Nihil Obstat Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Just wanted to post the correspondence between a friend of mine and Fr. Kocik, of the NLM. First message in blue, Fr.'s reply in green. Here is the original message: [quote][color="#000080"]Hi Fr. Tom, I am having a discussion with a gentleman about the relationship of the OF, EF and the light of tradition, based upon Bishop Schneider's latest words... Here is the jist: We are having a conversation about how the OF relates to the EF and vice versa....the comment was made that the OF is deficient. However another participant repsonded with Archbishop's statement... This is how it was responded to.... While it might give scandal to some of the faithful to hear what they THINK is dissent, this is a valid expression of a difference of opinion among theologians. It's not dissent. Archbishop Nichols is not the Magisterium and while he may be expressing that he disagrees with those who find the OF deficient (it is his right to express that), his statement remains an opinion, not a doctrine. There are legitimate disagreements between theologians all the time. I don't agree with Scott Hahn that there were multiple authors to the Torah. Someone could say that his fancy education trumps mine, but I got my views from an equally intelligent theologian who, I believe, made a convincing case. To say the OF is deficient is only to say that it is lacking something that could make it more. The OF is still sufficient - it is enough for validity - but it could be better. Summorum Pontifum itself says that the pope's intention is for the two forms to influence one another, that is, to improve one another. The pope himself in his motu proprio implies that the OF is deficient. I suspect that he would like the OF to get some of the EF's solemnity and sacrificial character and that he would like the EF to get some of the OF's full and active participation, but that's speculation. What is certain is that he himself does believe the OF to be deficient in some way. The implication of my above speculation is that the EF is also deficient in some way. All liturgies are somehow deficient compared to the heavenly liturgy which has yet to be revealed. Stating that a liturgy is deficient is in no way calling it invalid, but pointing out a need for improvement, which is simply a matter of justice and honesty. I also used some of Cardinal Bacci and Ottaviani's words to support the position, The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. (Ottaviani Intervention) [...] We have limited ourselves above to a short study of the Novus Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass. Our observations touch upon deviations which are typical. (ibid.) Am I way off base or is this a valid string to understanding the true implementation of "The Reform of the Reform" in light of Bishop Schneider and the overall movement?[/color][/quote] [color="#000000"]Here is the reply, received today: [/color] [quote][color="#006400"]I'm sorry for the long delay in responding to your email. I've been away at a conference in Houston and returned just last evening. I agree with you: It is not "dissent" to say that you find the Ordinary Form deficient in one respect or another; as you say, "deficient" simply means that, in your opinion, it lacks something that could improve it. An Eastern Christian, for example, might find the Western/Latin liturgy deficient when it comes to eschatological/cosmic emphasis, while a Roman Catholic might find the Eastern Rites deficient when it comes to Eucharistic worship outside of the Holy Sacrifice. And, as you well understand, all liturgical rites are "deficient" in light of the heavenly liturgy. On the other hand, it is not a legitimate Catholic option to deny the validity of the Mass and other liturgical rites promulgated after Vatican II by authority of Paul VI. And let's not forget, the liturgical reform enacted after the Council, for all its problems, yielded good fruits, for example: a much stronger sense of the communitarian nature of the Liturgy; rediscovering the centrality of the Paschal Mystery (as seen, for example, in the "new" Prefaces of the Missal of Paul VI, and not letting the Sunday Mass formularies be crowded out or relativized by saints' feasts; a greater eschatological awareness; emphasizing the unity of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist – in that order – as the sacraments of Christian initiation; allowance for the vernacular to facilitate participation (though not to the exclusion of Latin); etc. In some respects, the so-called Novus Ordo is a vast improvement over the pre-conciliar liturgical situation. Tom [/color][/quote] Just in case anyone likes reasonable liturgical discussions, which I know y'all do because you're very intelligent and friendly people. Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Thank you for sharing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I liked how he pointed out that the OF did bring some good things. All I tend to hear is the negatives it brought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 Welcome. [quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1296510095' post='2207177'] I liked how he pointed out that the OF did bring some good things. All I tend to hear is the negatives it brought. [/quote] I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Fr Kocik's reply is spot-on. It's amazing how, when presented pastorally, things just make sense. I think all theologians should be required to take some type of pastoral training so they too can present their views in such a clear manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 [quote] And, as you well understand, all liturgical rites are "deficient" in light of the heavenly liturgy.[/quote] What a great line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I also find it interesting that Father did not come out and say that it is acceptable to flat out say the mass is deficient. He said, [i]"It is not "dissent" to say that you find the Ordinary Form deficient[b] in one respect or another[/b];".[/i] I think that's an important point to make clear. Also, notice how he defended the mass at the same time. Again, another very important thing not to overlook. This valuable lesson in [b]constructive[/b] dialogue seems to be overlooked all too often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts