Back to Reform of the Reform

MarkB

tomjaw, please stop playing petty games. Of course this discussion is in the context of the Roman Rite, the Roman Church. If we all have to add footnotes to specify everything and anything that should be obvious, then people's posts would be too lengthy.

Just stop it.

I'm not claiming ecclesiastical authority. I don't need to. All I need to do is point out cogently that the Church, using her authority, has decreed exactly what I said she did.

You don't like it. Tough.

You don't like someone pointing that out to you. Tough.

Richard Mix

authentic meaning of the Latin

Peter Bergquist offered Douay translations for his edition of Lassus' Job Lessons (RRMR vol. 55), with the rationale that they were closer to Latin as well as contemporaneous. He was roundly criticized in Early Music for using the Challoners revision!

MarkB

Sooooo....Benedict XVI was willfully leading people into schism/heresy by permitting more widespread use of the Old Mass? And by permitting exclusively EF communities?

No, it was an experiment that Benedict hoped would bring the two erstwhile liturgical "forms" of the Roman Rite closer to each other. It failed because it hardened divisions. That's not Benedict's fault, and I don't blame him for trying what he did.

Benedict was clear that the Missal of Paul VI was to be considered the normal form and that nobody attached to the 1962 Missal should as a matter of principle be opposed to celebrating the new Missal.

trentonjconn

Yet the FSSP has been permitted for their entire existence to only observe the old rites? That seems inconsistent.

trentonjconn

My point, Mark, is that you are making some very severe claims and coming to extreme conclusions. I don't have any ill will toward you and I hope that I am being civil. It just seems uncharitable and, really, unfounded to say that all Latins must absolutely accept the reform specifically in the form of the N.O. otherwise they are anathema.

I think reform was necessary for sure, but I think that the N.O. was an inappropriate result of the requests for reform. Does this make me a schismatic???

MarkB

I understand your opinions on this matter, but you are taking your own subjective approach to this issue and making some extremely heavy-handed conclusions which are a far cry from what the Church has to say about these things.

Not a far cry at all. Why is my approach "subjective" when I offer reasoned support for my claims, founded on the Church's liturgical documents and pronouncements? I think you are trying to dismiss my entirely cogent analyses and deductions because you don't like them.

Yet someone who acknowledges the liturgical reform was authorized by the bishops and personally exempts himself and others because of his perceived "freedom" and "human dignity"? That's not subjective?

What I have concluded from reading recent articles and participating in these discussions is that the Trad case is on very thin ice, and I think they know it, and they don't like it being pointed out to them because they are being forced to acknowledge that the thin ice supporting use of the 1962 Missal is eventually going to melt under the heat of Traditionis custodes.

trentonjconn

Can one accept the requests for reform as laid out in SC, accept the validity of the N.O., but argue that it was not a proper response to the request and that further reform is necessary? Is that not an acceptable position?

You seem to argue that criticism of the N.O. is criticism of the reform and therefore schismatic.

MarkB

My point, Mark, is that you are making some very severe claims and coming to extreme conclusions. I don't have any ill will toward you and I hope that I am being civil.

You are being civil, and it's possible for everyone to take strong, precise, clear stances and make objective arguments without being uncivil.

Thank you.

But this...

It just seems uncharitable and, really, unfounded to say that all Latins must absolutely accept the reform specifically in the form of the N.O. otherwise they are anathema.

I say that because that's what Church authority has decided, determined, decreed and promulgated.

Is it any less charitable or unfounded to say that all Catholics must absolutely accept that marriage is between a man and a woman? There are those who disagree with that, after all.

I know they aren't exactly the same thing: one is doctrinal and the other is liturgical.

Yet some of the same types of arguments being used by people who disagree with the Church's doctrine opposing same-sex marriage and exempting themselves from it on the basis of "conscience" are being employed now by Trads who disagree with liturgical reform and want to exempt themselves from worshipping as the Church has authoritatively decided Roman Catholics should worship.

If the Church has authoritatively pronounced that the former Missal was to be reformed, which it did, and if the Church has authoritatively promulgated a Missal to replace that one, which it did, and if the Church has authoritatively decreed that the new Missal replacing the old is the liturgical expression that all Roman Catholics should adopt, which it just has, then Roman Catholics are obliged to accept that and adhere to it.

Why the paragraph above subjective? Why isn't it a concise, objective, accurate and true statement of the reality and implications of the Roman Church's liturgical reform and liturgical discipline as things now stand?

trentonjconn

The argument as you structure it above would logically mean that Catholics who attend only the Ordinariate Mass are schismatics.

pfreese

Mark, in partial defense of trentonjconn, SP and TC didn’t/don’t presume that all Roman Rite Catholics need to worship in the OF at least part time. Those of the Anglican Use don’t and neither those of the Zaire Use. The EF isn’t exactly the same, since the Tridentine Mass isn’t part of a Use and was meant for universal/normative use in the Roman Rite, but logically one could come to a similar conclusion. The OF isn’t beyond critique, and neither is the EF, even in its day. If it were we never would’ve received the OF. Do some EF Catholics reject Vatican II in whole or in part? Certainly, and their bad behavior and lack of self awareness directly led to TC. But that doesn’t necessarily mean preferring the EF is ipso facto rejection of VII, or even the OF. I know several faithful Catholics who prefer the EF and have absolutely no qualms about the teachings of VII, and it’s sad the bad apples like Dr. K and Michael Voris ruined it for everyone.

trentonjconn

Thank you, this summarizes my feelings well. Though I do think that the attitude-excuse is just that: an excuse. Regardless, I'm mostly on the same page.

