Did Vatican II require an alteration of the Roman Rite?
#1
Cardinal Burke seems to think it did not: Rorate Interview.  "As long as we save Vatican II from the liberals," the argument seems to say, "then we recover the future."

Cardinal Sarah advances the same line of argument: "Vatican II never asked for the abrogation of the Mass of St. Pius V !"


Yet Louie Verrechio utterly refutes this entire effort:
"Cardinal Sarah interview nothing to cheer about"

Here is what Sacrosanctum Concilium really had to say:


Par. 25 “The liturgical books ARE TO BE REVISED as soon as possible; from various parts of the world, experts are to be employed and bishops are to be consulted.”

Par. 50 “…rites are to be SIMPLIFIED…elements…duplicated or added with little advantage are TO BE DISCARDED.”

Par. 40 “In some places and circumstances, however, an even more RADICAL ADAPTATION of the liturgy is needed…”

Par. 44 "...It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice. So far as possible the commission should be aided by some kind of Institute for Pastoral Liturgy, consisting of persons who are eminent in these matters, and INCLUDING laymen as circumstances suggest. Under the direction of the above-mentioned territorial ecclesiastical authority the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action throughout the territory, and to promote studies and NECESSARY EXPERIMENTS..."

Par. 58 "A NEW RITE for concelebration IS TO BE DRAWN UP..."

Par. 66 "Both the rites for the baptism of adults are TO BE REVISED..."

Par. 67 "The rite for the baptism of infants is TO BE REVISED..."

Par. 71 "The rite of confirmation is TO BE REVISED..."

Par. 72 "The rite and formulas for the sacrament of penance are TO BE REVISED..."

Par. 75 "...the prayers which belong to the rite of anointing are TO BE REVISED."

Par. 76 "Both the ceremonies and texts of the ordination rites are TO BE REVISED."

Par. 77. "The marriage rite now found in the Roman Ritual is TO BE REVISED..."

These statements of Sacrosanctum Concilium are specifically condemned by the Session 7 Canon 13 of the Council of Trent:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by whomsoever pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."

[ From http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.ph...ay-in-rome ]
Reply
#2
I think some people make a distinction between revising a rite and substituting it with a new one.  For me, it's a difficult distinction to define and seems to essentially just be a matter of degree.  For example, most people who make this distinction see the 1962 Missal as a revision, but the 1969 missal as a whole new rite being substituted for or introduced alongside the previously existing authorized rite.

As for the revision of rites being condemned by the Council of Trent, that is contradictory to Trent itself.  That canon is directed to those who condemn the approved rites of the Church and who change them without authority to do so.  On the other hand, the Council of Trent teaches that the Church has the authority to change the sacramental rites provided their substance remains (e.g. the Church cannot abolish the Eucharist under the form of bread and wine and change it back to a passover meal of roasted lamb.).

Council of Trent, Session 21 Wrote:It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, (l) it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have intimated, when he says; Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. (m) And indeed it is sufficiently manifest that he himself exercised this power,- as in many other things, so in regard of this very sacrament; when, after having ordained certain things touching the use thereof, he says; The rest I will set in order when I come.

Note, whether the changes are most expedient is subjective (...soever it may judge...). Also, note the comparison to St. Paul--if the Apostles could institute rites (ordain practices and set them in order), then the Church still has this power.

Ultimately, Pope Pius XII clarified that since the supreme authority in the Church resides with the Pope, he possesses this full authority (note, he also makes the judgment as to whether it is necessary subjective: "...those he judges..."):

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei Wrote:58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50]

All of this is summed up by Vatican II. 

Sacrosanctum Concillium 22 Wrote:22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

If the idea that the Church has the power to revise and introduce rites is a bad principle, then the Church erred long before Vatican II.  That doesn't mean that it can't be argued thought, that it would be more expedient to revert to earlier practices, etc. That kind of criticism, since it is the basis of how such changes come about, seems fine and distinct from the condemnation or despising of the Church's authorized rites.
Reply
#3
Revisions have been taking place for centuries. The Tridentine Rite itself is a standardized revision of multiple forms of the Latin Rite.
Reply
#4
And we can't forget, Benedict XVI has said that both the Pauline Mass and the 1962 TLM are two forms of the same Roman Rite. This would seem to suggest that the so called Novus Ordo is not a new rite at all but simply a revision that has turned into a different stripped down version of the old style Roman Mass. I admit that I find this hard to swallow, as the Pauline Missal is radically different in so many ways from the 1962 Missal that it's pretty much an act of faith to call it simply a different form of the same rite.

