Back to Reform of the Reform
-
Dad29, you bring up something worth pondering. Is RotR even possible without a living, breathing example of the old Mass to look toward and work from? How is a priest to be formed in proper ars celebrandi in an environment in which the old Mass hypothetically doesn't exist? The OF does NOT have rubrics sufficiently specific to cultivate a universal, reverent ars celebrandi.
-
Here's my rendition, which might be a little rough when it comes to the names of liturgical items at the end.DECREE
In order to place in execution, in our Diocese of Mayaguez, the Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes of the Holy Father Francis, "On the use of the Roman Liturgy before the reform of 1970", officially published on July 16, 2021, and in accord with the Letter of the Holy Father to the bishops of all the world, to present the said Motu Proprio, published on the same date, I DECREE as follows:
1. Given that in our Diocese there do not exist communities that have claimed the need to celebrate the eucharist with the said extraordinary rite, it is forbidden in the diocesan territory, in accord with Art. 3. sec. 6 of the Motu Proprio, that priests, deacons, religious, or lay people promote the arising of said groups.
2. As there does not exist in our diocesan territory any pastoral need to celebrate with the said rite, there will be designated no place, in accord with Art. 2, sec. 3-4, nor any priest for celebration conforming to the Missale Romanum of 1962.
3. Given that the Holy [The bishop omits "Father"] has determined, and we quote: "I take the firm decision to derogate all the norms, instructions, concessions, and customs prior to the present Motu Proprio, and to consider the liturgical books promulgated by the Holy Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, as the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite." (Letter to the Bishops, our emphasis), and given that "liturgical acts are not private acts, but celebrations of the Church, which is the 'sacrament of unity' (SC 26), I dispose that every priest in the diocese of Mayaguez, even when he celebrates in private and without a congregation, will use the Roman Missal conforming to Vatican II. I also dispose that in our eucharistic celebrations, with or without a congregation, the Gothic chasuble will be used, avoiding the use of the Roman chasuble, cloaks, birettas, linen altar cloths, humeral veils, burses, maniples, and other ornaments proper to the said rite.
I so order and dispose for all our Diocese of Mayaguez.
I am not convinced that the bishop's directive attempting to constrain lay people in the matter of promoting groups to support the old liturgy is within his authority.
In addition, some of the liturgical articles he mentions at the end are not in fact exclusive to the old rite; some of them are even mentioned as normal for bishops in the appendices of the current Ceremonial of Bishops. -
Can a bishop validly ban priests from wearing a style of chasuble or a maniple? Does this insanity actually have weight???Thanked by 1tomjaw
-
In any case, the main problem with RotR is that which has been previously mentioned in this thread and ample times elsewhere: the most reverent, traditional celebration of the OF is just another option among other equally valid options. The personal tastes of a given priest (which are highly varied) dictate what the Mass looks like. Programs which have existed for decades can be wiped away in a second with the transfer of a pastor. Many of us (me included) have experienced various degrees of this. Instability and inconsistency are an innate (intentional?) characteristic of the OF, and until there is SIGNIFICANT reform to the rubrics of the Mass itself and to the formation of priests in seminary, the RotR parish will remain an eclectic anomaly.
-
Well they were doing that 170 years ago in England, it was fiddlebacks by order.Can a bishop validly ban priests from wearing a style of chasuble
I am less certain of my ground, but I think the attitude, if not a rule, persisted into the 1950s. -
“The OF does NOT have rubrics sufficiently specific to cultivate a universal, reverent ars celebrandi.”
Sure it does. I’m an oblate of a monastery of the Solesmes Congregation. Any one of our several monasteries using the 1970 missal can show how it can be done. Ours uses the Graduale Romanum for the propers and ordinary, and French plainchant for all else. It’s beautifully done with proper gradation according to the degree of solemnity of the celebration.
Same for Lauds and Vespers, in Latin except for the readings and intercessions which are chanted in French.
And if one truly needs the old Mass to cross feed from, there’s always the SSPX, but I really don’t think it’s necessary. I’ve been to enough beautiful monastic celebrations to know that. All the elements exist: music, rubrics, texts. All that is needed beyond that is reverence, which is an attitude, not a rubric, and is not tied to the missal used but rather to the heart of the celebrant.
