It happened: Traditionis custodes (TLM crackdown) (Note: discussion is on hiatus.)
-
Mark,
What we got after the Council doesn't match the instructions of the Council.
To call the Missal of Paul VI a "revision" of the Roman Rite doesn't match the sentiments of those who executed the plan: The Roman Rite, said one, is destroyed.
-
If we ignore, for a moment, the Tridentine Mass, we actually still have the same problem. That is thst there are many different understandings of man, God, liturgy and Church, which don't mix well. Whichever understanding you've embraced, you'll tend to think of the others as either 'not to my taste,' 'not quite right,' or 'heresy.'. The Tridentine groups just add more variety to this same dynamic (they also have great variety). Even the decision as to which of the many varieties fall into the 'bad/abuse/erroneous' categories depends on which weapons you pull out of your library. And you will be convinced your arguments are doctrinally sound and the other guy is demented.
I'm praying the rosary daily for the Pope, our bishops and clergy, and my beloved Church. -
@chonak refers to the 1971 indult for E+W, it should be noted that :
Some would say that is not the traditional rite, I would say that it is the traditional rite organically modified in accordance with SC.The edition of the Missal to be used on these occasions should be that published again by the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (27 January 1965), and with the modifications indicated in the Instructio altera (4 May 1967).
[ADDED]It includes concelebration. -
Partially, certainly, no calendar change, no lectionary change, etc. But it is the form governed by Musicam Sacram and for which the Graduale Simplex was promulgated.
Also it includes vernacular translations, which in English are not the banal paraphrases + omissions of ICEL's first offering. -
I’d just like to point out - the SSPX is by no means gloating over this turn of events.
-
Bugnini goes into great depth about his alteration of the Divine Office.
-
I think the proper understanding hinges on realizing that Vatican II decreed "revision" of the liturgy, not the "addition" of a new liturgical form alongside the 1962 Missal.. Catholics who celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass are participating in a renewed, revised, and reformed Catholic liturgical tradition.
What the council fathers wrote they wanted and what in fact happened seem to be pretty different. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion more than 50 years later in the first place. Though, it's pretty clear, from what you've written, that you think the pre-conciliar liturgy is somehow defective and/or deficient in some fashion.
When it comes down to it, even though the bishops at Vatican II called for the liturgical books (et alii) to be revised in Sacrosanctum Concilium, that is a prudential judgement on their part. No Catholic is morally obliged to think that this was (or is) a good idea. While I don't deny the authority of the Pope to promulgate a new form of the Mass, I don't have to like that fact that he has done so or call it a good thing.
Authentic reform and beneficial revisions in the Church should bring about an increased vitality in Her members. Have we seen that since the changes were made starting in the mid-1960s? The number of vocations to priestly and religious life are down. Marriages and Baptisms are down. Parishes are frequently being closed/merged. Often, there are surveys that show many Catholics hold erroneous ideas about things the Church definitively teaches. Answering in those surveys, for example, that they don't believe that Jesus Christ is truly present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist. So, I think the answer is no. The changes were always presented as being things that would improve matters in the Church and in the world. But when we see the exact opposite happening after their implementation, it's perfectly reasonable to reverse course and return to the traditions of our fathers in the Faith.
What has been the result of doing this for traditionalist groups? This year, the FSSP had to turn down nearly 50 applicants to their seminary due to lack of space while "only" admitting 25 new men. They also ordained 6 new priests in North America. In contrast, my own diocese saw 9 pastors retire and only 1 new priest ordained this year. My own parish went from having about 85 people attending Mass on any given Sunday to over 500 since the FSSP was given care for it about 5 years ago. It's not uncommon for adult converts to enter the Church through our parish. We're going to be building an addition onto our church building soon. And this kind of growth is very common for other parishes like ours in other places.
To say that we should "get with the program" and implement "the changes" in our parishes is unreasonable. To do the same things done in the 60s and 70s while expecting a different result would fit the definition of insanity. -
thank you Stulte, you articulated my thoughts, and better than I could have done.
