Bishop Schneider believes Pope Francis and no pope has the authority to prohibit a form of the Mass celebrated in the form that it is for nearly 1,600 years. That’s an opinion, but an important one. And limits to papal authority is a good thing. St. John Paul II taught that he and no pope has the authority to authorized the ordination of women (and today non-binary people, or whatever they think they are).
Limiting supreme authority to God alone isn’t a bad idea.
But this is what Bishop Schneider points out:
- “I can say with certainty, based on my knowledge of the conciliar debates and my repeated reading of the speeches made by the Council Fathers, that this [i.e., the reform as it is now in the new Missal] does not correspond to the intentions of the Second Vatican Council” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger).
- The traditional Roman liturgy of the Mass was the liturgy of all the Latin-rite Saints whom we know at least during the entire last millenium; hence its age is millennial. Although commonly called the “Tridentine” Mass, the exact same form of the Mass was already in use several centuries before the Council of Trent, and that Council asked only to canonize that venerable and doctrinally sure form of the liturgy of the Roman Church.
- The traditional Roman liturgy of the Mass has the closest affinity with the Eastern rites in bearing witness to the universal and uninterrupted liturgical law of the Church: “In the Roman Missal of Saint Pius V, as in several Eastern liturgies, there are very beautiful prayers through which the priest expresses the most profound sense of humility and reverence before the Sacred Mysteries: they reveal the very substance of the Liturgy” (Pope John Paul II).
While we are talking about opinions, here are my astute ones:
A. Why in the name of God and all that is holy, can’t we have a new Missal that recovers the 1962 Order of the Mass in its entirety with one reform: The combination of the Communion of the Priest and the Laity so there isn’t a duplicate of the “Domini non sum Dignum” and the Communion of the laity is clearly in the Missal.
B. As it concerns Latin, it needs universal protection in every Mass while the lavish use of the vernacular is allowed. How about the fixed parts of the Mass
C. Allow for one other Eucharistic Prayer for weekdays. If Eucharistic Prayer II was truly thrown together at a trattoria in Rome, suppress it. Eucharistic Prayer III seems to have ancient elements, so keep it. Suppress all the others as they are “themed” Eucharistic Prayers. Themed Masses are very 1960’s.
D. Keep new Prefaces and new Masses for special intentions. The various Marian Masses are an organic development.
E. Return to the Low, High and Solemn High Mass options and no others—it shouldn’t be the idiosyncrasies of the priest who decides what is sung or not sung or how a particular Mass is to be celebrated in a hodgepodge sort of way
F. Maintain the propers and Latin Chants for High Masses
I think that the use of Latin exclusively will anger today’s Catholics who want the Mass in their language to help them to pray. There already was a development of the use of some vernacular in the celebration of baptismal the Nuptial Liturgies. That was prior to Vatican II.
As it concerns the full, conscious and intentional participation of the laity, especially the exterior form of it, this needs continued emphasis even in the 1962 Roman Missal. The expansion of ministries to lay adult men and women, such as acolyte and lector but properly vested, can be seen as an organic development.
This will not happen under Pope Francis or anyone of his ideology as it concerns Vatican II being dogmatized into an unchanging meme.
But the God of surprises might surprise those of the Bergolian school rupture thought.
13 comments:
Father McDonald,
Agree with your statements. PF is a Calvinist, dour, and uninspiring, so his liturgies fit his personality. They appeal to almost no one except people of his ilk. The youth of the Church is drawn to the Chartres Pilgrimage not the twaddle he is peddling. Here is an interesting article from Rorate Caeli which exposes a mindset like his. He believes plainness and ugliness, are a fruit of Vatican II. This approach has not worked, the numbers, do not lie.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/06/archbishop-of-paris-admits-modern.html#more
"Allow for one other Eucharistic Prayer for weekdays. If Eucharistic Prayer II was truly thrown together at a trattoria in Rome, suppress it. Eucharistic Prayer III seems to have ancient elements, so keep it. Suppress all the others as they are “themed” Eucharistic Prayers. Themed Masses are very 1960’s."
Eucharistic Pryaer IV has ancient elements: "This prayer (IV) is an adaptation of the anaphora of St. Hippolytus of Rome (martyred A.D. 235). This is the oldest extant text of a developed Eucharistic prayer, so old in fact that it predates the introduction of the Sanctus to the liturgy."
As for "full, conscious and intentional participation," where does "intentional" come from? (I've read some who think the "proper" translation is "full, conscious, and ACTUAL participation, but never have I come across "intentional.")