Ora -
the most reverent, traditional celebration of the OF is just another option among other equally valid options. The personal tastes of a given priest (which are highly varied) dictate what the Mass looks like.
Yes, which reminds all of us that supporting the RIGHT seminary education is imperative.
Unfortunately, many otherwise-good priests have no CLUE on the topic of music for worship. Often they cannot define "sacred music" without tripping into hymns.... -
Ora, I'm not saying the OF can't be celebrated well. It can, and I have seen it done so a decent many times. What you described sounds lovely, and I'm sure that it is. However, you get to experience this because your clergy are dedicated to a traditional and reverent celebration of the Mass, and NOT because the rubrics are written in a way which requires them to celebrate Mass that way. The rubrics PERMIT traditional and reverent music, external postures and actions, etc., but they are not REQUIRED, which is my point. Things such as canonical digits, ad Deum stance, men and boys serving at the altar, etc. are decoration, not intrinsic requirements. This means that, unless priests (in seminary AND in the parishes) are intensely trained in how to celebrate Mass like this, and unless the rubrics are reformatted in a more restrictive and specific way, these things will remain entirely optional and therefore not normative. Additionaly, all of the aforementioned practices necessarily come from the Old Mass, since the New Mass does not mention or require them.
-
However, you get to experience this because your clergy are dedicated to a traditional and reverent celebration of the Mass, and NOT because the rubrics are written in a way which requires them to celebrate Mass that way.
Which proves my point that it is a question of attitude. The fact is that today the TLM is in the hands of equally dedicated clergy. The sad fact is that this was not always the case when the TLM was the only Mass available. My Benedictine spiritual director has plenty of anecdotes from when he was a seminarian in the 50s. The most common one was speed-read Masses. He’d not be finished the Sanctus when the priest was already racing through the consecration. And sloppiness and the odd drunk priest.
Human nature being what it is, there’s nothing to suggest that the TLM is somehow inoculated against irreverence. It seems to be now because it is like a beautifully polished steam locomotive with shining brass in a museum, while the daily reality of steam railways back in the day was rather more gritty.
I used to attend 7 am Mass at St Joseph’s Oratory in Montréal when I worked in the city. It was a quiet recited Mass, said entirely according to rubrics; the priest would have a 1 or 2 sentence homily that was incisive and would stick with me for the day. Everyone participated, and communion was at the rail.
I’m not sure what a TLM low mass could contribute to make that OF Mass any better.
In fact I rather think it would be the other way around.
Ora -
I understand that the TLM is not irreverent-proof. I have been to a few even in this day and age which I would consider sloppy, even if well-intentioned. However, a sloppy TLM is still in Latin. It still involves facing ad Deum. It still cannot be served by women (yes except in convents). Yes, absolutely, you can abuse it, and I am positive that it was heavily abused in its time. But there is undeniably less room to abuse it than the NO due to the nature of the rubrics. Does that make sense?
I'm simply saying that we need stricter rubrics in the NO if the RotR is to succeed on a universal scale, and that in my experience 100% of priests with good ars celebrandi got it from witnessing or learning the Old Mass. -
(For the record, it is not my intent to come across as NO-bashing)
-
Elsewhere, somebody was blaming Traddom for not fighting harder for beautiful NO Masses. I described what a NO using the "installed base" of traditional Catholic music would look like. And then I asked why any pastor in his right mind would fight to implement that, and have people complain until he was reassigned to Siberia, when he could with 1/10 the effort start a TLM where all that is assumed, and have parishioners self-select for that. It's pretty easy to say "Just make it beautiful" when you haven't fought that fight yourself.
-
Anybody follow what the priestly fellows at St. John Cantius have accomplished? Beautiful synthesis: on Sundays, a spoken, “low” TLM, then a sung English NO, then a sung Latin NO, then a Solemn High TLM. The sung masses with full Gregorian propers and ordinaries. There’s even an orchestra for the big days. They have rituals for both forms down perfectly…an opera director would stand in awe at the staging.
