But of course there are many wonderful new Masses in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Missal not found in the EF. I won't bore you with them all other than to point out the separate Ordinary Form Roman Missal dedicated to numerous Masses in honor of Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is a thin Missal with a blue hardback cover and an accompanying lectionary.
The Masses along with a preface for each Mass is contained in this Roman Missal. This means, that apart from the Prefaces, there are Collects, Prayers over the Offerings and Prayers after Communion along with the Introits and Communion antiphons.
What a pity that these Masses in Honor of Our Lady, even in Latin, are not included in the 1962 Missal. There is no logical reason for this! But since when has logic to do with what so many ubertraditionalists spout even on my blog?
This morning, since it is Saturday, I used what the ordo recommended, the Mass in honor of Our Lady, Pillar of Faith from this Roman Missal' collection. How marvelous it is! The law of prayer is the law of belief and even though all prayer of the Church is directed to God the Father, through His Son and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the prayers we say and hear help us to have the right faith and hopefully the right life!
Thus, I have always advocated that I would love to see the changing parts of the 1962 Missal allowed in the vernacular for the law of prayer and the law of belief are so important for the Catholic Faith. For Catholics to hear prayers in their own language helps with the orthodox believing and living of the true Faith.
And don't say that everyone can just get a good translation of these prayers and read them for themselves as the priest prays in Latin. What about the illiterate? And of course so many don't want anything added to the 1962 Missal, an exercise in illogical thinking.
41 comments:
Does the April 30th, 2011 Instruction not address this question?
No. 2 states "With this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI promulgated a universal law for the Church, intended to establish new regulations for the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962".
No. 28 states, "Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962".
D you are the closest so far, but even Pope Benedict said when he released SP that the readings could be in English and seem to also indicate the option of the new lectionary. So I am not completely convinced that the 1997 ED privileges are completely abrogated. And of course, we know that those on the other side of things, believe that Pope Paul VI abrogated the 1962 missal and that what Pope Benedict did was a breach in continuity between the two popes.
1. The Latin prayers can be learned, explained if necessary.
2. The Mass prayers are to God, God is a Latinist.
3. The vernacular is in the Missal side by side with the Latin.
4. The Chants sound better in Latin.
5. It is more than a 1000 years of Catholic identity.
6. Unlike the vernacular, Latin words retain meaning over the centuries better, so that progressives can not change them to pursue a liberal agenda. We saw tempering with translations during the recent translation wars of the Mass. (For example: for you and for all vs. for you and for many).
7. Latin means unity of Latin rite Catholics all over the wold, in spirit, words and in fact.
I heard it said, "A nation lives because of its living language." I dare say, Catholicism lives in the Latin liturgical language. I could go on and on.....
anon-1
Father, perhaps we should also ask why do many Catholics do not want to hear prayers in Latin in the Ordinary Form of the Mass?
As far as I am aware, there is no objection to new prefaces and new feastdays being introduced into the new missal - as Pope Benedict envisaged - and that would be seen as part of the organic growth of the Mass but what you envisage is cutting bits of the Mass out, adding bidding prayers, lay people doing readings and making the Traditional Mass more like the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
I ask: why do you want to introduce changes into the Extraordinary Form of the Mass when you already have the Ordinary Form of the Mass in Latin which fits all the changes you want. It appears to me that you would like a hybrid form of the Mass?
Summorum Pontificum was brought in for those who have an attachment to the older form of Mass. Summorum Pontificum offers the 1962 missal and not the tinkered with version that you propose.
Thankfully you are the only diocesan priest I know who offers the Extraordinary Form of the Mass who has suggested the Mass be tinkered with at all. I sincerely question your reasons for offering the Extraordinary Form of the Mass at all.
Perhaps you don't feel you have a good enough voice to chant the Pater Noster unaccompanied? Perhaps you are getting pressure from parishioners who prefer the Ordinary Form of the Mass. In either case I suggest that it would be better for you to just offer the Ordinary Form of the Mass in Latin, ad orientam with bidding prayers, Pater Noster sung by the people, eucharistic procession etc and no prayers at the altar.
To me what you are suggesting is the slow obliteration of the Traditional Mass. It has happened to us once, Father, and I can assure you it will not happen again. As one Traditionalist said "They took away the Traditional Mass from us once. They will take it away again over our dead bodies". We love the traditional Mass and many martyrs died for the Mass. Can the same be said for your watered down version Ordinary Form of the Mass that is being rejected holus bolus and no amount of adding Latin to it will save it ...
