The Ordinary Form Mass celebrated Extraordinarily by yours truly in the late 1990's! I was so ahead of my time!
While a small minority of TLM activists on social media are decrying Knoxville’s Bishop’s elimination of the TLM in his Diocese by January; he is allowing traditional elements allowed by the GIRM in the Modern Mass to be used in a Latin Modern Mass.
By traditional elements, he means ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion and at an altar railing. Preserving Gregorian Chant for the prescribed propers would be an example to those who have substituted silly, elitist choices of hymns and other sung ditties to follow what Vatican II taught about Gregorian Chant and maintaining this venerable tradition.
I too believe that most who would want the Mass in Latin would soon love the Modern Mass celebrated in Latin, with Gregorian Chant used for the Propers, ad orientem and kneeling at the altar railing for Holy Communion.
While I still believe it is a mistake to take the TLM away from TLM communities and an insult to both St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, what the Knoxville bishop is laying out is a positive way forward in a mess that need not have been created in the first place.
26 comments:
Now if Bishop Beckman and his brother bishops would just plainly state that all of this is authorized by the new Missal, is in complete conformity with Vatican II, and can be done by any priest without the need for any further permission from the bishop.
YES!!!!
100% agree
I'm not so sure. It's not just about Latin and a few aesthetic points.
Nick
Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Even if you wish to eventually return to the old Mass, this would we be a powerful first step. It would demolish the false idea that Vatican II called for a radical revolution in the way we worship.
I would predict that the overwhelming majority of those empowered to make such decisions would simply say, "Why do you need the TLM when we've had these traditionalized NOs for so long?"
Anyway, while Vatican II itself didn't call for a revolution in Catholic worship, those who implemented Vatican II certainly thought it did, up to and including Pope Paul VI. The tension this mistake causes is at the heart of the liturgical question, among others. I'm not convinced having a few traditionalized NO Masses (and even if 100% of TLMs were suppressed, they would not all be replaced by traditionalized NOs) would resolve that tension. A few instances of making "continuity-based" rubrical solutions wouldn't change the fact that the texts, ethos, and practical expression seen in 99%+ of NO Masses continue to be based on that revolution.
Nick
“For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 [the older Latin Mass] should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way?”
Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002), p. 416.
Not a few but widespread. A declaration like the one I recommend would open up the flood gates, especially with the younger clergy. And do not underestimate the impact of falsifying the idea that Vatican II and the new Mass called for a liturgical revolution. This could start a real discussion of where the new Mass exceeded the vision of Vatican II. For instance, what could be the objections of returning the old offertory prayers, especially since these were said in private? It would reopen the entire debate of what a reformed liturgy should look like, including the proper ethos of the Mass. A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.
I think Pope Benedict said it best but the leftwing loonies will not like it:
“For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 [the older Latin Mass] should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way?”
Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002), p. 416.
A rose by any other name is a rose and a Bugnini Mass in Latin is still a Bugnini Mass.
Ratzinger did say that but never explained how it would be consistent with SC’s decree that the liturgy be reformed in several areas.
The reformed rubrics of 1965, along with an expanded lectionary, would have satisfied all that Vatican II called for. There was no need, nor call by the council, for an entirely new liturgy.
Just like Trent, the council left implementation in the hands of the pope; who in turn formed the concillium to liaise with the bishops while the council was still in session. It was the bishops who actively pushed for the initial reforms eg use of the vernacular to go further and faster.
The sacred congregation of rites attempted to pre-empt the work of the concillium and limit the scope of any reforms by rushing to release the 1965 missal. Had it not done so, we might have had a more considered reform.
It wasn’t an entirely new liturgy and SC called for much more than just a review of the rubrics.
Yesterday on Father's blog, we had the article that had featured the reply to Mike Lewis' list of serious problems that have long marred the TLM Movement.
The article in question acknowledged the following:
"Lewis’s most powerful argument is that traditionalism has failed to police its own extremes...the movement’s most visible spokesmen had become increasingly divisive."
"When the loudest voices are the most extreme, they define the movement.
"Its most visible voices often promote views incompatible with full communion.
"Until traditionalists answer the question “Do you accept the authority of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium?” with an unambiguous “yes”, not through clever equivocation but through genuine religious submission, the hierarchy’s concerns remain justified."
=======
Today, as if to confirm the above, New Catholic (Rorate Caeli blog), with fists clenched, declared:
"The Knoxville Ruse
"This is the official letter of the Bishop Beckman annihilation of the Traditional Latin Mass in Knoxville (East Tennessee):
“By January 1, 2026 every Latin Mass in the diocese will be celebrated using the 2002 Roman Missal ensuring consistency with the Church’s approved liturgical books…your community will continue to worship in Latin…while faithfully serving the unity of the Church.”
=======
Rorate Caeli continued: "They really do think we are as vapid, and superficial, and malicious as they are.
"Let us be clear for the 1000th time: it is about the RITE, the ancient rite, which you may call “form,” but it is ours, to which all Catholics of the Latin Church have “rightful aspirations” (John Paul II)...
"This was true in 1988, in 2007, AND IT IS EVEN MORE SO TODAY.
"Your new committee-made, "fabricated" liturgy is not what we inherited from our forefathers.
"It is not ours by history, culture, inheritance, and legacy:
"We are not idiots, and WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY GENTLE INTO THAT NIGHT."
=======
New Catholic (Rorate Caeli), a liturgical warmonger, has demonstrated the hateful anti-Catholic spirit that one encounters frequency within the TLM Movement.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
Fidelity to the Church requires that we adhere to its legitimate legislation. It does not require that we agree that it is either just or wise. The liturgy was reformed in the first place because there were those who disagreed with it. There is no sin to say the same about the present liturgy. Nor does accepting Vatican II require us to accept and agree with the reforms that came after the council.
Now where is your equal criticism of those who also reject the present Missal of Paul VI by suppressing those legitimate options within that would allow for a traditional form of worship?
A rose by any other name is a rose and a Bugnini Mass in Latin is still a Bugnini Mass.
There’s no such thing, there’s only the Mass of Paul VI.
There is increasing study indicating that people in 1965/1966 indeed thought that the changes made satisfied Vatican II and, for their intents and purposes, was the new liturgy. They didn't see the earthquake of 1969 coming, poor souls.
Nick
Ah yes, the liturgical warmonger who spews such venom as... quotes from two post-Vatican II popes.
Nick
Ah yes, the unique expression of the Roman Rite... except for all of the other ones.
Nick
😆 Good one, Nick!
The others are Latin rites, not Roman.
The liturgy was reformed in the first place because there were those who disagreed with it. There is no sin to say the same about the present liturgy. Nor does accepting Vatican II require us to accept and agree with the reforms that came after the council.
No, but as Francis made clear it’s no longer appropriate to talk about a reform of the reform. Both him and Leo have committed themselves to the reforms and direction of the Second Vatican Council.
News flash: Pope Francis is no longer the pope.
News flash: Pope Francis is no longer the pope.
…but until / if Leo overrides TC it stands!
Post a Comment