I am impressed by how they have walked the tightrope, with evident Archepiscopal “cover,” (even after the latest Motu Proprio) and offer the “best of both Ordos” while at the same time keeping an old lousy-neighborhood church in repair and their congregations spiritually satisfied. I don’t know any gossip or subtexts to St. J Cantius but whatever Fr. Joshua is doing he seems to be successful at least in the liturgies.
Oh yeah…the people sing the ordinary chants, which they keep pretty basic over time, and their fine organist helps with harmonic support of the ordinaries, as the propers are sung by what appears to be a trained group, or at least a core thereof. -
Custody of the canonical digits ARE mere decoration if the Canon is being gabbled. I occassionally served Mass for a priest who had perfected the ability to keep his lips moving while breathing in as well as out, a facility much admired by some parishoners.
I rejoiced when the changes were made to the 1962 rubrics to permit audible vernacular prayers and readings, so that I could keep focus on Mass as it was being said: Trent Session XXII ch8 said "the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people,...".
I rejoiced even more when the riches of the Roman Canon were made accessible in the same way as the readings and orations. -
Cantius are a religious order with a certain amount of stability, they aren't at risk of having the entire pastoral staff transferred next week, and replaced with a modernist wing-nut.
-
and have people complain until he was reassigned to Siberia
Happened TWICE to a priest I know. To be fair, he was the 'battering-ram' (sacrificial lamb) assigned to parishes in sore need of Catholicism, both liturgical AND theological. But it still hurts him.Thanked by 1CCooze -
Reading and hearing are different, lecturing did not cease as a mode of teaching when books became widely available.Thanked by 1Elmar
-
it is amazing how many people 'could not follow the Mass' unless it was spoken in their own, personal, language
People keep claiming language shouldn't be the deciding factor in all of this, and I'm willing to submit that it isn't the only important thing.
However, as most anti-TLM people still tend to argue that somehow they can only understand and participate in their native tongue, I still think it's still an important topic.
Why wouldn't you prefer that, no matter where on earth you go, the Mass still "sounds" the same, and you can respond properly and confidently?
In what way does it even remotely make sense that "vernacular" is unifying, when if you get stuck, time or location-wise, going to - say - the Vietnamese Mass, you won't even have a chance?
Yes, you can still at least "follow" interiorly, which is much more important and actually participatory than exteriorly, but if it is a contemporary church (with zero RotR), with a foreign-vernacular, what's the likelihood that you'll even know where you are in the Mass until the consecration begins?
-
In an age (the entire 20th Century) featuring a dozen editions of hand-missals, it is amazing how many people 'could not follow the Mass' unless it was spoken in their own, personal, language.
"The Latin Mass is so superior because multiple things are happening at the same time unlike the lame Novus Ordo where everything happens in sequence."
"I am unable to comprehend how people are not able to follow the missal of the TLM."
The double move here annoys me. While the TLM is not by any means my usual Mass, I'm fairly well informed about it's nature, and still find it very hard to follow in the missal.
People need much more than the missal to follow the TLM. From what I hear, it takes at a minimum months of going to the TLM every Sunday before you're actually able to really know what's going on during the whole Mass.Thanked by 1Olivier -
it takes at a minimum months of going to the TLM every Sunday before you're actually able to really know what's going on during the whole Mass.
So what?
The EF Mass was the one that about 25 generations of my family attended; most were German or French speakers. Are you intimating (yes, you ARE) that they were incapable of actuosa participatio?
And therefore, they are on the express-train to Nethers? -
People need much more than the missal to follow the TLM. From what I hear, it takes at a minimum months of going to the TLM every Sunday before you're actually able to really know what's going on during the whole Mass.
Do they though?
Maybe they could easily reach out to another attendee and ask how it's done, and which missal is best for such. It really isn't that difficult to follow.
Some missals even have the TLM only in English (vernacular), with every single bit from start to finish for every Sunday.
Some have it side-by-side (Latin-English) from start to finish.
Some missals have only the propers for each Sunday, with the ordinary parts of the Mass in their respective categories (hence the multiple ribbons).
Which one prefers is up to them. Which one uses might be a case of not understanding the layout and what that individual needs.
Most who have been going to the TLM for any sort of extended period of time can tell you which they prefer and WHY.
TLM folks aren't as standoffish as others claim them to be. But many stay after Mass for prayer and meditation, and you may have to wait a little bit.