MarkB

Again, can we not bring in exceptions that distract from and are irrelevant to the main argument?

Nobody is talking about the Anglican Use nor any other authorized alternative use nor Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Catholics in full communion with the Church, even Roman Catholics, may and do worship, can fulfill their obligatory Mass attendance, by worshipping at such liturgies.

But we're not talking about any of that.

We're talking about the Missal of 1970 and its relation to the Missal of 1962.

Trying to be even more clear about what I mean:

Under current Roman Catholic liturgical law, the Missal of 1970 has replaced the Missal of 1962 for Roman Catholics. The Missal of 1970 has authoritatively been elevated to the unique liturgical expression of the Roman Rite. The Missal of 1962 is on its way out as an authorized liturgical form in the Roman Church. It continues to be authorized by way of exception. How long it will take for the Roman Church to entirely phase out the 1962 Missal is unknown, but it is being phased out by order of legitimate Church authority.

My point is that, concerning only the specific matter of the relation between the 1970 Missal and the 1962 Missal as things now stand following the promulgation of Traditionis custodes, the Church has stated and legislated that the 1970 Missal is now the sole liturgical form for the Roman Rite. The 1962 Missal is still authorized as a temporary pastoral exception but is being phased out. People can whine about that because they would rather the 1962 Missal enjoy perpetual authorization, but that's not what the Church has legislated. To fail to accept that liturgical legislation is to refuse submission to the Church's authority.

trentonjconn

"1970 Missal is now the sole liturgical form for the Roman Rite."

It isn't. The Ordinariate are Latins. They are Roman Rite.

You ask us not to talk about exceptions, but this entire conversation is about exceptions is it not?

MarkB

I know that. For the third or fourth time, the Anglican Use is not relevant to the discussion.

From Traditionis custodes:

Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.

Unique = sole, being the only one of its kind.

Liturgical books promulgated by Paul VI = the Missal of 1970.

Again, please stop bringing up authorized liturgies that are not relevant to the question of the relation between the 1962 Missal and the 1970 Missal.

The 1970 Missal has replaced the 1962 Missal. Even though the Anglican Use exists and is authorized, even though various other liturgical rites are authorized and exist, the 1962 Missal is going to disappear as an authorized liturgical expression in the Roman Church because it has been superseded by the 1970 Missal.

The other liturgical forms will continue. The 1962 Missal will not; at least not in communities in full communion with the Catholic Church unless something is decided differently in the future, such as establishing the 1962 Missal as something akin to the Anglican Use with its own distinct territorial structure. But that's not what is the case at the present time.

That is the strict point I am making: at the present time the 1970 Missal replaces and supersedes the 1962 Missal. No other liturgical rite or use is relevant to that fact.

trentonjconn

But you have claimed repeatedly in this discussion that the 1970 missal is the only acceptable form of the Roman Rite going forward. You have also admitted above that the Ordinariate Mass is a form of the Roman Rite. This means that you are either contradicting yourself, or suggesting that the Ordinariate form also must go eventually.

MarkB

I'm using the language Pope Francis used in Traditionis custodes. Take it up with him or submit a dubium to a Roman dicastery.

Why do you keep avoiding my point that the 1962 Missal has been authoritatively superseded by the 1970 Missal?

Forget about other authorized forms. What is your understanding of the relation between the 1970 Missal and the 1962 Missal as things now stand? Not as you want them to be; as liturgical law has declared them to be.

pfreese

Mark, I think your interpretation of TC is correct insofar as the OF has been definitively established as the normative form for the Roman Rite (SP did this as well but it’s much more unambiguous now). Even more so, it envisions the OF superseding the EF at some yet to be determined point in the future. That said, in the present, it neither mentions nor presumes an obligation for those in the EF to worship in the OF in any tangible capacity. At the present. That will likely change in the future, but as of yet, absent explicitly stating so or laying out even a general timeline (again, a real shame TC is as sloppy as it is), the EF is still an authorized and legitimate form in the Roman Rite. If it weren’t, the Holy Father would have explicitly banned the EF as a regular form of worship.

trentonjconn

"As of yet, absent explicitly stating so...the EF is still an authorized and legitimate form in the Roman Rite. If it weren’t, the Holy Father would have explicitly banned the EF as a regular form of worship."

This is my current understanding of things.

I keep bringing up the Ordinariate Form because you keep arguing the 1970 must be universal and there can be no exceptions without incurring schism in one's heart. But this is obviously not true.

pfreese

To further clarify my above comment, the HF hasn’t outright banned the EF YET.

MarkB

I've been addressing the opinions of people who don't believe the Church has the authority to abolish the authorized use of the 1962 Missal and replace it with a revision. It does have that authority. I've been addressing the opinions of people who personally don't like that the Church has used her authority to replace the 1962 Missal with a revision and is curtailing and phasing out the use of the 1962 Missal. That's what the Church has done and is doing. They don't have to like it, but Roman Catholics do have to accept it.

Drake

Mark, was Benedict XVI mistaken when he said the TLM had never been abrogated? You seem to be saying Vatican II abrogated it.

trentonjconn

But Mark, that's not what you've been doing. What you've been doing is saying "if you are a Latin and don't attend the N.O. at least a bit, or if you are critical of the fact that the N.O. is what we ended up with, you aren't Catholic."

contemporaryworship92

Wasn't able to check this board all day, but I wanted to point out that a category mistake has been made with this claim:

bhc, it isn't me... it's The Church.
As Cdl. Mueller said,
"The unity of the Latin rite, however, should be preserved through the same basic liturgical structure and the precise orientation of the translations to the Latin original."