>> Authentic reform and beneficial revisions in the Church should bring about an increased vitality in Her members. Have we seen that since the changes were made starting in the mid-1960s? The number of vocations to priestly and religious life are down [...]
not forgetting to note also the floods of priests and religious who abandoned their vocations.
-
It's entirely possible to TLM-ize the celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass:
1. Latin for the Mass texts, except perhaps the readings, the homily and the universal prayer (petitions).
2. ad orientem
3. chanted Gregorian propers
4. kneel and receive Communion on the tongue (at an altar rail, if the church has one)
A Novus Ordo Mass celebrated like that should please just about every Catholic who currently attends Mass using the 1962 Missal. Most of the people who would not be pleased with such a TLM-ized Novus Ordo Mass would be those marginal few who consider the Novus Ordo Mass to be intrinsically defective. -
Dear Pope Francis...
From a wide variety of young Traditional CatholicsThanked by 1tomjaw -
"It's entirely possible to TLM-ize the celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass"
Except that this is giving the bishops a LOT of power to say otherwise...
---The Novus Ordo Mass is to be celebrated according to the rubrics provided for that Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass can be celebrated by any priest in any language, including Latin and Latin service music can always be used, but elements of the Traditional Latin Mass are not to be grafted onto the Novus Ordo Mass, regardless of whether it is celebrated in Latin or the vernacular.
"A Novus Ordo Mass celebrated like that..."
-If you are suggesting making the Novus Ordo look and sound like a TLM for it to be beautiful, then why are you so against the TLM?
---
"Most of the people who would not be pleased with such a TLM-ized Novus Ordo Mass would be those marginal few who consider the Novus Ordo Mass to be intrinsically defective."
-Clearly, that is not accurate, as this bishop, and many NO-goers don't want their "new" Mass to look anything like an "old-fashioned" Latin Mass.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
The fruits of this ruling are everyday evident here - we have all been discussing things for years with charity and understanding. Now people who were friends are calling each other nasty names and ill will is abounding. Let us not strike each other with words, our anger is not at each other, but of the Holy Fathers' ruling. We should pray and recall that this is but a blip in the long liturgical history of the church.
Regarding the (confused) language of the letter, another thing that mystifies me is the relationship between the TLM and liturgical abuses. How does banning the TLM help liturgical abuse? There seems to be no logic here. -
my separate thread for this should be removed, as I place it here
Recent postings have made me wonder if there are not some here who seem, truly, unable to understand why Catholic faithful would try to seek out and keep to the Latin Mass.
A thoughtful reading of St Vincent of Lerins (circa 434 AD) might be very helpful. This Church Father was not persecuted, but in the 1700s was canonized, for his teachings. (What would be his reception today? And why?)
"True piety admits no other rule than that whatsoever things have been faithfully received from our fathers the same are to be faithfully consigned to our children; and that it is our duty, not to lead religion whither we would, but rather to follow religion whither it leads; and that it is the part of Christian modesty and gravity not to hand down our own beliefs or observances to those who come after us, but to preserve and keep what we have received from those who went before us."
"What, then, shall a Catholic Christian do ... if some novel contagion attempt to infect no longer a small part of the Church alone but the whole Church alike? He shall then see to it that he cleave unto antiquity, which is now utterly incapable of being seduced by any craft or novelty."
"I cannot sufficiently be astonished that such is the insanity of some men, such the impiety of their blinded understanding, such, finally, their lust after error, that they will not be content with the rule of faith delivered once and for all from antiquity, but must daily seek after something new, and even newer still, and are always longing to add something to religion, or to change it, or to subtract from it!"
"Avoid the profane novelty of words, St. Paul says (I Timothy 6:20) ... For if novelty is to be avoided, antiquity is to be held tight to; and if novelty is profane, antiquity is sacred." -
suspect that there was much misunderstanding (or perhaps even manipulation) in the process.
