Marc makes a good point about the Mass becoming a private devotion for the priest in a serial form of multiple priests celebrating Mass at side altars not synchronized, at the same time:
When we went to the SSPX chapel, there were multiple masses every morning — sometimes 4 at the same time. I even served some of these masses.
It seemed really neat to me at the time. But with hindsight, I think this practice places an incorrect emphasis on what it is to be a priest. These masses are like personal acts of piety for the priest, which is somewhat antithetical to (what I think is) a better understanding of priesthood as a man set apart for his community.
Rorate Caeli has an article on the organic development of the Mass rather than its replacement . You can read the full article HERE.
But here is an excerpt as it pertains to my comments below it:
The previous magisterium: organic development, not replacement
The principle of the “organic development” of the liturgy has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the recent magisterium.
3.1 Pius XII – Mediator Dei (1947): “The liturgy cannot be considered either as a museum to be preserved or as a laboratory for experimentation. It grows like a tree from the root of the apostolic faith.”
3.2 John XXIII – Rubricarum Instructum (1960): “We confirm and order that what Tradition has received and handed down with veneration be kept intact.”
3.3 Benedict XVI – Letter Accompanying Summorum Pontificum (2007): “What was sacred for previous generations remains sacred and great for us too, and cannot suddenly be forbidden or judged harmful.”
All previous reforms, up to that of John XXIII, are justified not by a break but by continuity: what is adapted, simplified, or restored always remains within the development of Tradition. No Pope has ever claimed that the reform abolished the theological validity of the previous form.
My astute most humble comments concerning Marc’s comment and the Rorate Caeli article:
The pre-Vatican II celebration of the TLM was criticized by reformers who felt that it was too priest-centered, too much of just his private devotion and celebration and the congregation was left out of the picture, apart from being required to be at Mass and hear it. It was a passive kind of participation.
The reform of the Mass by Consilium, that much maligned committee headed by Bishop Bugnini, and then their concoction of a reformed Mass promulgated by St. Paul VI, addressed the passive nature of participation of the Congregation, went back to early Church sources of how the Mass was celebrated, and then purged the Mass of almost all the private prayers of the priest and almost any aspect that made it appear to be the priests’ celebration alone or worse his own private prayers and devotion!
I happen to believe, in what is my most humble opinion, that they went to far and did not respect the organic development of the TLM and allow for growth of it in terms of active rather than just passive participation of the laity.
There are ways to address the congregation’s complete submersion into the Mass by actively singing and saying those parts previously offered only by the altar boys and/or choir on their behalf. While maintaining some Latin for the quiet prayers of the priest and the Roman Canon, the vernacular could have assisted the laity in singing the parts of the Mass linked to them.
The TLM could have been left in tact with only the following organic revisions.
The most important to me is the revision of the Communion Rite for the priest and then the laity. In the 1962 Roman Missal, there is no ceremony for the laity to receive Holy Communion and in fact, the laity could be denied Holy Communion during Mass if the priest chose to do so. That was rare, but it could and did happen prior to Vatican II. Although, prior to Vatican II and even in the modern Mass communicants sometimes are given Holy Communion before Mass, if they can’t receive during Mass or after Mass. That is an aberration too, I think.
But let’s get back to the Communion Rite of the 1962 Missal. The priest after the Agnus Dei privately but partially out loud says the Dominus Non Sum Dignus, three times. Then he makes his Holy Communion by consuming the Consecrated Host and Precious Blood, which is necessary to ratify the Sacrificial aspect of the Mass.
Then, somehow in an organic way, but not to be found in the 1962 Missal, is the communion of the faithful. Prior to Vatican II, the Confiteor was once again recited outloud by a server or other minister, then the priest would open the tabernacle, take out the ciborium, genuflect, take a small host from the ciborium, turn to the congregation and say “Ecce Agnus Dei…” and then lead the three-fold “Dominum Non Sum Dignus again, but this time for the laity. Then Holy Communion is given to the servers and the rest of the faithful. (I do not know how this part of the liturgy for the faithful’s Holy Communion came about or where it is to be found in an official book. It is not in the 1962 Roman Missal!
A proper organic development of the 1962’s Communion rite would simply be allowing the priest to continue with the full array of private prayers after or during the Agnus Dei, but not receiving Holy Communion, until he turns to the congregation or addresses the congregation in a Mass facing the nave, and states “Ecce Agnus Dei, even with the post-Vatican II addition, and then all together say the three—fold “Domini non sum Dignus…” The Host and the Chalice of Precious Blood is shown to the faithful, those just consecrated by the priest, with the fractured Host above the chalice of Precious Blood. Then the priest, using the full array of private prayers for his Holy Communion, needed for the ratification of the Sacrificial aspect of the Mass being celebrated, receives his Holy Communion and then distributes Holy Communion to the servers and the faithful present with Hosts consecrated at that particular Mass if possible and only going to the tabernacle in the case of need.
That’s an organic development, not a replacement!
