THE REFORM OF THE MASS OF POPE PAUL VI:
Catholic News Service has an article on what His Eminence Arthur Cardinal Roche said to a group of American liturgists. You can read the full article HERE.
This is the first time Cardinal Roche has spoken in depth about Desiderio Desideravi, where Pope Francis calls out liturgical abuse of the Mass of Vatican II. However, neither Pope Francis or Cardinal Roche went after liturgy abusers in the same venomous way they went after TLM communities who celebrate the TLM by the book, by the way!
Desiderio Desideravi, because it calls out liturgical abuses, has never really seen the light of day since its release. Progressives, the biggest problem for the Church, want their liturgical abuses and they are in the majority in the Church, not those who want the TLM!
My most humble and astute comments follow the money byte I copy below:
Roche said the celebration of the Mass must be “grounded in the Paschal Mystery of Christ” and he reaffirmed Francis’ 2017 comments that “the liturgical reform [of the Second Vatican Council] is irreversible.” He quoted Francis’s 2017 apostolic letter Desiderio Desideravi and said the document should be “more widely available to parishes” and there should be more help to “organize guided readings of it.”…
…In that document, the Holy Father wrote that “every aspect of the celebration must be carefully tended to,” including the space, time, gestures, words, objects, vestments, song, and music. He wrote: “Such attention would be enough to prevent robbing from the assembly what is owed to it; namely, the paschal mystery celebrated according to the ritual that the Church sets down.”
…Roche said: “The depth and breadth of his liturgical vision offers us countless opportunities to pause for reflection in order to appreciate the great gift that has been handed onto us in the liturgical books.”
“I do not hesitate to encourage you to be bold, but always charitable in promoting the unique lex orandi [law of prayer] of the Roman Rite,” he said. “Discourses on the liturgy that lack a spirit of charity come from a spirit other than that of Christ.”…
…Roche did not discuss Francis’ restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass at length, but he did promote the documents that speak to those restrictions.
Francis penned Desiderio Desideravi a year after issuing the 2016 motu proprio Traditionis custodes, which restricted the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Ruff said the second letter “follows naturally upon” those restrictions “for those who still struggle to accept the Church’s official liturgy as it was reformed after Vatican II.”
My astute, humble comments:
What Father Anthony Ruff, OSB fails to recognize is that those who are new to the Traditional Latin Mass do not bring nostalgia for it to their experience. For them, the TLM is a reform of the Reformed Mass!
The reason the young, who do not know about or did not live through the transition from the TLM to the Post Vatican II Mass is that their experiences of the post-Vatican II Mass were abysmal. It is based upon the liturgical abuses of that Mass, some mild, some grotesque. There are so many styles of celebrating the “reformed Mass” as Fr. Anthony calls it, that there is no continuity from Mass to Mass, priest to priest, parish to parish, diocese to diocese.
Until those who promote the exclusive use of the “Reformed Mass” begin calling out its abuse, which is prolific, mild or grotesque, there will be no liturgical peace.
Pope Benedict XVI, of happy memory, desired a third “reformed Missal” to replace the current “reformed Missal.” That new and reformed missal would experience the gravitational pull of the TLM on the Modern.
The current Modern Missal is not above more reform. To say so, is ridiculous. And Pope Benedict XVI wanted the letter of Sacrosanctum Concilium followed not some progressive spirit.
AND KEEP IN MIND, ALL OF THE THEOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE MASS DESCRIBED IN SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM REFER TO THE TLM NOT SOME FUTURE REFORMED MASS!
The greatest reform of the Modern Missal has already occurred with the Ordinariate’s Missal, Divine Worship. It has options for all the things that could be added to the current Reformed Missal, itself in need of reform:
1. Prayers at the Foot of the Altar
2. The Order of the TLM Mass
3. The required chanting of the Propers and in the TLM fashion from the Roman Graduale
4. The substitution of the Gradual for the Responsorial Psalm
5. The choice of the older offertory prayers
6. Recovery of the TLM rubrics for the Roman Canon and double genuflections for the consecration and a genuflection after the Great Amen.
7. The triple non-sum Dignus
8. the Last Gospel
9. The recovery of Septuagesima and Ember Days
10. Slight revision of the Roman Calendar a la the Ordinariate’s approach.
All of this while keeping the core of the Modern Mass to include the revised lectionary.
THE MASS OF POPE PAUL VI IS NOT ABOVE REFORM; IT MUST BE REFORMED!
This is the first time Cardinal Roche has spoken in depth about Desiderio Desideravi, where Pope Francis calls out liturgical abuse of the Mass of Vatican II. However, neither Pope Francis or Cardinal Roche went after liturgy abusers in the same venomous way they went after TLM communities who celebrate the TLM by the book, by the way!
