There are some within our midst as Catholics who do not believe that there should be two versions of the Mass of the one Roman Rite, meaning the Extraordinary Form (1962 Missal) and the Ordinary Form, the revised Mass after Vatican II.
This is where I would offer words of caution to those who prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. It would be just as offensive to those who prefer the Ordinary Form for those who prefer the Extraordinary Form to want the Ordinary Form suppressed.
I still contend that ultimately there needs to be a third missal that evolves in an organic way with the current experience of the two forms of the Mass being celebrated as it is throughout the world.
I've offered suggestions on what this third Mass would look and feel like and even Pope Benedict understands that his allowance of two forms of the one Latin Rite should one day lead to this third missal.
But we have a greater problem with a minority of English speaking Catholics who wish for an English Mass that is different in theology, spirituality, historical and devotional qualities of the revised Mass's Latin template. They prefer an English Mass that has it own "better" theology, spirituality and historical and devotional ethos. Of course we had that with the very poor English translation of 1973 which mercifully as been supplanted by the 2010 English Missal.
You can read here about this clique of English speakers who want the Mass their way, called Misguided Missal, a name that really should be applied to them, not the revised Mass we have in English.
But the larger point I want to make is that there is no reason for any of us to despise the 1962 missal and the other liturgies and devotions associated with it. It is our heritage. Pope Benedict makes that clear. At the same time, we need not despise what has transpired after Vatican II although we recognize this process of revision has been filled with chaff, that is slowly but surely being burned off to reveal what Vatican II in continuity with our glorious past really should bring forward.
As I write this I'm watching the movie "The Cardinal" on Turner Movie Classics:
The ordination scene should bring pride to us as Catholics as it is once again possible for this to take place:
The full movie in 8 minutes!
19 comments:
From Wikapedia:
The screenplay was written by Robert Dozier, based on the novel of the same name (1950) by Henry Morton Robinson. . . . Robinson's novel was based on the life of Cardinal Francis Spellman, who was then Archbishop of New York. The Vatican's liaison officer for the film was Joseph Ratzinger, later to become Pope Benedict XVI.
Cool I did not know that, but now that I know that Ratzinger was involved I think his advise on things Liturgical and other aspects of devotion and protocol are quite evident.
But, Father.... but, Father... isn't this supposed "third missal" you refer to essentially just the 1965 "transitional" missal? Why not just go back to the 1965 missal adapted to the current calander and lectionary? Wouldn't that solve all the problems, or does that make too much sense to be implemented?
I am very unenthusiastic about a merged Missal. I am all for working to improve the Third Translation. But I am more convinced than ever that trying to come up with a dumbed down translation succeeds only in dumbing people down.
We need to dispel the myth of the "1965 missal". It was officially still called the 1962 edition, just with a handful of slightly abbreviated rites and published by several different episcopal conferences, largely in their national languages. But it was still officially the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal. I suggest it's best to refer to it as "the Vatican II use of the 1962 missal", or something like that. It was not a new edition, at least not in the way the Vatican uses that word, and it certainly did not contain a new order of Mass.
Am I making too much of this point?
Something needs to be done. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to see any meaningful developments during the current Papacy. Before any permanent changes are affected the SSPX will have to be regularized also. Absent of this happening the problem of the liturgy will not be resolved.
If the majority of our pastors had any guts at all, they'd let both "forms" of the Mass actually exist side by side. "7:30 Mass will be in EF and 9:00 Mass will be OF." Of course, they won't and we all know why: It would not take long before one began to bear its natural fruits again and the other would begin to fizzle with only a remnant of the defiantly dissented clinging to their felt banners and Glory and Praise hymnals.
If the OF is so superior--as the misguided dissenters assert--then they should have the courage of their convictions and let it exist side by side with the EF and allow nature to take its course. Of course, that's kind of like asking a liberal to support free speech. These folks take no chances.
The 1965 interim missal was just that. It lasted little more than two years before being replaced by a form of Mass which had more in common with the Novus Ordo than it did with the Roman Rite.
