Pope's 'reform Of The Reform' In Liturgy To Continue

[MissScripture]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' timestamp='1305765466' post='2243384']
well, we have to have something to complain about, don't we?
[/quote]
True.

[kafka]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1305763836' post='2243378']
The Vatican has repeatedly denied any plans for liturgical reform. I also don't see how practically the OF can influence the EF or vice versa. As the situation stands those who wish to attend the EF will do so. Those who wish to attend the OF will do so. What else can happen? They are not going to interact with each other. How can one affect the other? The pope himself has not addressed the issue. The opinions of cardinals can certainly vary and conflict with each other. Some who prefer the OF in fact don't like the EF. at all. Some who prefer the EF don't like the OF at all.

S.
[/quote]
A lot can happen. The forms will interact by means of human persons celebrating the two. Seminarians can learn the EF and the OF, celebrate both at their parishes. Laymen can start going to both. People can start opening up and dialoguing instead of fighting and arrogantly preaching liturgical forms to one another. Clergy and laity can both practice a little more detachment in regards to the two forms. Vatican II does in fact need to be revisited. Something in fact does need to happen eventually, because we cant go on living like this. Ideas can start to develop. Movements, resolutions, and a final culmination somewhere down the road. Church life is not static, absolute or stagnant. It is living, dynamic, fluid, grace filled (or at least should be), developing, and so on because we are a group of living human persons traveling to God, in the midst of a diverse world-age. This includes the liturgical forms.

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' timestamp='1305764782' post='2243380']
But didn't the pope say a few years ago that we should stop talking in terms of new rite & old rite, or latin rite and vernacular rite, because they are simply two forms of the same Mass? I don't know - I suppose the reporter may not have meant to say old and new rites - it's just a pet peeve of mine to see things like that.

That said, in my opinion, it might be neat if there ended up being one form in the future.


edit: spelling correction.
[/quote]
My understanding is that there is only One Consecration and One Communion period, so the Pope was emphasizing that they are One Mass in spite of two different forms. I think the better terms to use are ordinary form and extraordinary form. But yeah this potential common rite is sort of ambiguous, I presume it has something to do with one form of the Mass, that is what seems to be implied and that is how I took it at face value. Maybe I erred.

Some good quotes from de Eucharista concerning the One Mass:

Her foundation and wellspring is the whole Triduum paschale, but this is as it were gathered up, foreshadowed and “concentrated' for ever in the gift of the Eucharist. In this gift Jesus Christ entrusted to his Church the perennial making present of the paschal mystery. With it he brought about a mysterious[b] “oneness in time” between that Triduum and the passage of the centuries[/b].

It is he who says with the power coming to him from Christ in the Upper Room: “This is my body which will be given up for you This is the cup of my blood, poured out for you...”. [b]The priest says these words, or rather he puts his voice at the disposal of the One who spoke these words in the Upper Room [/b]and who desires that they should be repeated in every generation by all those who in the Church ministerially share in his priesthood.

The Church has received the Eucharist from Christ her Lord not as one gift – however precious – among so many others, but as the gift par excellence, for it is the gift of himself, of his person in his sacred humanity, as well as the gift of his saving work.[b] Nor does it remain confined to the past, since “all that Christ is – all that he did and suffered for all men – participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times”.10[/b]

When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, the memorial of her Lord's death and resurrection, this central event of salvation [b]becomes really present and “the work of our redemption is carried out”[/b].11 This sacrifice is so decisive for the salvation of the human race that Jesus Christ offered it and returned to the Father only after he had left us a means of sharing in it as if we had been present there.

