I post it as a reminder of the drastic decline since the 60s that has also hit Protestant churches in Europe and North America, and that there really is no way to know if the NO contributed to the collapse of the Western Church, since the NO has only existed in the decades when all the other Christian churches fell to bits for reasons other than Vatican II.
The Montinian reform broke all this apart, improvisedly inventing a new rite adapted to the needs of the modern world and transforming the sacred Catholic Liturgy from being theocentric to being anthropocentric. From the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross repeated in an unbloody manner through the action of the sacerdos, we transitioned to the assembly of the faithful led by its “presider.” From a salvific and even exorcistic instrument, we passed to a horizontal populist gathering, susceptible to continual autocephalous and relativistic changes and adaptations that are more or less “festive” and whose supposed “value” is based on winning mass consensus, as if it were a political instrument aimed at the audience, an audience however that is progressively completely disappearing.
The cruel decree Veterum Sapientia had ordered the sacking of thousands of men, and some women, from Catholic seminaries throughout the world. Papa Roncalli, "Good Pope John XXIII" as he had ironically been called, in full consciousness of His authority, Decreed and Commanded eight important rules. Rule 5 ordered that the major sacred sciences should be taught in Latin, that the professors of these sciences in universities or seminaries be required to speak Latin and to make use of textbooks written in Latin. "Those whose ignorance of Latin makes it difficult for them to obey these instructions shall be gradually replaced by professors who are suited for this task. Any difficulties which may be advanced by students or professors must be overcome ..."
The idea that Catholics are pining for the Tridentine Rite is the trend story that never dies. It is the line that Trads have been feeding everyone for decades, and it was amplified by church leaders like Pope Benedict XVI, who in broadening the use of the old rite in 2007 said that his move was prompted by ongoing requests from around the world and that “even young people” were drawn to it. First Things editor and Latin Mass loyalist Matthew Schmitz echoed that view in a 2017 article in the Catholic Herald: “Wherever one looks, the kids are old rite.”
...
The problem is that none of these anecdotes are supported by data. In fact, the numbers show a tiny number of Tridentine faithful whose ranks are not growing, and certainly not globally.
...
The tendency of the Latin Mass fans to self-select, to gather intentionally and often with greater effort than many parishioners, is a natural function of their passion and that’s a chief reason why they can project an image of a growing cohort. They are visible and they are often outspoken about their beliefs.
A: we know that a Mass to be valid, must be celebrated in a Canonically designated space.
13. A schismatic spirit or actual schism are always gravely evil, but there is nothing about the UA which fosters schism.
14. (...) The UA is a living form of the Roman Rite and has never ceased to be so. From the very time of the promulgation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, in recognition of the great difference between the UR and the UA, the continued celebration of the Sacraments, according to the UA, was permitted for certain convents and monasteries and also for certain individuals and groups. Pope Benedict XVI, in his Letter to the Bishops of the World, accompanying the Motu Proprio «Summorum Pontificum», made clear that the Roman Missal in use before the Missal of Pope Paul VI, “was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”
15. But can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church. It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier. The correct interpretation of Article 1 cannot be the denial that the UA is an ever-vital expression of “the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the UA will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church.
16. It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith. In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the UA, as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church. It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority.
1965 advert in Notitiae attached, note editio typicaDECRETUM
Ordo Missae, « Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae » et « De defectibus in celebratione Missae occurrentibus » eduntur.
Nuper edita Instructio ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia plures induxit mutationes, diversi sane momenti, praesertim in Missae celebrationem. Necessarium proinde visum est ut sive Ordo Missae, sive tractatus qui inscribuntur « Ritus in celebratione Missae servandus » et <( De defectibus in Missae celebratione occurrentibus »,<br />quique in Missali romano inveniuntur, nova recensione donarentur, quae praelaudatae Instructionis praeceptis responderet. Consilium itaque ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia deputatum, prae oculis habens generalem rationem instaurationis Missae, hanc novam recensionem accurate redegit, quam Sacra haec Rituum Congregatio, utendo facultatibus sibi a Sanctissimo Domino nostro Paulo Papa VI tributis, probavit atque uti typicam declaravit, mandans ut publici iuris fieret, et in novis Missalis romani editionibus assumeretur, ita ut normae ibi contentae ab omnibus fideliter serventur.
Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus.
Die 27 Ianuarii 1965.