But if we love the Mass, we're not going to try to keep it for ourselves and let you feel like you're drowning. We want you to love it, too. Ask for help.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
Are you intimating (yes, you ARE) that
I'm typically careful to mean what I say when I write, such that my words mean what the plain meaning of the text is, and that nothing is intimated beyond the text of what I wrote.
So no, I am not intimating what you claim.
Actuosa participatio can be achieved in every version of the Roman Rite that has ever existed. That being said, Sacrosanctum Concilium called for a committe to revise the liturgy such that actuosa participatio could be greatly increased from what was possible pre-Vatican II.
I am concerned that you reject Sacrosanctum Concilium. Based on your comments and the comments of others on this forum, it appears that Pope Francis discerned accurately that there is a problem with the TLM being associated with rejection of Vatican II.
And I further get the vibe from reading this forum that some of you are being like "How dare Pope Francis accuse us of rejecting Vatican II. We reject Vatican II." -
The first TLM I attended (I was either 17 or 18, I think) - I remember thinking, "well, I see why that was reformed... it was nice, and the music particularly fine, but I'll not be back."
About mid-day the following day (Monday) I was on a web browser looking up if there were any daily TLMs that I could attend. Only SSPX, which I avoided.
I didn't miss a Sunday TLM (despite being an organist playing 6-7 NO Masses per weekend) for years. Then I eventually became the organist at the TLM (in addition to the 6-7 NOs). -
I love how Traditionalists must accept every bit of the outpouring from Vat II... and if we don't we can't be Catholic. Cough, cough, I don't see similar statements condemning those who claim to be Catholic but... agree with abortion on demand, the extermination of the disabled, the sterilisation of the poor.
Vat II was a product of its time, and it has failed. So many of those documents have been ignored by the majority of N.O. catholics. Does it have anything to tell us today? Perhaps a passage here and there, but most is less relevant than most of the other councils. The 1960's were a long time ago.
The Church has lots of problems at the moment, the TLM is not a problem worth dealing with., unless you have been trying to sing a new church, and have little to show for all your work. So what that the TLM communities are growing and N.O. parishes are dying, we can't do anything about it, the dice have been thrown and time will continue its relentless path. -
I am concerned...
I'm not sure why people are so paranoically concerned with what people think of SC or Vatican II or anything specifically post-'62, as long as they are being faithful Catholics, sticking to the Catholic Church, the Catholic Faith, and above all else being faithful to God's eternal Truth, and not just to "personal truths."
Why is that concerning?
Have you gone back to read through every ecumenical council and been sure that you accept every single bit of each and you don't reject the way that any part of any one of them was presented or represented, afterward?
Should I be concerned? -
Why is that concerning?
Because that was the exact reason given for Pope Francis abrogating Summorum Pontificum. -
That's irrelevant. That was the reason he gave, and implying that it doesn't matter is exactly why he would be concerned about TLM communities rejecting legitimate authority....he could give any reason at all, and many NO-goers would be 100% on board, regardless.Thanked by 1Elmar -
Schönbergian, you seem to be missing the point.
If he said, "because this is the primary group refusing covid vaccination, which is harmful to the welfare of the general/entire population," would that be a good enough reason?
"That's true!" cry the NO-ers, "that's true! It DOES tend to be TLMers!"
If only they had shown true charity and gotten that vaccine... but we can't trust them...
It's almost like a form of extortion. What's the religious version of extortion? -
the majority of N.O. catholics.
Ya know, I kind of resent being labelled a NO Catholic.
I am a Catholic. Period. I love the Mass of Paul VI done the way my abbey does it. I have no access to the TLM in my area except SSPX and I won’t go there for obvious reasons. I am a Benedictine oblate, and have been part of a Gregorian schola for nearly 20 years. I am NOT a “NO” Catholic. Just a plain old Catholic, a sinner like everyone else.
This labeling of Catholics who attend/prefer the new Mass as somehow defective or inferior has got to stop. When I read such comments I am not at all surprised at why the Motu Proprio was issued.