Jan
Why are you so intent on changing the Mass when everyone here is telling you that every other priest simply follows the rules? Are you special somehow? Does the Mass belong to you?
If you really have questions, call a priest who knows what they're talking about and stop using your efforts to figure it out for yourself as an excuse to impose your own novel personal preferences on your unwitting congregation.
Marc only want to do what is allowed and offer ideas to expand the celebration of the 1962 to make its graces more available and to bring authentic renewal to more post-Vatican II Catholics by its celebration. Marc, you seem to want just the small clique that attends this Mass to have all the graces of it. Sad!
Father, you are not responsible for "renewing" the Mass. If you want people to receive the graces of the Mass, the best way is to instruct them to assist properly. By failing to follow the rubrics and not instructing the people how to assist, you are robbing them of graces. And that is what concerns me.
I understand wanting these changes, because they're your opinion, but I would caution, as others have mentioned, that you don't presume to initiate them on your own without having gotten a definitive answer from the proper authorities first. Write to Ecclesia Dei. See what happens. You can't lose that way.
...but if you don't get an answer, I would respectfully recommend you stay by the side of caution and follow the 1962 Missal as promulgated in 1962. The Mass does not belong to any of us, even if we think more graces might come from doing it differently. God may just reward your obedience to the rubrics by supplying what you think is lacking for your congregations.
Re the list of Anon at 9:49: All are good, but 5, 6, and 7 are particularly so. If you adjust the liturgy too much to a particular age, the concept of the Church as a timeless entity suffers damage.
Further, trads are no more off-base than people who have openly expressed to me a disgust at the very notion that the Tridentine Mass continues to be celebrated because it means we are "going backward." Truly, this American/western notion that all change is always progress is heretical in nature. It suggests that we're building the kingdom, that we can work our way back into the Garden of Eden given enough time. This is a notion that underlies a lot of the debate on this blog, and yet it's rarely addressed by anyone. Why is it so darned important to change things? Does it suggest a fear that the way we do things/have done things is deficient? That 2000 years of Catholics have gone to hell because the Masses they participated in weren't in the vernacular? This would seem to base change on a basic lack of faith in the Church. On the other hand, If it's merely a change in style, should we not consider that in changing things to appeal to some people, we will thereby alienate others? If so, what is gained by the change?
In short, what on earth is the problem by asking at the outset, instead of "What do we stand to gain?" the question "What do we stand to lose?" Doesn't that pay more respect to generations of careful thought and reduce the risk of hubris and miscalculation of a single generation? Do we really know better than all previous generations combined?
Father, if you are so sure of your ground that these changes are allowed then I suggest - as I have suggested before - that you write to Ecclesia Dei in Rome and get a ruling on what you want to do. Far better than to just introduce changes that you want, such as the laity singing the Pater Noster and whatever else you may have introduced. I suspect that you have introduced these changes not knowing the rubrics of the Mass. I think John Nolan has already pointed out some areas where you don't have it quite right.
Marc is correct that you need to avail yourself of some instruction from a traditional priest. I also think that you should read Summorum Pontificum again and see what Pope Benedict has to say about who he promulgated Summorum Pontificum for and whether you are living up to that. Have you introduced the Traditional Latin Mass for the right motives, which is to bring those Catholics in Macon who have a love of the old Mass back to the Church? Have you brought the Extraordinary Form into the 12.00pm time slot to maybe get people who like the Extraordinary Form of the Mass used to the Ordinary Form of the Mass in Latin. I think that perhaps you are.
Jan
The bidding prayers that Fr McDonald would like to see in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass are dreadful in most NO Masses and I certainly would not want to see them included in the EF Mass. There is a good explanation here as to why bidding prayers are not required in the EF Mass:
“As can be seen, the TLM already has a place for intercessory prayer in the Memento Domine. There is no need for “bidding prayers”. The “Prayers of the Faithful” that are formulated into the NO, is an idea borrowed from Protestants. The “petitions” are often no more than expressed agendas, rambling sentimentality, opinions and politics masquerading as prayers to God.