IACOBUS Card. LERCARO -
Archiepiscopus Bononiensis
Praeses Consilii ad eoa sequendam
Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia
ARCADIUS M. Card. LARRAONA Praefectus
Ferdinandus Antonelli, O.F.M., a Secretis
The problem is that none of these anecdotes are supported by data. In fact, the numbers show a tiny number of Tridentine faithful whose ranks are not growing, and certainly not globally.
This drama with the rightwing of the Catholic Church has been going on for more than fifty years now, and for that entire time popes from Paul VI to John Paul II, and, most especially, to Benedict XVI, have bent over backwards and even twisted tradition and basic reasoning to make special carve-outs for the Trads.
Those of you who go to the EF Mass, what changes to the OF would entice you to go?
have bent over backwards and even twisted tradition and basic reasoning to make special carve-outs for the Trads.
In short, the NO will never come close to equaling the dignity, graces, richness of tradition, theology, beauty, evenness of form (prayer and music beautifully stitched together), than the TLM... and it would take 1000 years for the NO to even to begin to come close I suppose... but it will NEVER inherit the tradition, true, pure and unspoiled in that of the Mass of all Time, handed down to us starting with Jesus Christ himself, and then Peter and all the saints. Family is family... you can adopt the children of others, but in reality, they are not cut from the same cloth as that from our Fathers and of our Holy Mother Church.
I place nothing.I don't think it's wise to place the TLM as being more Holy, more beautiful, etc., then the OF. Doing so proves the Popes case the need for the change.
Those of you who go to the EF Mass, what changes to the OF would entice you to go?
Those of you who go to the EF Mass, what changes to the OF would entice you to go?
intentional departures from (in many cases, implicit if not explicit rejection of) what came before it.
Four hundred years before Christ the prophet Malachias referred to the adorable sacrifice of the Mass to be offered in the distant future by the Gentiles. The prophet, speaking in the name of God, said: ‘For, from the rising of the sun even to the going down My name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is sacrifice and there is offered to My name a clean oblation.’ (Mal 1:11). Four times each second, throughout the whole twenty-four hours of each day, the Sacred Host was raised by the hands of a priest, to plead for blessings on sinful man, to atone by this Divine sacrifice, for his sins. Then came the Council and its first fruit, the Novus Ordo Mass. (“A bad Council and a bad Mass” – Third Secret conversation / Card Ratzinger / Fr Ingo Dollinger).
The Roman mystic, Bl Anna Maria Taigi, saw this time of great peril and darkness for the Church commencing in the second half of the 20th century. Similarly, Ven Anne Catherine Emmerich wrote that Lucifer, chained by the merits of Christ's passion, would be let loose for a time about 50 or 60 years before the year 2000.’ Chained by the merits of Christ’s passion but loosed by a loss of efficacy in the Mass, this occurring about the time of the visible crisis caused by the Council and culminating in the liturgical vandalism of the Novus Ordo Mass.
St Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, explained that the devil aimed ‘to get rid of the Mass by means of the heretics’ making them the precursors of the Antichrist who would succeed in taking away the continual sacrifice. (Dan 11:31) Prior to this, in Dan 8:12 we read that ‘strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, because of sins: and truth shall be cast down on the ground.’ It is sin that causes the Holy Sacrifice to be taken away.
Dom Prosper Gueranger described the collapse or failure of the Mass as the necessary prelude to the Antichrist before he appeared and abolished it. Dom Gueranger described this collapse and consequences when the ‘intensity of the Great Sacrifice of the Mass has been diminished.’ He continued: ‘Terrible as this is, it is but the beginning of that which is to happen, when the devil and his agents let loose upon the earth, will pour out a torrent of trouble and desolation everywhere, as Daniel has predicted … the devil will at length prevail so far as that the celebration of the Great Sacrifice will be suspended, - then will come those days of horror and misery for our earth.’ (Explanation of the Prayers and Ceremonies of Holy Mass, Dom Prosper Gueranger).
St Paul refers to something which restrains the Antichrist, but that when removed, permits him to be revealed. (2 Thess 2:3-8). He describes this restraint as being both neuter (what) and masculine (he). Similarly, Daniel prophesied that ‘the victim (masculine) and the sacrifice (neuter) shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation’, the Antichrist. Surely this restraint is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Other references (linked to Daniel) are found in Matt 24 and Mark 13.
In 1990, Card Ratzinger, when Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, described the New Mass as ‘devastation, a fabricated liturgy, a banal product’ which had ‘degenerated so that it has become a show’ with ‘momentary success for liturgical fabricators’ and recognized those who do not look to the liturgy for a ‘spiritual show-master.’ (Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pp. 103-104).
