Should Traditionalism be its own Rite?

[mcg]

One thing I've noticed lately is how many different kinds of Catholics there are. A former co-worker is Byzantine Catholic and noticed today that what I always thought was an Orthodox church is actually Ukrainian Catholic.

But among Latin-Rite Catholics, there seems to tension between "traditionalists" and "modernists". The church near me had an Extraordinary Form mass every week, but has recently started offering it daily as well as other sacraments in the Extraordinary Form and has now become a parish all its own, with another parish sharing the building offering the Ordinary Form. I also used to live in Baltimore near a parish that offered a Latin Mass weekly, but that church is also now offering all sacraments in the Extraordinary Form as well. The church in downtown Baltimore is within walking distance to 4 other Catholic churches and the church in Pittsburgh is within walking distance to two other churches. After looking at some monastery websites and orders of priests, I've also noticed that some of them are using mostly or entirely the Extraordinary Form. 

It seems as though those who are more attracted to the more traditional expressions of Catholicism are forming a kind of subculture. They seem to always be under assault by the "Spirit of Vatican II" people who I guess they feel have taken the reforms too far. But there doesn't seem to be much tension between the expressions of faith of the Eastern Rite and Latin Rite Catholics. The Eastern Rite just sort of does its thing. So why doesn't the the Extraordinary Form just become the Ordinary Form of a new Rite just for traditionalists? Another benefit this would have would be to satisfy everyone regarding things like married priests and women having a greater role in the Church. The Traditionalist Rite (or whatever it could be called) could keep their celibate priests and male only altar servers, and the Novus Ordo Rite could have married priests as well as female altar servers and even deaconesses. Of course, females can never be priests but female deacons could be brought back (considering they existed until the early middle ages). Many traditionalists also claim that their interpretation of Catholicism is the future of the Church. With a Traditionalist Rite, people would have to get off the fence make a decision of which kind of Latin church they want to be part of. 

Can this happen?

[Gabriela]

When I saw the thread title, I thought, "Wha?" But when I read the post, I thought, "Huh... This actually isn't crazy. It could be interesting..."

It is really quite a good idea in that I expect it would eliminate a great deal of the tension between the two "camps". On the other hand, there is good coming out of the meeting of the two rites, as in parishes that offer both forms. They do inform one another and enrich one another, and I've seen "compromises" or blends of the two that seemed to thoroughly honor both the letter and the "spirit" of VII and that made most people happier than either form alone. So while I don't know whether what you ask is actually possible (I rather doubt it), I can see both advantages and disadvantages to it.

That's all not to speak of the extremists on either side who would never accept a solution such as this purely because theirs is the "one true Church/liturgy". But for the rest of us, I can see value in your proposition.

[Ark]

deleted

-Ice9

[Benedictus]

What you described is basically how the Episcopal Church originally operated in terms of theology and practice. The conservative evangelicals, the charismatic evangelicals, the liberal evangelicals, the liberal catholics, the high catholics, and the broad church all within one structure etc.  However, there becomes a time when the mix curdles the milk and it turns bad. What has happened to them should be a warning to us.

[Peace]

21 hours ago, Ark said:

Traditionalism is already its own rite, it's called the Roman rite. Confusion was caused when Roman hierarchs disavowed their own rite to create a new one. The novos ordo is not of the Roman rite, this was once controversial but is now virtually accepted. The "traditional" movement is a grassroots movement inspired by the Holy Spirit to restore the glorious and sublime Roman rite.

Wrong.

[Socrates]

On 5/7/2016, 3:03:34, Ark said:

Traditionalism is already its own rite, it's called the Roman rite. Confusion was caused when Roman hierarchs disavowed their own rite to create a new one. The novos ordo is not of the Roman rite, this was once controversial but is now virtually accepted. The "traditional" movement is a grassroots movement inspired by the Holy Spirit to restore the glorious and sublime Roman rite.

And I'm sure the Glorious and Sublime Donald Trump will lead the way!

 

(Btw, I didn't know "spiritual, not religious" folks were so hung up on that sort of stuff.  I thought y'all just hug trees and smoke weed, and luv everybody.)

[Ark]

On May 8, 2016 at 6:19:29 PM, Socrates said:

And I'm sure the Glorious and Sublime Donald Trump will lead the way!

 

(Btw, I didn't know "spiritual, not religious" folks were so hung up on that sort of stuff.  I thought y'all just hug trees and smoke weed, and luv everybody.)

 Some of us were students of the occult, and like the magicians whose esoteric arts led them to the Messiah even before the Jews recognized him, we too have rediscovered the truth.

On May 8, 2016 at 1:09:36 PM, Peace said:

Wrong.

It may be hard for you to accept but it is not wrong. The roman rite developed organically and was canonized in its fully developed state in the council of Trent. When proud hierarchs took to adapting the liturgy in the 60s they created a new rite of mass that obscured its sacrificial nature. 

[Peace]

11 hours ago, Ark said:

It may be hard for you to accept but it is not wrong. The roman rite developed organically and was canonized in its fully developed state in the council of Trent. When proud hierarchs took to adapting the liturgy in the 60s they created a new rite of mass that obscured its sacrificial nature. 

You are wrong.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html

Art 1.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage.  These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.

