Responsa ad Dubia concerning Traditionis Custodes
-
Whenever a pastoral act makes you feel angry or insurgent, or seems unfair or harsh to you, it's time for introspection and reflection.
I would love to try this logic on an elderly sacristan, Stella, who, at 80+ spends the entirety of Mass on her knees, praying fervently, in the very furthest back corner where no one can see her, who told me that she remembered coming to church and crying the day they ripped out the beautiful gothic reredos and took them out to be burned. I guess she needed more introspection about her own pious failings. She has payed the penalty of introspection and sorrow that now spans decades. She’s no schismatic, having attended novus ordo mass ever since, but she’s certainly carried a burdensome load since the changes were instituted. -
I guess she needed more introspection about her own pious failings. She has payed the penalty of introspection and sorrow that now spans decades. She’s no schismatic, having attended novus ordo mass ever since, but she’s certainly carried a burdensome load since the changes were instituted.
The gaslighting that is used against people like her who take issue with the offensive things done by clerical bullies and their apologists is so aggravating! She would be told softly and with a smile that these things had to be done with the implication that the way she felt was her own personal issue and not a real problem with the offensive things done. -
At the Chinese New Year and for other special occasions there is a “lion dance” or “lion awakening” ceremony, with drums and cymbals. It includes food offerings for the sky god and painting the pupils on the costume-lion’s eyes to bring it “alive” and empower it with “good luck”. Dots are also painted on its ears, nose and mouth. It’s all very noisy and colorful.
So is that the sort of thing that a Catholic bishop (cardinal, even!) should preside over? A pagan ceremony intended to bring “good luck”. It’s one thing to witness such a cultural event, but to be the one who performs the principle act of bringing the pagan symbol to “life”?
Card. Cupich issued a document intended to crush people who desire traditional Catholic sacred worship.* But he can have his own Pachamama Moment.
Having 1 Cor 10:20 in mind, here is what he says as he performs the painting ceremony.
Good fortune upon your head, miraculous light glittering to your eyes, your ears capturing sounds from all directions. May the most favorable auspicious big fortune and great profit be to you throughout the whole year, from the beginning all the way to the end. -
When you get your information from, and even directly quote from Fr. Z's website (e.g., above post), you should give proper attribution. Here:
https://wdtprs.com/2021/12/card-cupich-has-his-own-pachamama-moment-people-who-want-the-traditional-latin-mass-must-be-crushed-but-this-is-apparently-okay/
I'm amused by the people who hang on Fr. Z's every word. He took a turn for the worse when he performed his unauthorized exorcisms on the election recount and was subsequently booted by the bishop from the diocese where he was residing, which was not his diocese of incardination, which is in Italy. Now he resides somewhere else in the U.S. He's not a reliable guide to communion with the Church anymore. He doesn't have any official ecclesial ministry, and he relies on monthly donations from like-minded readers, to whom he increasingly caters by giving them red meat in his posts, to pay for his comfortable life of being a priest without having any official ecclesial ministry.
Yes, I read trad/schismatic websites to keep abreast of what they say.
As to the recently uncovered video of Cardinal Cupich, no Cupich should not have done that. But that and Pachamama do not invalidate Traditionis Custodes nor the Cardinal's implementation plan for Chicago one bit.
Treat each matter for consideration separately and individually. TC and diocesan implementation plans should be evaluated on their own merits. The personal behavior of popes or ordinaries have no bearing on whether TC and diocesan implementation plans are good or wise. Toleration of Novus Ordo liturgical abuses have no bearing.
Yes, the NO liturgical abuses should stop. Even Pope Francis, quoting Pope Benedict, has said so. But that is a separate matter from whether the 1962 Missal should continue to be used, and how frequently, in the post-Vatican II Church.
-
I guess my hyperlink didn't work correctly. I clearly tried to provide the source for the sake of attribution.Thanked by 1tomjaw
-
I wish that trads would spend their energy pushing for a Latin, ad orientem Novus Ordo.
Real question: how many of you on here would be equally satisfied with a chanted, Latin, ad orientem Novus Ordo as you would be with a TLM? Or at least sufficiently satisfied?
Studying how to make that possibility a reality at my parish while comparing the text and rubrics of both rites side-by-side in front of me is what caused me to definitively turn "trad". I realized that to pray the way I had discovered and fallen in love with at the TLM wasn't possible at the NO.
So, respectfully, I think those on here whose basic line of thinking could be summarized as "V2 decreed reform of the missal (and other things). If you don't go along with this, you're disobedient and schismatic (or worse)." are missing something far deeper than the legal arguments over whether Catholics are bound or not bound to go along with certain changes would at first seem to suggest. Ultimately, this is about what we owe to God in our worship of Him. This may offend some people on here, but I do believe the traditional Rites of the Church, both East and West, are superior to the NO in what they give to God (even if its in no other way than beauty, but it's not just beauty). Our Lord told us what we owe to God when a doctor of the law asked "Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment." (St. Matthew 22:36-38). Forcing a Rite upon a group which gives less to God than the one they currently use is effectively an attempt to force that group to violate the "greatest and first commandment". This is something that no Pope, or Bishop, or anyone else has the moral authority to do. "We ought to obey God, rather than men." (Acts 5:29)
N.B. I do NOT believe that priests and people who offer and attend the NO are sinning in doing so. Were I made Pope tomorrow, I would NOT try to force them to stop offering or attending it. Neither would I force the NO Rite on "trads". I would allow people to follow their consciences. -
And, again, ripping out the reredos or performing a Chinese New Year ceremony has nothing to do with the use of the 2011 vs. 1962 Missal, which is what TC is really about. You can't pin every liturgical abuse you see on the OF and use that as an excuse to demand the EF.
Salieri, though I would differ on some of your specific points, I appreciate that you took the time to argue for specific aspects of the Missal specifically, rather than turning this into a partisan charade. It is a discussion like that which is truly pertinent to the issue of TC and what it entails. -
For the continuous use of the 1962 Roman Missal it's the other way around: for pastoral reasons its use was explicitly granted as an exception to the regular liturgical life of the Church for a small number of faithful still adhered to the previous liturgical expression. It's a gift, a provision out of pastoral care. That was the case with Ecclesia Dei afflicta, Summorum Pontificum and, for that matter, Traditionis custodes.
In no way was this pastoral provision ever intended as an admonition to a wider use in general of the 1962 Roman Missal or a promotion of the former rites.
Did anyone let Cardinal Castrillon know this? When asked by a journalist if the pope wanted to see "many ordinary parishes" making provision for the Tridentine Mass, Cardinal Castrillon, a Colombian, said: "All the parishes. Not many, all the parishes, because this is a gift of God. -
If by the lex orandi we mean the words, I do not think the words changed much (in Latin), the English translations were for a long time a travesty, but have been completely overhauled. As Fr Z (and others) used to show week by week, the orations are (almost) all derived from the Leonine Sacramentary and similar traditional sources.the devastations since the lex orandi was changed
The ars celebrandi are another matter. Most seminarians since VII have been taught liturgy very badly. Most seminarians before VII were taught liturgy very, very badly, simply mechanical gestures. As Fr Fortescue said of the Curial officials of SCR, "they understand the meaning of nothing". -
I think that the folks on this thread who have pointed out the heterodox actions and various liturgical abuses committed by proponents of TC have done so not so much to claim that TC is invalid, but moreso out of frustration. It is frustrating, immensely so, that a prominent prelate could crack down so mercilessly on tradition and things which are unmistakably and harmlessly Catholic, while simultaneously being perfectly at peace with heterodoxy and liturgical abuse. This also often leads one to question the motives of those who fervently implement TC, since it would seem that, judging by their actions in other arenas, fostering orthodoxy and reverent liturgy is not on their radar.
-
If a traditionalist priest were to say "receiving out of the chalice is forever forbidden in this parish due to sanitary reasons and I will only ever say Mass ad orientem so that I do not spew COVID germs at the congregation," but that same priest were to constantly preach that COVID is a myth and mask-wearing is stupid, one would have cause to question the motives of said priest, no? The Cardinal's actions strike me in much the same way.
-
Mark,
Ad hominem arguments against Fr. Zuhlsdorf don't hit the target you're trying to hit, if only because ad hominem arguments usually amount to "I don't care that it's three o'clock; since X said it is three o'clock, he must be wrong and untrustworthy."
Hawkins,
It depends where you look in the two Latin versions. Two different psalms are used at the washing of the hands. Given the difference of psalms, additionally, one rite quotes a single line, while the other quotes several verses. The prayers at the foot of the altar are present in the old rite and absent in the new. The specific mention of members of the Royal Court of Heaven in the confiteor is present in one rite, and not in the other. The repetition of Domine non sum dignus during the presentation of the Sacred Host to the Church in one rite is clearly not the same (in import) as the non-repetition in the other.
Sure, there are parts which are more alike than the ones I've presented here cursorily, but there are other, even more striking places, where the differences are even more evident.
To anticipate an argument, the fact that some in the congregation are unaware of these differences does not make their difference any less real. -
The GIRM restricts the usage of the organ and other instruments during Advent, Lent, and the Triduum in the OF.