Doh.Thanked by 1ServiamScores -
1. Latin for the Mass texts, except perhaps the readings, the homily and the universal prayer (petitions).
2. ad orientem
3. chanted Gregorian propers
4. kneel and receive Communion on the tongue (at an altar rail, if the church has one)
I would go along with 2 through 4. I do wish some would get away from their fixation on Latin. There is nothing sacred about it, and it isn't even a spoken language any more. We in the eastern Catholic churches in the U.S. changed from Old Church Slavonic into English and have never looked back - sorry Sts. Cyril and Methodius. The essential thing is that all else stayed the same.
Was it Old Church Slavonic in 19th-century Russia? Actually it was and I think still is - not being Orthodox I haven't been to a Russian church. No outrage intended. -
MarkB suggests that it is possible to let people:kneel and receive Communion on the tongue (at an altar rail, if the church has one)
In the US, the bishops conference has indicated that standing is the norm, so allowing kneeling at a celebration of the modern rite does not seem to be authorized, except in individual cases:
https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-reception-of-holy-communion-at-massThanked by 1tomjaw -
"in the eastern Catholic churches in the U.S."
That's the point. It isn't just about the U.S.
It's about universal, "catholic" access and understanding - and supposedly an increased ability to "participate," (which is misunderstood by too many) which isn't possible when the "vernacular" isn't a language in which you know the responses.
"Fixation on Latin, blah blah blah," it's still about access. There is no reason that someone cannot learn prayers and responses in a single language, and be able to use them at any Catholic church, anywhere in the world...
"In the US, the bishops conference has indicated that standing is the norm, so allowing kneeling at a celebration of the modern rite does not seem to be authorized."
According to Cardinal Arinze (Video), that is inaccurate:"Even if the bishops decide that the people will receive in the hand, standing, as in the US, our Congregation in Rome has said...Yes, provided that those who want to receive kneeling, you leave them full freedom. And those who want to receive on the tongue, you leave them in peace, and NOT in pieces." -
I have heard the "universality" of Latin for years, and usually from people who haven't ventured more than 100 miles from home. Given the way most priests mumble and mispronounce it, it isn't understandable.
Cardinal Arinze. That may be the letter I am thinking of. It's a bit dated so I don't know if I can find it. If I do, I will post it. -
Redemptionis Sacramentum, about the reception of Holy Communion:[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”. [176]
[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. [177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.
Kneeling to receive Communion, although not the norm in the United States, is permissible for individual communicants, and they are not to be deprived Communion on that account.
What's to stop a majority of the congregation deciding each for himself to receive Communion in that way?Thanked by 1CharlesW -
What's to stop a majority of the congregation deciding each for himself to receive Communion in that way?
Many of our folks did and still do. The chief factor seems to be age since the ushers of days gone by who used to be there to help the aged get back to their feet are long gone. -
It's entirely possible to TLM-ize the celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass:
...A Novus Ordo Mass celebrated like that should please just about every Catholic who currently attends Mass using the 1962 Missal. Most of the people who would not be pleased with such a TLM-ized Novus Ordo Mass would be those marginal few who consider the Novus Ordo Mass to be intrinsically defective.
Using a phrase such as "intrinsically defective" isn't really useful in this particular discussion. What does that even mean in concrete terms? If it's to mean that no one can make objections to the content (or, lack thereof) of the texts of the prayers and other aspects of the Novus Ordo (which can be done without believing it's invalid or illicit) to the point of legitimately choosing to not use it, then that's not even reasonable let alone Catholic. If it were, we wouldn't have gotten a Novus Ordo Missae in the first place because you couldn't have objected to the TLM when it was the Mass most used and thought to yourself "I think xyz should be changed."