The text that is being referred to here is the text of the Mass, which is different from the text of the Lectionary. Approved translations of the Lectionary are translated from the oldest manuscripts we have by committees of experts, which most of the time means they are translating from Greek.

a_f_hawkins

Actually the church replaced the 1962 with revisions culminating in 1965, to which were added some rubrical modifications in 1967. Paul VI when promulgating the 1969 Missal gave permission to elderly priests to continue to use the Missal as in 1967.
I concede that the 1967 was not issued as an editio typica, however since the main modifications were the introduction of the vernacular, and varied by country, that would have been impossible

Mgr. Bugnini informed Cardinal Heenan ... that it was permitted to the local Ordinaries of England and Wales to grant that certain groups of the faithful may on special occasions be allowed to participate in the Mass celebrated according to the rites and texts of the former Roman Missal. The Missal to be used on these occasions should be that published by the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (27 Jan.1965), and with the modifications in the Instructio altera (4 May 1967).

MarkB

As I understand it, Pope Paul VI permitted some rare exceptions that permitted the 1962 Missal to still be used after the promulgation of the 1970 Missal. Given that, then the 1962 Mass wasn't abrogated because its use was still permitted, even though such permission was considered an exception to the general rule that the 1970 Missal had superseded the 1962 Missal.

Pope John Paul II expanded those exceptional permissions, then Pope Benedict liberalized the permissions even more while maintaining that the 1970 Missal had liturgical priority as being normative for the Roman Church.

So, in my judgment, Pope Benedict XVI wasn't mistaken: the 1962 Missal had never been abrogated in the sense of being abolished. It's use by way of exception even early on attests to that.

It wasn't up to Vatican II to abrogate the 1962 Missal. Vatican II called for that Missal's revision, entailing its replacement. A pope could have abrogated it once the new Missal was ready for promulgation, but no pope has done that. I suspect it won't be abrogated until (if) the 1962 Missal is completely phased out of use.

So, no, it wasn't abrogated but it could be, and I suspect that if the trajectory initiated by Traditionis custodes continues uninterrupted it will be abrogated.

contemporaryworship92

Here is what I think MarkB is claim, with perhaps a bit more precision:

The Mass of Paul VI represents the authoratative form of the Roman Rite. Alternative expressions of the Roman Rite (1962 Mass of John XXIII, Anglican Use, etc) may be allowed for a pastoral reason but are not to be considered as supplanting the primacy of the Mass of Paul VI.

These alternative uses of the Roman Rite appear to me to all be indults born of disobedience, that is to say, the Church allows an alternative use of the Roman Rite as a concession to prevent schism. Concessions to prevent schism ought not be elevated to having equivalent (or greater!) stature that the form that Pope Francis has declared to be the "unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite."

contemporaryworship92

As I understand it, Pope Paul VI permitted some rare exceptions that permitted the 1962 Missal to still be used after the promulgation of the 1970 Missal. Given that, then the 1962 Mass wasn't abrogated because its use was still permitted, even though such permission was considered an exception to the general rule that the 1970 Missal had superseded the 1962 Missal.

Pope John Paul II expanded those exceptional permissions, then Pope Benedict liberalized the permissions even more while maintaining that the 1970 Missal had liturgical priority as being normative for the Roman Church.

So, in my judgment, Pope Benedict XVI wasn't mistaken: the 1962 Missal had never been abrogated in the sense of being abolished. It's use by way of exception even early on attests to that.

It wasn't up to Vatican II to abrogate the 1962 Missal. Vatican II called for that Missal's revision, entailing its replacement. A pope could have abrogated it once the new Missal was ready for promulgation, but no pope has done that. I suspect it won't be abrogated until (if) the 1962 Missal is completely phased out of use.

So, no, it wasn't abrogated but it could be, and I suspect that if the trajectory initiated by Traditionis custodes continues uninterrupted it will be abrogated.

Well said, reading this greatly helped my understanding of the issue. And based on this, it seems clear to me that "The TLM was never abrogated" is by no means equivalent to claiming "Standing permission to say the TLM has always been posessed by every priest everywhere."

Arthur Connick

The faithful are not obligated to order their personal choices around a reform program for the Church. Reform of the Church is the responsiblilty of the bishops. We are invited to participate, as indeed you have, but not required to participate. The faithful are entitled to their legitimate freedom.
I will not mince words on this: the attitude expressed above pretends to accept Vatican II and pretends to accept the Church's authority while carving out personal exemptions and exceptions by using sophistry. That's not
sentire cum ecclesia. Not at all.

Liturgy is the Church's official, public worship. It is not a matter of personal choice.

In what other aspects of faith shall Catholics consider themselves free to carve out personal exemptions? Oh, Fr. James Martin, S.J. has some to suggest...

The citation above is just the false "primacy of conscience" argument proffered again but disguised in an attempt to make people not recognize it for what it is.

And yet somehow my grandmother can attend the TLM in perfect union with the Church. A mystery indeed.

MarkB

But Mark, that's not what you've been doing. What you've been doing is saying "if you are a Latin and don't attend the N.O. at least a bit, or if you are critical of the fact that the N.O. is what we ended up with, you aren't Catholic."

