Liturgical theologians touted the breakthrough that the Bugnini contrived Mass was. And that breakthrough was “resourcement”!
It’s one of those words that everyone, except liturgical elites, forget what that French word means.
Let me make it simple.
In 1969, you take a fully loaded Lincoln Continental sedan and you strip it down and return it to the Model T Ford from which it evolved and grew organically.
That’s what the 1970 Roman Missal or, truthfully, Bishop Bugnini did to the 1962 Roman Missal, organically developed over centuries. He tried to return it to the way the early Church celebrated the Mass in a Model T fashion.
So, from the Mass, you take away automatic transmission, power brakes, electric windows, cruise control, V-8 engine, computers and safety features and strip it down to what it was originally without all those accretions.
Yes, that’s what the 1970 Missal tried to do, or better yet, Bishop Bugnini did.
I had a Ford lightbulb moment when Pope Leo was giving His Holiness’ Wednesday catechesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium. SC was not talking about some future stripped down, contrived Mass like the one Bugnini came up with, but rather it was talking about the Mass of the day during the Council and for centuries before.
Yes, in not the most unambiguous way, SC called for some conservative reforms. Most of these, in my most humble opinion, had to do with the complexity of Pontifical Masses celebrated by the Bishop of Rome and all other bishops. It was not aimed at the typical parish Low or High Mass. Maybe more to the Solemn Sung Mass with deacon and subdeacon.
Noble simplicity doesn’t mean stripping the Mass down to a Model T Ford. It means making it easier to celebrate the Mass with vernacular rubrics and taking away some of the odd additions to the more solemn celebrations of the Mass, like the server kissing the priest’s hand, the taking of the paten in a solemn way away from the altar, the oddity of the paten not used on the corporal until right before the priest’s “Domini non sum dignus”.
A useless repetition would be the double prayers at the PATFOTA, the double “non sum dignus” at Communion time, one for the priest the other for the laity and the Confiteor again recited prior to the people’s non-sum dignus.
But what in the Name of God and all that is Holy is wrong with the priest and ministers at a sung Mass saying the PATFOTA while the Entrance Chant (Introit) is chanted?
What in the Name of God and all that is Holy is wrong with all of the other silent and private prayers of the priest that Bugnini completely stripped away?
What is wrong with all the sign language used by the priest during the Roman Canon, like multiple signs of the Cross, genuflections and bows???
What is wrong with the Last Gospel and in fact with the Order of the Mass where the Dismissal comes first and the Final Blessing last, with those pesky private prayers of the priest in between?
Fidelity to SC’s call for certain changes in the Mass would be the 1964 Roman Missal that allowed for quite a bit of vernacular but also mandated Latin for the Roman Canon or any Eucharistic Prayer developed, although SC did not call for additional Canons!
Preserving Gregorian Chant and Latin could be accomplished by mandating that in a sung Mass the Propers be in Latin and perhaps the fixed parts of the Mass.
SC did not call for a reorientation of churches and the wreckovation of church sanctuaries. It did not mandate that the Mass always be said facing the assembly.
It did not call for standing for Holy Communion, the removal of altar railings and extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
I hope Pope Leo realizes as he teaches us about the true meaning of SC that His Holiness needs to reform the reform and make it what SC actually sought for the Mass of the ages.
Hint: It isn’t the 1970 Roman Missal or any other version of said missal since 1970.
37 comments:
Everything that Sacrosanctum Concilium called for was accomplished in the 1965 reform of the rubrics. The Novus Ordo is not the Mass called for by Vatican II!
As for preserving Latin, I think that the sung Ordinary should be returned to Latin. These are simple prayers that are repeated at every Mass and thus can be easily learned.
The 64-65 Missal did not revise or expand the lectionary which SC did recommend. I don’t think the lectionary needed to be dropped altogether but may a year “B” and “C” added to “A” which would be the original. Maybe year B would include more Old Testament Readings and Year C more Gospel readings or whatever. I don’t think adding one more reading was the way to go as it is too many readings and makes the Mass even more wordy and it’s too much to comprehend or remember.
I'm curious if you've attended a Pontifical High Mass since your youth...
While those sorts of masses as pictured on the internet are usually fairly ornate and complicated, I recall during my time at an SSPX chapel that such masses weren't quite as complicated as the "special event" sort usually depicted on the internet. I suspect that the SSPX experience of these things probably better approximates the typical situation from before Vatican II rather than fussier versions.
