Don't read too much into this; he himself celebrates the usual way in the OF. And a new edition of the Missal is not likely for many more years, given the time it took to do the last one.

Would you gentlemen consider the organic development of the liturgy? The Sacred Liturgy has grown throughout the centuries organically from both theological, cultural and practical principles. It is likely that, as a natural consequence of Summorum Pontificum, better liturgical formation in seminaries and churches (to which this forum has contributed greatly) and many prayers, returning ad orientem, Latin and Gregorian Chant will grow (or be restored) organically as well. Unlike the changes from 1970's onwards that were not organic at all but rather imposed.

And retired Abp. Quinn's skewed interview with Fr. Ruff certainly didn't benefit Fr. Ruff's tired and relentless irritation over the process and outcome of MR3 (found at PTB.) How Quinn can in one sentence declare that (essentially) American Missals ought to be fashioned in colloquial American English (what is that exactly?) and then suggest that the big WE, the Pontiff/bishop of Rome, the Synod and Curia have to agree not shifting the direction of Peter's Barque once again towards "Nationalist Churches," which he declares would be disastrous. Well, no kidding, Abp.? Blah, blah, blah.

Go to an Oratorian parish church. They'll do the entire MR3 in Latin with the prescribed chants of the GR'74. Very high church with all the bells and smells.

Low Mass is an historical norm and for the same Irish-influenced theology, the norm in some places today. However, thanks to the Liturgical Movement and the deprivation of chant and its rediscovery makes the Sung Mass the desired norm. Of course this can be a great practical difficulty.

I submit that the differences in text and ritual places the Low Mass in the older form above the unsung Mass in the newer form...However, this is a very subtle point that I shall not further elaborate.

Had the TLM as we have it now remained the norm I do not think nonsense and poor music would have been the order of the day. (I realize the older form was normative until Advent 1969, but it was being ripped apart from Inter oecumenici onwards so...)

I am not sure if I like the high vs. low church poles, but I agree as to their consequences, and would add that the text and ritual of the revised Ordo adds to this conversation, even when the Mass is said in close conformity to the tradition (it is ultimately the priest’s decision to maximize the traditional celebration, not the only way to do it).

Juridically they are one rite, but some argue they are different rites, especially since the normative eucharistic prayers are distinct.

I'm not hankering for the "good 'ol days" (whenever that was), but for the day when the liturgical directives of Vatican II will actually be fully implemented.

I fully agree, esp. where the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy states that the faithful should be "taught to say or sing in Latin that pertain to them."

A "liturgical reconciliation" to use the term of Pope Benedict XVI is obviously needed, and offering Mass facing east and re-inserting the old Offertory prayers would be a big step in the right direction.

I really believe that this question of teaching the people to say or sing in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them, along with what Cardinal Sarah is proposing, would go a long way towards healing the divisions between the OF and EF.

I agree with Julie's sentiments. I wrote about that point from SC in the order of worship this week...a day before Cdl. Sarah's statement. Talk about good timing! Using the Gregorian ordinaries here (and not just XVIII and VIII) has really made big changes in the way we pray. It's been a great improvement, with the only disadvantage being that I feel rather cheated when we switch back to an English (especially a metrical) setting of the ordinary.

In my humble opinion, the more the EF is used, the more it will naturally call the NO laity to reflection and pondering and the liturgy will be restored organically.

It's a good opinion. On a practical level, however, most American Catholics have never seen, and probably will never see, an EF mass. You have to get them in the door to influence them.

. . . And, I might add to the above, that now I have just read Rorate's translation of Cardinal Sarah's L'Osservatore Romano article, "The Silent Action of the Heart," he echoes perfectly then-Cardinal Ratzinger's sentiments which I quoted above:

"The Council did not want to break with the liturgical forms inherited from Tradition, rather it wanted to deepen them. The Constitution establishes that “any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” (n.23).

In this sense, it is necessary that those celebrating according to the “usus antiquior” do so without any spirit of opposition, and hence in the spirit of “Sacrosanctum concilium”.

So, what the Cardinal is saying seems to be this: Since the essential criteria of Sacrosanctum Concilium apply to the EF as well as to the OF, it behooves us to find out what these essential criteria are since they apply to every celebration of the Roman Rite. In fact, Cardinal Sarah calls Sacrosanctum Concilium "the Magna Carta of every liturgical action"!

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger lists the criteria in his 10-24-98 address linked to in my comment above and says they may be found in the normae generales which one finds in numbers 34-36 of the Constitution De Sacra Liturgia (SL):

Here is the list of the essential criteria of Sacrosanctum Concilium as found in then-Cardinal Ratzinger 1998 address which he says are opposed to what is the general perception of what is considered to be essential in each form of the Roman rite (drum roll please) :

1) "The actual Constitution on the Liturgy does not speak at all about celebration facing the altar or facing the people.