I hardly think that the words in quotations can be attributed to me. I don't even think the sense they express could be attributed to me. I don't have time to review all of my prior posts in multiple threads to check that, but for the sake of clarification and in case I mistyped or was careless, let me see if this helps:

1. Catholics may under present liturgical law exclusively attend Masses celebrated according to the 1962 Missal and thereby satisfy all obligations to attend Mass on days of precept and grow in grace and in the spiritual life by receiving the benefits of Mass attendance on those and on other days.

2. Refusal in principal to attend any Novus Ordo Mass is likely a sign of rejection of the new Mass itself and the authority of Vatican II and popes to revise the liturgy. I believe an example I gave of such a case was the FSSP priests in Dijon, France who refused to concelebrate the Chrism Mass with their bishop in the Novus Ordo.

3. If a Catholic is attending Mass exclusively using the 1962 Missal because no satisfactory, reverent, spiritually nourishing Novus Ordo Masses are nearby, that's fine for the time being.

4. Being critical of the Novus Ordo Mass in the following manner is a problematic rejection of the Church's authority: if someone says that the Church has no authority nor right to change, abolish or replace the former Missal with another. That's what I've been reading a lot of on Trad websites and in articles critical of Traditionis custodes.

5. Criticizing this or that aspect of the Novus Ordo Mass, either its implementation or its textual form, is fine, as long as a Catholic doesn't say that the 1970 Missal is invalid or that it doesn't accord with the liturgical reform that Vatican II called for. It might not be the best realization of what Vatican II called for, it probably has flaws, but it's what the Church has approved and promulgated. It could be revised in the future once again.

6. Bishops need to make it a top priority to improve the celebrations of Novus Ordo Masses so that what many people who prefer Mass according to the 1962 Missal seek can be found in more regular parish Masses. For example, a bishop should see to it that enough Novus Ordo Masses are celebrated in his diocese in the Latin language with sung Gregorian propers so that those who have been attached to the 1962 Missal will recognize more affinity between the TLM-ized (for lack of a better term) Novus Ordo Masses and the 1962 Masses they have been accustomed to. This is to be an effort made in transition in preparation for the phasing out of the 1962 Missal. All other celebrations of the Novus Ordo Mass, while not having to employ so much Latin, should be reverent and sacred and beautiful. Bishops must not only curtail the 1962 Missal; they must improve the celebration of the Novus Ordo.

7. Once the abuses and silliness that characterize a lot of Novus Ordo Masses have been corrected, as the use of the 1962 Missal is phased out, Catholics who have been attached to the former Mass and cannot find an authorized Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal to attend will have to start attending a Novus Ordo Mass. That is in accord with and submitting to the will of the Church that the Novus Ordo is the normative liturgy. Refusal to attend Novus Ordo Masses (instead opting for SSPX or similar) would probably be a sign of a schismatic attitude that rejects the Church's liturgical reform and authority.

This post is long and I'm tired, so I'll leave it at that. I hope it was a helpful summary of what I've intended to express and defend over the past several days.

Thank you, all, for the discussion.

a_f_hawkins

Benedict XVI said, in the letter with SP

Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.

Taking that view (which I do) I would say anyone who evades the Sunday Obligation if an OF Mass is easily available and an EF Mass cannot be accessed is in schism. If you find it like having your teeth pulled without anaesthetic, then, as the nuns used to tell me when I was a child, 'offer it up'.

Rivegauche610

There are so many excellent minds contributing here. I make no pretension to be one of them, but I just feel like sharing an observation or two, FWIW, which isn’t much.

I was born in 1960 and was baptized in the Byzantine Melkite rite. Our church was a bit of a drive from where we lived, so sometimes my mother took me with her to the local RC church, and between my birth and 1967, when we moved, she observed the changes taking place in the Roman rite. She attended a Roman church from 1967 on (no Melkites where we moved to for many years) and saw all the changes as they progressed. I saw them with her, as a child and teen.

My introduction to the TLM was a Sunday morning radio mass played on WNCN, NYC, in the 1970s, by the Gommar dePauw “Tenete Traditiones” folks in Westbury, LI. I was pretty impressed and delved deeply into RC history, developing a knowledge of and respect for the TLM (but not with the fanaticism of the CTM!) while also attending the NO masses in local churches and eventually becoming an organist for several (and other denominations), which continued for the next 45 years.

The TLM is a work of liturgical art, for sure. But everything it stood for and represented isn’t palatable to everyone. For one thing, I was glad to learn early on how J23 removed “perfidious Jews” from the GF liturgy. And added Joseph to the Canon!

And what so much of the talk around the devotion to the TLM seems to me to be a variant of “but that’s the way we’ve always done it,” which, to a church music director is … anathema.

The NO can be beautifully offered as long as all things considered have the right objectives (and that means reading both books by Thomas Day and using many of his ideas!), and the celebrant restrains his sense of self in order to be interlocutor, and not the “center of attention.” And the music is the best that can be achieved, including Chant, good Protestant hymns, and as much of the mass and oratorio repertoire as possible.

Just a couple observations, these, not solutions, God knows, by some retired meatheaded organist who lived and worked while the church struggled and tried to evolve.

I feel badly for those who see the current issue as traumatic. Change is difficult. But if you think politics in the Disunited States is mean, you probably ought to try the College of Cardinals.

I see little schisms coming here and there. And a general continued decline in church attendance and belief. Because evolution of life never stops, and neither should people’s. Nor should people want to force ways of being in what may be the most intimate and personal thing one can do: interact with the Great Spirit. The scripture that had the most profound impact on me as a child and which I carried all my life was to “go into your room and pray to your Heavenly Father in secret…” Maybe a lot of the hostilities could be cooled if more humility and privacy (even in public worship) was consciously employed on Sunday at Mass, while still being nice to those round you instead of fussing over not wearing a mantilla or hating the Passing of the Peace, or no more Latin?