Furthermore, the Memento for the Living in the NO is deficient and inferior to that of the TLM. In the TLM, the petition “pro spe salutis et incolumnitatis sua” - “the hope of their salvation and safety”, expresses the desire for an eternal and supernatural good, as well as temporal blessings. Fihr states that in the word “salus”, all spiritual and supernatural gifts are comprised, while the word “incolumitas”, designates temporal blessings of the natural order which include health and success in undertakings - if they are not a hindrance to our salvation.
In the NO, the line (“pro spe salutis et incolumnitatis sua”) is translated as “hope of health and well being”, thus requesting of God only a natural good.” http://kankakeelatinmass.altaredesign.com/2012/02/20/theology-of-the-traditional-latin-mass-19/
At many of the weekday OF Masses people call out their “bids” - one wag I know used to pray that the adverse fruits of the second Vatican Council would be overcome, that there would be permission for a Sunday Latin Mass etc. Although what he said infuriated many there was nothing they could do because he had as much right as anyone to proffer his bit. When things like this are introduced into the Mass they quickly become abused.
I also see that like Fr McDonald, Mons Charles Pope "loves" the Traditional Mass but he would also like to make changes to the EF Mass. I think that priests making these sorts of comments are shooting themselves in the foot and undermining Summorum Pontificum. Do they seriously think that people will continue to go along to Diocesan Masses - all they are doing is giving credibility to statements of the SSPX that Summorum Pontificum is out to destroy the Traditional Mass. I am now seriously rethinking my own situation in the light of what I have now read.
Jan
I, too, agree that the EF Mass should be left as it is. However, I think others commenting here should try to understand Fr. McDonald's motivation. He is a pastor of souls, and his liturgical suggestions are not about his personal preferences, but about his pastoral desire to introduce as many souls as possible to the riches of the Roman liturgical tradition. He does not want the EF Mass in his parish to become the center of an enclosed sect, but to become an integrated part of his pastoral ministry.
All they had to do after Vatican II was have the Tridentine Mass translated into beautiful vernacular translations, of course keeping the Canon in Latin said in a low voice. Keep all the rubrics the same as they had always been. The readings should have been moved from being done at the altar to how they are done today, including allowing laity to proclaim them. That's it. That's all they had to do. No communion in the hand, no extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, no destruction of churches. All this stuff isn't rocket science. It's actually very simple, what the hell were they thinking back in the 60's.
Fr. Malachi Martin and a group of people petitioned Pope John Paul II to restore the Tridentine Mass and make it standard again and phrase out the Novus Ordo. Martin wrote about it in his book, "Keys in This Blood." Completely restoring the TLM didn't necessarily happen...but Summorium Pontificum is a step in the right direction despite all the liberal priests and bishops still around from the 1960s-1990s who hate the TLM. John Vennari and the late Fr. Gruner mentioned that the real 3rd Secret of Fatima hints that the Tridentine Mass is the Mass of the Roman Rite. Malachi Martin was convinced that a future pope will completely restore the Traditional Mass and phase out the Novus Ordo. I pray that this happens soon! I prefer the TLM over the Novus Ordo. Now I am not saying that I hate the New Mass, as long as it's said reverently, but it is the main reason for the massive destruction of the Catholic Faith from all of it's liturgical abuses and man-centeredness! I am perfectly okay with the 1962 Missal whole, but it could be better if the Old Rites of Holy Week where incorporated! New Liturgical Movement suggested that the best way for an organic/hermeneutic liturgical restoration is use the 1962 Missal/1960 Roman Calendar as the base and use the pre-1955 Rites of Holy Week, and the only things carried over from the Novus Ordo are additional prefaces, collects, and newly canonized saints feast days. Some prayers in the Novus Ordo Missal are from ancient Sacramentaries (pre-Missale Romanum/pre-Tridentine). The 1962 Missal is not a relic! Pray for a complete restoration of the Traditional Mass!!!