I can get behind “one Church, two liturgical preferences”. That was I think Benedict’s intent. Clearly, it hasn’t worked out that way. -
CC, your posts come across, at least to me, as making the Pope's argument for him. The Extraordinary Form does not incorporate any changes requested by Vatican II. The Ordinary Form might have (and probably did) go too far in making changes, but keeping things exactly the way they were before the Council was not an option.
The Council wanted a wider range of Scripture readings, the EF does not do that.
The Council wanted unnecessary redundancies done away with, the EF does not do that.
It seems that you, personally, reject Vatican II. Is that one of your "personal truths"?Thanked by 1contemporaryworship92 -
.
-
Do all the other rites of the Catholic Church reject SC just because they don't practice the NO?I am concerned that you reject Sacrosanctum Concilium.Thanked by 1Jeffrey Quick -
Of all the things to prioritize concerning orthodoxy, how on earth does it make sense to prioritize guesswork at whether or not groups reject VII? I can think of dozens and dozens of cases in which groups and practically entire regional churches are openly and unapologetically guilty of heresy. How can this move, at this time, while the house burns down around us, possibly be deemed appropriate?
-
trentonjconn,
CCooze wroteI'm not sure why people are so paranoically concerned with what people think of SC or Vatican II or anything specifically post-'62, as long as they are being faithful Catholics, sticking to the Catholic Church, the Catholic Faith, and above all else being faithful to God's eternal Truth, and not just to "personal truths."
This quote seems to indicate that CCooze rejects those parts of Vatican II that she disagrees with. Also, the only persons seeming paranoid are the TLMers.
Francis,Do all the other rites of the Catholic Church reject SC just because they don't practice the NO?
SC doens't concern itself with other rites of the Church, only the Latin Rite, so you question is a deflection.Thanked by 1CharlesW -
Truly, I think many aspects of SC are embodied in today's celebrations of the Old Mass in a way which was not seen often before VII. In most celebrations I've been to, the people joyfully sing the responses. Chanted ordinaries are used, and congregational participation in singing them is fostered and is common. Etc. Etc. I don't think it is fair to say that attending strictly the '62 is an implicit rejection of SC or anything else from VII.
-
I have friends who practice more than one rite in their Latin parish... are they supposed to stop practicing those rites too, or are they then required to add the NO to their practices in order to be "in Union with the Church"? Unity in the church does not come from practicing the same rite... it comes from professing the Creed and the Faith, partaking of the sacraments, and living a holy life in the worship of God, love of neighbor and self. That is the historical and theological definition of Unity in the Catholic Faith.
-
The point is... what does that "argument," as though it is good or even remotely accurate, have to do with removing an entire [licit, non-abrogated form of a] rite?
We've all talked, here, about this thing about readings and how adding to the "number" of readings at Mass does not = getting more-important Bible access at Mass...The Council wanted a wider range of Scripture readings, the EF does not do that.
Which unnecessary redundancies, what makes them unnecessary or even redundant, and what does that have to do with anything?The Council wanted unnecessary redundancies done away with, the EF does not do that. -
Someone who thinks the unnecessary redundancies should have been removed: please define UNNECESSSARY.
-
Which unnecessary redundancies
It seems obvious to me that the Council Fathers were in agreement that there were redundencies that ought to be removed, otherwise this line would not appear in a text that was approved by an overwhelming number of the bishops.Thanked by 1MarkB -
Holy, Holy, Holy should be reduced to just Holy...?
People don't understand the Hebrew theology of superlative.
Also, when incensing the Body of Christ, thrice is important, perfect and shows Divinity His proper due.
purple - - I guess God should be reduced to one person only, not three... - - end purple -
I am concerned that you reject Sacrosanctum Concilium.
You fail your long-distance phrenology class, pal. I regularly attend OF Mass, have been the church musician (organ/choir director) for OF Masses for well over 30 years....and have TWO translations of the docs of VatII.
I am concerned that you are violating a Commandment.Thanked by 1tomjaw
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 Discussions21,508
- General Music Discussion7,776
- Job Openings1,365
- Management of Music Programs838
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics513
- CMAA Notes293
- Events665
- For Newcomers: Read First24
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody840
- Gregorian Chant: General2,614
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology58
- Vernacular Plainsong681
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire418
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,232
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry155
- Music Education: Children207
- Music Education: General217
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism729
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,009
- Opinions115