Jim Beam calls. L’chayim, all.

MarkB

Fr. Z has crossed the line:

https://wdtprs.com/2021/07/new-swag-molon-labe-missale-romanum/

Molon Labe: "come and get it (if you can/dare)"

Superimposed over an image of the Roman Missal, it's clear Fr. Z is promoting defiance of Church authority.

In any event, “Molon labe!” is now a classic expression of determination and defiance.

Never one to pass up an opportunity to hawk schlock, Fr. Z has put that image on mugs and shirts and is selling them.

I submit that saying "come and get it" to Church authority about the 1962 Missal is evidence of a rejection of Church authority. Encouraging defiance of Church authority in this manner is irresponsible, even more grievous for a cleric to do that.

This is not a game. Some people are flirting with dangerous attitudes.

rich_enough

the Church allows an alternative use of the Roman Rite as a concession to prevent schism.

Neither Summorum Pontificum nor the 1984 indult issued by John Paul II, he make any mention of schism, and there is no hint that an attachment (even an exclusive attachment) to the older Mass places one outside full communion with the Church. On the contrary, John Paul II wrote that "To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations." he said further that "respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued [in 1984]" (Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, 1988).

Benedict XVI makes it clear his motivation for issuing SP. In contrast to any concern about the full communion of those attached to the older rite, "in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful . . . granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962."

So it is indeed strange that Pope Francis wrote that "Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the [1962] Roman Missal . . . [it] was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre." How could John Paul II be motivated by that in 1984 - a full four years before Abp. Lefebvre's illicit consecrations in 1988!

It is true that the the 1988 motu prorio (Ecclesia Dei) was issued in response to the actions of Abp. Lefebvre. But this was not the primary reason he allowed the indult in the first place, nor was this Benedict's motivation, as is clear from their own words.

And by the way, I'm glad I'm still in full communion with the Church according to MarkB - I was getting worried! ;)

Liam

Well, he's a minister without portfolio between jobs, as it were. The Roman Church has traditionally not been thrilled with that kind of situation, perhaps not entirely without reason. It's not a situation likely to be a fruitful source for a Reform of The Reform.

CCooze

the Church allows an alternative use of the Roman Rite as a concession to prevent schism.

Benedict XVI makes it clear his motivation for issuing SP. In contrast to any concern about the full communion of those attached to the older rite, "in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful . . . granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962."

Yes, it seems that S.P came to be, out of "pastoral care," because many faithful were being wrongfully abused (spiritually and/or emotionally) by their priests, ordinaries, and even fellow lay Catholics. (The pastor at our home NO parish even insisted that if my sister didn't stand up from kneeling, she would not be allowed to receive Communion... because that's the old way. And old = bad. [Here's what Cardinal Arinze says about such.])

Nobody said, upon S.P., "here, now you TLM-goers won't be in schism..."

rich_enough

So, no, [the 1962 Missal] wasn't abrogated but it could be

I think Benedict XVI would disagree with you when he wrote, "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden" (my emphasis). Note he doesn't "shouldn't" or "was not" but "is not able to be" entirely forbidden.

I also wonder, if Paul VI could have abrogated the previous Missal, why didn't he?

CCooze

Fr. Z has crossed the line... This is not a game.

I don't think he thinks it a game, either.

The 1962 missal has not been abrogated.
Can it be?
Wouldn't it have been, by now?

I don't know. It sort of seems like the goal is to get bishops to disallow it as much as possible, so that people don't have access, and therefore hopefully people will stop requesting it just by their not having as much of a chance to experience it - and not because it is in any way illicit or illegitimate.

If you are claiming that it is going to be "phased out," well, we are going to stay with it until we are authoritatively given no other choice...
That's how I read it (especially since there is the context of the many posts he's made about and since the publishing of T.C.).

Perhaps [some people's] go-to needs to NOT be that people who intend to continue going to the TLM are basically, if not actually schismatic heretics.

Arthur Connick

6. Bishops need to make it a top priority to improve the celebrations of Novus Ordo Masses so that what many people who prefer Mass according to the 1962 Missal seek can be found in more regular parish Masses. For example, a bishop should see to it that enough Novus Ordo Masses are celebrated in his diocese in the Latin language with sung Gregorian propers so that those who have been attached to the 1962 Missal will recognize more affinity between the TLM-ized (for lack of a better term) Novus Ordo Masses and the 1962 Masses they have been accustomed to. This is to be an effort made in transition in preparation for the phasing out of the 1962 Missal. All other celebrations of the Novus Ordo Mass, while not having to employ so much Latin, should be reverent and sacred and beautiful. Bishops must not only curtail the 1962 Missal; they must improve the celebration of the Novus Ordo.

Since unicorns - with wings! - will never arrive, the TLM will be with us until the end of time - according to Pope MarkB. Or is that the MarkB Council? I thought you were trying to be serious, and now you show yourself as a master of irony.

