We know that Pope Francis has reignited the liturgy wars, calmed down by Pope Benedict XVI and his gracious allowance of the pre-Vatican II Liturgies. At the same time, Pope Benedict made clear that the Modern Revised Mass was the norm for the Church but it needed the “reform of the reform” in continuity with the previous manner of liturgies.
This was brilliant. There is no need to suppress the older Mass, just make sure it is the exception rather than the rule and that the revised Mass is the norm, but in need of reform to make it more like the Ancient form of the liturgies.
The pressing liturgical issue for the next pope is to undo the suppression of Pope Benedict’s gracious vision of the liturgy and allowance of the ancient liturgies. Then based on the ancient liturgies, the pope should revise and reform the Modern Mass exactly as Sacrosanctum Concilium stated the reforms.
The Modern Mass has what SC desired but went way beyond it too. A more sober revision of the ancient liturgies needs to take place.
1. Return to the ancient order of the Mass and limit options which would be a return to noble simplicity
2. Revise the revised lectionary and make it more like the TLM’s lectionary in the sense of eliminating one of the readings but maintaining a three year cycle for Sundays. The current daily Mass lectionary is fine and needs no revision. But three major readings at Mass is too much as is 15 to 20 minute homilies. Less is more! Attention spans cause people be less engaged in the Mass and thwarts active participation.
3. Find a way to maintain Latin for the unchanging parts of the Mass
4. Demand that the Propers of the Mass never be substituted by anyone with chosen hymns and chosen by someone’s own personal tastes and creativity. Demand that in Sung Mass, Gregorian Chant and Polyphony are maintained especially for the propers. The Propers for the most part are Sacred Scripture and there is no need for everyone to say or sing these as there is no need for everyone to say the Readings of the Liturgy of the Word!
5. Recover the rubrics and directions of the Ancient Liturgies. This will curtail unscrupulosity and creativity!
33 comments:
As for music can we please, once and for all, throw out the "music supplement" with such timeless hits as "Be Not Afraid" and "Eagles Wings". Why do we cling to these vapid, syrupy songs? I am want to vomit whenever our organist kicks-in with this junk. Oh and something new is creeping in....Praise and Worship tunes. Those are reserved for the "Teen Mass" on Sunday at 5P. I guess this will bring all the wayward young Catholics back to the fold....NOT
These would be improvements and finally bring the average parish into agreement with the directions of the Church to celebrate the "new" Mass in line with the traditions of the "old." I can't say I'm optimistic it'll actually happen, but I do pray for such a miracle.
Nick
The most important change would for the bishops to simply state that one is free to use the options that are already in the missal for a traditional form of the reformed Mass. For 50 years these legitimate options have been suppressed, sometimes de jure but most often de facto. Those who reject or suppress these options are rejecting the new Mass just as much as the most dyed in the wool traditionalist who insists that the old Mass is the only legitimate form. It is incumbent in justice for the bishops, especially now with the recent restrictions on the old Mass, to make this simple pronouncement. One cannot insist that we must accept the new Mass while restricting the ability to celebrate it in a manner that is consistent with our liturgical history.
I find it difficult to believe, however, that a future Pope would return to the tremendous failure that was Summorum Pontificum.
As usual, I do not blame Pope Benedict XVI for Summorum Pontificum's failure. But Summorum Pontificum had failed to obtain the liturgical peace that Pope Benedict XVI had, in holy, gallant fashion, desired.
Interestingly, more than a few "traditional" Catholics have insisted that Summorum Pontificum's greatest "success" was in having turned Catholics against Vatican II, as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
That is, once they had experienced the "True Mass" (TLM), priests, as well as laity, would turn against Vatican II, as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
In addition, among said folks, the rejection of the Ecumenical Movement, interreligious dialogue, "New Rome/Modernist Rome," as well each Vatican II Era "modernist" Pope, would follow soon.
Such leading "traditionists" as SSPX Superior General, Father Pagliarani, Peter Kwasniewski, New Catholic (Rorate Caeli), Michael Matt (The Remnant)...on and on, have long claimed the above.
Example: SSPX Superior General, Father Pagliarani:
"With Summorum Pontificum, the Tridentine Mass was then granted a much wider right. This allowed a certain number of priests to discover it; and by celebrating it – it must be acknowledged – many priests began to question their priesthood, and to question the Council and the New Mass."