Can't tell that from the praxis I've observed in a variety of places. The excuse that 'the congregation needs support' is weak and I would make a fortune betting that NONE of the music directors who make that argument have ever tried to get the congregation to sing a capella. -
Two things that most people have never read, but should:
1) 1984;
2) GIRM. -
dad29 - quite so, I have heard it done quite successfully when the organ has failed, or the musicians did not turn up. I have heard a congregation in Westminster Cathedral at a 25 minute midday spoken Mass join the celebrant in singing "Soul of my Saviour", he simply returned to the chair after Communion, sat down and started singing, no invitation, no books just a congregation singing a familiar text and tune.
CG-Z yes there was some quite unnecessary impoverishment, probably in the name of "noble simplicity".Thanked by 1tomjaw -
I used the organ for congregational singing and for the choir. No apologies since I followed GIRM. If you object, your argument is with the bishops, not with me. However, I retired the trumpets except for Holy Thursday fanfares and opening hymn and did no solo organ music.
-
Related to this topic of Janitors of Tradition (Thanks Google Translate!):
As someone who, though only what would be termed and amateur, has studied liturgy for a while, and who has a great interest in all historical Western Rites and uses, both Catholic and Protestant, what has saddened me the most about the 20th century liturgical reform, and the post-conciliar reform/re-write/whatever of the Roman Rite in particular, is how badly it was done, and how little thought was put into how it would be received by the people. In my opinion, the entire history of liturgical reform in the 20th century is one-sided: Whether it's Pius XII "restoration" of Holy Week, or the revision of the calendar, etc., etc., it is all based on what a group of experts sitting in their ivory towers of academia, basking in their learnedness, wished to do: Often with each group of "experts" in conflict one with another. At least Guardini, for all the strange ideas he had, worked in parishes with people. When it comes to reforming liturgy, the last thing that is needed are experts.
Just looking at the reform of the Calendar from 1955 onward: Here we are today where Catholics are concerned about Hallowe'en and "demonic influences" in what is in reality a Catholic celebration, though, sadly deformed by secular society: And yet most Catholics do not know about the former beauty of the Tridduum if you will of All Hallowtide, and the folk customs that went with it. Since St. Valentine has been expunged from the Calendar, St. Valentine's Day is undergoing a similar change. Even if some of these customs are pre-Christian things that had been "baptized" and Christianized, that is no reason to allow them to be divorced from the liturgical year and paganized anew.
We talk and talk and talk about being "pastoral", but the implementation of the New Mass in 1970 was anything but; and in reality, the entire 20th century program of liturgical change was anything but "pastoral". Admittedly, Pius X's changes to the breviary didn't impinge on parishes and ordinary Catholics too much: Only priests used the Breviary, and Pope Sarto had enough sense not to change the one office that was most likely to be celebrated in most parishes, namely Sunday Vespers.
And then there is the 20th century obsession with streamlining and slimming down; with saving time; with simplifying. The war-time economy drives infiltrated liturgical scholarship (and I use that term loosely). Gone were the "useless repetitions" which make poetry, poetry; gone were the centuries-old pious customs and traditions, not because the people (so exalted by the Council) wanted to lose them, but because some clerical egg-head sitting at his desk, who never dared to debase himself among simple folk, didn't like them, because the "encrusted the primitive liturgy".
Before any reform of the text of the Mass took place, whether in 1955, or 1962, or 1964, or 1967, or 1969, there should have been a major overhaul of seminaries, and real effort in parishes to educate priests and people in the appreciation of the great patrimony that the Roman Rite had. That patrimony is gone, now. And gone now more definitively than it was in 1969. I doubt that Mass I (Lux et Origo) will ever be sung again; Our great heritage of music will be consigned to the concert hall; to the library; to the dump. And no, I'm not being hyperbolic. As a parochial musician, I really have no hope, and I see no future. -
Salieri I don't know if this will make you feel any better, but we've sung Mass I at Easter for the past three years.
-
there should have been a major overhaul of seminaries, and real effort in parishes to educate priests and people in the appreciation of the great patrimony that the Roman Rite had. That patrimony is gone, now. And gone now more definitively than it was in 1969. I doubt that Mass I (Lux et Origo) will ever be sung again; Our great heritage of music will be consigned to the concert hall; to the library; to the dump. And no, I'm not being hyperbolic. As a parochial musician, I really have no hope, and I see no future.
Come to the "Trad-side"! We sing Missa Lux et Origo here and it's glorious!