All kidding aside, if the bishops were ever going to do these things, they would already have done them.

francis

Here is a more lofty spiritual insight to the present state of things from another prelate:

So it also happened under the dark sky of Jerusalem, on Golgotha, when, seeing the Son of God lifted up on the Cross, there were those who believed that the brief parenthesis of the Nazarean was over. But along with those who – out of pessimism, fear, opportunism, or open hostility – cynically observe the death rattle of the Church, there are also those who groan and have their hearts rent open before that agony, even as they know that it is the necessary, indispensable premise of the resurrection which awaits Her and all of Her members. The death rattle is terrible, just like the Lord’s cry that pierced the unbelieving silence of the Parasceve, and with it the dominion of Satan over the world. Eli, Eli, lamà sabactani! We hear Christ cry out, while the Church groans. We see the spears, the clubs, the reed with the sponge soaked in vinegar; we hear the vulgar insults of the crowd, the provocations of the Sanhedrin, the orders given to the guards, the sobs of the Pious Women.

...today we must stand at the foot of the Cross as we witness the Passion of the Church. To stand means to remain upright, still, and faithful. Along with Mary Most Holy, the Sorrowful Mother – stabat Mater dolorosa – whom the Lord gave to us as our Mother right at the foot of the Cross in the person of Saint John, thereby making us, along with the same Beloved Disciple, children of His Mother.

We are with Saint John and the Sorrowful Virgin at the foot of a Cross on which the new High Priests spit, against which a new Sanhedrin curses and swears.

Even in the agony of seeing the pains of the Passion renewed in the Mystical Body of Christ, we know that with this last solemn ceremony of time, the Redemption is brought to completion: accomplished by the Incarnate Son of God, it must find its mystical correspondence in the Redeemed. And just as the Father was pleased to accept the Sacrifice of His Only-Begotten Son to redeem us miserable sinners, so he deigns to see the sufferings of the Passion reflected in the Church and in individual believers. Only in this way can the work of the Redemption, accomplished by Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, in the name of humanity, make us cooperators and participants. We are not passive subjects of a plan of which we are unaware, but rather we are active protagonists of our salvation and the salvation of our brothers, following the example of our Divine Head. It is in this that we may say that we are effectively a priestly people.

In the face of the desolation of these terrible times, in the face of the apostasy of the Hierarchy and the agony of the ecclesial body, we cannot be truly pessimistic or yield to despair or resignation.

Let us pray with humility, asking the Holy Spirit to give us strength in the moment of trial.

We are with Saint John and the Sorrowful Virgin at the foot of a Cross on which the new High Priests spit, against which a new Sanhedrin curses and swears. On the other hand, we recall that the leaders of the priestly class were the first ones who wanted to put Our Lord to death, and so it is not surprising that in the moment of the Passion of the Church it is precisely they who mock what the blindness of their soul no longer understands.

Let us pray. Let us pray with humility, asking the Holy Spirit to give us strength in the moment of trial. Let us multiply our prayer, penances, and fasting for those who today are among those who brandish the whip, press the crown of thorns upon the head, drive in the nails, and wound the side of the Church, just as they once did with Christ. Let us pray also for those who watch impassively or look the other way.

Let us pray for those who weep, for those who hold out a handkerchief to wipe the disfigured face, for those who carry the Cross for a while, for those who prepare a tomb, wrappings for the body, and precious balm. Exspectantes beatam spem, et adventum gloriae magni Dei, et Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi – Awaiting the blessed hope, the coming of the glory of the great God, and Our Savior Jesus Christ (Tit 2:13).

rich_enough

Bishops need to make it a top priority to improve the celebrations of Novus Ordo Masses

Too bad there will be fewer celebrations of the TLM, the main driver of this very thing in the past 14 years. The priests in my diocese, for example, who have been most active in furthering reverent celebration of the NO also celebrate the TLM (or at the very least are not hostile to it).

For example, a bishop should see to it that enough Novus Ordo Masses are celebrated in his diocese in the Latin language with sung Gregorian propers

Those who already doing this (precious few: +Sample, +Paprocki, and +Olmstead come to mind) are among the bishops most supportive of the TLM in their dioceses - which I don't think is a coincidence (see above).

Another example of how TC is sadly self-defeating.

TCJ

Attempts to stamp out the TLM will only result in more growth. The bishops will continue (for the most part) to do nothing to improve the state of the NO, and faithful Catholics will continue to fly back to the Mass of the Ages.

Schönbergian

Mark, I think there's a difference between rejecting Vatican II and solely attending the TLM for completely different reasons, and I don't think it's valid to automatically link the two of them together.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Once the abuses and silliness that characterize a lot of Novus Ordo Masses have been corrected, as the use of the 1962 Missal is phased out, Catholics who have been attached to the former Mass and cannot find an authorized Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal to attend will have to start attending a Novus Ordo Mass

By your condition, "Once the abuses..." we'll never be rid of the older ordo.

chonak

I'm reviewing the thread and responding to various comments.

From jclangfo:

What I understand RoR to mean is receiving the imperfect liturgy that the Church has given us and implementing it faithfully.

That is not exactly what advocates of ROTR have meant by it. Peter K wrote a helpful essay on the point in 2014. He writes that there are two ideas under the term ROTR.

It seems to me that there are two very different meanings of the ROTR.

First, it can mean simply celebrating correctly according to the latest edition of the revised liturgical books, following the desiderata of Vatican II (use of Latin as well as vernacular, Gregorian chant and polyphony, appropriate silence, only the right ministers doing what belongs to them, good mystagogical catechesis, etc.), and featuring everything traditional that is permitted in the celebration.