Finally, given it's widespread unpopularity among bishops, it would require a supposed pre-Vatican II-like, authoritarian "Dictator Pope" to even attempt to reestablish Summorum Pontificum within the Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Here is an example, many of which exist, that counters the false narrative that Pope Francis hates the TLM/"traditional" Catholics:
-- The FSSP’s international headquarters in Fribourg has released the following statement:
-- Official communiqué of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter – Fribourg, March 1st, 2024.
"Following a request from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Pope Francis invited Fr. Andrzej Komorowski, Superior General of the FSSP, to meet with him."
"He received him in private audience at the Vatican on Thursday, February 29, 2024, accompanied by Fr. Benoît Paul-Joseph, Superior of the District of France, and Fr. Vincent Ribeton, Rector of St. Peter’s Seminary in Wigratzbad."
"The meeting was an opportunity for them to express their deep gratitude to the Holy Father for the decree of February 11, 2022, by which the Pope confirmed the liturgical specificity of the Fraternity of St. Peter, but also to share with him the difficulties encountered in its application."
"The Pope was very understanding and invited the Fraternity of St. Peter to continue to build up ecclesial communion ever more fully through its own proper charism."
"Fr. Komorowski informed the Holy Father that the decree of February 11, 2022 had been given on the very day of the Fraternity of St. Peter’s consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, on the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes."
"The Holy Father hailed this coincidence as a providential sign."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT your exaggeration of what some in the traditionalist movement have said or thought has been expressed over and over again with no proof sited that this is led by almost every bishop in any Country where the TLM is embraced and celebrated. It is a small group of lay Catholics and a minuscule number of bishops.
When it comes to the major schism happening in Europe, especially Germany and other Germanic countries who embrace the Modern Mass but reject an orthodox understanding of Vatican II and have criticized Pope Francis, and these are the bishops of those countries, you are silent.
On your part this tends to demonstrate intellectual laziness and willful blindness.
Father McDonald, I have not remained "silent" in regard to "the major schism happening in Europe, especially Germany and other Germanic countries who embrace the Modern Mass but reject an orthodox understanding of Vatican II and have criticized Pope Francis..."
"The major schism happening in Europe" is not the topic of this thread. That is why yesterday I posted comments that pertained to this thread.
Several times during the years that I have participated on your great blog I have noted the nonsense in question that has taken place in Germany. I have supported Pope Francis' gallant attempts to lead the Church in Germany to the Truth.
Father, I appreciate your concerns in regard to the above.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
An Infantile mind readily comes to kind as well as someone in desperate need of attention
Mark Thomas,
You err in continuing to identify the post Vatican II reform of Pope Paul VI with the Vatican II itself, the rejection of the former with the rejection of the latter. You are not, unfortunately, alone in this. Those on both sides of the spectrum have done so. This identification can hardly be justified. Vatican II called for a limited reform of the existing rite, only what was required, not its replacement with an entirely new rite. It is hard to see how any of the changes that go beyond those of 1965 can be characterized as necessary. The insistence that the changes in the new Mass were required by Vatican II is what has lead many to reject the council itself. The present form in which the Mass is celebrated is not even required by the reformed missal itself, a fortiori it cannot be said that it is required by Vatican II.
As for what is a "tremendous failure," can anything be characterized as a failure more than the post conciliar Pauline reforms? The Church is in a free fall: Mass attendance less that 20% and falling; belief in the Real Presence around 20%; 1/3 of those baptized and raised Catholic having left the Church, making former Catholics the second largest religious group in America, open and widespread rejection of Church teachings on morality, even by a whole bishops' conference; etc. Yet we are told that we cannot question anything that has happened after the council because this would be a rejection of the council itself.
Father McDonald said..."MT your exaggeration of what some in the traditionalist movement have said or thought has been expressed over and over again with no proof sited that this is led by almost every bishop in any Country where the TLM is embraced and celebrated. It is a small group of lay Catholics and a minuscule number of bishops."
Father McDonald, please correct me if I have misunderstood the above.
I take it that you believe that I, time and again, have not cited "proof" to support my supposed "exaggerated" views of the traditionalist movement. I have cited proof repeatedly to support my assessments of the traditionalist movement.
We are aware, for example, that Archbishop Lefebvre was, for years, a player of tremendous importance within the TLM Movement. He remains so via his writings, lectures, as well as history with the SSPX.
We are aware also that Archbishop Lefebvre was an extremist — so extreme that, in horrifying fashion, he had worn his excommunication as a badge of honor in regard to the schismatic war that he had waged against Holy Mother Church.