In other words, the NO was born out of criticism of the TLM. If such criticisms which led to the drastic changes could be made against a received rite which was centuries old to the point where the Pope is trying to put a stop to its use, then, a fortiori criticisms of the NO could be made by those who legitimately don't want to say/attend it. Given how things have developed in the Church since the NO's introduction pointed out in my previous post, this is something which bears serious consideration. -
"A Novus Ordo Mass celebrated like that..."
-If you are suggesting making the Novus Ordo look and sound like a TLM for it to be beautiful, then why are you so against the TLM?
---
Because Vatican II decreed liturgical reform. It's really that simple and obvious."Most of the people who would not be pleased with such a TLM-ized Novus Ordo Mass would be those marginal few who consider the Novus Ordo Mass to be intrinsically defective."
-Clearly, that is not accurate, as this bishop, and many NO-goers don't want their "new" Mass to look anything like an "old-fashioned" Latin Mass.
It was in the context of TLM-attendees. I agree most NO-attendees would probably not like a TLM-ized NO Mass; at least it would be an acquired taste.
My suggestion to TLM-ize the NO Mass is to provide a path back to the NO in accord with Traditionis Custodes that TLM-attendees would appreciate. -
Yes, but you continue to pretend that the "problem" in need of fixing is primarily, nearly exclusively, one of TLM-goers.
I did understand your context to be that of insulting and accusing them in some way... if the NO needs to be fixed and TLM-ized so much, perhaps you actually believe it to be in some way defective, or at least deficient...Thanked by 1tomjaw -
That's because Vatican II decreed liturgical reform. How many people posting here either don't read those clear words, don't understand those clear words, or refuse to accept what they mean? A lot, apparently, because this discussion keeps going round and round about that.
Many Trads don't want to accept the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, which included revising the then-existing liturgical books and replacing them with new, revised versions. The survey Pope Francis relied on indicated that many Trads don't accept Vatican II's reforms.
Sorry if you don't like it, but the Church decreed liturgical reform at Vatican II, and that entails replacing the Mass you are attached to with the Novus Ordo.
That's the cold, hard truth of being a present-day Catholic.
The Novus Ordo has flexibility, which has been misused, but that flexibility permits TLM-izing the Novus Ordo as I have suggested. -
The "survey" Pope Francis says he relies on was clearly not given to all bishops or cardinals. It wasn't even a majority of the number of bishops who reportedly sent in responses.
Using "it" as a reasoning for this is not even remotely reliable.
The TLM hasn't been replaced, it has been sidelined as a completely acceptable sub, which is not the same.
If those reforms removed the sacrifice from the Mass, would you still be fighting so hard for it, just because Vatican II decreed reform, and that's the reform we got?Thanked by 1tomjaw -
@MarkBThat's because Vatican II decreed liturgical reform.
We can agree on that but was the result intended? Has it been successful? It has not brought the renewal that was also asked for? Why our our seminaries closing? Why do we have no vocations? Why do we have 12 parishes to one priest in France? and almost as bad in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland? Why is my diocese going to see 1/3 of our priests retire in 10 years with no replacement?
We don't accept the reforms in the name of of Vatican II because they have been a total disaster! and are obviously not what was wanted.
They are not taking the TLM away from me, because they won't be able to outlive me and they definitely won't outlive my 8 soon to be 9 children, or the 7 children of my brother etc.
Anyway for all the Church councils I accept all their Dogmatic Canon and decrees, as no doubt everyone who attend the N.O. does? -
That's because Vatican II decreed liturgical reform. How many people posting here either don't read those clear words, don't understand those clear words, or refuse to accept what they mean? A lot, apparently, because this discussion keeps going round and round about that.
That's due in no small part to the fact that you keep ignoring the substance of arguments from others on here and continue posting variations on "Vatican II said the liturgical books were to be revised. You trads must give up the traditional Mass and migrate to this new Mass because of obedience." You also keep using overly broad language and generalizations about those attached to the traditional Mass and their reasons for remaining so. Please actually respond directly to what people are saying. -
"Vatican II said the liturgical books were to be revised. You trads must give up the traditional Mass and migrate to this new Mass because of obedience."