Again, in 1992 he wrote; ‘I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter anymore whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us. … But if in the liturgy the communion of faith no longer appears, nor the universal unity of the Church and of her history, nor the mystery of the living Christ, where is it that the Church still appears in her spiritual substance?’ he asked. Ratzinger lamented, ‘too often the community is only celebrating itself without its being worthwhile to do so.’ (From My Life: Remembrances 1927-1977).
Dom Gueranger explained ‘were the Mass to be done away with, we should quickly fall again into the state of depravity in which pagan nations are sunk: and this is to be the work of Antichrist: he will take every possible means to prevent the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, so that this great counterpoise being taken away, God would necessarily put an end to all things, having now no object left in their further subsistence.’ The emergence of the Antichrist precedes his public appearance. His arrival occurs at the height of the apostasy and follows the advent of the Antichrist’s precursor, the False Prophet, the antithesis of St John the Baptist, who prepares the way for the ‘man of sin.’
In 1990, Card Ratzinger, when Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, described the New Mass as ‘devastation, a fabricated liturgy, a banal product’ which had ‘degenerated so that it has become a show’ with ‘momentary success for liturgical fabricators’ and recognized those who do not look to the liturgy for a ‘spiritual show-master.’ (Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pp. 103-104).
It would seem that Pope Benedict missed his opportunity.
Many in the Church came to regard this faculty as an opportunity to adopt freely the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and use it in a manner parallel to the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI. In order to regulate this situation at the distance of many years, Benedict XVI intervened to address this state of affairs in the Church. Many priests and communities had “used with gratitude the possibility offered by the Motu proprio” of St. John Paul II. Underscoring that this development was not foreseeable in 1988, the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 2007 intended to introduce “a clearer juridical regulation” in this area.[4] In order to allow access to those, including young people, who when “they discover this liturgical form, feel attracted to it and find in it a form, particularly suited to them, to encounter the mystery of the most holy Eucharist”,[5] Benedict XVI declared “the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”, granting a “more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal”.[6]
In making their decision they were confident that such a provision would not place in doubt one of the key measures of Vatican Council II or minimize in this way its authority: the Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, “the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite”.[7] The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V “as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi” did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the “insistent prayers of these faithful,” allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”.[8] It comforted Benedict XVI in his discernment that many desired “to find the form of the sacred Liturgy dear to them,” “clearly accepted the binding character of Vatican Council II and were faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops”.[9] What is more, he declared to be unfounded the fear of division in parish communities, because “the two forms of the use of the Roman Rite would enrich one another”.[10] Thus, he invited the Bishops to set aside their doubts and fears, and to welcome the norms, “attentive that everything would proceed in peace and serenity,” with the promise that “it would be possible to find resolutions” in the event that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect”.[11]
With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”,[12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.
Thus, he invited the Bishops to set aside their doubts and fears, and to welcome the norms, “attentive that everything would proceed in peace and serenity,” with the promise that “it would be possible to find resolutions” in the event that “serious difficulties came to light” in the implementation of the norms “once the Motu proprio came into effect”.[11]
I take comfort in this decision from the fact that, after the Council of Trent, St. Pius V also abrogated all the rites that could not claim a proven antiquity, establishing for the whole Latin Church a single Missale Romanum.
It is common in academia and in other circles to address "retired" or ex-holders of a title by virtue of retirement by their former title; for example, a Professor Emeritus is most often addressed simply as "Professor" - or an ex-president simply as "President" - so why not address or refer to the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in ordinary discourse simply as "Pope Benedict"?“Pope” Benedict? To what are you alluding? His chosen title is Pope Emeritus.
Consilium itaque ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia deputatum, prae oculis habens generalem rationem instaurationis Missae, hanc novam recensionem accurate redegit, quam Sacra haec Rituum Congregatio, utendo facultatibus sibi a Sanctissimo Domino nostro Paulo Papa VI tributis, probavit atque uti typicam declaravit, mandans ut publici iuris fieret, et in novis Missalis romani editionibus assumeretur, ita ut normae ibi contentae ab omnibus fideliter serventur.
Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus.
For example, the OF doesn't have a true formula for the distribution of Holy Communion. The priest merely says "Corpus Christi" (if using Latin). That's not even a proper sentence! There's no verb! In stark contrast, the priest at the EF prays for you "Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen." (May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting. Amen.) In both cases, the individual truly receives our Lord's Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, but in the EF, there is the merit of the priest's prayer for the person he's giving Communion to.
At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”
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.