Dialogue, I think you too should read Summorum Pontificum. Principally it is to bring people back into the Church. If Fr McDonald is a pastor of souls his mission should be to bring those who are going to, say, the SSPX back into the fold. What Fr McDonald is suggesting will only alienate them further and they won't trust any diocesan EF Mass. We had the recent example of a bishop saying that Catholics were bypassing Diocesan Masses and going to the SSPX. Well maybe that is why if there are innovations going on. Now that the Pope has given permission for the SSPX to hear confessions then there is even more reason for them to go to SSPX chapels. It is really the case that Priests just need to accept their are two distinct Masses and people choose to go to one or the other. Maybe Fr McDonald can't be bothered saying two different Masses with two different calendars. Fair enough then he should opt out of the EF Mass. As a person attending the EF Mass I can say the last thing people want is a priest who is not fully behind the EF Mass. Also, you have people who attend solely Spanish Masses for example. They can hardly be referred to as a closed sect anymore than those who love the TLM can be. The Church provides the optoon. Fr McDonald is not forced to offer the EF Mass.
Jan
Jan,
If priests follow your advice, then all celebrations of the EF Mass in my state will come to an end. And, there are very few SSPX priests in the world, with none in my state. You are, in effect, advocating a return to the pre-BXVI days.
Dialogue, how would following the rubrics of the Mass result in Masses coming to an end?
Also, aren't you in Tennessee? If so, there are SSPX priests in your state.
I have only one parishioner, Jan, who goes to the Atlanta SSPX Mass some 90 miles away from Macon because she couldn't have her way in having an EF Mass each Sunday which she demanded of me--so much for submission. If, however, I provided an EF Mass each Sunday at our 12:10 Mass or for that fact stopped celebrating the OF Mass altogether, I'd have about 100 parishioners compared to the 3000 I have now.
I don't get your logic Jan, it simply doesn't make sociological sense whatsoever.
Fr. McDonald, if your estimate about having 100 parishoners if you abandoned the NO is correct, then aren't the great majority of non-trads just as guilty of worshiping the liturgy as you say the trads are? :-)
Perhaps, I've said all along that the extreme right is as guilty of heterodoxy as the extreme left when it comes to worship. The extreme right doesn't want anything to do with the OF and if you tinker with the EF to make it more widely accepted, they scream bloody murder like children in arrested development.
Those who hate the EF Mass are in arrested development too as it concerns the true Faith. What to do, what to do, oh what is a sane pastor, mature beyond his age to do about all these arrested development cases that need anxiety medication about life in general and that life is a constant change.
Yes both groups worship the form of the Mass and one wonder where God is in all of it for them.
I would die if I had a parish full of either rightists or leftists. They are not a fun group of Catholics at all, quite depressing actually in their faux Catholicism which embraces life and joy and fun and lets the wine flow.
should have written faux Catholicism does not embrace life and joy and fun and lets the wine flow as orthodox Catholicism does especially in the Mediterranean parts of Europe and their counterparts in South America!
There's no indication that tinkering with the Mass makes it more widely accepted. At my parish, we have loads of families who travel from all over to get to one of the three Sunday Masses that are all said precisely by the book. Everyone is there to worship God as he deserves to be worshipped, in accordance with the Mass handed down to us by the Church.
You seem to think that you know better than all the saints who formed the Mass and preserved it and handed it on. You seem to think that you need to tinker with that in order to get people to "accept it." In all of that, you have failed to inculturate within yourself the ethos of the Mass -- humility.
People leave your parish for the SSPX because they have a right to have the Mass said properly and frequently. Instead of doing either of those things, you insist on your way.
Simon Schama, in his study of the French Revolution 'Citizens' remarked on the high level of literacy in ancien régime France. 'Literacy rates', he writes, 'in late eighteenth-century France were much higher than in the late twentieth-century United States ... The "little schools" promoted by the Catholic missions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had evidently done their work well.'
Your statistics bear this out, and seem to indicate that the public education system, for all the billions of dollars lavished on it, is a failure.
In 15th century England only a minority of the population were literate, and most of those who were would have been Latin-literate to a greater or lesser extent. Yet the Mass was enormously popular among the common people and the feasts and rituals of the Church were part of the fabric of daily life, to the extent that the liturgical year was the calendar year. People would hear sermons in the vernacular, often preached outdoors, but the liturgy itself did not rely primarily on verbal communication, unlike the flat, wordy and desacralized 'liturgies' of the post-V2 Church. The imposition of a vernacular Prayer Book in the next century (1549) led to a rebellion in the west country (savagely repressed); Cranmer's service was derided as 'naught but a Christmas game.'