At any rate, the same sort of feel happens in the Orthodox Hierarchical Liturgy: it's obviously more complicated than the typical Divine Liturgy, but once one goes to this sort of thing multiple times, it's not quite as ornate as it first appears.
There was an accompanying daily Mass lectionary. The lectionary can be expanded by proper ferial readings and greater selections for the feasts. There was no need to disturb the Sunday lectionary. The is actually a good pedagogical reason for hearing the same Sunday readings year after year.
That "Ford lightbulb moment" you had was rather dim, kinda like the light you get from a flashlight when the batteries are 90% gone.
Consider a better analogy for the reform of the mass. Discovered in 1905 in South Africa, the Cullinan diamond weighed 3,106 carats or about 1.3 pounds. It had been growing "organically" for billions of years underground. When unearthed, the beauty was recognizable, but obscured, the essence of the gem was well known, but did not shine forth.
After lengthy study and planning this clunk of a rock was cut and polished, removing that which concealed the great beauty within. Nine principal gems were produced, each a masterpiece of God's creativity and man's ingenuity. They sparkle with inner fire, they twinkle with each movement, they flash and gleam when the light hits them just right.
The goal, which was achieved, was to simplify the liturgy and make the core elements more transparent, participatory, and grounded in biblical sources
No, I never have been to a pontifical Mass, only saw it on YouTube. But, I have celebrated the 1962 Solemn Sung Mass with deacon and subdeacon and all the bells and whistles many times.
Your analogy is not apropo—the sludge on this diamond did not add to its beauty by hid it. Whereas the organic development of the Model T Ford into a Lincoln Continental brightened the diamond of a car that the Model T became in the Lincoln Continental. The early Mass did not accumulate dust, dirt and a hard veneer of ugliness, it attained more and more beauty, regality and solemnity—thus the 1962 Roman Missal is the diamond and the 1970 Missal is the “unearthed diamond you speak of with its beauty unrecognizable!” Nice try, but extremely poor analogy, except your analogy makes my point even better! Thank you.
More like taking the Hope Diamond, which had been carefully cut, and smashing it with a sledge hammer because that looked more natural.
The early mass did accumulate the unnecessary and superfluous. Unless SC was wrong...
“The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s power of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.” (SC, 34)
The mention of the Hope diamond is interesting. It sits in a museum, people come in and say, "Oooooh!" and "Aaaaaah!" People can look, but not touch. It doesn't become a part of peoples' lives. I doubt that it inspires anyone to go out and start hunting for diamonds. Maybe a picture is allowed, but then it just fades into the thousands of other pictures on someone's phone....
I see “Father Edsel” showed up and offered nothing of substance. I suspect he lacks the intellect to celebrate the TLM like Father McDonald. He probably would be a Priest Simplex if the TLM were still in force in the Roman Church
You must have missed the classes on beauty and attraction to the Catholic Faith that begins for the inquirers by oohs and awws and keeps Catholics the same way. Can you remind us of how many Catholics attended Mass with the full loaded Mass in 1964 compared to today with the reversion to the Model T 1970 Missal?
The Novus Bogus is full of useless repetitions like the Prayer of the Faithful when the Roman Canon is used. The TLM is noble simplicity compared to the hydra-headed Novus Bogus
TJM, ad hominem attacks on people and the Bugnini Mass is what helped bring about TC. You don’t help us in convincing the high ups to reconsider TC by that kind of attack and language!
“In 1969, you take a fully loaded Lincoln Continental sedan and you strip it down and return it to the Model T Ford from which it evolved and grew organically“
Sounds a bit ad hominem
Many of these 'what if' and 'if only' comments may be academically interesting - but I cannot find anybody in 1955 saying if only the 1570 Missal had the lections in the vernacular as mandated by the Council of Trent! We are, Fathers and gentlemen (and ladies), where we are now. The Missal of Paul VI will probably be the more used Missal and may have some developments in the future. The Missal of John XXIII enjoys a revival and the discussion should be - just how that revival should be allowed to thrive, and under what regulations.
Father Allan,
This comparison may fairly be extended to the Roman Breviary of 1960. The revision that asked that the focus be on Lauds, Vespers and Compline (L, V & C) was practical and brilliant. While the suppression of Prime was sad (Prime as an office consecrates one's workday to God, and has a different focus than Lauds, which is Praise of God). It is easier to pray the Prayers: Morning and Evening Prayers of the Divine Office: Lauds, Vespers and Compline for the Entire Years from the Roman Breviary, Benziger Bothers, 1965, than Christian Prayer, which is a sort of gobbledy gook of prayer. The unredacted full psalms bring the biblical focus right up front, and it is a relatively straightforward easy office. No wondering what week you are on, and you actually say more psalms in one week in these three offices (L, V, & C) than you do in the course of the 4 weeks in the modern office for L, V &C, as found in the 1976 Christian Prayer.
