A MATTER OF ECCLESIOLOGY AND ECCLESIAL UNITY AS WELL AS ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

 I think we should be able to expect a more academic and intelligent answer to the question posed to Archbishop Roche without ideological overlays and false information (my commentary in red): 

Question:  Almost a year ago, "Traditionis Custodes" limited the possibilities of using the liturgy prior to the reform of the Council.  The document explained that its objective was "to seek ecclesial communion."  Has progress been made towards that goal?

Archbishop Roche: – We must begin by saying that the reason behind this decision is the unity of the Church, and that is what has moved the Pope.  The previous Popes, John Paul II or Benedict XVI, had never thought that the existing possibilities had the objective of promoting the Tridentine rite, but only serving people who have difficulty with the new form of prayer of the Church. This is not the full truth. For at least Pope Benedict, both forms of the liturgy celebrated by young and old (the older form having more young people, per capita) was to have a gravitational pull on both and with time organically leading to one Latin Rite Roman Missal which would be considered reform in continuity with both!)

 But, in the end, we are formed by the liturgy, because the liturgy carries within it the faith and doctrine of the Church.  Lex orandi, lex credendi.  I think that, in reality, this is not only a difficulty for the liturgy, but a difficulty for ecclesiology, for doctrine.  For the first time in history, since the Second Vatican Council, we have in the magisterium an insertion of the nature of the Church, since it is the first time after two thousand years that we have a dogmatic constitution such as the "Lumen Gentium".  "Lumen Gentium" implies that it is not only the priest who celebrates the mass, but all the baptized.  Obviously, it is not possible for everyone to do what is related to the consecration of the Eucharistic species without the priest;  but all the baptized, like the priest, have a position to celebrate. (This can be true in the older Missal and by the late 1950's, the Church was moving the Ancient Missal in that direction!)  Everyone participates in the priesthood of Jesus Christ and for this reason, as "Sacrosanctum concilium" reminds us, they have the right and the duty to participate in the liturgy. This is in contrast to the rite in the 1962 missal, where the priest was seen as the representative of all the others who are present at the celebration of the mass. (He falsely presumes that the laity today who participate in the Ancient Roman Missal aren't participating--this is an outlandish statement and unworthy of the head of the dicastery for Divine Worship!) This is the great difference between the two forms: the Church as it is understood in today's ecclesiology, and the nature of the Church as it was conceived by earlier ecclesiology.

 

My final comments: We don't worship ecclesiology!!!!! Dammit!  In the older Mass, we don't worship the sacramental priest, although we do worship the eternal High Priest, which the sacramental priest makes sacramentally visible! And in the modern Mass we shouldn't worship ecclesiology and who does what and when.

But with that said, a third Roman Missal, reformed in continuity with the previous two Missals, certainly could highlight lay participation and the roles of lay readers and acolytes officially installed in these position after rigorous formation (male and female). 

What is needed more than ever is an ecclesial unity and noble simplicity in the modern Mass and stop placing too much emphasis on things that really don't need to be emphasized in the liturgy and usually associated with an unbridled inculturation that divides congregations during the Mass being celebrated, so eclectic to be a caricature of the Mass. 

At Charleston's new bishop's consecration, the Mass music and language  was so eclectic to be jarring and a distraction.  The offertory procession reminded me of an I Love Lucy show, when midway through, Desi Arnaz would perform a song and dance number before getting back to the original plot of the particular episode. Something as mundane and straightforward as transporting the offerings to the altar is turned into an entertainment show, like a segment of The Ed Sullivan Show. 

And showing the "Papal Bull" in an actual procession throughout the congregation to vigorous applause gives way too much to attention to a piece of paper with words on it, just read to the congregation! And the applause, I lost track of how many nauseous times--it was worse than an entertainment show in that regard and like a caricature of a coronation--where was the noble simplicity demanded by Vatican II??????????????? Where was the sobriety of the Roman Rite which the two Roman Missals should hold in continuity?