Semi-silliness aside, the patrimony isn't all gone, but it IS under attack by those should be defending it in many places. Before V2, seminarians were being taught Gregorian chant and such (I know because I have my grandfather's Liber Usualis and some of his notes from when he attended seminary in the 1930s), but the biggest practical damages to this were the changes in the Liturgy itself and the widespread allowance of vernacular language therein. But, without restoring the traditional Liturgy, I don't see how we can restore the other things that went down in its wake.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
The Norbertines at St. Michael's Abbey in Silverado, CA sang Mass I when I used to attend Mass there. They probably still do; they rotate among most of the Kyriale.
-
ad orientem could become a proxy form of subtle resistance the way the TLM has become
Yes, complying with the rubrics of the modern rite of Mass could be -- in the inner thoughts of the celebrants and people -- a proxy form of subtle resistance! Brilliant! We need a bishop to impose restrictions on people based on their inner thoughts and attitudes. After all, isn't that in his competence?
And why stop there?
The singing of plainchant could become a proxy form of subtle resistance... and therefore need to be stamped out.
The singing of anything in Latin could become a proxy form of subtle resistance....
And the use of organ instead of electric guitar could become a proxy form of subtle resistance ... and therefore need to be stamped out.
Bring in the drum kits!
Obviously I am not serious.
Such rationales, restricting the lawful prerogatives of pastors and celebrants, could be used to impose any liturgical preferences the bishop personally prefers.
The impositions of the Cardinal -- the most draconian so far, except for the bishops who forbade the usus antiquior tout court -- are in line with the aim expressed in the letter accompanying TC: to eventually eliminate the old rite of Mass from active use. Out of respect for the office of the Roman Pontiff, I will restrain myself and call this aim misguided.
-
I do see glimmers of hope in the darkness. The Ordinariate Missal shows that SCDWDS is capable of approving an improved Mass. And newly ordained priests seem to have much more respect for liturgical norms.
And the market for new, bad "liturgical" music seems to be shrinking, publishers of rubbish are feeling the pinch, OCP has taken to publishing Gregorian chant. -
Semi-silliness aside, the patrimony isn't all gone, but it IS under attack by those should be defending it in many places. Before V2, seminarians were being taught Gregorian chant and such (I know because I have my grandfather's Liber Usualis and some of his notes from when he attended seminary in the 1930s), but the biggest practical damages to this were the changes in the Liturgy itself and the widespread allowance of vernacular language therein. But, without restoring the traditional Liturgy, I don't see how we can restore the other things that went down in its wake.
In the US, regardless of whether these were taught in seminary, they were plainly ignored before V2 just as much as after. -
As a friend said,Priests can still celebrate “the Latin Mass,” just with the new format and formulas which express a different ecclesiology and theology than the older version. “If you like the Latin Mass, you can keep the Latin Mass, because the Missal of Paul VI is the Latin Mass,” Adam Rasmussen, an adjunct professor of theology, wrote at the blog Where Peter Is.
This is precisely the point. This is what worries me. I’d much rather have the traditional theology and format in English than the modern one in Latin. Why is it that the theology has changed? -
Let’s not forget that Rome recently interdicted the continued publication of the missal of Paul VI in Latin… so it would seem that there is more of an agenda going on here. Perhaps they knew the dubia were coming and wanted to stave the reluctant trads off at the pass? Just a theory. (If there wasn’t much of a market for that book before, there certainly may be now.)
-
I would take the Tridentine Mass 100% in English over the OF 100% in Latin every day. It is about the substance of the rite, not the language.
-
I think the reform of the lay ministeria to include women made this break seem necessary to those who broke it. When altar girls are no longer an indult or exception, but can be instituted acolytes (“vel subdiaconi”), the preservation of the older rubrics and restrictions must become intolerable to those pressing on with that agenda.Thanked by 1tomjaw
-
All this talk about people being willing to accept the 1962 Missal being celebrated in English makes little sense because almost the entire TLM is said inaudibly by the priest; that wouldn't change if it were said in English.
Even so, a TLM in English would not fulfill the Council's mandate for participatio actuosa, just as the Latin TLM doesn't; nor would it ritually express the ecclesiology of the Church as the People of God as well as the Novus Ordo Mass does, because the congregation would still be silent, with no official role, whose presence would be largely irrelevant and unnecessary for the celebration of Mass.
The substance of the rite?
