I copied and paste this Facebook article I found. However, it did not paste the name of the author and when I went back to Facebook, I couldn’t find the original post that I copied! Apologies to the author. My comments after his post.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in 1922:
Fr. Pius Parsch celebrating Mass in 1922 in a 'popular' style of Mass approved by bishops and spread through Germany/Austria. Whatever the defects, the style became quite popular.
We should not forget Vatican II saw itself as endorsing a movement already well under way in many places, popular among laypeople & scholars, and endorsing fairly standard views among liturgical scholars regarding what the earliest Roman liturgy looked like.
[NB: Newman's 'Callista' gives a similar picture of what early Roman liturgy was thought to be like.]
But there were alternative approaches to what would come from that movement as pertains to liturgical reform. Some scholars, such as Louis Bouyer, came to see the product of VII's reform as falling short of their intended goals, even as they endorsed Sacrosanctum Concilium as the great victory for their movement.
I cannot help but agree with Bouyer. Being myself firmly in the Bouyer-Ratzingerian camp on the VII reforms, I'd think: Some changes were good & reasonable; others bland & decrease in quality; others inadvertently led to rupture & chaotic abuses. But there was reasonability in the initial aims of the liturgical movement that needs not to be forgotten.
(In fact, let me say too that, despite the picture (above) I agree with Razinger, Bouyer, Lang, etc., that 'versus populum' liturgy has turned out to have largely the wrong effect on everyone. It seems to me the right response would be to reverse this emphasis and reintroduce 'ad orientem' celebrations into popular practice again.)
My most humble commentary:
Some have claimed that I am clairvoyant—who knows. I have no idea what Pope Leo will do to calm down the current liturgical wars that are on many fronts. Thank you Vatican II and Pope Francis.
Somehow I doubt that Pope Leo will abrogate TC and go back to SP, but who knows? I do think he will encourage bishops to be generous about the celebration of the Vetus Ordo. I would hope he would eliminate some of the Orwellian aspects of TC or later communications from Cardinal Roche, like the Vetus Ordo can’t be celebrated in parish churches, forcing its celebrations to shrines and gymnasiums.
As well, the truly Orwellian Roche mandated law, that the Vetus Ordo can’t be advertised in parish bulletins is truly Orwellian and should have been shot down by now.
What do I think that Pope Leo should do? Write a TC type authoritative document that liberalizes the celebratioin of the Vetus Ordo along the lines of Ecclesia Dei of St. John Paul II.
Then, allow the Novus Ordo to have the option of “looking like” the Vetus Ordo’s celebration by simply giving the Novus Ordo what the Ordinariate’s Divine Worship already has and promulgated by Pope Francis!
What is that? You know:
The PATFOTA, the Gradual from the Roman Gradual, the ancient Offertory Prayers, ramped up rubrics for the Eucharistic Prayer approximating the Vetus Ordo’s, the Triple Non Sum Dignus and the Last Gospel. Also, reestablish all the Octaves dropped in the Modern Missal as well as Septuagesima and Ember Days as Divine Worship has done and format a new Novus Ordo Missal to reflect the look of Divine Worship which looks like the Vetus Ordo Missal which includes in the propers the Offertory Antiphon. The Gloria Patri is also reinstated in Divine Worhship for the Introit and the other times this is prayed in the Mass.
The option of celebrating Mass ad orientem and with Holy Communion distributed to kneeling communicants must be made explicit!
It must be made clear that the Novus Ordo may be celebrated in Latin (although the lectionary normally in the vernacular) or it can be a hybrid of Latin and vernacular.
What I suggest and hope Pope Leo will do is a part of organic development of the Novus Ordo that respects its essence and tradition while re-enchanting it with elements of tradition from the Vetus Ordo.
11 comments:
There can be no liturgical peace without restoring Summorum Pontificum. (¶) Rome could choose just one of the proposed SPXX priests to be ordained bishop and allow the SPXX a set, limited time to completely normalize its Church status -- failing that, their hierarchy will be declared schismatic and any future consecrations solemnly proclaimed to be not only illicit but also canonically invalid, i.e., null and void (yes, this is entirely possible).
Agree!
Ironically, those who would cover the nakedness of the Consilium with the cloak of inspiration by the holy, holy, holy Ghost to ensure that none of the former’s actions are given the scrutiny and correction they may deserve, make it all the more likely that the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. Though all things considered, I’d much rather go to a Mass where the priest pays attention to the placement of his fingers on the altar than one where he rides a scooter to “catechize” about Confirmation or swans around like he’s MCing a convention.
Nick
Whilst not much disagreeing with you, Father, except that there has become a trend to conflate separate problems as if all the same. The possible schism of SSPX is a particular matter; the abuse of the Missal in use since the Second Vatican Council; and whether the Missal of 1962 (1955) should be allowed and under what circumstances. Each issue needs to be considered on its own. And if I might add, without any ‘hobby horses’ of one’s own.
Nick, that's what known as the "Phil Donahue in a Caftan Syndrome".
Slightly on-topic, this is an interesting piece on Episcopalians, of all things: https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2026/05/when-episcopalians-became-better.html?m=1
As the author says, Episcopalians have their problems, but imagine what would’ve happened to a Catholic Church built in the 1800s and rebuilt after a fire in the 1970s!
Nick
It is time that we stop treating Sacrosanctum Concilium as if it were holy writ or a new Pentecost. It is merely an expression of prudential judgment by the Council at the time. It is not an expression of the Magisterium and we need to stop treating it as such.
It wasn’t really Sacrosanctum Concilium that reformed the Mass, but only offered a blueprint for that revision and a rather conservative one at that. It is was Consilium did under the direction of Bishop Bugnini and of course with St. Paul VI’s papal approval. It is this Mass, revised a few times since 1970 that is the problem, its order, its flimsy rubrics and the ad libbing it codified in the rubrics that led to other ad libbing that in some cases invalidates the Mass making it worse than illicit. Sacrosanctum Concilium is used as a “smoke screen” to validate Consilium. But Consilium isn’t an ecumenical document, it’s an interpretation and flimsy at that.
Ecumenical Council document
Here, here Fathers Anthony and McDonald. SS was a big HUGE mistake as implemented, worsened by the Consilium.
Here is one simple example to make the point. Almost immediately, even though SS said that pastors were to teach their congregations to sing, in Gregorian Chant, certain parts of the Ordinary, liturgists went wild, writing new vernacular ordinaries. You have to be braindead not to know the meaning of those Ordinary Parts in Greek and Latin. But that is what they did, essentially contradicting SS and throwing aside centuries of chant and polyphony for, in many cases, nonsense melodies
Agreed. The idea that Sacrosanctum Concilium called for the massive reform that came afterwards is a great lie. That being said, however, SC has been presented as if it had called for this reform. Furthermore, it has been presented as if it were a binding magisterial document which the faithful were bound to accept in faith. Thus we have two lies combined: if you object to the post Vatican II reform, you reject Vatican II; and if you reject Vatican II and SC you are guilty of heresy. Both of these lies need to be put to rest. Neither the missal of Pope Paul VI nor Sacrosanctum Concilium are binding on the faithful beyond being merely matters of discipline. We have to accept their implementations as legitimate administrative acts, but we are free to reject them as imprudent and detrimental to the faith.
Post a Comment