We have already discussed the truly rabid clericalism, built-in and not built-in, of the Bugnini Mass.
For brevity, the not built-in clericalism is the Bugnini Mass hijacked by the personality of the priest, his liturgical hospitality, manipulation of words and gestures, disregard for the rubrics and general instruction of the Roman Missal. And bishops do it too; so there isn’t any correction of the lowerarchy by the hierarchy.
But worse is the institutional clericalism of the Bugnini Mass with its plethora of options and choices made exclusively by the priest-celebrant or others to whom he might delegate various choices.
The Propers of the Mass (Introit, Offertory, Communion anthiphons) might be used or maybe not and normally never!
The several choices for the Penitential Act or omitting it in favor of the Asperges!
Many different Eucharistic Prayers and prefaces—who picks? Why, of course, the priest!
Prayer over the People or Solemn Final Blessing, yea or nea? It depends on how tired I am. And yes, by all means Eucharistic Prayer II because it is shorter and then allows for a long Universal Prayer which are mini homilies, and mini-homilies at the Introductory Rite, before the Scripture Readings and after Holy Communion.
Pope Leo in his first lengthy interview as pope said that the (Bugnini) Novous Ordo Mass may be celebrated in Latin now.
But is that true? A bishop in my Province of Atlanta, specifically, The Diocese of Charleston, does not allow this to happen. Other bishops around the world too. And clearly, Holy Communion under both forms is explicitly allowed in the Roman Missal’s Instruction by way of Intinction—meaning the Communion Minister intincts the Host and places the Host on the Communicant’s tongue. I implemented this many years ago in one of my previous parishes only to have a now former bishop ask me not to offer Holy Communion this way. I wanted to ask him, sarcastically, but my good sense prevailed and I didn’t, are you going to tell me which Eucharistic Prayer or Penitential Act I can’t use???????
Let me let you in on a secret. If the TLM is to be suppressed as Pope Francis indicated that the goal of Traditionis Custodis was/is, I felt it should have simply be killed and not linger and make the laity and priests who celebrate it angrier and angrier, and unnecessarily.
I recommended to my bishop that he allow priests to celebrate the Bugnini Mass in a way that imitates the TLM. I recommended that the Introductory Rite using exclusively the “I Confess” with absolution be said at the “foot of the altar.” The priest and servers ascend for the Kyrie, Gloria and Collect, all prayed at the altar in the fashion of the TLM and ad orientem, with the priest facing the people for the Collect to say or chant “Let us Pray” and going to the Epistle side to pray the Collect. Of course the Introductory Rite Procession utilizing the Gregorian chant for the Introit. The Liturgy of the Word as in the Bugnini Mass, but with the Gradual from the revised Roman Gradual and any and all tracts and sequences from the same source. After the homily, the Credo and Universal Prayer Litany at the altar, ad orientem, as well as the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Communion kneeling and at an altar railing.
Allowing this, in place of the TLM, and by any priest in any parish who requested it or simply did it as yet another choice would have been better than the slow death that we are seeing now with the TLM.
5 comments:
Numerous folks who have denounced the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI — the Mass that Pope Leo XIV supports — as inferior, in one way after another, to the so-called TLM, have long denounced as preposterous the reform-of-the-reform.
Why waste time and energy upon a new liturgical reform to "doll up," as Michael Matt declared lately, the supposed fabricated, banal, poisonous, Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI?
The TLM's Latin Churchwide restoration is the way to proceed, according to said folks.
=======
The flipside to the above is the following:
Beginning in earnest with Pope Venerable Pius XII, the Church had determined that the Roman Liturgy required major liturgical reform. Such young influential Churchmen as Joseph Ratzinger supported the Roman Liturgy's reformation.
Holy Mother Church has guaranteed that She, in line with Tradition, reformed the Roman Liturgy successfully. Pope Saint John Paul II declared:
"This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers".
Last November, Cardinal Brandmüller had declared:
"The so-called Tridentine Mass is by no means perfect; there are many things in need of correction."
Therefore, why turn to the TLM, which has remained in "need of correction"?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
You really are a broken record of nonsense. So here it is one more time:
MT Suit, as always, you conveniently forget Pope Benedict's statements which torpedo your "arguments:"
"The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)"
Better luck next time!
We used to have a pastor who did a lot of goofy things at Mass. One of them was to change Gospel texts to make them "unisex," so instead of saying something like, "He who..." he would say "The one who..." Often, he'd get it all so mixed up that the meaning of the text was completely lost. Of course, he ended his career as the Vicar General of our Diocese.
My condolences
Vatican II called for a modest reform, one that would respect tradition, not a major reform. That was Paul VI who went beyond the mandate of the Council. And if it was legitimate to call for reform of the old Mass, it is likewise legitimate to call for reform of the new.
Post a Comment