Those who attend a Latin Mass (in either Form) do so because it is in Latin. They are not Latinists, but the last thing they want is a meddling priest interjecting the vulgar tongue simply because the State is incapable of teaching its citizens to read. The vast majority of Masses are in the vernacular anyway, so those who prefer it are amply catered for.
Father, I don't think you have any idea what a so-called parish full of "rightists" looks like. You've never been to a traditional parish to experience it.
Lacking any knowledge of reality, like the pope you worship, you resort to name calling.
"embrace life and joy and fun and let the wine flow..." Wow, sounds like a gay old time. Is that, indeed, what Catholic life is about?
And, we are to model ourselves on Mediterranean nations and South America? Sounds like you have been letting that wine flow quite a bit.
Marc,
Jan said "the last thing people want is a priest who is not fully behind the EF Mass". If she merely means following the rubrics, then that's fine. Father McDonald's basic desire, it seems, is not to alter a rite, but to bring his parishioners closer to Christ crucified. He's not "fully behind" anything; he's fully in front of his parishioners, leading them through Christ into Heaven.
I've never met nor even seen an SSPX priest, and I've certainly not known of a parishioner attending their Masses.
All this said, as I've already noted above, I think the EF Mass should be left as it is.
Father McDonald
Tinkering with the Mass 'to make it more widely accepted' has had the completely opposite effect. Have you learnt nothing from the experience of the last fifty years? I have serious misgivings about the Novus Ordo, and the more I read about how it was put together, and the dubious motives and downright dishonesty of the men who were responsible for it, the more I find my misgivings to be justified.
You as a priest have as much authority to tinker with the Roman Rite as you have to marry a same-sex couple.
I attend the 7:45 AM Novus Ordo on Sunday and the 5:00 PM Latin Low Mass on Tuesday. Both at St Joseph in Macon. I have no complaints. From my experience, they are both celebrated as they should be. I'm thankful for what we have. It is possible that with the next pastor assigned here, we may not have it so good. I hope that is not the case of course.
I agree, yes, with John Nolan and Marc. Father, certainly, since you have made your ideas plain of wanting to innovate with the Traditional Mass I am not advocating that you offer an EF Mass each week. In fact, I have said I think it would be better if you stuck to the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Then you can do all the tinkering you want there - many other priests do. To be honest, I think it would be a tragic mistake for you to offer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass on a weekly basis with the ideas that you have which in the end you are bound to carry out as you have started to do already.
And Dialogue implies that just because the SSPX is, what, an hour and a half drive away from Macon that people will continue to attend a hybrid Mass - or whatever crumbs are dished out to them. There are people in my diocese who never enter the door of an Ordinary Form Mass and the same will pertain in Macon, so Dialogue has no real idea of how many attend other Masses and how many will continue on at the EF Mass now being offered at St Joseph's.
If, as Fr McDonald implies there is no one in the parish who fits the needs of Summorum Pontificum, then I repeat that there is no need to offer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass at all, the Ordinary Form in Latin will do for your parishioners who, as you say, know no different and many appear from what you write here to be illiterate. Also, your name calling of people who do not agree with you shows the worst form of clericalism that Pope Francis abhors. Certainly, it is not a pastoral spirit that you have been exhibiting in recent months. A priest's pastoral spirit should embrace all Catholics, not just those he favours. And innovating in the Mass to suit a priest's personal preferences is no different than what many of the priests who you have criticised on this blog do.
Jan
I am glad that is so, George, but the problem is Fr McDonald is not content with things as they are - he is advocating for change, to specifically make the EF Mass like the OF Mass - that is the objection that is being raised. More innovating priests we can do without. As John Nolan says look where we are now as a result of innovations brought in by priests who thought they were doing the right thing.
What Father suggests, to my mind, may well have undercut some of the good work he has done in Macon and anyone who truly loves the Ordinary Form of the Mass - if such people exist in his parish - will now be left with insecurity over what novelty he may introduce. Also, they will be left with no uncertain idea as to what he thinks of those who do love the TLM, which is far different from the way Pope Benedict perceived them when he wrote in Summorum Pontificum:
"But 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, with the special indult 'Quattuor abhinc anno," issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter given as Motu Proprio, 'Ecclesia Dei,' exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.
Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage."
Priests who offer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass need to love it too and love their parishoners and then there will be no problem.
Jan
I just watched Censorship in America on Fox. Jan you have bought into it hook line .& sinker!