[Peace]

And the Paul VI Mass is obviously a sacrifice (one of the benefits of the vernacular).

[Benedictus]

On 07/05/2016, 21:03:34, Ark said:

Traditionalism is already its own rite, it's called the Roman rite. Confusion was caused when Roman hierarchs disavowed their own rite to create a new one. The novos ordo is not of the Roman rite, this was once controversial but is now virtually accepted. The "traditional" movement is a grassroots movement inspired by the Holy Spirit to restore the glorious and sublime Roman rite.

That's nonsense. Both expressions of the rite belong to the whole spectrum of the church and neither are a separated from that union. It is fake dichotomy to match the rites against each other like that. Both rites are accessible and performed for all members of the Church, not a subset who think it belongs to them. 

There were other rites operating within the Roman Church too and there was no question that this created some parallel Church. The N.O isn't a modernist or liberal faction rite, it is performed exceedingly well across all parts of the Church and in all places.

To suggest the N.O doesn't have a sacrificial nature displays that there's something amiss by your assertions. It clearly is.

FWIW - I like aspects of both rites. I actually wish I could merge bits of both together. However, I tend to prefer the N.O [be it in Latin or not. I personally think the Mass sounds beautiful in a diversity of languages, even though I see the benefit of a unifying Church language and think that should be asserted more].

[Gabriela]

I wonder if we might set aside the rad-trad comments for now and discuss the possibility suggested by the OP: The official declaration of the TLM/traditionalism as its own rite, and the Novus Ordo/"contemporary-ism" as its own, so as to heal any rifts or divisions that arise from perceived "competition" between them. The parallel to Maronites and Ukrainians and whatnot really is quite thought-provoking.

Can anyone speak to the canonical possibility of this? I suspect it is not possible, but would like to hear some reasoning about it from people who know more than I.

[Sponsa-Christi]

53 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I wonder if we might set aside the rad-trad comments for now and discuss the possibility suggested by the OP: The official declaration of the TLM/traditionalism as its own rite, and the Novus Ordo/"contemporary-ism" as its own, so as to heal any rifts or divisions that arise from perceived "competition" between them. The parallel to Maronites and Ukrainians and whatnot really is quite thought-provoking.

Can anyone speak to the canonical possibility of this? I suspect it is not possible, but would like to hear some reasoning about it from people who know more than I.

It's not really canonically possible. To give a very simplified explanation, when we talk about different "Rites" in the Church, this implies a significantly different liturgical heritage than the TLM versus the NO. It runs much, much deeper than a simple administrative decision or juridical organization.

The general idea is that, as Peter was the Apostle went to Rome, other Apostles went to different parts of the world and founded other "ritual Churches" that developed their own local liturgical traditions. E.g., the Coptic Rite developed in Egypt; the Syro-Malabar in India, etc. 

The TLM was the normal form of the Roman Catholic liturgy from Trent until Vatican II, at which point the NO became the "Ordinary Form" of the Roman liturgy. So both the TLM and the NO are equally "Roman." The differences are a matter of historical sequence and not of deeply-rooted liturgical heritage. Thus, I can't imagine how it would be possible to re-package traditionalism as a totally different ritual Church. 

[Gabriela]

13 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

It's not really canonically possible. To give a very simplified explanation, when we talk about different "Rites" in the Church, this implies a significantly different liturgical heritage than the TLM versus the NO. It runs much, much deeper than a simple administrative decision or juridical organization.

The general idea is that, as Peter was the Apostle went to Rome, other Apostles went to different parts of the world and founded other "ritual Churches" that developed their own local liturgical traditions. E.g., the Coptic Rite developed in Egypt; the Syro-Malabar in India, etc. 

The TLM was the normal form of the Roman Catholic liturgy from Trent until Vatican II, at which point the NO became the "Ordinary Form" of the Roman liturgy. So both the TLM and the NO are equally "Roman." The differences are a matter of historical sequence and not of deeply-rooted liturgical heritage. Thus, I can't imagine how it would be possible to re-package traditionalism as a totally different ritual Church. 

That's what I figured: The main difference is one of historical roots, rather than simply "form of worship".

Is that what you're saying, basically?

[Sponsa-Christi]

8 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

That's what I figured: The main difference is one of historical roots, rather than simply "form of worship".

Is that what you're saying, basically?

Yes, basically, more or less.

[Amppax]

25 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

It's not really canonically possible. To give a very simplified explanation, when we talk about different "Rites" in the Church, this implies a significantly different liturgical heritage than the TLM versus the NO. It runs much, much deeper than a simple administrative decision or juridical organization.

The general idea is that, as Peter was the Apostle went to Rome, other Apostles went to different parts of the world and founded other "ritual Churches" that developed their own local liturgical traditions. E.g., the Coptic Rite developed in Egypt; the Syro-Malabar in India, etc. 

The TLM was the normal form of the Roman Catholic liturgy from Trent until Vatican II, at which point the NO became the "Ordinary Form" of the Roman liturgy. So both the TLM and the NO are equally "Roman." The differences are a matter of historical sequence and not of deeply-rooted liturgical heritage. Thus, I can't imagine how it would be possible to re-package traditionalism as a totally different ritual Church. 

What about a structure such as a personal prelature? Or personal ordinariate, like the Anglican Use has?