The Rite Choice (why can't there be more than 1 roman rite?)
Even if the OF is done in a traditional light, it's still at best an almost vernacular version of TLM. Even still, there's way too much that was lopped out of the OF to make up for the loss. Prayers are the foot of the altar, the offertory prayers, the lessening of the separation of the priest & people, and the rewording of the consecration being the largest issues.
Even the best Novus Ordo I have seen doesn't come near the TLM, not even a "vernacular TLM" (the Anglican Ordinariate mass is close to this, though.)  The Novus Ordo's sense of ritual is severely lacking: the priest appears to be simply the lead actor in a complex play rather than the supplicant of God pleading for us all at the altar, etc. The TLM, DL, and Anglican Ordinariate mass all get this right.
I guess I'm fairly indifferent to it because I've never actually had a parish near me that offers even the 1962 Missal daily. The way I find my niche in the liturgical year is through some form of the breviary, especially the Benedictine ( Western) or Old Rite Horologion and Prayerbook ( Eastern).  I would imagine that it would be rich to have that one year cycle, and no doubt the TLM is richer and more explicit doctrinally than the Pauline Mass.

I don't have hope in my neck of the woods in my situation right now to get a better option unless I go back to school ( which I am doing) , find a better job and move to Sarasota or someplace where there is a regular parish life somewhere that offers the TLM. I've been to Christ the King in Sarasota before and it was nice, there seemed to be a real community there, but of course I live 3.5 hours away so I could only glimpse it.

For now it must be Sunday Obligation and the breviary.
Look, I think we all know it's a polite juridical fiction (as I might put it) that under Church law, the Ordinary Form (aka the Pauline Missal) and the Extraordinary Form (aka the Traditional Latin Mass)  are the "same rite." They're far more different from each other than certain ancient Latin Rites are from the old Roman Rite. Just look at the Ambrosian Rite. You're going to tell me that is an entirely separate rite, but that the Nvous Ordo is just a different form of the same rite as the TLM?

But Pope Benedict chose this designation for good political reasons. He wanted the TLM integrated into the mainstream life of the Church. If you designate the TLM as a separate rite, you throw up a big obstacle to that integration. Latin Rite priests would then need special ritual faculties; local bishops would assume that the TLM has no more to do with them (or require them to take any responsibility for) than, say, Ukrainian Rite, Melkite Rite, or Maronite Rite communities. And yes, deep down, he probably really does want to think, on some level, that the reformed Mass is still the Roman Rite, however defective he thinks aspects of it may be (see his many criticisms on this point over the years as a private theologian). If you have any doubts on this point (that are not already settled by the difficulties we STILL have even with Benedict's solution), just look at how some bishops are treating the Ordinariate Missal, which is after all technically designated as a "Use" of the Roman Rite, rather than an entirely separate rite - regular Roman Rite priests in such dioceses are strictly forbidden from celebrating it (this is the case in my diocese), even though it is just a Use of the Roman Rite, which they are priests of.

At some point in the future, this situation may change. It is indeed an unprecedented situation; we have never had TWO universal forms of the Roman Rite. Local uses and rites based on the Roman Rite, sure (cf. the Uses and Rites of Sarum, York, Hereford, Cologne, Paris, Lyons, etc.). But they were just that: local. The instability of the Novus Ordo will likely result in major liturgical reforms and reorderings in the late 21st century. But until then, this is what we've got.
(04-08-2016, 09:15 AM)Fontevrault Wrote: Liturgical change is not over; it has been changing since the first Mass on Holy Thursday.

This may seem like a nitpick, but it's an important point: The Last Supper was not a Mass. It anticipates the Mass in certain ways, but it was not a Mass, and not a liturgy, when Our Lord shared the Last Supper with His Apostles. The Mass is fundamentally a re-presentation of Calvary.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)