Desiderio Desideravi, because it calls out liturgical abuses, has never really seen the light of day since its release. Progressives, the biggest problem for the Church, want their liturgical abuses and they are in the majority in the Church, not those who want the TLM!
My most humble and astute comments follow the money byte I copy below:
Roche said the celebration of the Mass must be “grounded in the Paschal Mystery of Christ” and he reaffirmed Francis’ 2017 comments that “the liturgical reform [of the Second Vatican Council] is irreversible.” He quoted Francis’s 2017 apostolic letter Desiderio Desideravi and said the document should be “more widely available to parishes” and there should be more help to “organize guided readings of it.”…
…In that document, the Holy Father wrote that “every aspect of the celebration must be carefully tended to,” including the space, time, gestures, words, objects, vestments, song, and music. He wrote: “Such attention would be enough to prevent robbing from the assembly what is owed to it; namely, the paschal mystery celebrated according to the ritual that the Church sets down.”
…Roche said: “The depth and breadth of his liturgical vision offers us countless opportunities to pause for reflection in order to appreciate the great gift that has been handed onto us in the liturgical books.”
“I do not hesitate to encourage you to be bold, but always charitable in promoting the unique lex orandi [law of prayer] of the Roman Rite,” he said. “Discourses on the liturgy that lack a spirit of charity come from a spirit other than that of Christ.”…
…Roche did not discuss Francis’ restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass at length, but he did promote the documents that speak to those restrictions.
Francis penned Desiderio Desideravi a year after issuing the 2016 motu proprio Traditionis custodes, which restricted the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Ruff said the second letter “follows naturally upon” those restrictions “for those who still struggle to accept the Church’s official liturgy as it was reformed after Vatican II.”
My astute, humble comments:
What Father Anthony Ruff, OSB fails to recognize is that those who are new to the Traditional Latin Mass do not bring nostalgia for it to their experience. For them, the TLM is a reform of the Reformed Mass!
The reason the young, who do not know about or did not live through the transition from the TLM to the Post Vatican II Mass is that their experiences of the post-Vatican II Mass were abysmal. It is based upon the liturgical abuses of that Mass, some mild, some grotesque. There are so many styles of celebrating the “reformed Mass” as Fr. Anthony calls it, that there is no continuity from Mass to Mass, priest to priest, parish to parish, diocese to diocese.
Until those who promote the exclusive use of the “Reformed Mass” begin calling out its abuse, which is prolific, mild or grotesque, there will be no liturgical peace.
Pope Benedict XVI, of happy memory, desired a third “reformed Missal” to replace the current “reformed Missal.” That new and reformed missal would experience the gravitational pull of the TLM on the Modern.
The current Modern Missal is not above more reform. To say so, is ridiculous. And Pope Benedict XVI wanted the letter of Sacrosanctum Concilium followed not some progressive spirit.
AND KEEP IN MIND, ALL OF THE THEOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE MASS DESCRIBED IN SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM REFER TO THE TLM NOT SOME FUTURE REFORMED MASS!
The greatest reform of the Modern Missal has already occurred with the Ordinariate’s Missal, Divine Worship. It has options for all the things that could be added to the current Reformed Missal, itself in need of reform:
1. Prayers at the Foot of the Altar
2. The Order of the TLM Mass
3. The required chanting of the Propers and in the TLM fashion from the Roman Graduale
4. The substitution of the Gradual for the Responsorial Psalm
5. The choice of the older offertory prayers
6. Recovery of the TLM rubrics for the Roman Canon and double genuflections for the consecration and a genuflection after the Great Amen.
7. The triple non-sum Dignus
8. the Last Gospel
9. The recovery of Septuagesima and Ember Days
10. Slight revision of the Roman Calendar a la the Ordinariate’s approach.
All of this while keeping the core of the Modern Mass to include the revised lectionary.
THE MASS OF POPE PAUL VI IS NOT ABOVE REFORM; IT MUST BE REFORMED!
24 comments:
There's really no point in arguing about this any more, because it isn't going to make any difference. Fortunately, the Catholic Church is built to withstand the reigns of bad, weak and/or mediocre popes. The nonsense will end when it ends. In the meantime, the injustice and embarrassing nonsense that holds sway in the hierarchy gives us a chance to suffer and atone--for our sins AND theirs.
The old offertory prayers referred to the offerings as if they had already been consecrated and were always considered problematic. They were discussed at the council of Trent, as well as in the 1940s. There were good convincing reasons why they needed to be reformed.