In 1988 A.D., then-Cardinal Ratzinger noted the powerful influence that extremist Archbishop Lefebvre exercised among "traditionalists." Then-Cardinal Ratzinger insisted as a "fact" that Archbishop Lefebvre's powerful influence extended "far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre."
Archbishop Lefebvre, far beyond the SSPX, was viewed "as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally," according to then-Cardinal Ratzinger.
The above from then-Cardinal Ratzinger is a powerful citation that I have offered several times over the years to support my argument that extremism is very much in play within the TLM Movement.
There is also the reality that such leading extremists/blogs as Peter Kwasniewski, Rorate Caeli, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, 1Peter5, LifeSite...on and on...enjoy considerable followings/influence within the TLM Movement.
Finally, the TLM Movement was founded, and long informed, by Father Gommar De Pauw.
Father McDonald, I am confident that I have long offered solid citations in support of my TLM Movement-related comments. I realize that you believe otherwise.
Oh, well. That is where we stand.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT has made this blog unreadable. I think Soros has paid him to destroy it
Father, I have long found the following interesting:
(I define "extremism" noted below as denunciations against Vatican II, the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, our Vatican II Era Popes...support given to Peter Kwasniewski, Rorate Caeli, 1Peter5, The Remnant, LifeSite, Archbishop Viganó...)
Father McDonald, certain TLM Movement folks who have posted here have long claimed that their extremist views have represented mainstream thought among "traditionalists." Said folks have even claimed that one young priest after another favors radtrad views.
Said folks have insisted that rejection, when "traditionalists" have deemed fit, of the Church's Magisterium, is widespread and viewed as valid within the TLM Movement.
Said folks have claimed that denunciations against Vatican II, the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, as well as our Vatican II Era Popes, are widespread and viewed as valid within the TLM Movement.
Father McDonald, I realize that you contend that extremism within the TLM Movement is limited to a small but vocal amount of "traditionalists."
For what it is worth, I have noted that certain "traditionalists" who read/post to your blog have long disagreed with your contention in question. Again, said folks wish us to believe that "radtrad" extremism is mainstream within "traditionalist" circles.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT - We can go to the bank together to cash our checks from George Soros. Then, we'll grab a slice from a little pizza joint in Washington, DC, where TJM thinks Hillary Clinton ran a sex-trafficking operation. After that, we'll watch some Malachi Martin videos about how John Paul II was blocked from doing good works by secret Masonic personnel in the Vatican hierarchy.
You know, just the usual conspiratorialist fun afternoon...
Guess who declared the following just a couple of weeks ago?
"I will no longer post here. For some strange reason Father McDonald provides a forum for the braindead and the evil. It is no longer worth it."
"I will focus on intellectual, informed Catholic blogs like Father Z, Father Hunwicke and The New Liturgical Movement who do not suffer lying fools who are courting perdition."
=========
Well, heeeeeeeeeeee's back!
:-)
Actually, I am not certain that he had even carried through for a second in regard to his little temper tantrum
.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Fr K and Mark Thomas
You are both leftists who LOVE abortion. You must, because other than overrunning the Country with illegal aliens who pillage and kill American citizens, what else does your Party offer as a reason to vote for them? Speaking of Greedy Hillary, in a moment of supreme irony, stated that Trump supporters need to go to re-education camps. She sounds very much like a Communist.
Anthony, the Church has long taught that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI is in accord with the Council.
Pope Saint Paul VI pronounced authoritatively on that matter.
=====
Pope Saint John Paul II declared:
"The reform of the rites and the liturgical books was undertaken immediately after the promulgation of the Constitution and was brought to an effective conclusion in a few years thanks to the considerable and self less 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".
=========
Pope Benedict declared: "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."
In addition, from 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.”
=======
In accord with his above-mentioned predecessors, Pope Francis has made it clear that the liturgical reform flowed from, and is line with, Vatican II.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT,
Yet the liturgical reform has been a total flop. Look at stats for Mass attendance in the US today compared to 1960. If our bishops were in a for profit company, they would have been fired long ago for rank incompetence for peddling and sticking with a failed product.