12. This aspect of the universal charity of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is based on the words of the Saviour himself. In instituting it, he did not merely say: “This is my body”, “this is my blood”, but went on to add: “which is given for you”, “which is poured out for you” (Lk 22:19-20). Jesus did not simply state that what he was giving them to eat and drink was his body and his blood; he also expressed its sacrificial meaning and made sacramentally present his sacrifice which would soon be offered on the Cross for the salvation of all.[b] “The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood”.[/b]13

The Church constantly draws her life from the redeeming sacrifice; she approaches it not only through faith-filled remembrance, but also [b]through a real contact[/b], since this sacrifice is made present ever anew, sacramentally perpetuated, in every community which offers it at the hands of the consecrated minister. The Eucharist thus applies to men and women today the reconciliation won once for all by Christ for mankind in every age.[b] “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice”[/b].14 Saint John Chrysostom put it well: “We always offer the same Lamb, not one today and another tomorrow, but always the same one. For this reason the sacrifice is always only one... Even now we offer that victim who was once offered and who will never be consumed”.15

The Mass makes present the sacrifice of the Cross; it does not add to that sacrifice nor does it multiply it.16 What is repeated is its memorial celebration, its “commemorative representation” (memorialis demonstratio),17 [b]which makes Christ's one, definitive redemptive sacrifice always present in time[/b]. The sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic mystery cannot therefore be understood as something separate, independent of the Cross or only indirectly referring to the sacrifice of Calvary.

Excellent quote from Chardin on the One Communion:

"When the priest says the words Hoc est Corpus meum (For this is my Body), his words fall directly on to the bread and directly transform it into the individual reality of Christ [the substance of bread is changed into the glorified Body of Christ]. But the great sacramental operation does not cease at the local and momentary event. Even children are taught that, throughout the life of each man and the life of the Church and the history of the world, there is only one Mass and one Communion. Christ died once in agony. Peter and Paul receive communion on such and such a day at a particular hour. But these different acts are only the diversely central points in space and time, for our experience. In fact, from the beginning of the Messianic preparation, up till the Parousia, phases of growth of his Church, a single event has been developing in the world: the Incarnation, realisied, in each individual, through the Eucharist.

All the communions of a life-time are one communion.
All the communions of all men now living are one communion.
All the communions of all men, past and future, are one communion."
(Chardin, Divine Mileau p. 124)

Excellent quote from Conte on the One Consecration:

"All the consecrations of the Eucharist, throughout Time and Place, are One Consecration. All the Masses, throughout Time and Place, are One Mass. The One Mass is the Mass at the Last Supper, celebrated by Jesus Christ. Every Mass is the Mass of the Last Supper, not by imitation or repetition, but by the timeless grace and power of God. At the Last Supper, Jesus Christ celebrated the Mass, once for all Time, and consecrated the Eucharist, once for all Time. Every other Mass and consecration of the Eucharist is that same Mass and consecration of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Just as Jesus Christ suffered and died once for all Time and Place, so also did He celebrate the Mass and consecrate the Eucharist once for all Time and Place.” (Conte, New Insights, p. 296).


I dont mean to dump quotes but these have helped me greatly in understanding what is happening with the One Mass: the One Consecration and the One Communion. But the liturgical forms are not included in the One Consecration and One Communion. They are fluid. Jesus wisely left the form, rubrics, gestures, music, etc. for His Bride the Church to decide through the ages, knowing of course that Church would spread, develop and change over the course of centuries. Jesus did not teach liturgical forms.

Edited May 19, 2011 by kafka

[Debra Little]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1305753148' post='2243320']
Oh right, I forgot that only the form of that Mass that existed when Pope St. Eusebius was around was the valid one. Too bad organic growth and development of the liturgy renders it invalid and none of us have had valid sacraments for 1700 years.
[/quote]

yuppers

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1305753148' post='2243320']
Oh right, I forgot that only the form of that Mass that existed when Pope St. Eusebius was around was the valid one. Too bad organic growth and development of the liturgy renders it invalid and none of us have had valid sacraments for 1700 years.
[/quote]

yuppers

[Skinzo]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1305766891' post='2243403']
A lot can happen. The forms will interact by means of human persons celebrating the two. Seminarians can learn the EF and the OF, celebrate both at their parishes. Laymen can start going to both. People can start opening up and dialoguing instead of fighting and arrogantly preaching liturgical forms to one another. Clergy and laity can both practice a little more detachment in regards to the two forms. Vatican II does in fact need to be revisited. Something in fact does need to happen eventually, because we cant go on living like this. Ideas can start to develop. Movements, resolutions, and a final culmination somewhere down the road. Church life is not static, absolute or stagnant. It is living, dynamic, fluid, grace filled (or at least should be), developing, and so on because we are a group of living human persons traveling to God, in the midst of a diverse world-age. This includes the liturgical forms.



