It happened: Traditionis custodes (TLM crackdown) (Note: discussion is on hiatus.)
-
I understand the need for one Roman Missal, one form of celebration
I don't.
The Roman Church has had more than 'one Missal, one form' for centuries. Dominican, Mozarabic, Sarum........and no Pope has ever seen the 'need' for eliminating or derogating them. -
Well, what SP called for was a growing together of the EF and the OF. We got a few feasts added to the EF, ie a small change in the EF calendar. For the OF we got a couple of suggestions - from BXVI himself, a transfer of the Pax back to where it was in early centuries and still is in most Catholic rites, including the Ambrosian - vetoed by the Curia. From Cdl Sarah a restoration of ad orientem for the Canon - widely derided, and vetoed by many diocesan bishops.
So SP has not been successful, IMHO it does not follow that it should be abandoned, rather that it should be pusued more vigourously by the Pope. And that would mean harrying delinquent bishops and praising of those (eg Sample) who are pushing in the right direction. -
@Don9of11
I couldn’t have said better myself. We don’t need a « reform of the reform », we need a serious application of the reform we have been given.
Our abbey does just what you said about the Mass of Paul VI. Gregorian chant following the Graduale Romanum for the Propers and Ordinary, sung French plainchant for everything else except for the homily. Plus incense and pipe organ when appropriate (Sundays, feasts and solemnities), and absolute faithfulness to the rubrics.
The tradition for the Roman Rite is chant. I support and would welcome vernacular plainchant for the propers, I’ve heard it beautifully done in French at a local Cistercian abbey.
The rest of the Church could learn from this.
PS active participation does not mean everyone has to sing the propers, but should sing/say the peoples’s responses, including the response of the responsorial psalm. -
Don,
The orientation of the Missal of Paul VI is anthropocentric, while the orientation of the other form is theocentric.
The idea that if the Missal of Paul VI were celebrated with gravitas, this would remove the perceived need for the TLM is missing the foundational truths of both forms. -
“ The orientation of the Missal of Paul VI is anthropocentric, while the orientation of the other form is theocentric.”
I really think we need to unpack this more, because as often as I hear this accusation thrown around in trad circles as if it’s from Revelation I’ve never heard it backed up.
To cite a few examples, only orations in the OF that are remotely “anthrocentric” are the Dominus Vobiscum, Sursum Corda, Pax, Ecce Agnus Dei, and Ite Missa Est (might be forgetting one or two but you get the idea). By sheer coincidence, ALL came from the EF. Every other prayer is addressed to God — again, virtually all are lifted structurally or verbatim from the EF.
Even versus populum, while the name itself is “anthropocentric,” what’s really at the center of worship according to the rubrics? The altar of sacrifice, on which the Eucharist is confected and adores (again, same as the EF).
But, if you still think the OF is, according to the rubrics as they the Church intends it to be celebrated, “anthropocentric,” please provide evidence as to why. Our ears are open. -
Your analysis of 'versus populum' is deficient, almost in the extreme.
While it is true that 'the altar' is between the priest and the congregation, it is hardly the center of attention for normal human beings. The face of the priest IS the center of attention, whereas in the UA, the crucifix is, and the altar/priest are secondary.
The derogation of the Offertory eliminated the prayer "In spiritu humilitatis". That prayer, along with the "Suscipe, sancta Trinitas" was specifically directed toward zu Gott. The long reading of Ps. 25 at the washing of hands is also directed to God.
Removing all that certainly looks to any astute observer as though the "to God" was being derogated. And that's just a beginning. Eradicating the prayers at the foot of the altar--all directed toward God--is another sign.
Could all that be said in the vernacular in the OF? Sure. But it's not.
YMMV, of course. -
I'll start with the idea (present in the reform no matter where you look from about 1900 on) that the liturgy of the Church must adapt to the needs of modern man.
Then add the "limited" use of the vernacular -- it's in only a very small number of places in the Mass -- a vernacular which can change from canton to canton, or parish to parish or .....
My (then) 6 year old had a priceless observation while preparing for First Holy Communion: "Daddy", he asked, "Why, in the English mass, does the priest have his back to Jesus the whole time?"
-
Some say the Novus Ordo Mass is anthropocentric by design, and that it's a good thing.
