Mutually Enriching

What does the pope mean by mutually enrich both liturgies? I can see how the novus ordo can be enriched by the tridentine, but I don’t want the novus ordo to enrich the tridentine. Please help me understand.

You and me both – it sounds rather Hegelian.

Prior to Vatican II there were calls by legitimate reformers asking for the old Rite to be revised and updated. The complaint was that the old Mass was getting to ritualistic and abstract, too mired in ruberistic technicalities to be as enriching to the Faithful as it could be. Klaus Gamber makes this point in his book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (a highly recommended read, and not just by me, but by the current Pontiff when he was going by the name of “Joseph”) and he mentions some of the suggested ways in which the old Mass could have been reformed, such as expanded readings, readings done in the vernacular (the 1965 Missal does this, I think), some simplification of ruberics, etc. Insofar as any of that was done correctly in the new Rite, then those ideas could enrich the old Rite, but that will take a document from Rome because priests are bound under the pain of mortal sin in the old Rite not to deviate from the ruberics (no such penalty is in the new Rite). So if there is going to be enrichment of the old Rite from the new Rite, it’s not going to happen anytime soon – at least not legally – without Rome’s line-by-line approval.

Thanks for the response. I don’t think any reform, such as simplification of the ruberics is needed. I think catechesis is needed. I love the 1962 Missal with all of its symbolism. I just can’t think of it being reformed in the next 100 years. I hope the Holy Father didn’t mean by “mutually enriching” that the old rite would go under reforms. I think he mean what is said right after the colon. New saints and prefaces.

I’m concerned that we’re may see the application of Hegelian logic when the “three year period” mentioned in Summorum Pontificum comes around, and that both the “extraordinary” and “ordinary” forms will be deprecated and replaced with a composite of the two (thesis + antithesis = synthesis).

I sure hope I’m wrong.

You and me both. The liturgists would have a filed day deciding which components of the two to mix and match. The Traditional Mass could be unrecognizable if that were to happen.

Then there’s the question of what the new dialectic will be. The SSPX will never give up the old Mass, but what about the current Ecclesia Dei crowd? Will they go with the “post-ordinary” Rite or stay with the traditional Mass? And ultimately the liturgy isn’t the final question in all of this but it’s the Faith. Are we to continue forward with the “counter-Syllabus” of Vatican II or will the errors of modernism finally be defeated?

I do not see how either liturgy can enrich the other, they are different and separate. What I think is that both can enrich a faithful’s understanding and participation to the Mass. I also think that being exposed to other Catholic rites is also a great opportunity for enrichment.

WARNING: This statement assumes that the liturgies are celebrated accordingly to the norms, and that is possible because I have seen it.

I sure hope you’re right. I and I think many other ordinary Catholics are sick of the bland platitudes and unjustified innovations of the current new-style Mass, not to mention the legion of priests who insist on inserting/deleting/changing things without authority just on their own whim. But there are many things about the new-style Mass which are an improvement on and a genuine organic development from the old. eg the expanded cycle of readings and prayers and the approved alternative forms of various parts of the Mass (or at least most of them, and when correctly used in the circumstances for which they are approved).

I think that some very positve ways in which the NO could enrich the TLM would be:

  1. The use of the vernacular (translate the whole thing).

  2. The use of the audible canon.

  3. One confietor, priest and people together.

  4. The readings in the vernacular (only thing that makes sense, since God doen’t need it to be in Latin and the people need to understand the readings). But I guess that’s covered in #1.

That’s about it. If it were in the vernacular, I’d go every Mass to the Tridentine.

But then it wouldn’t be the Tridentine Latin Mass. It would be an innovation of the real thing.

But then it wouldn’t be the Tridentine Latin Mass. It would be an innovation of the real thing.

It’s not that anyway, is it? Isn’t it more properly the Missal of 1962? And couldn’t the things I mentioned be thought of as organic development? As someone else has said, the Mass isn’t static.

Of course, when St. Victor I put it into Latin in the first place, that too could be called an “innovation of the real thing.” It was no longer the Roman Liturgy in Greek. It was now something different :shrug:.

I think both enriching the other means that the active participation in the NO that pre-concilliar popes tried to intstill with little success (praying and singing out loud together as a corporate body) could be carried over in the Tridentine Mass. Likewise, the extra readings could be good–the Roman rite was notoriously sparse in this area compared with other rites of the Church.

Wouldn’t it seem likely, if this change doesn’t result in bringing back the SSPXers , that eventually the Vatican will combine the best aspects of both Masses into a whole new one that will be the only one.

Here are some ways the NO can help the Classical liturgy.

  1. Use of some vernacular. Perhaps completely in vernacular, but only on rare occasions. It should be ordinarily in Latin, and the only things in vernacular should be the readings, and perhaps some of the propers.

  2. More readings. The Revised Roman Rite has three years of readings, while the Classical version only has one.

  3. The Rite of Concelebration. Although I believe the rite of concelebration should be revised to be more organized and reverent.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit