Pope Benedict’s XVI’s longtime aide and confidant, who Pope Benedict tapped to run the Congregation for Divine Worship and whose name was used as cover for the USCCB’s desire to proceed with debate on the Eucharistic Coherence document, Archbishop Gus DiNoia, OP, states that traditionalists used JPII/BENEDICT “to their ends.”
I don’t want to say everyone who attends the 1962 Missal Mass is this way, but many are. On this blog I have had to delete or not publish many right wing heterodox comments that are far from the fidelity of pre-Vatican II Catholics to the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church.
The way forward is the 2007 Latin Edition of the post Vatican II Mass and the use of the 1974 Roman Gradual for the propers of the Mass and the Liturgy of the Word in the vernacular. John Nolan can correct me on this, but I believe the Roman Gradual has the gradual instead of the Responsorial Psalm available to be chanted.
The 2007 Latin Missal with the Liturgy of the Eucharist celebrated ad orientem and kneeling at the altar railing for Holy Communion is certainly an option to be considered and allowed.
I would recommend to Archbishop DeNoia that the options allowed in the Ordinariate’s Missal, Divine Worship be given to the normative Roman Rite as well. After all, Pope Francis’ name and authorization of this missal in printed in their post- Vatican II Roman Missal.
This is an important article that can’t simply be dismissed
Sound byte:
“Many people with a desire for Latin in the liturgy would have been better served by the ‘novus ordo’ (the modern Mass) in Latin than by the repristination of the pre-conciliar liturgy.”
“As Pope Francis implies,” he said, “this renewal is not a matter of creatively ignoring the rubrics, but finding the true spirit of the liturgical reform by mining the riches of the Word of God which have now been made available both in the vastly expanded cycles of the Lectionary and the Divine Office, and celebrating the Mass with absolute fidelity to the texts and rubrics and to its proper nature as a participation in the celestial worship of Christ for the Father with the communion of saints.”
13 comments:
"At bottom, “participatio actuosa” means much more than merely talking and singing together: it is rather making one’s own, on the part of the Christian who participates in the function, the same intimate disposition of the sacrifice to the Father in which Christ accomplishes his giving of himself to the Father. And this is why the foremost need is for what Johann Michael Sailer has defined as the fundamental language of the Mass." (Settimo Cielo, July 20, 2021)
Walter Brandmuller
I pray that Bishops and clergy responsible for picking the path forward do not characterize those that go to the TLM by the loudest, social media bloggers or responders/commentators of those blogs and other social media. Why not look out at the hundreds who attend your local Masses and ask them how many even read those blogs. I bet many are organically drawn to the TLM and have no idea who these loud voices are or how to even follow them. I personally never heard of Taylor Marshall or Life Site or Una Voce or St Pius X Society or even your site when I was drawn to and personally discerned that the TLM was the better form of the worship. I also don’t intentionally blog, speak, promote or otherwise demand reforms or constantly demote the New Mass. I suspect this is the case with 98% of TLM Mass attendees. Similarly, I bet 98% of New Mass attendees don’t demote the TLM.
So, let the battle in the blogosphere rage on. And let those who enjoy arguing continue to argue. But seriously, most faithful Catholics aren’t participating in that debate. They are too busy fighting daily battles that must be fought raising families, holding down jobs and ministering to others regardless of which Mass they choose. While the debate may be of interest and certainly impacts us all, it’s not like the average Mass goer is engaged in that debate or can be fairly characterized by those who are passionately engaged in the debate.
We need Bishops who connect with their flock personally (not via a sampling of priests, or social media blurbs or electronic surveys) to best understand and address the needs of the flock. True servant leadership following the way Our Lord connected with His flock during His public ministry and the great Pope Saints that followed.
Not convincing at all. The Archbishop is invested in the liturgical failure and will not accept the myriad of deficiencies the sentient see in the OF so he has to engage in deflection. No surprise the company men are circling the wagon
Oh for heavens sake I wish these people would stop shoving Vatican II and the Novus Ordo down our throats already, 50 plus years and your still trying to justify both to no avail. Enrich this enrich that, V II didn’t mean this or it did not say that. Well if it didn’t mean to have giant puppets, priests dressed as clowns, Altar girls, Lay lectors, Communion in the hand while standing, Guitars, drums, bongos, folk music mariachi music, rock music, kiss of peace, hand holding, clapping, girls in leotards prancing around the altar, lesbian nuns with incense balls, felt banners, no statues, no high altar, no communion rail, no Latin, no chant, no organ,Closed churches, closed seminaries, closed schools, closed hospitals, closed convents, 10% Mass of attendance, then tell me what was it supposed to do after 50 years later any business would call that a failure hello!!!! Come on guys grow up enough is enough, you’ve made excuses for 50 years aren’t you tired of it we sure are.