The Novus Ordo emphasizes external participation in the liturgy by the people. This makes the communal action of the people central to the Mass.
The Novus Ordo also requires the celebrant to say everything so that the people can hear. This puts the people at the center even when texts are addressed to God.
The texts of the Mass have been revised to make them more acceptable to modern people. And difficult scripture passages have been omitted or made optional. This places the people at the theological center of the Mass. -
For those who have ears to hear, this s good start...The Ottaviani Intervention: A Critical Study of the New Mass
Written by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and Antonio Cardinal Bacci and a Group of Roman Theologians
Editor's Note: The New Order of Mass was introduced on April 4, 1969. On June 5, 1969 Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani of the Holy Office, and Antonio Cardinal Bacci, along with a group of Roman theologians, presented Pope Paul VI with a Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass. The Study contained a cover letter signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, which warned that the Novus Ordo, "represents both as a whole, and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent".
Among other points, the Study maintains that the faithful "never, absolutely never, asked that the liturgy be changed or mutilated to make it easier to understand." "On many points," the study says, "it has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant." Furthermore, "the definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a 'supper'." "The altar is nearly always called the table." "The instruction recommends that the Blessed Sacrament now be kept in a place apart ...as though it were some sort of relic." "The people themselves appear as possessing autonomous priestly powers." "He [the priest] now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister." For these and many other reasons, the Critical Study concludes that to abandon our liturgical tradition in favor of a liturgy "which teems with insinuations or manifests errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith is . . . an incalculable error." Presented here are Chapter 3 and part of Chapter 4 of this Study. CFN readers are urged to obtain, or re-read, the entire book. This will help Catholics keep their feet on the ground in the midst of the jubilation prompted by the recently-released Liturgiam authenticam. The grave deficiencies pointed out by the Critical Study were not of a flawed translation of the Novus Ordo, but of the original Latin text.
"The Ottaviani Intervention"
Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Pope Paul VI September 25th, 1969
Most Holy Father, Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations: 1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery. 2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith. Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour notice daily. 3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law. Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.
A. Card. Ottaviani A. Card. Bacci
.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
More...
Brief Summary
I History of the Change
The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.
II Definition of the Mass
By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the 'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.
III Presentation of the Ends
The three ends of the Mass are altered:- no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed.
IV The Essence
The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.
V The Elements of the Sacrifice
The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.
VI The Destruction of Unity
The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound.
VII: The Alienation of the Orthodox
While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East.
VIII The Abandonment of Defences
The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defences of the deposit of Faith.
Chapter I
History of the Change
In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was required to pass judgement on the experimental celebration of a so-called "normative Mass" (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" (New Mass) on the part of the Synod. Progressively-inclined papers made no mention of it. In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass" (New Mass), identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period the Episcopal Conference, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views about it.
In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal promulgated by St. Pius V, 13th July 1570, but going back in great part to St. Gregory the Great and still remoter antiquity, [1] was for four centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part of the world, "it has moreover been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to many holy people in their devotion to God". Yet, the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was claimed to be necessary since "from that time the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more widespread and intensive among Christians".
This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when - thanks to Pius X - they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures of the liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of the changeless liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed.
The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use, together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller participation in, and great knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy, nor why, when its many outstanding virtues are recognised, this should not have been considered worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of Christians.
Rejected by Synod
Since the "normative" Mass (New Mass), now reintroduced and imposed as the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), was in substance rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people - least of all in mission lands - ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and makes it acceptable to the Catholic people.
The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire (para. 50 Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the various parts of the Mass to "be revised in a way that will bring out more clearly the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them." [2]We shall see how the Ordo recently promulgated corresponds with this original intention.
An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgement already made with regard to the "normative" Mass. Both have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most Modernists of Protestants.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
If anything, the TLM was not so God-centered as it was priest-centered. It was so heavily clericalized that it tended to glorify and center on the clergy with the people being an irrelevant add-on to be tolerated. I like the emphasis on congregational participation. If I am not mistaken, even Pius X called for greater participation by the people. He and other popes calling for the same were largely ignored.Thanked by 1MarkS
-
“The Novus Ordo also requires the celebrant to say everything so that the people can hear. This puts the people at the center even when texts are addressed to God.”