Since all the liturgical books since Vatican II are now effectively optional (and let's not forget that the 1570 missal did not supersede all other Uses, nor did the 1614 Rituale replace a multitude of local rituals) the Novus Ordo needs to be judged on its own terms. By all means get rid of abuses and later accretions which are not part of the rite itself, but have come to be associated with it (I'm thinking here of women in the sanctuary, EMHC, and inappropriate and irreverent reception of Communion).
1. Stop pretending it is the Roman Rite (it isn't - but it is a rite approved by Rome and used throughout the Latin Church).
2. Accept that the vernacular and the essentially dialogue form can be of benefit to a lot of people. And Latin is by no means excluded, in whole or in part. In fact, nothing of the musical structure of the Roman Rite Mass is necessarily discarded.
3. Vaggagini's EP III, though a modern composition, is a fine anaphora, which Benedict XVI used more than any other. Of course it's not traditional to the Roman Rite, but we're not talking about the Roman Rite.
4. The terms OF and EF are essentially legal fictions. Benedict could have called the Novus Ordo a 'Use' of the Roman Rite. That he did not do so is significant.
In the Anglican Church the 1662 Prayer Book can coexist with the modern Common Worship, with its various options. Most of the Masses I attend in the classic Roman Rite, which I prefer, are in parishes which offer the Novus Ordo as well.
Vat II did not "call" Catholics to despise the tradition. Vat II just said it was ok to stop minding the store...that is all that was needed for things to go haywire. Sort of like giving whiskey and fast cars to adolescents, then leaving them alone.
"In the Anglican Church the 1662 Prayer Book can coexist with the modern Common Worship, with its various options."
And how's that working out? What happens is that you end up with a "loose communion" of High Church and Low Church people who are members of the same religion in name only without a unity of the faith.
In point of fact, this has de facto occurred in many Catholic circles these past decades. Has that been good for the Church since it basically pits two factions who are ostensibly on equal footing against each other? I think at some point the Church has to decide. It's just a shame "the Church" in this instance revolves around whoever happens to be the Bishop of Rome at any particular moment -- and we all hang on his personal liturgical sensibilities. It is ahistorical and contrary to the tradition, but such is the weakness of modern bishops and priests, who are afraid of losing their jobs or their lifestyles.
Shelly Manne,
One hurdle for us to overcome is the bination/trination rule: "If there is a shortage of priests, the local ordinary can allow priests to celebrate twice a day for a just cause, or if pastoral necessity requires it, even three times on Sundays and holy days of obligation" (CCL 905). In a larger parish with only one priest, it may be the case that all three Sunday celebrations must be in the O.F..
Marc, an Anglican parish church might well have on its noticeboard:
8.00 am Holy Communion (BCP)
10.00 am Family Eucharist (CW)
Sundays at the Birmingham Oratory:
8.30 am Mass (English)
10.30 am Solemn Mass (EF)
12.00 pm Mass (English)
4.30 pm Vespers (EF) & Benediction
5.30 pm Mass (English)
The London Oratory is probably unique in offering English Novus Ordo, Latin Novus Ordo, and EF Mass every day of the week. In neither place is there anything resembling factionalism.
In the Anglican church the 1662 HC tends to attract older parishioners who want a quiet service. Anglo-Catholics tend to use the option in Common Worship which most resembles the Roman Novus Ordo.
Whatever you want to call it, "the 1965 missal", "the Vatican II use of the 1962 missal", "the 1965 temporary, transitional missal", "the Vatican II revision of the 1962 Missal", the bottom line is, that it is the Mass that Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium envisioned, not Bugnini's protestant wannabe Novus Ordo. This 1965 Missal, by whatever name you want to call it, adapted to the current lectionary and calendar is the "third Missal" Fr McDonald alludes to, whether he realises it or not. The question is, when will this Missal supercede the OF and EF forms? And if it is thwarted, and a completely new, fabricated "third Missal" is created, I can only imagine the compete rebellion and outrage on both sides that will occure.
Does Pope Francis make it just as clear or does he say and do things to the contrary to Pope Benedict? This is OK now for Popes to put their personal views ahead of the views of the Magesterium of all Pontificates, no??
