As we all know, Pope Benedict’s liberal/progressive allowance of the 1962 Roman Missal and other sacramental rites of that time, was meant to allow both forms of the Mass and Sacramental rites to exert influence on each other and eventually to lead to a third Roman Missal developed in an organic way in terms of any simplifications or revisions to the 1962 Roman Missal.
Some think that allowing more influence of the 1962 Missal on the modern missal is the way to go and what I advocate. This means restoring the reverence of the older forms, kneeling for Holy Communion and ad orientem but not imposed in such a way to exclude what has happened since the late 1960’s in terms of what is allowed.
There is no going backwards to the exclusive use of the 1962 Roman Missal and other rites. Why?
It would cause a schism in the Church either in a formal way or informal way. The vast majority of people who attend Mass and others who visit, will not tolerate an exclusively Latin Mass. They prefer the vernacular and they like a less rigidly celebrated Mass that has human aspects of warmth and fellowship.
In addition to this, what Pope Paul VI was able to do in suppressing the previous rites of the Church in favor of the new occurred when the papal magisterium and the Universal Magisterium of the Church had major clout and lower clergy, religious and laity obeyed in a respectful way even if they had their own preferences. Those days are gone with the wind of the spirit be it Holy or not.
Thus Pope Benedict's solution is the best way to go. He did not suppress the new Mass or even creativity associated with it, but he allowed the older to coexist with the newer.
Pope Francis canceled Pope Beneidict’s liturgical magisterium and so much more of his genius intellect in favor of a sloppy/banal/worldly 1970’s approach to all things ecclesial.
Once Pope Francis is gone and a new pope who favors Benedict’s approach is elected, things will improve but not until then. Going back to 1962 is not possible nor is it preferable. It’s a dumb idea no matter how logical it might be presented on paper or in a well researched book.
11 comments:
Well, the 1962 folks may be the last Catholics standing. Look at the Chartres Pilgrimage, that's a youth movement. I guess tradition is for the young. I wouldn't walk across the street for the typical Novus Ordo.
TJM - And we would be glad of it.
K, I am glad you agree with me that the Catholics who are attached to the 1962 Missal will be the last Cathoiics standing.
I always look forward to your Christlike comments full of charity and understandibg!
Fr. K., You are obviously an intelligent man. However, so many of your comments betray a lack of kindness. What good do you think you are accomplishing when you post messages such as the above?
It is unfortunate that some hardline traditionalists have taken an all or nothing approach to the liturgy. While a return to the traditional Mass might be the ideal, it is not going happen anytime soon. But what could happen is a fully traditional form of the new Mass, and this without any special permissions or changes to the Missal. Would this be perfect? No. But it is possible now. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But there is more reason why even those who want a return to the old Mass to support a traditional form of the new. The gulf between the two forms of the Mass is artificial and is supported by the false claim that all of these changes were mandated by Vatican II. Not only were they not mandated by Vatican II, they were not mandated by the new Missal. By promoting a fully traditional form of the new Mass it would reveal that these innovations are the product of private opinions, often directly contrary to Vatican II. This would strip "because of Vatican II" of its power as a magical incantation that justifies all of the changes and prevents any criticism, opening the way for an honest discussion about the reform.
And finally, if those in authority insist that we must accept and use the new Missal, we should demand the same of them. A traditional form of the Mass is possible with new Missal. Placing restrictions or mandates that go beyond the Missal itself is to reject that Missal just as much as the most hardline old Mass only Catholic. We cannot demand that every Mass is celebrated in a traditional manner, but there is no just reason not to have at least one such Mass in every parish.
Anthony,
Well stated. Anyone who has read Sacrosanctum Concilium knows what we got is not what the Church Fathers asked for in terms of reforms.
I thought Pope Benedict was on the right track with Summorum Pontificum. I see the effects when younger priests celebrate the Novus Ordo who also know how to celebrate the TLM. A much greater attention to detail and way more dignified. I actually belonged to two parishes that offered the TLM and a more dignified Novus Ordo. We all got along. Pope Francis swept that away to satisfy some bitter old lefties who still cannot accept that the "new and improved" Mass is wanting in many respects and has not ushered in a "New Spring." But in the not-so-distant future those folks will be gone. The younger clergy do not carry the baggage they do.
The first step towards reform is to suppress all Eucharistic Prayers and mandate the Roman Canon. It is not only more ancient and beautiful, it also shows that Holy Mother the Church has honored, not denigrated women, as the Leftwing of the Church insists. If women were second class citizens, why would so many women's names be included in the Roman Canon?
I may be mistaken, but I understand the Missal issued by Anglicans joining the Church might achieve what you are suggesting.
Sacerdos Simplex,
Good look getting an answer. Fr. MJK still can't figure out what my name is and so refers to me using an epithet for Satan and using a feminine form for my name, despite me asking him not to. I think he thinks that might be funny? Anyway, my attempt to read Fr. MJK's comments with charity requires me to believe it's someone impersonating him to make him look bad. I know no other way to give a good construction to how the most basic forms of politeness for those whom he believes to be his inferior (in every possible way, naturally, but especially in terms of intelligence, education, and sophistication) seem to be an insurmountable challenge for whoever types those comments.
Anthony,
I don't disagree with you insofar as a "reformed" NO would be a good thing, but there are certain things about the NO that noticeably separate it from what came before (the offertory, the re-writing of so many proper prayers, the complete rearrangement of the lectionary, almost-total suppression of silent prayer, etc.) that the reformed NO will always have a certain sense of something not being quite right, especially to those familiar with the missals that came before it.
Nick
Agreed, but every journey starts with the first step.
Anything is possible. Pride and laziness are two of the usual impediments towards progress as perceived by those with decision making authority.
If someone truly felt a pivot was necessary, ignoring my unqualified opinions, reinstating the '62 missal in the vernacular wouldn't be challenging except for areas lacking a Roman presence at that time. Simply use the other side of the vernacular side.
Switching from 500 years of tradition was made that easy in '69.
Too easy, unfortunately!
I realize this is an old post, but I respectfully disagree with your statement FrAJM. The Vatican II Mass can disappear with no effort and take 95% of the laity with it.
Post a Comment