That doesn’t logically follow. Active participation vis a vis vernacular (or anything else) is not the same as anthropocentrism. Were masses at the Vatican circa 1900 anthropocentric because the priests, bishops, and cardinals there were fluent in Latin?
Remember, the Roman Rite has changed a lot since the time of Christ. Heck, even just between the Early Church and Trent. Does that mean the Missal of Pius V is anthropocentric? Because the Church changed it to better suit the needs of the Church at the time? By this definition, “modernism didn’t creep into the Church in 1900, but more like 100.
“ whereas in the UA, the crucifix is, and the altar/priest are secondary.”
The French did this well, and it caught on everywhere else around the 1900s when ecclesial architecture in general became more basic, but this was not universal. Iberian, Germanic and Slavic Europe are famous for their large ornate altarpieces and reredoses that really drown out the priests’ crucifix on the altar in terms of visual prominence. Many such churches, conscious of this cognitive dissonance, placed larger crucifixes on the sides of sanctuaries or up above similar to food screens in Britain, which only partially rectified this “problem.” -
Here is the entire Critical Study (of which I posted portions above) if anyone wishes to read the entire piece:
http://silverwingsofthedove.org/the-ottaviani-intervention -
This will make Trads' blood boil:
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/living-catholic-tradition?utm_content=buffercef9d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=bufferJuly 16, 2021 was a great day for the Roman Rite and for the legacy of the Second Vatican Council. Finally, after years of accommodating those who dislike or actually reject the liturgical reforms of the Council, the Catholic Church’s highest authority took a definitive step to re-establish the reformed rites as normative for the whole Latin Rite Church, without exception.
And that's just the first paragraph.
Trigger warning. I mean it. Don't read it if you're soft.
-
Remember, the Roman Rite has changed a lot since the time of Christ. Heck, even just between the Early Church and Trent. Does that mean the Missal of Pius V is anthropocentric? Because the Church changed it to better suit the needs of the Church at the time? By this definition, “modernism didn’t creep into the Church in 1900, but more like 100.
Much that happened at and shortly after Trent was suited to reacting to Protestantism. Some would say the church over-reacted to Protestantism. -
Don't worry... traddies are die hards. If you want the scoop on the N.O., please read the Critical Study and then get back to us all on that.Trigger warning. I mean it. Don't read it if you're soft.
http://silverwingsofthedove.org/the-ottaviani-interventionThanked by 1tomjaw -
The Trads will never split off from the church... however there could be a mass exodus of Catholics that detatch themselves entirely from the tradition handed down to them. That is a schism of an entirely different perspective.I could see the 'Francis" document eventually causing the Trads to split off from the church and go their own way. However, who can know what the next pope will do.
read it. yawn.Blood-Boiling ArticleThanked by 1tomjaw -
Is double outrage! The Old Believers, who are still in existence, were Russians whose practices and beliefs essentially came from 10th-century Constantinople. Patriarch Nikon of the 17th century was a rabid fan of all things Greek. He introduced reforms based on Greek practices of his own time. It caused the Old Believers to be persecuted and essentially hounded out of the Russian Church. In short, as to what Old Believers believe,
Old Believers reject any changes and emendations of liturgical texts and rituals introduced by the reforms of Patriarch Nikon. Thus they continue to use the previous Church Slavonic translation of the Greek texts, including the Psalter, striving to preserve intact the "pre-Nikonian" practices of the Russian Church.
Thanked by 1CHGiffen -
Byzantine Catholic, not Orthodox. I must admit that several, as in a number, of Latin Catholics I know have left the Catholic church and become Orthodox. They cited the chaos, bickering and confusion in the Latin church as their reason for leaving. A greater number have just given up on religion altogether.
-
Again, can you provide sources... document, paragraph, etc.? at the moment anything you bring forward is just coming from your own thinking.Old Believers reject any changes and emendations of liturgical texts and rituals introduced by the reforms of Patriarch Nikon. Thus they continue to use the previous Church Slavonic translation of the Greek texts, including the Psalter, striving to preserve intact the "pre-Nikonian" practices of the Russian Church. -
-
That I don't know. Their beliefs come from a time when Cyril and Methodius brought Christianity to the Slavs. Constantinople was fully Catholic at that time. At the moment, I don't know of any RC documents. There may be some, I just don't know of them.
I wonder if the Trads could end up in a similar situation? The difference would be that there would be no civil authority to attack or persecute them. The civil governments don't much care what the church thinks these days. -
So how does all this liturgical complication impact whether I go to heaven or not?
-
Catherine,
Isn't the goal of TC liturgical simplification?Thanked by 1tomjaw -
Interesting comments in America by Archbishop Di Noia, currently is adjunct secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Vatican archbishop: Traditional Latin Mass movement ‘hijacked’ initiatives of John Paul II and Benedict XVI
Any evidence that the "TLM movement" promotes rejection of active participation? Seems rather it promotes active interior participation.“The TLM movement promotes the rejection of that which the liturgical movement sought above all: active participation of the faithful in the liturgical celebration of the mysteries of Christ,” he said. “In TLM, there is little concern for active participation. The traditional Latin Mass, as in the past, becomes the occasion for engaging in various types of private prayer if the participants don’t follow the Mass with a missal.” -
I guess that, since he doesn't have an actual case against either the TLM or actual people who attend that Mass, he has to swipe at the "TLM movement". There is no factual basis to this claim.
Mind you, if he thinks Pope Benedict's purpose was to restrict the use of the older form (since he called it Extraordinary, you see) he needs to get out of Pope Francis' library. -
Actuosa participatio is conforming oneself to Christ in self-sacrifice.
All else is decorative. -
I would ignore the +DiNoia commentary. It was very disappointing and makes one wonder whom/where he is talking about.
-
It’s a profession of faith, hence the Amen. Does that possess no merit of its own?
Of course a profession of Faith has merit! It's just that, as I said, there's no complete sentence, let alone a prayer, to which each communicant is replying "Amen."I wouldn't object to the lack of an explicit verb in the priest's utterance "Corpus Christi"; there isn't a verb in "Mysterium fidei" either or "Dominus vobiscum", but that hasn't been an obstacle before.
The "be" is implied by the word "vobiscum" (same concept when praying the Gloria Patri). So, this particular comparison doesn't work.
"Mysterium fidei" is part of the words of consecration in the TLM where it doesn't cause questions of basic grammar. It was moved until just after the consecration in the NO to which was added a response. Sitting on its own, it's not clear what verb would be implied (and the same goes for "Corpus Christi"). Is it a form of "to be" or something else? I've heard priests say "Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith" as well as just "the Mystery of Faith." This should be enough to show that it's not clear.
Regardless, the main takeaway here should be that the manner of distributing Holy Communion during the TLM doesn't leave any room to question whether or not it's the body of our Lord. It takes it for granted and goes further in having the priest pray that It may preserve the communicant's soul unto eternal life. -
“ Regardless, the main takeaway here should be that the manner of distributing Holy Communion during the TLM doesn't leave any room to question whether or not it's the body of our Lord.”
Uhhhh, in the OF the priest/minister LITERALLY says “the Body/Blood of Christ” upon administering the Eucharistic species. -
I will add, incidentally, that as a communicant at both TLM & N.O., I prefer the traditional method without the communicant's "Amen." It makes more sense, particularly when receiving on the tongue. In fact, as a server, I often notice that those receiving on the tongue don't make the response at Communion in the N.O.
In my mind, making the people make a response tenths of a second before they're supposed to, if you'll pardon the expression, stick out their tongue, is the work of the same "Good Idea Fairy" who decided that everyone should bring their hymnal with them in the queue and sing loudly into the back of the head of the person in front of them, juggle their hymnal, receive in the hand, quickly consume the Host, juggle the hymnal again, and then continue singing on their way back to their pew.
The N.O. looks exceedingly well on paper: it's short, it's concise, it makes grand philosophical statements about the theology of Communion vis a vis "active participation", but it isn't actually practical in the "live" pastoral application. It is the work of a committee of experts, who wished to mould the people into their image. -
A Satanist can say "Amen" as he receives sacrilegiously: he intends to desecrate the Host, so receiving merely the information "Corpus Christi" confirms that he is receiving what he intends to receive.
The priest prays for the communicant: May the body of Christ.......
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 Discussion7,590
- Job Openings1,302
- 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