Mark Thomas,
Whether or not the Pauline reforms were in accord with Vatican II is a question of prudential judgment, not doctrine. One can disagree with this judgment and not be against the council. It is this very insistence that the Pauline reform is consistent with the council and to believe otherwise is to oppose the council is what leads many to reject the council itself. We also must distinguish between the official reform as contained in the liturgical books and the restrictive form of it that is actually allowed. So even if one were to posit that the liturgy as contained in the missal is accordance with the council, one could still say that the way it is actually celebrated goes beyond, or is even contrary to, the council.
Likewise, you have alleged that traditionalists reject the Magisterium of the Church. Again, prudential judgments made after the council are not part of the Magisterium. Indeed, the same can be said of the recommendations on the reform of the liturgy made by the council itself. These are matters of discipline, not of faith and morals, and only rise to the level of prudential judgment, not faith. Sacrosanctum concilium was not a magisterial pronouncement.
To consider the SSPX a valid basis of the views of faithful traditionalist Catholics by which to evalaute Summorum Pontificum is beclowning. But, that doesn't tell us anything new about the resident rambler.
Nick
Father Kavanaugh said..."MT - We can go to the bank together to cash our checks from George Soros. Then, we'll grab a slice from a little pizza joint in Washington, DC, where TJM thinks Hillary Clinton ran a sex-trafficking operation. After that, we'll watch some Malachi Martin videos about how John Paul II was blocked from doing good works by secret Masonic personnel in the Vatican hierarchy. You know, just the usual conspiratorialist fun afternoon..."
Father Kavanaugh, that is funny! :-)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony, I have alleged "that traditionalists reject the Magisterium of the Church" as numerous "traditionalists," here, and elsewhere, have declared that they reject this, or that, Magisterial pronouncement.
During the past 11 years, have you been unaware as to the "recognize but resist" movement — that is, recognize that Pope Francis is Pope, but resist certain of his Magisterial teachings — that has blossomed within the TLM Movement?
There are, for example, "traditionalists" who post here regularly who have declared that they have not hesitated to resist Pope Francis' teaching authority. You have not encountered those posts?
Really?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony, the Church has long taught that the post-Vatican II liturgical reform conforms to the decrees of Vatican II. That is official Church teaching. Our Vatican II Era holy Popes have confirmed that numerous times via such official Church documents as Apostolic Constitutions, Motu Proprio, Apostolic Letters, etc.
Here is an example of that:
APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED "MOTU PROPRIO" BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS
«TRADITIONIS CUSTODES»
Art.1. "The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite."
"Everything that I have declared in this Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio, I order to be observed in all its parts, anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, even if worthy of particular mention, and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in “L’Osservatore Romano”, entering immediately in force and, subsequently, that it be published in the official Commentary of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis."
"Given at Rome, at Saint John Lateran, on 16 July 2021, the liturgical Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate."
FRANCIS
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
You are making a mistake of categories. Church teaching regards matters of faith and morals, not discipline. Since pronouncements concerning the form of the liturgy are about discipline they do not fall under the rubric of Church teaching. They are policy, not teachings. Similarly, statements concerning the congruency of the present form of the liturgy with the recommendations of Vatican II are not Church teaching, but merely opinions, albeit they are from those who hold high authority.
As to disagreements with statements by Pope Francis, popes do not posses a personal Magisterium apart from that of the Church. Thus, there is no such thing as the Magisterium of Pope Francis. There is only the Magisterium of the Church, and this encompasses all the teachings of the Church throughout the centuries. Even popes are bound by this. Popes enjoy the charism of infallibility only in a number of limited cases. As of yet, Pope Francis has not issued any pronouncements that fall under this category. Opposition to certain of his pronouncements is not based on the rejection of the recognized Magisterium of the Church but on the judgment that these pronouncements themselves are contrary to that Magisterium. You are arguing from authority, the weakest form of argument. Church teachings contained in both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisteria are protected by the charism of infallibility. The daily pronouncements of popes and the disciplines concerning the form of the liturgy are not, and they cannot be considered Church teaching.
MT you can join abortion supporter Father K in Hell! That is funny!
Anthony, here is an address by Pope Francis that mentions the "magisterium of Pope Benedict."
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2022/12/01/221201e.html
A google search will net you numerous discussions related to this and that Pope's Magisterium.
Anthony, in regard to Popes Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, as well as Francis: Each Pope in question employed his Magisterium to advance Church teaching related to the death penalty.
=========
-- Pope Saint John Paul II's Magisterium called into question the necessity of the death penalty in today's world.
=========
-- Pope Benedict XVI's Magisterium exhorted us to work for the death penalty's elimination.