"Unless SC was wrong..." And there, Fr. Kavanaugh, you repeat the lie that the Novus Order was mandated by Vatican II. It was not! Putting aside the question of the Lectionary, all that Sacrosanctum Concilium called for was accomplished with the reform of 1965. There was not the expectation of further reforms. The Concilium worked in secret to produce the further reforms without the input of the council fathers. When the normative mass was first presented, it was rejected. SC called only for reforms that were required. I challenge you to show how any of the reforms introduced in the Novus Ordo that go beyond those of the 1965 reform were required.
And yes, they say "Oooooh!" and "Aaaaah!" because they appreciate that it is more precious than the costume jewelry that they wear daily. If given the ability, they would prefer the Hope Diamond and other fine jewelry over the play jewelry that they can afford. The Church had given the ordinary faithful a real jewel in the old Mass. It has been taken away are replaced by a cheep imitation.
I should also point out the other lie, treating Vatican II as if its statements were dogmatic. Vatican II made not a single dogmatic statement, and this includes the dogmatic constitutions. No one is obliged in conscience to agree with anything that Vatican II. This is not to say that I reject the entire council out of hand, but we need to stop elevating its authority as a way to stop all conversation.
Sacrosanctum Concilium is a tough case, because on paper it's conservative (keep Latin, keep Gregorian chant, no changes unless the good of the faithful truly requires them, modest expansion of the vernacular, new lectionary). During its development, however, it was always a dead letter. If you read Yves Chiron's book "Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy," he documents Bugnini telling the Consilium in 1961, two years before SC was promulgated, that they would not be able to make all the changes they want to make in the initial document, but they could plant the seeds of them. This is why so many parts of SC call for a conservative degree of change, and then say, "The full extent of the change will be determined by the bishops conferences."
What I have discovered recently is that the most successful cases of "Reform of the Reform" look very close to the 1965 Mass: traditional ars celebrandi, veiled tabernacles, Benedictine arrangement, altar boys in cassocks and surplices, altar rails for Communion, increased use of the Roman Canon, etc. At one point I thought strictly along the lines of, "1965 is a wasted effort. Let's just go back to the TLM." These days, I think more incrementally. Any move toward tradition and greater reverence is good in my opinion.
Anthony - You misread. Fr. ALLAN McDonald said that there was little or nothing superfluous in the old mass. SC says otherwise. I never said or suggested that SC gave us the NO. THAT came from the later work, all approved by the highest authority short of God, the Holy Father. That the Consilium was working is CLEAR indication that further reforms were coming.
Also, I have never once treated SC as dogmatic. That is hyperbole on your part, which is another way of saying you are the one lying. Yes, people oooh and ahhh at the Hope diamond - and they can't touch it and it can't touch them.
As for, "No one is obliged in conscience to agree with anything that Vatican II." The Church says, "Catholics are required to assent even to non-infallible teachings of the ordinary magisterium."
Unless, of course, you want to second the sentiments of Fr. Coughlin who said, "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing."
To quote me;
“Noble simplicity doesn’t mean stripping the Mass down to a Model T Ford. It means making it easier to celebrate the Mass with vernacular rubrics and taking away some of the odd additions to the more solemn celebrations of the Mass, like the server kissing the priest’s hand, the taking of the paten in a solemn way away from the altar, the oddity of the paten not used on the corporal until right before the priest’s “Domini non sum dignus”.
A useless repetition would be the double prayers at the PATFOTA, the double “non sum dignus” at Communion time, one for the priest the other for the laity and the Confiteor again recited prior to the people’s non-sum dignus.”
Everything else Bugnini stripped did not need to be stripped! The Bugnini Mass as celebrated today is not what SC envisioned or the Vatican II Fathers. It was Bugnini’s desire.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
I did misread your comment and for that I sincerely apologize. But you must admit that both proposition—Vatican II mandated the new Mass and declarations of Vatican II must be treated as dogmatic statements—are common. Indeed, there was the implication of the latter in your own statement, "Unless SC was wrong..." And what if someone were to say that Sacrosanctum Concilium or other Vatican II statements were wrong? They were not infallible statements. Why should it be held against someone for disagreeing with them. Nor can you fall back on "Catholics are required to assent even to non-infallible teachings of the ordinary magisterium." The magisterium deals with matters of faith and morals, not disciplinary matters concerning the liturgy.