Not at all, Father, I am merely stating that you seem to fail to recognise what Pope Benedict and St John Paul II The Great recognised that some Catholics: "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" ... You just call these people extremists whereas both Popes were looking to their pastoral care ... but to me it seems to really boil down to the point that the Extraordinary Form is better left to the Traditional Orders and the diocesan priests to the Ordinary Form. I do think it is a lot to expect a priest to offer two forms of Mass and follow two different calendars.
Jan
I would politely question why Fr. McDonald is so careful about using the full altar rail for an OF Mass (asking the permission of his bishop), when that's clearly allowed, but has no difficulty with the idea that the EF, with much tighter rubrics, can be tinkered with as he pleases.
Fr. McDonald,
Granted you've indicted both left and right over the years. But just to make it aq numbers game, if both wings worship a particular form of liturgy--i.e. the same offense--and you lose one if you don't deliver the zEF sufficiently, and you lose 2900 if you don't deliver the OF sufficiently, then would you agree that the problem with the leftists is a far, far greater one than with the trads since it affects more than 90 percent of your parishoners?
The important thing, that some in their hysteria are missing, is I am only suggesting what ED allowed in the recent past and no one has made clear to me that any authority there or higher has completely abrogated that. It is like Praytell saying over and over again that Pope Paul VI abrogated the 1962 Missal when it is clear there were some loopholes that allowed its celebration in limited ways and St.John Paul II opened even wider with ED and then the door was opened wide with Pope Benedict.
The other thing that those who have no actual history with the EF Mass prior to Vatican II is that there were variances in its celebration and in Europe in the early 1900's some dioceses allowed for a great deal of vernacular and people sung the Mass and this is what Pope Benedict applauded, that in those places where the laity were actively engaged in the pre-Vatican II liturgy by actually singing and speaking their parts, they felt the loss of it more greatly than those who were more outwardly passive.
Those who are not as old as me do not realize that most Catholics loved the vernacular that was allowed with the 1965 Mass although a great deal of Latin was mandated. The problems that traditionalists had came later at the Mass was more and more simplified, Latin tossed and the 1970 Missal introduced. But it was more the music of the day, like folk groups, and priests not following the Missal and other things that really set traditionalists off.
Also in terms of the OF Mass, if I wanted a packed to the rafters Mass and with young people, I could offer worship and praise and in a very lively well done format and they would come. But I wouldn't do that as it is inimical to the Latin Rite in my estimation and makes these people Protestant.
First of all, I do not detect hysteria in any of these comments. Secondly, the 1965 interim rite was intended to be just that, was only in force for two years, and departed from the Roman Rite in some significant respects. The 1967 revision was even more radical and was in effect a dry run for the Novus Ordo. Thirdly, the vernacular hymns and commentaries which accompanied the Mass in some countries (notably Germany) did not substitute For the Latin of the Mass; the priest was bound to follow the text and rubrics of the Missal and the vernacular bits were simply an overlay. Fourthly, Summorum Pontificum specifically refers to the Missal of Bl. John XXIII and has juridical force. Suggestions from the PCED 20 years ago are irrelevant and Universae Ecclesiae makes it clear that post-1962 alterations do not apply. So Communion in the hand, lay readers, altar girls and EMHC are not permitted, nor is substitution of the vernacular for Latin with the exception of the Epistle and Gospel, and then only at a Low Mass.
It is the reform of the reform you should be pushing for, Father - ie the reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
Right from the beginning traditionalists requested the Traditional Mass and the 1965 Mass and the subsequent amendments you and other neo-conservatives want are not the Traditional Mass. The 1965 missal was never ever requested by the laity who petitioned Rome for the restoration of the TLM. Pope Benedict graciously acceded to the requests for the Traditional Mass and the 1962 missal is the missal that ranks alongside the 1970 Missal and there it rests, except for changes to the preface and addition of new saints that Pope Benedict suggested. Thanks to Pope Benedict the tradionalists have the Mass we prayed for. Deo gratias.
Any reforming to be done lies solely with the sow's ear that the neo-cons have been left with. You don't want the 1962 missal and you don't want the 1970 missal - well I guess that means you are left in a difficult situation ... of your own making.