Second, it can mean undertaking the step of a reform or revision of those very books, to re-incorporate unwisely discarded elements and to expunge foolishly introduced novelties. For convenience, let us call these ROTR-1 and ROTR-2. (source)

Either of these approaches is a good goal, and we lay people can encourage them. But there are limits, since they can only be implemented if the necessary people want them and if they cooperate toward them. With the predominance of poor liturgical formation among lay people and among most senior clergy, there is usually little interest and little broad cooperation, so well-developed liturgical observance is not very common. And where ROTR is implemented, it is fragile.

Here the traditional movement has an advantage: it brings people together on a voluntary basis, people who have many ideas in common about what the liturgical observance should be. With more common ground, cooperation is stronger. The parish has more peace, including for the clergy and the lay people directly involved in carrying out the liturgy.

So the traditional Latin liturgy has been implemented in quite a few places, and has even benefited from its own "reform", accomplished by voluntary means: the ars celebrandi has improved in comparison to preconciliar practice; the Mass is often fully sung; and in most places, lay people sing at least some parts of the Mass ordinary.

And yet, I see comments above that suggest to me that people want to give up and quit because our friends aren't in power in Rome anymore. Which suggests to me that this movement has been corrupted into being about power and not being about doing what we as laypeople can do day in and day out to support the liturgy.

Please; it would be a mistake to attribute base motives to people.

People in the traditional movement can endure living with non-traditionalists in power in Rome; after all, they've lived under non-traditionalist bishops for a long time. What they want from higher authorities is mostly to continue with the situation that they have found, and generally to be left to do that, except that they need a little cooperation once a year for confirmations.

Bottom line: Is somebody advocating that tradition-minded people should all go back to mainstream parishes and bring about ROTR there? Do pastors want that? If they don't, that is a recipe for conflict, and I can't see how that would really help people in their search for holiness.

chonak

MarkB wrote:

The claim that the RotR's objectives are already present in the TLM is false. Gregory DiPippo made that absurd claim at The New Liturgical Movement the other day:

it is precisely in the celebration of the traditional rite that we see the authentic fulfillment of what Vatican II wanted and asked for in Sacrosanctum Concilium,

Source: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/07/the-legacy-and-tragic-flaws-of-summorum.html

Vatican II decreed a greater use of the vernacular may be introduced. That's not in the TLM. Vatican II called for greater (full, conscious, active) participation of the assembly; that's not possible in the TLM as much as it's possible in a well-celebrated Novus Ordo. Vatican II called for eliminating some things from the rites, such as useless repetitions. Vatican II called for a more expansive set of lectionary readings. That's not in the TLM.

This argument confuses means for ends.

The Council wanted to bring about a deeper personal engagement with the liturgy; it wanted greater full conscious actuosa participatio, and the use of the vernacular, the three-year Sunday reading cycle, the two-year weekday reading cycle, and the various ritual changes are only means to achieve those purposes.

Gregory was contending that those purposes are fulfilled in the present-day celebration of the traditional rite, for the people who attend it.

And it would take a lot of nerve to call that false.

tomjaw

tomjaw, please stop playing petty games. Of course this discussion is in the context of the Roman Rite, the Roman Church. If we all have to add footnotes to specify everything and anything that should be obvious, then people's posts would be too lengthy.

Just stop it.

I'm not claiming ecclesiastical authority. I don't need to. All I need to do is point out cogently that the Church, using her authority, has decreed exactly what I said she did.

You don't like it. Tough.

You don't like someone pointing that out to you. Tough.

@MarkB You are playing petty games, I really don't care what Mass people go to, it really does not matter to me. Especially as I have no power to regulate the Liturgy or authority over people (just like you!). You are reading the decrees of the Church in a most restrictive manner, this is not charitable and so is not of the Church.

I go the the TLM in a diocesan parish said by diocesan priests, I work with N.O. and Spanish Mass folks every week planning parish activities external to the Liturgy.

I am sad for you that you object to my liturgical choices that are in line with what the Church teaches. I am sad that you want to eradicate a Mass that many Catholics find fruitful, and replace it by one that these same Catholics have not found fruitful.

I am sorry that the RoftR has not worked out in the way YOU wanted in the majority of the Church. I am sorry that the N.O. is dying through want of priests, but that is organic development! The TLM is not going away, and the N.O. is not magically going to be reformed in the way you want.

If you want the N.O. to continue, I will repeat, solve the vocations crisis! Without priests you have no church, and arguments about liturgy are akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If you don't like what I say don't argue I really don't care what you say, go out and make the N.O. more in line with what you think Vat II wanted. Go out into the byways and fill your church. Bring in converts, encourage vocations make that change!

TCJ

If you want the N.O. to continue, I will repeat, solve the vocations crisis! Without priests you have no church, and arguments about liturgy are akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If you don't like what I say don't argue I really don't care what you say, go out and make the N.O. more in line with what you think Vat II wanted. Go out into the byways and fill your church. Bring in converts, encourage vocations make that change!

I think someone may have mentioned before, but it bears repeating that the above is certainly a great idea and many priests (and musicians) have attempted it. However, it often seems that bishops who are most against the TLM also provide as many stumbling blocks for those parishes which celebrate exclusively the NO in such a manner. I know in my diocese one such parish which was flourishing with a nice RotR NO Mass has been stomped upon. And that's what the priest gets for trying the RotR. Other parishes are held back for fear of what happened to the one I mentioned.

That is why trying to beautify the NO as much as possible is a worthy goal, but it is not a viable solution. The people who dislike the TLM also dislike the RotR.