The Novus Ordo more adequately expresses the Church's praying of the Mass as the prayer of the whole People of God, offered through the priest, than does the TLM, because the congregation has official responses in dialogue with the priest and participates in saying prayers such as the Confiteor and the Lord's Prayer, and the priest must wait for the congregation to say or sing its ritual part before proceeding with the Mass because the priest and the congregation are praying the Mass together and the congregation's role is essential. That's an improvement in substance and in ritual in the Novus Ordo over the TLM that trads neglect to affirm, understandably so, because it rebuts their claim that the TLM is the superior and preferable form of the Roman Rite. -
Destiny waits in the hand of God, not in the hands of statesmen. - T S Eliot
-
a TLM in English would not fulfill the Council's mandate for participatio actuosa, just as the Latin TLM doesn't; nor would it ritually express the ecclesiology of the Church as the People of God as well as the Novus Ordo Mass does, because the congregation would still be silent, with no official role, whose presence would be largely irrelevant and unnecessary for the celebration of Mass.
This, above, is pure and utter nonsense.The Novus Ordo more adequately expresses the Church's praying of the Mass as the prayer of the whole People of God, offered through the priest, than does the TLM, because the congregation has official responses in dialogue with the priest and participates in saying prayers such as the Confiteor and the Lord's Prayer, and the priest must wait for the congregation to say or sing its ritual part before proceeding with the Mass because the priest and the congregation are praying the Mass together and the congregation's role is essential.
This isn't complete nonsense, but the first part is, up to "People of God".That's an improvement in substance and in ritual in the Novus Ordo over the TLM that trads neglect to affirm, understandably so, because it rebuts their claim that the TLM is the superior and preferable form of the Roman Rite.
No, it's not an improvement in substance. It might be an improvement in accidents, but I'm not sure that's true either. -
Somebody up-thread said that pre-Vatican II seminarians were not well trained. I don't know if I believe that - but what matters now is how these FSSP priests are (were) being trained.
Sharing this for anyone who hasn't seen it:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/gregorian-chants-are-a-hit-at-this-nebraska-seminary
-
Mark, those are some extremely sweeping claims with little to nothing to back them up.
-
The Novus Ordo more adequately expresses the Church's praying of the Mass as the prayer of the whole People of God, offered through the priest, than does the TLM, because the congregation has official responses in dialogue with the priest and participates in saying prayers such as the Confiteor and the Lord's Prayer, and the priest must wait for the congregation to say or sing its ritual part before proceeding with the Mass
The institution of the Dialogue Mass was a positive step for the concrete participation of the congregation. The voluntary approach to implementing it was a good move, because requiring that the priest wait for responses would have imposed burdens on congregations to learn the Latin responses quickly. Also, it would have changed the experience of Mass for many people, and a pastoral sensitivity would respect this.
In the present day, the traditionalist congregations with the best audible participation may be French congregations served by the FSSPX; so I look forward to seeing them praised from all sides.
In any case, a difference between the rites that consists of one rubrical change is hardly enough to justify the vast array of textual changes imposed on the Latin rite in 1970. -
In several countries I have visited dialogue Masses are common. Readings are repeated in the vernacular at the sermon and sermons are in the Vernacular. All the folks in the pew seem perfectly able to respond, as well as sing hymns in latin, like Tantum Ergo, Adoro Te and similar. These things are not difficult if one hears them every day or every week or even every Christmas or every funeral. These are congregations of regular folks, not university students. People aren't as dumb as rocks, and human beings have the natural ability to learn vocalizations by imitation. The Mass is very structured and repetitive, which makes it easy to follow.
-
a TLM in English would not fulfill the Council's mandate for participatio actuosa
There is a theological meaning to the term 'actuosa participatio' and it is this: 'Conforming oneself to Christ in self-sacrifice." That is what is REQUIRED.
All the rest--singing, responding, etc.--is nice but NOT necessary for participation.
Surprising that more people don't know that. -
Sacrosanctum Concilium:
30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.
31. The revision of the liturgical books must carefully attend to the provision of rubrics also for the people's parts.
Surprising that more people don't know it says that. -
"people should be encouraged"
That doesn't require a "new" type of "Mass."
"because the congregation has official responses in dialogue with the priest and participates in saying prayers"
Is that the best reasoning you have for the Novus Ordo? Yikes!
Nobody can force a congregant to say anything, at all. Do you just assume he's more actively participating because his responses are in a simplified version of what they once were?
Do you know something that worked toward all of this:
-30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.-
but without butchering the Mass? Those little red missalettes that people like to make fun of.
SIT, STAND, KNEEL, calls & the people's responses.
There was zero reason to write a new Mass based on any of the things you say are necessary because of Vat-2. -
Having followed this thread without contributing, I have to say - I am impressed with the demeanor and content shown here. I see plenty of strong feeling, which is totally understandable, but the thread has IMO steered clear of objectionable content (e.g. personal attacks on Pope Francis, or each other).