[/quote]

You make some very interesting points there Kafka. But much of what you say will depend on the extent to which the Bishops implement SP and its ensuing clarification. The response so far does not show a wholehearted interest on the part of many. That's not all. The divisions in the Church will not dissipate over night. I also think what you envision here will be a long time coming if it in fact arrives. Those who have had the EF since JPII"s original idult in the eighties seem content to be where they are. Many who prefer the OF feel just as attached to it. I'm old enough to remember the heady days immediately after Vatican II when many thought the OF would be a glorious event for the entire Church and would even gather many Protestants back into the fold. And we thought then the EF would soon be nothing but a memory.
Of course the reality which ensued after the Council destroyed such hopes as dissident teaching and dissident liturgy flourished almost everywhere in the USA and Europe. We have a long way to go. Right now such thinking seems as dated as the idealistic hopes of the early sixties.

The other point you are missing is that we in fact can go on living like this! We simply need to be more faithful to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which said this: "[size="3"]4. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. " One indeed may have multiple forms of the liturgy. Eastern Catholics continue to celebrate their liturgy; no attempt is being made nor should it be made to force them into some homogenized rite. Diversity even in liturgy is grounds for celebration, not something to bemoan.

S.[/size]

Edited May 19, 2011 by Skinzo

[kafka]

right good post Skinzo. I guess I just like to envision something better for the future. I have suffered hard and took a lot of damage over this stuff. I guess I was thinking of the wars that go on, but these really dont affect many Catholics.

But yes, in my way of thinking this would be somewhere like thirty, forty years into the future. I agree we do have a long way to go. But sometimes God can suddenly make things happen.

And this is also why I dont like media reports. They get my mind moving too fast. So thanks for offering the balance.

Edited May 19, 2011 by kafka

[Skinzo]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1305773742' post='2243443']
right good post Skinzo. I guess I just like to envision something better for the future. I have suffered hard and took a lot of damage over this stuff. I guess I was thinking of the wars that go on, but these really dont affect many Catholics.

But yes, in my way of thinking this would be somewhere like thirty, forty years into the future. I agree we do have a long way to go. But sometimes God can suddenly make things happen.

And this is also why I dont like media reports. They get my mind moving too fast. So thanks for offering the balance.
[/quote]

I appreciate your concerns and your hopes Kafka. And who can say what God's plan really is after all? I won't pretend my point of view has to prevail. This is a good and thoughtful exchange. Maybe this is one liturgical discussion which won't end in a brawl! If we can accomplish that, ANYTHING is possible!
Regards,

S.

[kafka]

And I really do appreciate your circumspect view. You are older. You have seen and experienced a lot of things. I respect that in this matter and am grateful for it.

Ultimately for me, the liturgical forms are summed up in those passage of Paul's letter's I quoted and in this from Peter:

{3:13} Yet truly, in accord with his promises, we are looking forward to the new heavens and the new earth, in which justice lives.

things will be different then, so I refuse to be extreme. Ideas are in the end just ideas. We live in fallen Church and world. We depend on Jesus and his rep the Pope for guidance. Edited May 19, 2011 by kafka

[kafka]

and human persons, love and salvation is more important than liturgical forms. Just wanted to slip that in too for everyone

A little profession of one who used to not live so.

Edited May 19, 2011 by kafka

[Noel's angel]

This is one situation where I rally for the middle-ground. There (in my opinion) should never have been that break, so that we ended up with an 'old' and a 'new' Mass. The problem came with the speed at which things happened, and also the fact that something which had stood the test of time was being replaced with things that were totally experimental in nature, and not all those things have been proven to be better. In an ideal world, I'd like to see a complete renewal, so that I'll no longer have to listen to the crazy debates. The thing is, most people who rally against the extraordinary form, do so out of ignorance - it's the people who rally against the ordinary form out of intellectual snobbery and pride that worry me more.

[Ed Normile]

Lets just hope the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pay more attention to this than they did Pope JPII's reccomendations on handling the church scandals.

ed