2) On the subject of language, it says that Latin should be retained, while giving a greater place to the vernacular 'above all in readings, instructions, and in a certain number of prayers and chants' (SL 36:2).

3) As regards the participation of the laity, the Council first of all insists on a general point, that the liturgy is essentially the concern of the whole Body of Christ, Head and members, and for this reason it pertains to the whole Body of the Church "and that consequently it [the liturgy] is destined to be celebrated in community with the active participation of the faithful".

4) And the text specifies 'In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or lay faithful, when fulfilling his role, should carry out only and wholly that which pertains to him by virtue of the nature of the rite and the liturgical norms' (SL 28).

5) 'To promote active participation, acclamations by the people are favoured, responses, the chanting of the psalms, antiphons, canticles, also actions or gestures and bodily postures. One should also observe a period of sacred silence at an appropriate time' (SL 30).":

"An average Christian without specialist liturgical formation would find it difficult to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a sung Latin Mass according to the new Missal. However, the difference between a liturgy celebrated faithfully according to the Missal of Paul VI and the reality of a vernacular liturgy celebrated with all the freedom and creativity that are possible — that difference can be enormous!"
---Cardinal Ratzinger, Tenth Anniversary of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" (Oct. 24, 1998)

Thank you Julie!

So, as Cdl. Sarah says, SC truly is the touchstone.

True dat. : )

Liturgical quote of the year:

“Sacrosanctum concilium “ is not de facto a simple catalogue of reform “recipes” but a real “magna carta” of every liturgical action. ---Cardinal Sarah, "The Silent Action of the Heart," L'Osservatore Romano, June 12, 2015

Many years ago, Msgr. Schuler advocated the allowance of certain parts of the Tridentine Mass in the new Mass, particularly the offertory.

Charles,

I'm not sure how what you remember can be squared with Pope Benedict himself urged: that the two forms of the rite would be mutually enriching.

Mutual enrichment can appear in some areas of ars celebrandi. Aren't there ceremonial elements of EF practice which are customary and not documented in the Missal? Adding some of these to OF practice would not constitute 'mixing'.

Some elements of OF practice have been authorized by Ecclesia Dei for addition to the EF, notably, presenting the readings in the vernacular while the priest reads them in Latin.

Charles, in this case, it wouldn't be mixing of rites, because the rites themselves would provide the options.

The prohibition of mixing of rites applies to a priest celebrating the OF but using the EF offertory prayers instead under his own power.

If there were a modified rubric or appendix allowing it, it would no longer be under his own power, but a part of the rite itself.

If there were such a rubric in that location, I'd think so.

We're not talking about priests adding things... we're talking about the Vatican publishing an appendix to the missal. Two very different things.

Charles is touching on an interesting phenomenon. Namely, that the EF as a rite is considered more or less sacrosanct. Not so the OF, which too many seem to believe is but a rough draft onto which for them to improvise to whatever limit they feel comfortable. The famed 'these or similar words' gives rise to quite a lot that really is not similar words. The same with cantus aptus, which results in much that really is not 'aptus'. And, for some reasons, there is a general (mistaken) consensus that the OF can be interrupted at will for whatever comments or non-ritual insertions that both clergy and musicians wish to make. There is no such loose attitude about the EF, though there could be. Why is this so? Would the EF be subjected to this loose praxis if there were no NO to botch up?

Jackson raises some valid points and expresses some of my own concerns.

Knowingly violating the rubrics in the EF was a mortal sin

WAS, is the key word. A number of former "sins" seem to have been repealed or simply dropped since then.

knowingly following the rubrics of the OF is considered by many to be a mortal sin.

More like a few rather than many. I suspect the EF is a curiosity to the majority of Catholics in NO parishes. It is something quaint that they don't understand.

Adam,

Shouldn't every priest wish to celebrate Mass well?

Shouldn't every priest wish to celebrate Mass well?

If wishes and shoulds were horses with wings, they wouldn't bump on frog butts when falling off of bicycles.

Therefore ... God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to redeem actual people, not an idea or a missal.

I agree with both Ben and Jackson. The difference between the two forms is the clarity of theology and doctrine which the EF does better. Any discussion, at least locally, of the EF gets bogged down in Latin. I find that Latin - bad church Latin at its finest - is irrelevant.

The OF was, in part, a codification of unapproved experiments already occurring in the EF. There's a lot more leeway in the EF than many think. You can have versus populum with folk music, no sung propers, a homily about parish renovation fundraising, and Paster Noster hand-holding.

When the previous pope talked about "mutual enrichment," he had in mind official revisions, not breaking existing rubrics. He mentioned modifying the EF calendar, adding Prefaces, and a weekday lectionary.

Thanks, Adam -
This goes to show that Latin, in and of itself, does not equal a praiseworthy ethos. Can you imagine Latin mass propers and ordinaries composed in such a style! They likely would be if the NO and vernacular had not come along.