I think it's abundanly clear that reform had been in the air for a long time, long before Sacrosanctum Concilium was even an official document. That document was simply the blueprint and the outline of what an inevitable reform or revision would maybe look like. I think the Council document itself did not require an alteration of the Roman Rite, but in the back of the minds of those on the various liturgical committees for the past half century prior to the Council there was a great desire to change the Mass. History would seem to show that Paul VI himself was in favor of eventually revising ( or rewriting!) the Roman Liturgy. The rest is history.

Now it's said that we have two forms of the same Roman Rite with the normative form being the average parish Novus Ordo, a form used by the majority of the episcopate and most parish priests globally, including the last half centuries worth of Popes, one considered a great saint ( John Paul II).

In the end it is what it is. At least now we have the option of attending the 1962 TLM or a Byzantine Divine Liturgy. While I'd love to see a return to the TLM as the norm ( probably pre Pius XII ideally, not 1962), at this point it's all we have and probably will not ever return to the norm worldwide, at least not in any of our lifetimes.
Reply
#5
(03-10-2015, 01:29 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: And we can't forget, Benedict XVI has said that both the Pauline Mass and the 1962 TLM are two forms of the same Roman Rite. This would seem to suggest that the so called Novus Ordo is not a new rite at all but simply a revision that has turned into a different stripped down version of the old style Roman Mass. I admit that I find this hard to swallow, as the Pauline Missal is radically different in so many ways from the 1962 Missal that it's pretty much an act of faith to call it simply a different form of the same rite.

I am only able to swallow that assertion by interpreting him to mean that the OF and EF are the same rite in a juridical sense and not that he is making a theological evaluation of the rites.
Reply
#6
formerbuddhist,
Benedict XVI contradicted Paul VI when he called the NOM another form of the same Roman Rite:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM

Paul VI Wrote:1. We wish to draw your attention to an event about to occur in the Latin Catholic Church: the introduction of the liturgy of the new rite of the Mass. It will become obligatory in Italian dioceses from the First Sunday of Advent, which this year falls on November 30. The Mass will be celebrated in a rather different manner from that in which we have been accustomed to celebrate it in the last four centuries, from the reign of St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, down to the present.

^ See also paragraphs 11—13.  In n. 11, Paul VI does claim, however, "The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

Paul VI Wrote:1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

2. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.

^ See also paragraphs 13, 17, and 18.
Reply
#7
It really does not matter is Pope Benedict said that the New Order Mass is a liturgy instituted by Christ himself. He is wrong. The New Order and the Immemorial Mass are not different expressions of the same Roman Rite. Simple as that.

From Paul VI to Francis I there is this need, this desire to somehow legitimize the Nre Order of Mass. They tell us it's a "purer form" or the "same rite" or "the way forward".  Good luck trying to cover the sun with one finger.
Reply
#8
(03-10-2015, 06:39 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(03-10-2015, 01:29 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: And we can't forget, Benedict XVI has said that both the Pauline Mass and the 1962 TLM are two forms of the same Roman Rite. This would seem to suggest that the so called Novus Ordo is not a new rite at all but simply a revision that has turned into a different stripped down version of the old style Roman Mass. I admit that I find this hard to swallow, as the Pauline Missal is radically different in so many ways from the 1962 Missal that it's pretty much an act of faith to call it simply a different form of the same rite.

I am only able to swallow that assertion by interpreting him to mean that the OF and EF are the same rite in a juridical sense and not that he is making a theological evaluation of the rites.

That's actually a very helpful distinction. I admit it's about the only way I too can swallow the assertion that the so called EF and OF are the same rite. 
Reply
#9
(03-10-2015, 07:46 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: formerbuddhist,
Benedict XVI contradicted Paul VI when he called the NOM another form of the same Roman Rite:

I don't know if it's really a contradiction - I think they are using "rite" in two different senses. Benedict seems to mean "rite" in the sense of the sum total of services that make up the patrimony of a particular ritual Church; Paul seems to mean the actual services themselves. In the latter sense, they are clearly different rites; in the former sense, they are juridically and canonically the same rite according to the Supreme Pontiff - but I would suggest only in that restricted sense. Saying they are the same, as many want to do, is just manifestly untrue if words have any meaning.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)