Jan
Those who pushed through the Novus Ordo (Bouyer does not mince his words, referring to 'maniacs' and memorably describing its chief architect Bugnini as 'a man as bereft of culture as he was of basic honesty') wanted to make sure that the new Mass was incompatible with the old. Hence the drastic and seemingly arbitrary changes to the calendar and above all the lectionary. It is often forgotten that those who adhere to the older books are not merely concerned with the Mass; the changes to the Office and the Ritual (which is important as far as the administration of the Sacraments is concerned) are equally lamentable and are a product of the same mindset. The new rite of baptism is undoubtedly valid but then so is that of the Church of England which it closely resembles. Quite a few English bishops now give Confirmation in the Old Rite when requested to do so and there are enough candidates.
I am happy to attend Novus Ordo Masses provided that they are celebrated in an authentically Catholic manner. But I would not accept the new form of Extreme Unction (if I have anything to do with it) and my obsequies will be conducted in the time-honoured manner. The situation will be righted, but long after my death and probably after the death of anyone reading this, but it will happen. As St Edmund Campion said: 'It is of God - it cannot be withstood.'
John, I just want to, once again, say how much I appreciate being able to read your posts here.
I agree with you that the situation will not be righted in the foreseeable future, in terms of the grand scale of things. There are ways to eight things on a local, family level though. For our part, we moved 750 miles for the sole purpose of being able to attend Mass and receive the Sacraments in a traditional parish with traditional priests.
There is more than preference involved here -- there are eternal consequences, and I intend to do everything I can to see that those that God has entrusted to my care are taught the Catholic faith and are able to live the Carholic life. There is, as you say, much more to this than merely the "form" of the Mass (although that is crucial in itself). I contend that, until one is immersed in the traditional parish life, one cannot really understand how much of Catholic life is being missed by those who are only able to experience the normal Novus Ordo parish with its deficient calendar and lack of devotional life.
Marc, I fully agree with what you say. I also appreciate John Nolan's posts with his in-depth knowledge of the Mass. My formative years as a Catholic were before Vatican II. The Catholic Church in my country is nothing like what it was in then. We took on some of the worst reforms and so the church now resembles what the protestant church was like then.
And, yes, as you say it is far more than just the Mass that needs an overhaul and you have certainly done the right thing by moving. I would recommend to anyone who is able to do so to move to be near a traditional parish where you can attend Mass and receive the Sacraments in a traditional parish with traditional priests. One big difference I have found is that the priests appear to genuinely love their people. That is not what you find now in the Ordinary Form parishes where the priests appear sick and tired of lay people. Hardly surprising, though, with all the committees etc that they have to attend. On Sunday to Tuesday the majority of priests don't even answer the phone. I know that when I was making a visit to a church on a Sunday and found the sacristy door had been kicked inI went next door to the presbytery, cars there, music playing, no one answered the door. I went home rang up and no one answered. As I recall, I don't think there was even an answerphone. Heaven help anyone who needs a priest on a Sunday or Monday. Many parishes no longer offer Mass on a Monday.
As regards what John Nolan says about Extreme Unction, I hope to have the same when my time comes. But I have to say that even in a Catholic rest home here, where there is an older resident priest, the priest is not called when a person is dying if it is at night. Everyone is given the anointing of the sick to see them through. The Church as we knew it no longer exists now except in traditional parishes.
I can say now that if I depended on the local parish for the nourishment of the Faith it would be long dead by now. Thankfully, I have friends and relations all brought up before Vatican II and we all attend the Traditional Mass as and when we can.
I would recommend to anyone who has a love of the Traditional Mass to join a chapter of Una Voce, a lay movement which has fought long and hard over the years for the retention of the Traditional Latin Mass. I have been fortunate to be able to be involved with a local Una Voce chapter since the 80s and this has provided support through traditional retreats, etc. in a country where we have little access to traditional orders. Una Voce also provide support to priests offering the traditional Mass, to the traditional orders and to seminarians attending traditional seminaries. Una Voce is in 24 countries and there are a number of chapters in the US.
I believe it is important to have a body of laity that is strong and in touch with Rome to ensure the preservation of the 1962 missal and that drastic changes are not forced upon us. Una Voce has position papers and they can be found on the Latin Mass Society, which is affiliated to Una Voce and has all their position papers on the 1962 missal:
http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/fiuv-position-papers/fiuv-position-papers-on-the-1962-missal
Jan
Post a Comment