Via a 2011 A.D. Apostolic Exhortation, Pope Benedict XVI taught that we must "make every effort to eliminate the death."
==========
Finally, in line with his immediate predecessors' developments in question, Pope Francis' Magisterium declared that the death penalty "is inadmissible."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony, one holy Pope after another has guaranteed that the liturgical reform flowed from the Council. I accept said teaching. But we disagree with each other in that regard.
Anthony, I wish you, and your family, a blessed Sunday.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father Kavanaugh, please do not forget our meeting tomorrow with George Soros. I will see you, and Mister Soros, at Trilateral Commission Headquarters.
Father, by the way, I will not be able to attend this year's Bilderberg Meeting. I plan, instead, to attend the Grassy Knoll Convention in Dallas.
I understand that the convention will feature an exciting act. At the top of each hour, for 15 minutes, a man wearing an aluminum foil-lined baseball cap (gotta keep out microwaves designed to turn people into Democrats, as well as "Bergoglio" followers) will mill about the convention floor.
He will insult everybody that he encounters. He will insist that each person present is a left-winger..."you're a lefty, you're a lefty, you're a lefty..." He then consigns each person in sight to Hell.
Finally, after having inhaled helium to achieve a high-pitched voice, he will state repeatedly, "believe in Peter Kwasniewski...believe in Peter Kwasniewski...believe in Peter Kwasniewski...Vatican II was a conspiracy...Vatican II was a conspiracy...Vatican II was a conspiracy."
He will then denounce, as he terms it, the "Novus Bogus." Through his ears, he will squeeze two pounds of marshmallows from his head...then rests until his next performance.
:-)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
Attempts to dogmatize what in essence is a disciplinary matter is what has division and resentment. By claiming that those opposed to the present status quo are rejecting the Church's Magisterium you close off discussion and compromise. A true dialogue having been denied, those wishing a more traditional form of worship respond by also becoming doctrinaire and intolerant. But these extremists, as you call them, are no worse than the extremists on your side who have pushed for a radical reform.
Your position also contains a internal contradiction. If seeking a reform of the present norms for worship is to reject the Church's Magisterium, would not those who called for a reform of the ancient liturgy have also been guilty of rejecting the Church's Magisterium, especially considering that that form of worship was approved by over a thousand years of Church teaching as well as the Council of Trent? The same questions holds for those who pushed for reforms that went beyond what was included in the published missal. Remember that Communion in the hand and female servers were introduced in opposition to the norms at the time. Even today, the universal use of extraordinary minister for Communion goes against multiple instructions against their use when not truly necessary. Do these, too, rejecting the Church's Magisterium?
Anthony said..."But these extremists, as you call them, are no worse than the extremists on your side who have pushed for a radical reform."
Anthony, my "side" is the Church's side. I am on Her side. I am not a liberal, conservative, traditionalist,...whatever. I am a Catholic.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
If you are just Catholic, then stop trying to dogmatize disciplinary matters and enter into a honest discussion with the critics of the liturgical reform on the merits. Stop hiding behind "Vatican II required it" and charging critics with denying the Magisterium of the Church. Attempting to freeze the liturgical reform puts you on a side.
Anthony, I have not dogmatized disciplinary matters.
In regard to the liturgical reform: The Church has declared that the liturgical reform is in line with Vatican II/Holy Tradition. Therefore, I accept that.
The only folks about whom I have stated have denied the Magisterium are those who have stated outright that they have rejected Church teaching. There are folks here, and elsewhere, who have declared openly that they have rejected this or that Magisterial teaching.
I have not frozen the liturgical reform. I accept that which the Church teaches in regard to the reform. I have, more than once on Father's blog, noted the following Church teaching:
"It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."
I accept readily that which the Pope has taught, or may teach someday, in regard to liturgy.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
And where has anyone denied Magisterial teachings? Regulations about the liturgy are not Magisterial teachings. Nor are opinions on whether the post conciliar reforms are in accord with Vatican II, even if such opinions are made by popes. Claiming that they are is to dogmatize what is merely disciplinary.
Anthony,
It is very common in the progressive or modernist circles in the Church to elevate favored disciplines to dogma (and abolish disfavored disciplines due to desuetude) and erode unpopular dogmas as "in need of reform" or "doctrinal development." If it means an opportunity to accuse non-progressives or non-modernists of heresy, schism, or (egads!) denial of the Council, so much the better.
Nick
Post a Comment