Instead of taking punitive measures against faithful Catholics, perhaps the Pope of Mercy should focus on this:
“It is with sadness that I inform you that Msgr. Jeffrey Burrill has resigned as General Secretary of the Conference,” Archbishop Jose Gomez wrote July 20 in a memo to U.S. bishops.
“On Monday, we became aware of impending media reports alleging possible improper behavior by Msgr. Burrill. What was shared with us did not include allegations of misconduct with minors. However, in order to avoid becoming a distraction to the operations and ongoing work of the Conference, Monsignor has resigned effective immediately,” Gomez added."
Any the hierarchy wonders why more and more Catholics walk away.
Father, I have been watching your blog and you have your "finger on the heterodox trigger" more than usual lately. Whether you see it or not, you are still blaming the victims.
As I said before, I KNOW we are annoying to you sometimes, and you have a lot to sift through, but look at the bigger picture. Can you think of ANY time in the last 1000 years where one or two generations saw this much change happening so quickly in the Church?
The Church is supposed to be a rock of stability that grounds us to deal with a world that is passing away. It cannot be denied, I repeat, IT CANNOT BE DENIED that Catholics have witnessed their Church conforming itself to the world and abandoning its mission to become, first, a "hip social services agency" and now, a quasi-political influence group that justifies its existence by maintaining services on Sunday--but darn it, "we're going to update and do the services the updated way and we are going to drive those believers who demand consistency and tradition out! OUT!"
If you have not done so, read Clement Harrold's commentary in Crisis, "A Time for Anger". He quotes Thomas Aquinas, reminding us that in the face of injustice “the lack of anger is a sign that the judgment of reason is lacking”.
We have watched popes kiss the Koran, allow pagan religious leaders to place their cursed idols on our altars (note how conveniently no one ever reminds us that the Assisi chapel was destroyed by an earthquake after that--if man won't clean up the filth when sanctuaries are fouled, God will). We have watched the college of bishops turn into a conglomeration of a few good guys, fewer warriors who defend the faith and a large number of effeminate fops who push environmentalism and LGBTQ issues as the most important "concerns" of Catholics while their flocks starve to be fed. And their pastoral response? THEY REVILE US BECAUSE WE ASK TO BE FED. No, instead they embrace the pro-abortion crowd and give succor to the enemy. And now that the one remnant that actually BELIEVES what the Church teaches and goes to Mass to actually WORSHIP God rather than ourselves has been slapped, we're supposed to be good little patsies and raise no objections? And from a pope who mocks us, makes no attempt to hide his contempt, brings stinking pagan idols into the Vatican and has the audacity to title his iconoclastic screed "GUARDIANS of Tradition"?
Get real.
There is a serious crisis of a spiritual nature in our Church and you aren't going to help by labeling everyone who is upset as "heterodox".
The Jews couldn't figure out who Jesus was because they wanted a political or military messiah to overthrow Rome. Today's prelates and modernists are making the same mistake, only worse. Not only do they want to completely politicize the Church, but they want to change it into a functionary to promote every cause du jour that comes along.
We would be fools if we were not angry. That doesn't make us "heterodox".
You say that the way forward is to use the 2007 Latin edition of the new Mass. And here we have the problem. While there has always been the option in the new Mass for what would be a very traditional form—see the Brompton Oratory in London or St. John Cantius in Chicago—in fact this option has been all but suppressed. Indeed I can attest from personal experience, an experience shared by many others, that a priest will get more grief for trying to say the new Mass in strict accordance with the Missal but in a traditional manner than he would for saying the old Mass itself. The only option for most people who wish for a traditional form of the Mass is the old Mass.