"The reason the young, who do not know about or did not live through the transition from the TLM to the Post Vatican II Mass is that their experiences of the post-Vatican II Mass were abysmal. It is based upon the liturgical abuses of that Mass, some mild, some grotesque."
Younger people aren't given anywhere near enough credit for recognizing authenticity. Conversely, Many older people selfishly cannot seem to look past their selfish ideological pursuits such that all suffer, Christ inclusive.
"There are so many styles of celebrating the “reformed Mass” as Fr. Anthony calls it, that there is no continuity from Mass to Mass, priest to priest, parish to parish, diocese to diocese."
You'll never have 100% uniformity; however, the Roman NO Church is too balkanized in every way the pope calls for consistency. Nose thumbing will continue.
Jerome Merwick: "There's really no point in arguing about this any more, because it isn't going to make any difference."
Completely agree. There "unity" but not "Unity" in so many ways in your church, it seems to an observer hopeless and pointless.
The RC seems like a contradiction and compromise to the East anymore. Between theological differences, liturgical suppression, certain blessings, simple questionable practices like the morality of tattooing, or appropriateness of cremation, we're related, but increasingly distant.
I'm not suggesting anyone believes and does other than what they've been told is acceptable.
Sort of like the end of confession: “for these sins and those of my past life I may have forgotten or omitted.”
As always, when there is discussion about abuses in the new Mass, it is always couched in generalities and non-specific terms. Thus it is unenforceable. All that is left is a vague "abuses were condemned." I also bring to mind the fact that in the few instances that specific abuse were addressed, it was never enforced. Thus we have communion in the hand and female servers eventually being approved after years of condemnation. Even today there is not enforcement of the norms about the limited use of extraordinary ministers of Communion. And, of course, no mention is ever made of the greatest abuse, the universal suppression, both de facto and de jure, of the options for a traditional form of the new Mass by all of the bishops.
They were never problematic, just misunderstood. They were the liturgical equivalent of the Byzantine Prosthesis Rite. A comparison of the prayers of the old Roman Offertory and the Prosthesis rite shows similar understanding and purpose. The gist of the concept behind them is purity -what is offered to God must be the most pure, most holy that can be offered. During the ancient Roman offertory at that time the Roman deacons would use liturgical knives and prepare the holy gifts. In the Rite of Lyons this was done, like the Byzantine liturgy, before the mass proper.
Father, ByRus comments made me think about something I have thought about for the last 30 years. Now, I have comments on a blog, Hiereth In Exile by a Chris Jackson that are pertinent to this post:
#1, Chris Jackson, Hiereth In Exile, July 20, 2025 article subsection: Byzantine Pittsburgh and the Safe Kind of Tradition:
Leo’s message to the Third Metropolitan Assembly of the Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh is respectful and even reverent. He praises the Byzantine liturgy, notes the strength of the Eastern Catholic witness, and affirms fidelity to tradition. But the real takeaway is strategic: the Eastern rites are tolerated, celebrated even, because they pose no liturgical threat to Rome.
The Byzantine Catholics of Pittsburgh aren’t demanding 1962 Missals. They aren’t denouncing Amoris Laetitia. Their reverence is contained within the boundaries of accepted diversity. Meanwhile, Roman rite traditionalists, who appeal to the actual Roman liturgical patrimony, are shoved into diocesan ghettos or exiled to suburban chapels. You can have tradition, as long as it’s someone else’s.
#2, Chris Jackson, Hiereth In Exile, July 21, 2025: Article Subsection: Orthodox in Schism, Orthodox Untouchable:
Eastern Rite Catholics get their Divine Liturgy untouched. No guitars. No clown Masses. No inculturated dance processions. Their liturgical dignity was preserved for one reason and one reason only: the Orthodox Schism.
If Bugnini had gotten his hands on them without the Orthodox to flee to, they’d be reciting Eucharistic Prayer II in track suits by now. But Rome’s fear of these Catholics leaving for the Orthodox kept them safe. That’s the reality.
Father Allen and ByzRus, more than once, I have had Byzantine and Ukrainian Catholic Priests tell me this over the years - that the Orthodox schism protects our liturgy from Rome. And that has lead to my little Church having more and more Roman Catholics show up in it over the years. I am in the process of preparing an introductory pamphlet to our Byzantine liturgical traditions and giving a comparison/contrast to traditional Roman Catholic traditions so that the transition is easier for them.
Not all young people favour the TLM. In fact, I would say most favour the modern rite with contemporary music and would run a mile if things suddenly became more traditional.