My fear is, if there were to be a "third Missal", as Father puts it, during the papacy of Francis, with Piero Marini running the CDW, we may get a Mass that is farther away from the TLM, with new age overtones. Just as P. Marini's mentor, Bugnini, brought protestant influence into the Novus Ordo missal, I can see Marini taking it further in a "Third Missal" into new age territory. Just today, my parish had for a recessional hymn, "Make Me A Channel Of Your Peace". Here we are already singing a hymn for the last several decades that speak of channelling. Such new age heresies are sure to become even more prevelent in a Third Missal by Begogolio & P. Marini.
I've changed my mind. I'm now in favor of a new, even more modern missal with a strong Buddhist/Hindu/Cirque du Soleil influence. Let's make it happen.
Watched 'The Shoes of the Fisherman' last night. The last half was very prescient concerning the young priest with 'radical' theology and the bishop who objected to him; and the actions of the Pope eschewing everything the Church owned to feed the starving Communist Chinese. Basically, the Church needed to 'get with the times' and the very strong undercurrent, as explained by the poor young priest, is that the world exists without God in all three persons becasue we must live in it. The (nee) Soviets understood that this theology was related to the need to understand hunger without any other values. Pope Anthony Quinn agreed.
The movie was great showing how the Popes are elected. I really liked that part.
The general story reminded me of Bernstein's 'Mass' in that is showed interesting cultural attitudes among the educated and thoughtful classes. I gives a great relief to the average flocker, like me, that the smart guys can be wrong, too.
I both cases, The 'Mass' and 'Shoes' it supports my hypothesis that our current state of erosion and the genesis of it is not Vatican II, but goes back much further.
rcg: "our current state of erosion and the genesis of it is not Vatican II, but goes back much further."
Of course. Pius IX issued his syllabus of errors in 1864, and Pius X his condemnation of modernism--as a movement toward a break with the past--in 1907.
But the late 19th-early 20th century movement of modernism simply burrowed within the Church (probably continuing to grow in the meantime), waiting for an event that would enable forces for change to come out into the open and be perceived as legitimate.
The particular historical event that provided a pretext for these forces gaining control in the Church happened to be the second Vatican Council. (Just as chaotic European conditions in the 16th century facilitated the Protestant revolt.)
It is arguable that nothing came out of Vatican II that wasn't present before, and whether in lieu of the Council something else could have provided the necessary conditions for change is a matter of speculation.
If you read the Motu Proprio 'Sacram Liturgiam' issued by Paul VI in January 1964, and the decree 'Inter Oecumenici' of September 1964, certain things stand out.
1. The changes mandated to come into effect in Lent 1965 were to be only a preliminary step. Therefore to maintain that it was the Mass of SC and V2 is not tenable.
2. Further changes were to be introduced incrementally; firstly, because it would take time to prepare the new liturgical books which SC had called for, and secondly because it would make it easier for the faithful to digest the changes.
3. There is a palpable sense of urgency and haste. You would scarcely think they were dealing with something that had gradually evolved over centuries.
4. Versus populum, free-standing altars 'centrally placed', moving the tabernacle, placement of candles, use of 'contemporary art' in furnishings and vestments, in fact the entire blueprint for 'reordering' is all there in September 1964. The priest is described as 'presiding over the assembly'.
The ink was hardly dry on Sacrosanctum Concilium, and the Council was still in progress. A year or so ago a blog (it might even have been this one) reproduced an article from a liturgy periodical published in 1962. It predicted how the Mass would look in ten years' time, and guess what? It's the Novus Ordo. This is not an amazing piece of clairvoyance. The reformers knew what they wanted from the outset. The Council happened at a convenient time, but what really mattered was the backing of Pope Paul VI. John XXIII, in many ways more liturgically conservative than Pius XII (he demanded the Vexilla Regis on Good Friday, despite the fact that it had been dropped in 1955) would have given Bugnini his marching orders. In fact he did, and it was Paul who reinstated him.
If Pope Francis replaces Canizares LLovera with Piero Marini, despite the fact that the former was only appointed in 2008 and is five years younger, it will be a clear signal that he has a liturgical agenda, which I, for one, will not subscribe to. Enough is enough. I have spent all my adult life avoiding the fall-out from the last revolution.
Post a Comment