I will also say, I've drifted from more active participation (ha!) in Musica Sacra over the years in part because of what I perceive as an identity crisis in the organization. It seems to me that 15 years ago, when I was in school, Musica Sacra was, at least in significant part, a gathering place for those endeavoring to improve the Novus Ordo in terms of music and overall beauty and ars celebrandi. More recently it seems to me that there has been a drift towards EF VERSUS OF, with the necessity of proving that the EF is the clear winner and the NO is, really, beyond hope. Both of the above are only my impression, and of course various attitudes along that spectrum are regularly shown here. But my point is, it became increasingly unclear to me whether improvement of NO praxis was even a true, central, and laudable goal any longer for this organization.
That is probably unfair and harsh to level at the CMAA itself - I'm not aware of any official statements against the NO in this organization. But I'm talking about a zeitgeist shift that I at least see strongly reflected here. No doubt exacerbated, as everything else in our society is, by the "us vs. them" dichotomy and pervasive sensationalism of social media. At any rate, it seems to me that this combative, zero-sum mentality is precisely what TC, and Pope Francis, are reacting against. What is most unfortunate to me is that he seems to be fighting evil with evil - i.e., fighting a destructive mentality with overly harsh, zero-sum, centralized, top-down bureaucratic overreach. To think that using force on a feisty minority with a strong sense of culture and self-identity will bring healing and unity seems to me a wild pipedream, out of keeping with everything I know about history and basic human nature. The timing (global pandemic and liturgical shutdowns, for heaven's sake!) also seems wildly inappropriate and boneheaded. One would think that a time of crisis is a moment to put aside lesser squabbles, and focus on getting the sacraments to the faithful.
But what I'm trying to say is: however clumsy and inappropriate and offensive the message and messenger, there is a grain of truth here that is worth contemplating. I really do get the appeal of the TLM, but I would personally prefer to see more colleagues putting energy into reform of Novus Ordo praxis, rather than drifting out and into the EF because the NO is complex and equivocal and frustrating to work in a lot of the time.
I do think that maybe the hope of this moto proprio endeavor was to improve the praxis of the Novus Ordo. And to follow on what some others have said above (I am a career Novus Ordo musician), I do think that improving the music and ars celebrandi of the normative form is a worthy goal. I do think, and have experienced, that yes, a more traditional celebration of the Novus Ordo can be beautiful and will attract many people. Those places that aim for worthy NO liturgy seem, to me, to very often thrive. -
To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.
Thank you for getting us back to this paragraph.
Note that "active" participation is an inadequate understanding of actuosa participatio.
Note further that everything in the paragraph after the first comma is a means to an end, not an end in itself. These are ways of recognizing that a thing exists, not the thing itself. Note further that an encouraged people may refuse the encouragement offered. -
also:My initial impression [to Responsa ad dubia] was that old wounds within the life of the Church have needlessly been reopened under the pretext of achieving greater unity. Such measures, justified in this manner, border on mockery, since they glaringly contradict Pope Francis’ general policy of healing the wounds within the life of the Church of our day, as he expressed, for instance, with the following words: “The thing the Church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful...The authentic Second Vatican Council Mass is the Ordo Missae of 1965 with its careful and unrevolutionary changes.
-Bp Athanasius Schneider
Find the rest of what he says, here. -
Well, the Council Fathers had this to say also, from SC:
27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.
This applies with especial force to the celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments, even though every Mass has of itself a public and social nature.
---
So much for encouragement meaning optional. There is an explicit preference for the participation of the congregation.
The Council Fathers envisioned a reformed liturgy that would be a communal prayer rather than a clerical prayer. The TLM is overwhelmingly a clerical liturgy. The Novus Ordo is a communal liturgy in which clergy and laity have their distinctive and proper roles. As I have said, the Novus Ordo ritually expresses a superior ecclesiology than does the TLM by being a communal liturgy as opposed to being a clerical liturgy.
If one reads and understands Sacrosanctum Concilium, the conclusion is unavoidable that the Council Fathers mandated that the TLM be superseded by a reformed liturgy that would meet their criteria of being more communal and more participatory, among other things.
That entails that the TLM is no longer an adequate liturgical form for the postconciliar Church. It was good and appropriate for its time; that time has passed. To be superseded doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes evil; it's just no longer as adequate as what has replaced it.
It is well and good to argue that the Novus Ordo could be improved either in implementation or in its texts or rubrics, but I maintain that those who proffer that the TLM is compatible with the Council's mandate for liturgical reform and should still be celebrated in the postconciliar Church are wrong. The previous form of the liturgy has been superseded by conciliar mandate and promulgation of a revised liturgy by Church authority.