The truth is that those voices that cry the loudest for obedience to the liturgical reforms mandated by Vatican II in fact reject those reforms just as much as those who wish for a return to the old Mass. If we must be bound by the present Missal, so be it; but let all be bound by it. Let the bishops establish in each parish a form of the new Mass stripped of all novelties not actually mandated by the Missal. Thus:
1) the Mass in Latin;
2) ad orientem for the Eucharistic Prayer;
3) the use of the Roman Canon;
4) Gregorian chant;
5) Communion in the ordinary form, i.e., kneeling and on the tongue;
6) all male ministers; and
7) a sanctuary clearly delineated by a rail.
Those who object to this are too rejecting the reforms of Vatican II.
Here is what the Archbishop had to say in 2012 when Pope Benedict was still in office:
"The traditionalists that are now in the Church, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, have brought what the Pope has insisted upon: that in the solemnity of the way in which they celebrate the liturgy, especially in the area of the liturgy, they are a testimony to the continuing liveliness of liturgical tradition previous to the Council, which is the message of Summorum Pontificum. The thing is: They can’t say that the Novus Ordo is invalid, but their celebration of the 1962 Missal is something that remains attractive and nourishes faith, even of those who have no experience of it. So that’s a very important factor."
I subscribe to two societies whose aim is to foster the liturgical tradition of the Western Church. One, the Latin Mass Society, was founded in 1965 and promotes the Tridentine Mass. Recently you linked to an article by Joseph Shaw, its chairman, whom I know well - we sing in the same schola. The other, the Association for Latin Liturgy, promotes the use of Latin in the newer rite. I am therefore familiar with both forms of Latin Mass and Vespers.
Abp Di Noia singles out England as a problematic area. Perhaps he thinks we are simply an adjunct of the United States. Yet those who are interested in liturgy do not constitute a 'movement' and the LMS in particular has gone out of its way to work with the bishops. To adopt a polemical and confrontational attitude would have been counter-productive.
In the 1970s and 1980s 'indult' Masses were rare. Those who wanted something different from the usual four hymn sandwich and sloppy ars celebrandi, and wanted a Latin Mass with decent music, relied on the Novus Ordo to deliver it. The London Oratory was famous in this regard, but it was far from unique. For most of the attenders it was not a question of which rite was being celebrated.
I was asked about Propers. The Introits and Communion antiphons in the current missal are not intended to be sung. They are there to be recited if they are not sung. Some of the recited Communios are new compositions which do not have a Gregorian setting anyway. And the missal does not include the Offertory chant. The clear preference in the GIRM is for the chants in the Graduale Romanum of 1974. They do require a competent schola, but this is a separate issue.
The Responsorial Psalm and Alleluia/Tract are in the Lectionary and can (and should) be sung. This would appear to be the preferred option. But the interlectionary chants in the Graduale Romanum may be used, and in the sung Latin Mass nearly always are. The Solesmes 'Gregorian Missal' was first published in 1990 and has been revised to include the new English translation. It is useful for choirs and congregations alike.
Despite my respect for the older rite I prefer the Sung Mass to the Low, and attend it regularly in the Novus Ordo in preference to an earlier Low Mass in the traditional rite. Both, of course, are in Latin.
To say, "The Jews couldn't figure out who Jesus was because they wanted a political or military messiah to overthrow Rome" is a vast oversimplification. There were SOME Jews who held this view - the Zealots, a political movement, especially.
A fuller picture, from the perspective of the Jews then and now, includes:
Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
Jewish belief is based on national revelation.
The notion of the Messiah as part of a godhead that is triune.
While we disagree with this assessment, it offers a much better understanding of a much more complex reality.
John Nolan,
England initially did a far better job that the US in preserving Latin in the liturgy. A young British friend of mine in her early 40s went to a Catholic girls school and learned Gregorian chant because this school maintained the tradition of using Latin chants at the school masses which were otherwise in the vernacular. That would have been unusual in the US twenty years ago
Anon 8:05, you speak for the vast majority of us!
Most especially you speak for my household and I thank you. Much of what has been posted in the media and on this blog over the past week has scandalized many of us who quietly and without fanfare choose to attend a more reverent Liturgy. Fr. Martin Fox tried his best to address the problem, but with little to no success. We are very grateful for his and your inputs.
“As for Me and My Household, We Will Serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15, V2.
—Silent minority
Tom Marcus & Anon 8:05
You have elegantly made the points I endorse whole heartedly.
Just an slightly pointed question: Why not shut down those NO Masses that violate the Vat. Council 2 directives as note by Anthony above?
Post a Comment