The corruption of the defined and promulgated liturgical books, by rogue bishops, priests and laity is what needs reforming. The people who do it. This means returning to the proper liturgical use of the liturgical books following their liturgical laws and rubrics. It’s that simple. Even the 1962 Roman Missal could be corrupted by unscrupulous priests and bishops. The problem is the cleric, not the book!
So, let’s talk about reforming the laity and clergy and let’s talk about refining the liturgical books even if that refinement is the Modern or Ancient Liturgical books.
Thus, in light of all the controversies surrounding the suppression of the older liturgical books after Vatican II, relaxed some years later, only to have the more authoritarian suppression occur again under Pope Francis and his TC, what can be done to achieve what Pope Benedict XVI desired for one new Roman Missal, refining both the older and newer liturgical books?
Contrary to Bishop Martin’s claim that the older Mass should not have a gravitational pull on the Modern Mass, Pope Francis approved the Ordinariate’s Divine Worship, the Missal, which does exactly that!
That Missal is a refinement of the Modern Missal, but it is the Modern Missal nonetheless. Not only does it have in it the influence of the Tridentine Mass, but it also has the influence of Anglicanism’s liturgical patrimony that is not in conflict with Catholic doctrine or liturgical spirituality.
As far as the Tridentine options go, the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar is allowed with the Order of the Tridentine Mass. The gradual is allowed. The propers, to include the Offertory Chant, missing in the Modern Missal, are all included in the Divine Worship and the Introit includes the Gloria Patri.
The TLM’s offertory Prayers are included. The triple, “Lord, I am not worthy”, is allowed. And additional genuflections, as in the TLM, are included as well.
The Pre-Lenten Season of Septuagesima is restored, as well as rogation and ember days.
My plea to Pope Leo is to allow the Tridentine elements for the Modern Missal just as Pope Francis allowed it for the Ordinariate’s Missal.
Then, if a bishop has a problem with the 1962 Roman Missal, the Modern Missal could well placate those communities who desire the older Missal but using the Modern Missal with TLM elements.
Don’t call what I recommend, though, the reform of the reform. Call it refinement in continuity!
16 comments:
Pope Benedict XVI:
"The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives.
"This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal."
=======
As Pope Benedict XVI had made clear, and has been the case since the day that the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI was promulgated, the (Latin) Church has, and will, move forward with said Mass serving as the primary Mass of 99.9999999 percent of Catholics.
As Pope Benedict XVI had made clear, the Missal of Saint Paul VI "can unite parish communities and be loved by them" simply by offering the Mass "with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives."
Pope Benedict XVI declared that the Missal of Saint Paul VI abounds in "spiritual richness," as well as "theological depth."
The problems that we have encountered liturgically...
As early as 1988 A.D., then-Cardinal Ratzinger had identified the following major problem:
"After the Council there were many priests who deliberately raised “desacralization” to the level of a program...they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things."
The second major problem has been the unrelenting assault within the TLM Movement against the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI. Said folks have positioned the "Novus Bogus" as a supposed Jewish-Masonic conspiracy designed to destroy the Church.
Said folks have insisted as well that six Protestants had helped to concoct the supposed Jewish/Masonic/Protestant "Novus Bogus."
Again, in line with his Vatican II Era predecessors, as well as successors, Pope Benedict XVI assured us that the Missal of Saint Paul VI is replete in "spiritual richness," as well as "theological depth."
May all parties within the Church embrace that reality.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."My plea to Pope Leo is to allow the Tridentine elements for the Modern Missal just as Pope Francis allowed it for the Ordinariate’s Missal.
"Then, if a bishop has a problem with the 1962 Roman Missal, the Modern Missal could well placate those communities who desire the older Missal but using the Modern Missal with TLM elements."
=======
Father, the question is whether "traditionalists" would embrace that sentiment.
Far too many signs, unfortunately, have long indicated that more than a few "traditionalists" do not want any part of the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul XVI — even if "Tridentine elements" are incorporated into the "Modern Missal".
Certain "traditionalists" here have claimed, that the "Novus Bogus," even if "traditionalized," would remain as spiritual poison to the Church. The only solution the have claimed is to destroy the "Novus Bogus"...then incorporate the TLM into one Latin Church parish after another.
Said folks here have insisted that the above has long served as mainstream thought among "traditionalists."
At the very least, more than a few "traditionalists" have long promoted the notion that the peaceful coexistence of the TLM, as well as Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, is impossible.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Of course, we know exactly how progressives feel about the older Mass and they far, far outnumber the traditionalists you stereotype. In fact, and no one talks about this. A larger number of progressives continue to use the older English Sacramentary as they despise the newer English version. In number, this group far outnumbers the traditionalists bound to the 1962 Missal.
Fr. AJM,
I'm increasingly convinced that, if the anti-TLM crusaders didn't have accusations based on projection and obfuscation, they wouldn't have accusations at all.
"A larger number of progressives continue to use the older English Sacramentary as they despise the newer English version. In number, this group far outnumbers the traditionalists bound to the 1962 Missal."
Sure, but their conduct doesn't betoken a rejection of the Council so they're much better than those horrible priests who wear grandmother's lace or use a foreign language at Mass.
Honestly, the likes of MT, Mike Lewis, etc. give more credence, not less, to the argument that Vatican II instituted a different Church than the one that came before--and that's just one reason to reject their positions (such as pledging unconditional obedience to the pope).
Nick
This poor dead horse knew that the NO could benefit from influences of the VO. But those influences are temporary at best because the NO has almost no permanent form. The VO does change after great consideration and that is why it continues to gain in appeal.