In the "Discourse of the Holy Father to the Bishops of the Episcopal Conference of the United States of America (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska) at their Ad Limina Visit October 9, 1998," St. Pope John Paul II said, "Full participation certainly means that every member of the community has a part to play in the liturgy; and in this respect a great deal has been achieved in parishes and communities across your land."
"Active participation certainly means that, in gesture, word, song and service, all the members of the community take part in an act of worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it."
"Conscious participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed in the mysteries of the liturgy, lest the experience of worship degenerate into a form of ritualism."
I suspect that John Paul's, "...knowledge of the conciliar debates and [his] repeated reading of the speeches made by the Council Fathers," are every bit as insightful as Ratzinger's.
Because he knew he was competing with this maybe?
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/06/archbishop-of-paris-admits-modern.html
"Conscious participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed in the mysteries of the liturgy, lest the experience of worship degenerate into a form of ritualism." This is the problem with the Novus Ordo Mass. if it hasn’t quite divorced itself from the mysteries it has at least enhanced their mystery through obscuration and left the subsequent generations of clergy and laity with the task of creating competing rituals with weak connections to their foundations and, therefore, each other. It has become not a Tower of Babel, vertically organized toward God, but a horizontal Promenade of Babel, wandering aimlessly among the audience looking for its Author.
Well the Novus Ordo has been a flop, most Catholics no longer attend Mass nor believe in the Real Presence - the TLM is the future
ByzRus,
I was born before the Council and as a boy attended a magnificent church which had a marvelous all male choir singing chant and polyphony. That’s the Church that captured by heart and soul. Brand X is banal and uninspiring. I think the Catholic youth on the Chartres Pilgrimage harbor the same feelings I did back then. The geriatrics in Rome can’t seem to grasp the concept!
Father McDonald said..."And limits to papal authority is a good thing."
Who determines whether a Pope has exceeded supposedly Papal authority? Has Bishop Schneider been set aside to make that determination?
Pope Benedict XVI had overthrown the ancient Good Friday prayers for the Jews. Is that an example of a Pope who had exceeded his authority over the Roman Liturgy? There are traditionalist Catholics who have rejected Pope Benedict XVI's prayer in question.
Is their opposition in question legitimate?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The pope is a servant, not a dictator. Every hear of Servus Servorum Dei?
St. Paul VI went to great lengths that all that had changed in Vatican II was discipline not doctrine or moral teachings, the Deposit of Faith. He had to say that, because progressive religious orders like the Jesuits and other theologians were attacking the Deposit of Faith to create a different Church, a term Pope Francis used and desires. He is very much of the time backward to the 1979’s when changing doctrine, think women priests and especially moral teachings, think contraception then and gender ideologies today and blessing illicit sexual unions of all kinds.
Your example isn’t what I had in mind.
“I can say with certainty, based on my knowledge of the conciliar debates and my repeated reading of the speeches made by the Council Fathers, that this [i.e., the reform as it is now in the new Missal] does not correspond to the intentions of the Second Vatican Council” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)."
Pope Benedict XVI:
"In more recent times, the Second Vatican Council expressed the desire that the respect and reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time.
"In response to this desire, our predecessor Pope Paul VI in 1970 approved for the Latin Church revised and in part renewed liturgical books; translated into various languages throughout the world, these were willingly received by the bishops as well as by priests and the lay faithful.
"Pope John Paul II approved the third typical edition of the Roman Missal.
"In this way the Popes sought to ensure that “this liturgical edifice, so to speak...reappears in new splendour in its dignity and harmony.”
Pax.
Mark Thomas
“I can say with certainty, based on my knowledge of the conciliar debates and my repeated reading of the speeches made by the Council Fathers, that this [i.e., the reform as it is now in the new Missal] does not correspond to the intentions of the Second Vatican Council” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)."
Pope Benedict XVI:
"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."
========================================
Cardinal Ratzinger:
The revised Missal is “nothing other than a renewed form of that same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the church’s earliest history."
=======================================
Cardinal Ratzinger:
"Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new Eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Pope Saint John Paul II:
"The reform of the rites and the liturgical books was undertaken immediately after the promulgation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and was brought to an effective conclusion in a few years thanks to the considerable and selfless work of a large number of experts and bishops from all parts of the world.
"This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development; and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with “the ancient usage of the holy Fathers”.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
TJM,
I'm blessed, the Eastern Church, at least the Ruthenian one is completely free of that which torments many Romans. We're at peace and NO ONE can imagine doing to our liturgy what was done on the Roman side. Our liturgy is viewed as a treasure that we are simply to care for and pass on, not tinker with. Find a TLM community, or a Roman parish balkanized in the way that appeals to your traditional sensibilities and try to stay off the radar of the powers-that-be.
Post a Comment