That is why Traditionis Custodes, which definitively commits the Church to the full reception and implementation of the Council's liturgical reform, and concomitantly curtails the use of the preconciliar liturgy and establishes a trajectory for its eventual phase-out, is a good and wise ecclesial act. Traditionis Custodes essentially says that the Council's mandate to reform the liturgy wasn't and isn't optional: it was and is mandatory. Following that mandate, the post-Vatican II liturgical rites are the normative expression of prayer in the postconciliar Roman Church and the preconciliar liturgical rites no longer have a place.
That is also why attachment to the TLM, even if one admits the validity of the Novus Ordo, is at least implicitly a rejection of Vatican II. "Vatican II for thee but not for me" is not an acceptable attitude for a church that should be united in faith and in liturgy.
Any "wounds" related to the Church's insistence that the Council's liturgical reform be accepted and implemented are mostly self-inflicted by people who refuse to accept what liturgical reform meant, means, requires and entails. The Church has the authority to reform its liturgy, and it did so. The pastoral provisions in TC to permit the TLM for those groups genuinely attached to it for their spiritual good ensure that the faithful who truly need the TLM are not deprived of the graces of the Eucharist. But to be clear, the Church has said that no Catholic should be developing a new attachment to the TLM, and the TLM should not be promoted nor expanded in use by pastors. The TLM will be provided in limited places as a concession to those who truly need it, and as their number diminishes the TLM will eventually be phased out entirely in favor of the exclusive celebration of the reformed, postconciliar liturgical rites.Thanked by 1Don9of11 -
For the benefit of the faithful, many of us will 'go down' singing Mass I (and you might hear angels accompanying us...)
-
27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.
Accordingly, both the Institute of Christ the King and the Fraternity of St Peter encourage Solemn High (or at least High) Masses. The technical name for a Low Mass (if I understand properly) long before the Second Vatican Council was Missa Privata --- a Mass with something missing. A choir of clerics would do well, as would a choir of well-trained laymen, as would your average SSPX congregation in France.
Unless, of course, you think that "faithful" excludes priests?The TLM is overwhelmingly a clerical liturgy. The Novus Ordo is a communal liturgy in which clergy and laity have their distinctive and proper roles.
This isn't true, without a very careful nuance. The TLM is, precisely, the property of the whole of the faithful when the priest (to paraphrase the quote) does the red and says the black. He doesn't make his personality the center of attention. In the Ordo of Paul VI, he is positively encouraged to make his personality the center of attention, which makes it clerical in a different sense. Furthermore, when properly priestly duties are yanked away from priests and handed to laymen, this is demeaning to both priests and laymen.
-
Mark, I suggest you read the interview of Bp Schneider that I linked.
Such defiance and willful ignorance on the part of those who believe TC or these responses to alleged dubia to be necessary, much less binding, in the face of historic precedence is astounding. -
KARU27 - that is good, but not relevant to my point. Teaching tunes and lyrics is not the same as voice training. Teaching liturgical chant is not the same as teaching the meaning of liturgy. You can train a humanoid robot to hold its hands at breast height, palms facing, a body width apart, while taking care that the elbows are not visible beyond the chasuble from behind - which is what the once a week classes in only the first and last years of seminary used to concentrate on - but that is not teaching about liturgy. Much of the problem with the church post VII stems from the fact that most priests were clueless about liturgy.
Chonak and CatherineS show that the situation is indeed vastly better now. My main point above was that while Aquinas taught that the readings were for the instruction of the people (though not, of course, exclusively), and The Council of Trent (session XXII chapter VIII) emphasised the point, the Missal said nothing about that, and clergy were not taught it. -
The Council Fathers envisioned a reformed liturgy that would be a communal prayer rather than a clerical prayer. The TLM is overwhelmingly a clerical liturgy. The Novus Ordo is a communal liturgy in which clergy and laity have their distinctive and proper roles.
With all due respect, I don't find that to be true at all.
The TLM is a sacerdotal liturgy, which, unfortunately, has lost some of its communal character--this could easily have been restored, with proper liturgical catechesis, and a slight revision of the rubrics without stripping away so many things. The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, I find to be exceedingly clericalist:
You can't do more than 1-1/2 verses of the Entrance Hymn because "we mustn't keep Fr. waiting!". The clergy continually face the people, whether at the chair, at the ambo, at the altar. The clergy are mic'd to kingdom come, and they tend to shout histrionically. You can't sing anything at the offertory so that they can shout the offertory at us. They shout the Eucharist prayer at us. And God forbid that the cantor gets to the microphone half-a-second late, because then Fr. shouts the Lamb of God at us because the stupid musicians "kept him waiting!" And forget it if it's a concelebration, because then you have a wall of clergy taking turns to shout into their mics, staring at your from on high during communion while 14 lay people distribute under every species known to man.