Father McDonald, I reject the claim that I have "stereotyped" "traditionalists."
You believe otherwise. Therefore, in peaceful fashion, I disagree with your claim in question.
I have reported simply that which more than a few "traditionalists" here, as well elsewhere, have long claimed. That is, the peaceful coexistence of the TLM, as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, is impossible to secure.
Said folks, via their comments here, as well as elsewhere, have insisted that the war against the Council, Holy Mass, as well as Vatican II Era Popes, is mainstream throughout the TLM Movement.
=======
Father, I agree with you in regard to the liturgical/spiritual destruction that more than a few progressives have long inflicted upon Holy Mother Church. Said folks have long outnumbered "traditionalists."
That does not mean, however, that we should overlook, or downplay, destructive elements within the TLM Movement.
I pray that Pope Leo XIV changes the hearts and minds of destructive progressives, as well as traditionalists.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
During the final few years of holy Pope Francis' Pontificate, I had encountered in person, as well as online, more and more parishes where said Pope's call to offer Holy Mass in reverent, beautiful fashion had been embraced.
The parishes in question had also embraced Pope Francis' endless promotion of Confession, as well as holiness.
During the final years of Pope Francis' Pontificate, the Church in various nations reported the uplifting news that conversions to the Faith, in particular, among young people, had risen.
Pope Leo XIV, as he has made clear, is determined to build upon Pope Francis wonderful Pontificate.
To assist His Holiness in that regard, let us, in line with Pope Benedict XVI's holy example, pledge our "unconditional reverence and obedience" to Pope Leo XIV.
That is a given, and easy to accomplish, once we acknowledge the awesome reality that God has raised holy Pope Leo XIV to teach, govern, and sanctify us.
Liturgical peace, for example, is obtainable via obedience to Pope Leo XIV.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT Suit,
You are lying. Go to Confession
The corrupt MT Suit never responds to criticism!
http://triregnum.blogspot.com/2013/06/reform-of-reform-fr-john-parsons.html
Mark Thomas,
Are there some extremists among the traditionalists? Yes, as there are in any movement, but they do not reflect the majority. They are just the most outspoken, and extremists tend to be. For the rest, however, their perception of the new Mass is colored by what they have experienced. How many people are even aware that the new Mass can be said in a very traditional manner? To even broach the subject is to open oneself up to the charges of "rejecting Vatican II," when it is those who have put restrictions on the new Mass that, in truth, reject both Vatican II and the reformed liturgy. Take off all the restrictions, as reflected is Bishop Martin's draft, and then see what happens.
Exactly Anthony, the most radical in any movement, right or left are the most vocal and get all the attention. Most people I know who love the TLM are perfectly comfortable in a Modern Mass celebrated reverently and without abuses. I love the Modern Mass but it drives me crazy when my bishop or other priests constantly interrupt the flow of prayer with commentary, greetings and chatting, especially after the opening greeting of the Mass and prior to introductions the Penitential Act. It drives me crazy. Did I say it drives me crazy. There are no such spontaneous remarks or comments at the TLM unless it is at the homily time. And it is there where these should be made if one has a compulsion toward it. But, yes, if the Modern Mass experience was mostly reverent, without ad libbing and inane music, most traditionalists would not have the animus towards it that some have.
If you lay the English texts of the '62 Missal and the NO next to each other, clearly and obviously, they aren't the same.
Yes, you get to the same end validly. But, the fact of the matter is they aren't the same. Was the latter so corrupt that the former corrects those errors? If it did successfully, this would not still be a discussion point 50+ years on.
So, either one compromises to save the NO and refine. It will be a compromise, nothing more.
Or, one understands the motivations that led to its creation, what actually was called for then pivoting accordingly.
The council likely intended to put aside, buckles/buskins/plumes/the fistula and other curiosities that had crept into that ceremonial over the years. Is any of that needed? Probably not and clearly not. Why they then scorched earth the '62 missal/rubrics/altar/church arrangement was political/ideological. The mass wasn't broken, the ceremonial perhaps was.
I have always said that Vatican II’s call for liturgical noble simplicity, the key word “noble” was directed at Papal liturgies and pontifical liturgies in particular that had and have all the peculiarities you mention. It was not directed at the Low Mass or High Masses of parish churches. In terms of active and conscious participation, asking Catholics who occupied their time during Mass by praying devotions, primarily the Rosary, instead of praying the Mass, was much needed. Some vernacular for the changing parts of the Mass would have accomplished this with the pre-Vatican II MIssals. Teaching people to chant, even in the vernacular and according the Gregorian Chant, simple or complex, should have been a priority which never became one as the propers became optional and then non existent at our sung Masses.
Would the so-called '65 Missal not have accomplished this in part, if not in whole?
To me, the NO shifted both the dynamic and paradigm in a way that was inconsistent and, perhaps, counterproductive relative to that which it followed.
Attendees/communicants praying the rosary, or tending to devotions during the pre-conciliar mass might not have been the ideal - they weren't truly present; however, they were nonetheless there. Given today's attendance stats, leading to chronic parish mergers and closures, perhaps that was overall better for those souls?
Fr. AJM,
"Noble simplicity" is yet another one of Vatican II's Rorschach provisions, i.e., it means whatever the reader thinks it does. All too often, those in charge made sure it meant that the liturgy was done in the most casual, slapdash, dumbed-down, hokey, and banal manner as possible. You know, because the laity are too stupid and unsophisticated to benefit from anything else. Bishop Martin is trying to revive this movement, seeing as he thinks his flock are just too dim to understand a few words in another language (setting aside bilingual Masses, and the use of Greek and Hebrew--only Latin is verboten, of course).
Nick
Post a Comment