NihilNominis

1. Catholics may under present liturgical law exclusively attend Masses celebrated according to the 1962 Missal and thereby satisfy all obligations to attend Mass on days of precept and grow in grace and in the spiritual life by receiving the benefits of Mass attendance on those and on other days.

Good.

2. Refusal in principal to attend any Novus Ordo Mass is likely a sign of rejection of the new Mass itself and the authority of Vatican II and popes to revise the liturgy. I believe an example I gave of such a case was the FSSP priests in Dijon, France who refused to concelebrate the Chrism Mass with their bishop in the Novus Ordo.

A far cry. Theologumena about concelebration are a separate issue. I know diocesans who say the new Mass regularly, but are skittish about concelebrating. A fortiori, then, for FSSP, without presuming larger qualms. FSSP suffered much to remain in communion and by-the-book.

I can only think of less than five members of our TLM community that I have not seen at NO Masses, and they have gone when necessary. Many assist voluntarily at daily Masses in the NO. I just do not perceive this as a “thing”. And my community is not always noted for moderation.

3. If a Catholic is attending Mass exclusively using the 1962 Missal because no satisfactory, reverent, spiritually nourishing Novus Ordo Masses are nearby, that's fine for the time being.

But all common liturgizing should be a community-building exercise. Do they all break up the quasi-parish at the first whiff of incense from St Suburbicarius?

4. Being critical of the Novus Ordo Mass in the following manner is a problematic rejection of the Church's authority: if someone says that the Church has no authority nor right to change, abolish or replace the former Missal with another. That's what I've been reading a lot of on Trad websites and in articles critical of Traditionis custodes.

The question is more technical than that. The Pope cannot, on common opinion, abolish immemorial rites (hence Pius V and his 200-year rule, arbitrary but effective). But he can modify and prune them. What results is a Ship of Theseus question. I choose to remain aloof, tho I did hear a priest, STL, celebrates both, systematically treat the question “board by board.”

5. Criticizing this or that aspect of the Novus Ordo Mass, either its implementation or its textual form, is fine, as long as a Catholic doesn't say that the 1970 Missal is invalid or that it doesn't accord with the liturgical reform that Vatican II called for. It might not be the best realization of what Vatican II called for, it probably has flaws, but it's what the Church has approved and promulgated. It could be revised in the future once again.

Yes. My personal rule is to go no further in critiquing the NO than the members of the Liturgiebewegung did in criticizing the TLM before and immediately following the Council, and agitating for its radical reform, since the Magisterium totally endorsed their efforts and activities in the end (although they had their Mediator Dei moment).

6. Bishops need to make it a top priority to improve the celebrations of Novus Ordo Masses so that what many people who prefer Mass according to the 1962 Missal seek can be found in more regular parish Masses. For example, a bishop should see to it that enough Novus Ordo Masses are celebrated in his diocese in the Latin language with sung Gregorian propers so that those who have been attached to the 1962 Missal will recognize more affinity between the TLM-ized (for lack of a better term) Novus Ordo Masses and the 1962 Masses they have been accustomed to. This is to be an effort made in transition in preparation for the phasing out of the 1962 Missal. All other celebrations of the Novus Ordo Mass, while not having to employ so much Latin, should be reverent and sacred and beautiful. Bishops must not only curtail the 1962 Missal; they must improve the celebration of the Novus Ordo.

Good luck. This failure over a long time explains Summorum’s success.

7. Once the abuses and silliness that characterize a lot of Novus Ordo Masses have been corrected, as the use of the 1962 Missal is phased out, Catholics who have been attached to the former Mass and cannot find an authorized Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal to attend will have to start attending a Novus Ordo Mass. That is in accord with and submitting to the will of the Church that the Novus Ordo is the normative liturgy. Refusal to attend Novus Ordo Masses (instead opting for SSPX or similar) would probably be a sign of a schismatic attitude that rejects the Church's liturgical reform and authority.

In that situation. May subsidiarity prevail.

pfreese

“ If you want the N.O. to continue, I will repeat, solve the vocations crisis!”

To cite an article I posted earlier, maybe on another thread, at least in the US, seminarians with FSSP (the largest traditionalist group) represent less than 2% of all Catholic seminarians. Even if we’re generous and double that and assume 4% of all American seminarians are studying for traditionalist groups in general, that still correlates almost perfectly with the ~4% of American parishes (per Latin Mass Directly) that offer(ed) at least one EF mass every Sunday.

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/how-extraordinary-is-the-extraordinary

Which, while we’re at it, I find this sort of “TLM Manifest Destiny” talk that I hear frequently in trad circles puzzling. Opus Dei and the Neocatechumenal Way have been around much longer and have much greater followings around the world yet you never hear this manifest destiny talk that they’ll one day take over the Church. I honestly wonder where this line of thought comes from.

Granted, my day job works with life insurance. I have conversations with clients several times a week that go something like “your 20 year old variable universal policy projected coverage until age 100, until it didn’t when the market crashed,” or “your term insurance rider was projected to be paid off before maturity, until it didn’t when the carrier cut your dividend scales.” So when certain trads say the OF will die out and the EF will be the only game in town in 30 years based on present trends, give me a break. I’ve seen many much smarter insurance agents make comparatively unridiculous projections of the future based on “present trends” that still didn’t pan out at all.

CharlesW

The TLM folks are a distinct minority in most places. Yet, they think they will take over the world. Not much realistic thinking in that group. The majority of Catholics don't even want the TLM. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it, it just conveys the attitude on the part of TLM participants that we have it, therefore it must be better than what you have. See a problem here? I do.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories