangelize another it naturally brings the Rites from the region, so the Roman Rite is predominant in the West and so on. This is an oversimplification, of course, but you get the picture.

Now, if a new rite is composed it must be derived from something we received from the Apostles. Notice how weird this sentence is : how can we compose something we receive. We either make it or we receive it. Of course, this expresses neatly the paradox of the new rite composed by committee : one cannot claim to be traditional while putting oneself above tradition and judging it as from outside. Any possible change (and any change that occurred, that we like to call « organic ») is something that comes from the inside--from the prayer of saints.

Let this remark marinate in the back of your head while you ponder what I consider the central question of the matter : does the NOM represents the Catholic faith (or the Catholic faith in its fullness) ? Of course, just by leaving open options to say or not say it with dignity already says something about what it is saying about the nature of Liturgy--the nature of worship itself. But many have also argued that its prayers are somewhat problematic. And for all the pretension of covering the whole Sacred Scriptures, somehow a rather restricted view of the Gospel is presented for the typical Mass goer.

Now take all this and mix the overwhelming empirical evidence that something is terribly wrong with most Catholics : most Catholics abhor Catholic doctrine. How can one worship God in falsehood ? We should worship God in the Spirit and in truth. And what about all the polemic around the very committee that concocted the NOM ? Bugnini, denomination : Freemason ? The hatred most of liturgists had for sacred tradition is palpable. Pope Paul VI himself, some claim, regretted the whole affair. We know Benedict was very critical of it. And now we know the (almost) full product of it : Francis.

Are you ready to embrace your inner SSPXer already ? At least give your inner FSSPer a chance, will you ;)
There are more than one western rite. There is the Ambrosian rite. There is the Mozarabic rite. Both of these rites have an equal dignity with the Roman rite and the Second Vatican Council called for their preservation. There is in Spain a Summorum Pontificum like document that allows for the use of this rite outside of Toledo. 
(03-31-2016, 10:19 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Are you ready to embrace your inner SSPXer already ? At least give your inner FSSPer a chance, will you ;)

You know, I would love to that the FSSP set up a parish in our area.  But they abandoned that project some time ago.  Now we are left with a choice: SSPX or diocesan.  It is a hard choice.  If the SSPX situation were finally resolved, I think we'd be there in a heart beat.  But I worry about their status.  With the stuff our Holy Father is saying lately, that worry is beginning to diminish . . .  Pilgrim and I take our responsibility to our children very seriously and I find myself questioning what type of church they will have to put up with. 
(04-01-2016, 09:29 AM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-31-2016, 10:19 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Are you ready to embrace your inner SSPXer already ? At least give your inner FSSPer a chance, will you ;)

You know, I would love to that the FSSP set up a parish in our area.  But they abandoned that project some time ago.  Now we are left with a choice: SSPX or diocesan.  It is a hard choice.  If the SSPX situation were finally resolved, I think we'd be there in a heart beat.  But I worry about their status.  With the stuff our Holy Father is saying lately, that worry is beginning to diminish . . .  Pilgrim and I take our responsibility to our children very seriously and I find myself questioning what type of church they will have to put up with.

Yes, and FSSP has effectively been banned from our diocese, so it's diocesan (2.5 hours away) or SSPX (also 2.5 hours away).

I had no idea there were other "Western Rites". Go to show the more you know...
By "rite" I get the sense that you mean a church sui juris. Analogous to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, or the Chaldean Catholic Church?

It is tempting...in my area I see the Eastern churches practice their traditions with no interference (probably because their bishops aren't even in this state) while the Romans are forced to abide by whatever a liberal bishop might demand.

On the other hand, I consider the Novus Ordo to be a mistake, and I am unwilling to fully abandon the Latin church to it. I believe the Latin church needs the TLM as a touchstone, a reminder of what the actual traditions of the Latin church are and that they can still be practiced. I use the metaphor of a boat: imagine a boat that is drifting away from the dock before everything is loaded.  Most of the people are in the boat, but some stayed on the dock and are trying to grab the ropes and pull the boat back. Latin traditionalists are the people on the dock, and the general Novus Ordo crowd are the people in the boat. If everyone on the dock jumps into the boat, or gets in another boat (the Eastern churches, the Anglican Ordinariate) or builds their own boat (a hypothetical "trad church") then the Latin boat just drifts. That said, I don't blame anyone who decides that standing on a dock holding a rope isn't the best place for his family, and decides that the Melkite or Anglican Ordinariate, etc., boat is safe.
I personally think it is a legitimate solution. Rome returning to the TLM seems to be a fantasy - the NO is here to stay. A sui juris church would guarantee traditional bishops, minimal interference from Rome and local heterodox ordinaries, etc. Yes, it is unfortunate that it would no longer be the rite of the Church of Rome, but that ship has sailed anyway.
(04-01-2016, 12:15 AM)Poche Wrote: [ -> ]There are more than one western rite. There is the Ambrosian rite. There is the Mozarabic rite. Both of these rites have an equal dignity with the Roman rite and the Second Vatican Council called for their preservation. There is in Spain a Summorum Pontificum like document that allows for the use of this rite outside of Toledo.

No, No.  If the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites had equal dignity with the Roman, then all of Spain would be using the Mozarabic rite.  At least the Ambrosian rite is used in most of the Archdiocese of Milan, but with Vat II it was essentially rendered Novus Ordo: Milan.  The same with the Mozarabic rite, it's now essentially Novus Ordo: Toledo.  Rome traditionally does not respect other rites or view them as equally dignified; the respect shown is, for the most part, only on paper.
Pages: 1 2 3 4