YMMV, but I personally don't feel that being talked at for an hour by clergy with lapel-mics is very "communal." -
Salieri - That is a big problem with the Novus Ordo, I agree. But it has more to do with the reality-altering technology of microphones and speakers, and their profound impact on how humans interact with one another, than anything specific to the NO liturgy itself.
As McLuhan would say, "the medium is the message" - the media of the microphone carries implicit messages which form us, regardless of the content spoken over it. Similar to the great (mic'd) voice from heaven, the "fiat lux" of flipping a light switch turns man into a mini-god and entirely rearranges the tradition and meaning and liturgical significance of candles, and of time itself (e.g. light/dark times of day for different liturgies).
These are profound realities for the human race to deal with - but I would not lay them at the feet of the Novus Ordo. If anything, the NO, by placing fewer bounds on the priest, is more prone to this particular abuse, so we should be aware and exercise care. -
The Council Fathers envisioned a reformed liturgy that would be a communal prayer rather than a clerical prayer. The TLM is overwhelmingly a clerical liturgy. The Novus Ordo is a communal liturgy in which clergy and laity have their distinctive and proper roles. As I have said, the Novus Ordo ritually expresses a superior ecclesiology than does the TLM by being a communal liturgy as opposed to being a clerical liturgy.
I really do believe that your understanding of what it means to be 'communal' is deficient. Was the sacrifice offered by the high priest on behalf of the Jewish people at the Passover merely an individual act, rather than a corporate one carried out by a special high priest on behalf of, and in communion with them? I would certainly hope that you would answer 'no'.
And while we are on this topic, one of the greatest travesties of theological manipulation associated with the Novus Ordo Missæ is the fact that it has utterly deemphasized the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood, instead purporting to emphasize that the Mass is a "meal" rather than a sacrifice, which, fans of history remember, was a certain formal heretic's pet (and condemned) obsession. This, not surprisingly, was why he instituted communion in the hand and ceased offering his masses at the high altar, preferring a free-standing table to face the people (rather than entering the sanctuary as high priest to offer sacrifice). Such "declericalization" (if one can call it that) stemmed from a fundamentally flawed understanding of the nature and purpose of the Mass itself. Now we find ourselves imitating such behavior in every feasible way.
____
Your comment also drifts into the separate discussion (also referenced above) about what "active participation" actually means. Too many people (including some on this forum) take the term to mean "activity" rather than "engagement".
Besides, using the same line of argument, and considering that the TLM, when properly lived out, calls for the faithful to participate in the recitation / singing of the ordinary, as well as receive communion, one would be hard-pressed to successfully argue that they are somehow "passive" in one case and "active" in the other.
As has been discussed elsewhere, there are many, many souls who simply go through the motions at novus ordo masses, even though externally they appear more engaged (there are people at our church who cannot even be bothered to read the hymns, let alone attempt to sing them!); conversely (and even if this is only due to self-selection) many people at TLMs are praying quite fervently and are spiritually engaged with every motion at Mass, even if they aren't doing acrobatics or shouting about it.
Ultimately, 'active participation' is a choice, beginning in the will and flowing to the intellect, and has little to do with standing/sitting/singing—at least when boiled down to its essentials. Those externals, as CGZ mentioned, are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
-
It is very important to distinguish that the Mass has two distinct parts, and ensure that prayers not spoken communally are voiced exclusively by a priest (celebrant or concelebrant). The Mass of the Catechumens (aka Liturgy of the Word) has an important didactic function and is directed towards the people (Aquinas teaches this). The Mass of the Faithful (Liturgy of the Eucharist) is the Holy Sacrifice, including our oblation and our communion, an act of worship offered to the Father on our behalf. This was much clearer in the 1965 edition than before, or in the NO as sometimes 'performed'.
-
I concluded some time ago that the bishops and pope don't care much about what any of us think. They do as they do whether anyone likes it or not. They may not care much for our souls but they love our offering envelopes.
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 Discussions21,563
- General Music Discussion7,803
- Job Openings1,367
- Management of Music Programs839
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics515
- CMAA Notes293
- Events668
- For Newcomers: Read First24
- Sacred Polyphony532
- Hymnody841
- Gregorian Chant: General2,619
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology59
- Vernacular Plainsong682
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire420
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,235
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry155
- Music Education: Children208
- Music Education: General217
- News Items243
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism729
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,014
- Opinions115