However, you rightly describe a relatively recent phenomenon which needs careful consideration… but I’d say most of these types in London at least are professionals with an oxbridge education ie somewhat culturally elite than your average Joe in the street. They tend to collate around the Brompton Oratory etc.
The RC seems like a contradiction and compromise to the East anymore.
…but do the orthodox have anything like us in terms of regular church attendance? My impression is that few orthodox attend church weekly or regularly.
The Tridentine reforms had to be implemented locally, and this happened to varying degrees and at different speeds. Particular customs and traditions not only persisted but even gained new vigor where dedicated and attentive pastors applied the council’s decrees.3 Within the unity of the rite, each celebration of the Mass is to some extent conditioned by its particular settings and circumstances. As Joseph Ratzinger observed, “A liturgy in an Upper Bavarian village looks very different from High Mass in a French cathedral, which in turn seems quite unlike Mass in a southern Italian parish, and again that looks different from what you find in a mountain village in the Andes, and so on.
Fr Uwe Lang
In Desiderio Desideravi, Francis said non-acceptance of the Second Vatican Council’s liturgical reforms “distracts us from the obligation of finding responses to the question that I come back to repeating: how can we grow in our capacity to live in full the liturgical action? How do we continue to let ourselves be amazed at what happens in the celebration under our very eyes?”
Francis wrote that it would be “trivial” to see the tensions about the Traditional Latin Mass “as a simple divergence between different tastes concerning a particular ritual form.” He wrote that he does not understand how one can recognize the validity of the council “and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform.”
It's not a corporate stat driven numbers game. In proportion, we were and are a very small population. That said, Orthodoxy in the U.S. is growing and my parish is heavily compromised of former RC's. We receive many inquires, some not realizing the level of personal responsibility for the joyful work that is involved at the onset.
Best wishes. In the Ruthenian Eparchy of Passaic, we just held a "Come and See" day of learning where almost half of the participants, to our surprise, we're Roman Catholic. Where are you located?
St Mary of the Dormition in Olean, New York. The "limbo" parish of the Eparchy. We have not had a priest from the Eparchy since 2006. We had a first check in, since 2006, from the eparchy in August 2023. From 2006 to 2017 we had Father Robert Moreno from the Eparchy of Stamford. Since then we have had a bi-ritual Roman priest, Father Dennis Mancuso from the Diocese of Buffalo . I have been the acting subdeacon since 2018, having served since November 2012.
Those who took that issue with the offertory prayers suffered from excessive rigidity, no?
Anyway, to replace them with nothing (as Bugnini originally wanted) or language completely foreign to any Christian liturgy (as actually happened, only because Pope Paul insisted on some prayer being said over the offerings, but the Consilium ideologues couldn't find any prayer from the Christian liturgical tradition without the same "problem" as the Roman offertory) was hardly the right response.
Nick
This soft-headed "irreversible" assertion once again. The hubris of saying "Pope Pius V couldn't and didn't bind his successors through Quo Primum" and at once proclaiming that the Novus Ordo is "irreversible," i.e., Pope Paul VI can and did bind his successors is simply astonishing.
Nick
Subdeacon James,
Your church temple is positively delightful! Many years!☦️
Pius VI didn’t bind his successors, in perpetuity is the formula used when declaring papal bulls. V2 and the liturgical reform happened and you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.
SC wasn’t just a pragmatic overhaul of rubrics otherwise they’d only have updated the GIRM - it was a legitimate development in theology / ecclesiology which is why there’s no going back. There’s a reason SC is titled a dogmatic constitution.
Francis was right there is an association between non-acceptance of the council in general and refusal to accept the liturgical reform.
benny,
They couldn’t have changed the GIRM because it didn’t exist at the time. It had to be made up as a banal, on-the-spot production, as Benedict XVI said. “Tradidi quod accepi” it was not.
And it’s bad that the Novus Ordo often ignores or contradicts SC. All this talk about “irreversibility” really just tries to obscure the fact that, taking the actions and words of liturgical rupturists and the uniformity hall monitors as true and authoritative, the liturgy can be whatever the pope of the day says it will be. Some papal voluntarists go so far as to say they’d do handstands at Mass if the pope told them to. If that’s what “accepting Vatican II” means, I can see why there’s an association between attachment to the TLM and “”””“rejecting Vatican II”””””
Nick
Glad the crucifix was replaced with something more in keeping with the style of the chapel.
Now if they’d only pull the altar forward from the back wall so it’s freestanding to allow celebrations facing the people which is to be preferred whenever possible!
Mistranslations are not limited to the text of the Mass itself.
Nick
If the missal of Paul VI is not above reform, why wasn’t the missal of Pius V?
Post a Comment