If people will agree to that, that's a starting point for further discussion. If people won't agree to that or if they keep evading that point, then no fruitful discussion is possible because we are operating on the basis of irreconcilable foundational premises or talking around what needs to be settled before proceeding. You must accept that Vatican II and now Traditionis Custodes require eliminating the use of the 1962 Missal so that the Roman Church converges on the Novus Ordo. If you don't accept that, we can't have a fruitful discussion about Catholic liturgy because today discussion about Catholic liturgy takes as premises what Vatican II decreed and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass.Please actually respond directly to what people are saying.
I do. That's why I usually quote what I respond to.
Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins -
Stulte, thank you.
It does not solve the problem to basically just say "Vatican II decreed reform, end of discussion." It does not solve the problem because it doesn't discuss the legitimate concerns of people who have seen a disconnect (you cannot deny there are real changes, many of which are not positive, since Vatican II) between basic Catholic life pre- and post-Vatican II.
If someone is not willing to acknowledge and discuss these concerns, it is a denial of the reality of the problems we have in the Church. Rome's limiting the use of the TLM while refusing to address the reasons why people prefer it or have problems with the Novus Ordo will do absolutely nothing to promote unity and in fact, to whatever extent that TC is strictly enforced, will only increase the separations that exist. -
It does not solve the problem to basically just say "Vatican II decreed reform, end of discussion." It does not solve the problem because it doesn't discuss the legitimate concerns of people who have seen a disconnect (you cannot deny there are real changes, many of which are not positive, since Vatican II) between basic Catholic life pre- and post-Vatican II.
It's not the end of the discussion and it doesn't solve the problems; but it is a necessary premise for the discussion.
After accepting the premise that Vatican II decreed liturgical reform and the premise that the Novus Ordo is now the normative liturgy for the Roman Church, then the discussion can turn to how do we solve the problem of so many poorly celebrated Masses?
Saying the problem is with the Novus Ordo itself denies one of the foundational premises, so you can't go back there.
What we have to do is look at the Novus Ordo, look at Sacrosanctum Concilium, look at the GIRM, look at Redemptionis Sacramentum, look at all the conciliar and post-conciliar liturgical norms and guidance, and decide how to implement the Novus Ordo in a way that is in continuity with Catholic liturgical tradition, is faithful to the Church's liturgical norms, nourishes souls with beautiful, reverent, sacred worship, and honors God with dignified liturgy.
The liturgical reform is the starting point for the discussion. To question the reform is to put oneself against the mind of Holy Mother Church.
To accept the reform and ask, "How can we do this the right way? The best way?" That is the way to proceed. -
...no fruitful discussion is possible because we are operating on the basis of irreconcilable foundational premises...
This is true. We are operating on different philosophical assumptions. MarkB, at this point, I don't think there's much more that can or needs to be said. We don't agree on basic ideas (or the use of language) and neither of us are willing to budge.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
I completely disagree.The liturgical reform is the starting point for the discussion. To question the reform is to put oneself against the mind of Holy Mother Church.
You are purposely being combative, rather than conversive.
The idea that people can keep saying, "the liturgy was in need of reform!!!!" and also say, "but you can't question the reform" is absurd. The absurdity continues as you continue to defend your evasiveness. -
I think too much credit and blame gets placed on the mass. I lived during the sixties and all was not peace and light. There was a war going on, riots in the streets, institutions were collapsing and what had been considered acceptable behavior eroded away. The society was in upheaval and tradition was no longer considered of value. Even the people coming out of seminaries often didn't believe what they were required to teach. The mass didn't create the problems but it wasn't an answer to them, either. Still isn't. Catholicism of any rite no longer has the sway and influence it once had and to most folks it is just something curious that some others believe. TLM, NO, or XYZ, most don't even care.
-
But the Pope has control, and all the Popes over the last 52 years have agreed that the 1962 is not the starting point point for further development, even BXVI. It is no practical use to repeat the cry "If I wanted to go there, I wouldn't start from here.", that will lead into schism not reform. We need to go with the Canons of St John Cantius, or the Oratorians, not SSPX.We don't accept the reforms in the name of of Vatican II because they have been a total disaster! and are obviously not what was wanted.Thanked by 1MarkB -
We can agree on that but was the result intended? Has it been successful?
It certainly has been successful, liturgically, in many places. I've been to beautiful OF Masses more times than I can count, in Canada, in France, in Italy, even in South Korea.It has not brought the renewal that was also asked for?
I don't think you can blame the Mass for that. I think Humanae Vitae was a turning point for many back in the 60s, and completely turned off many folks from Catholicism, including many Catholics who either left or disobeyed. I don't think the most perfect liturgy in the world could ever change that. The forces unleashed in the secular world in the 60s were very powerful indeed. For many, Catholicism appears positively medieval no matter what language and under what form the liturgy is celebrated. I've read that the decline in Catholicism started well before Vatican II. A little dustup called "World War II" and the disillusionment it generated probably had something to do with it.
Ora -
just about every Catholic who
You take people to be shallow?Thanked by 1tomjaw -
World War I was an earlier key in much (not all) of Western/Central Europe. (The USA's involvement was largely a huge bonanza - which was definitive for its future hegemony* - until its rough year of active belligerency on the ground in Western Europe, which was not sufficient to produce in the USA quite what happened in European culture and in certain of the dominions of European powers elsewhere in the world.)
* Basically, only two great powers came out as net material and cultural beneficiaries of World War I: Japan and the USA. -
Perhaps you have seen this already.
https://religionnews.com/2021/07/09/looking-for-radical-solutions-to-decline-church-of-england-debates-lay-led-house-churches/
Essentially, some Anglican prelates are pushing for further cutting the already-straitened number of parish-priest positions and focusing on starting lay-led house “churches”, to cope with a society that has ceased churchgoing and an insufficient number of priests.
I post it as a reminder of the drastic decline since the 60s that has also hit Protestant churches in Europe and North America, and that there really is no way to know if the NO contributed to the collapse of the Western Church, since the NO has only existed in the decades when all the other Christian churches fell to bits for reasons other than Vatican II. -
My Lutheran friends enjoy this.
Loved the Litany of lament as to why we can't have these basic things in our liturgical/musical life. As a former Lutheran, yes I miss the liturgical/musical common sense of the Lutheran Church-MS (of course that garden is also being invaded by contemporary worship a la mega-evangelical culture).Thanked by 1NihilNominis -
And Cardinal Burke has now written,
https://www.cardinalburke.com/presentations/traditionis-custodes
EDIT Alternative link, https://www.cardinalburke.com
and Crisis,
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/traditionis-custodes-a-blessing-in-disguise
-
HeLoved the Litany of lament as to why we can't have these basic things in our liturgical/musical life. As a former Lutheran, yes I miss the liturgical/musical common sense of the Lutheran Church-MS (of course that garden is also being invaded by contemporary worship a la mega-evangelical culture).
“Litany of lament” is good! Thanks!
It is nice to see a young generation of musicians push back hard against it.
-
The piece by Cardinal Burke is so beautifully, charitably written.
Thank you for sharing, Tom.
I hope @MarkB and all will read it, since other attempts at offering information contained therein has not come across as succinctly as was offered by his eminence.
This discussion has been closed.
All Discussions Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,101
- General Music Discussion7,591
- Job Openings1,301
- Management of Music Programs833
- Choral Matters519
- Church Documents and Rubrics504
- CMAA Notes291
- Events651
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony528
- Hymnody821
- Gregorian Chant: General2,582
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis354
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong671
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire414
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,208
- Recordings222
- Music for Hispanic Ministry151
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General214
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism723
- Amusements170
- General Discussion1,000
- Opinions113