Part of the problem with your exchange with Fr. McDonald is your tendency towards hyperbole. That there were some things that needed to be cleaned from the old Mass, as Fr. McDonald himself listed, does not mean that everything had to be. I will repeat what I said above, the reform of the liturgy envisioned by Vatican II was accomplished by the reform of 1965. The was not need to go beyond that.
And the old Mass, too, was approved by the highest authority. That did not stop some from calling for its reform. Otherwise, there would have been no reform. Therefore, it is also legitimate to call into question the reform that was made, despite being approved by the highest authority.
That the Consilium was working in secret is clear indication that no one was expecting further reforms. Indeed, the publication of the Normative Mass caught many people by surprise.
As for the analogy with the Hope Diamond, the old Mass was touched be the faithful and they were touched by it. It was not locked behind glass.
I will close with your implied attack with the mention of Fr. Coughlin. This is a fine example of your tactic of hyperbole. As if one disagrees with one aspect of Vatican II he must be a disciple of Fr. Coughlin. I await your retraction of the implication.
Father Anthony,
You are asking for a miracle. That is not how K rolls
"But you must admit that both proposition—Vatican II mandated the new Mass and declarations of Vatican II must be treated as dogmatic statements—are common." No, I musn't. First, I doubt that 99.999% of Catholics know the declarations of Vatican Two. Second, while some cite Vatican Two as the authority for doing some sketchy things, they're not raising Vatican Two to the level of dogma.
Vatican Two was an act of the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
Liturgical regulations cannot, by their nature, rise to the level of infallible.
The popes who authorized and approved the work done by the Consilium did think that there was a need to go beyond the reform of 1965. I'll side with them.
I said, "As for, 'No one is obliged in conscience to agree with anything that Vatican II.' The Church says, "Catholics are required to assent even to non-infallible teachings of the ordinary magisterium." Yes, we are so obliged.
If we can set aside, since we are not obliged in conscience to agree" with non-infallible/non-dogmatic statements of Councils or Popes, then a Catholic, you or anyone else, could speak as Coughlin.
If you do not think that that it has been common to claim that Vatican II has mandated the new Mass or that the Council has been treated as if its statements were dogmatic then you have been living under rock and have not been repeatedly hit over the head with these arguments.
The ordinary magisterium only treats of faith and morals, not discipline. The proper form that that liturgy should take, other than its proper matter and form, is a matter of discipline, not faith and morals. But how often has Vatican II been invoked on matters of liturgy as if it were a question of faith and morals that requires religious consent. Please, do not deny that it is done routinely. And it should have been understood, given the context of our discussion, that I was speaking specifically of the liturgy.
As to those statements of Vatican II that do treat on matters of faith and morals, they are, as you say, acts of the Ordinary Magisterium. As such, they cannot be taken in isolation but must be understood within the context of the entire Ordinary Magisterium. No single statement can be isolated and treated as if it were infallible.
Pope Paul VI may have envisioned reforms that went beyond those of 1965, but the majority of those bishops who participated at the council did not. They were taken by surprise when those reforms were published. The final reform that we have has no relation to what Vatican II envisioned. It is the work of Pope Paul VI, Bugnini and the other activists that worked in the Consilium. But this had not stopped the many voices who invoke Vatican II to justify it.
It is not just a question of setting aside what Vatican II said, another example of your frequent hyperbole. They must be studied seriously, but while the faithful are not free to publicly dissent, they are not, after due consideration, required to assent if, after that study they have an invincible difficulty. And a part of this study is comparing it the totality of the Magisterium, for we are not just required to accept the most recent statements of the Ordinary Magisterium but the Magisterium as a whole.
That being said, I do not take the extreme view of some that the council taught error. I accept what the council taught provided that it is understood by what the Church has always taught. Unfortunately, there is enough ambiguity in the documents for some to claim that the council was changing Church teaching. This is a view that I reject.
And finally, you, Fr. Kavanaugh, are the last one to call people to accept all that the council taught without reservations. Sacrosanctum Concilium taught that Latin is to be preserved in the liturgy. Is it preserved in you. parish? It also taught that Gregorian chant was to hold pride of place. Does it hold pride of place in your parish? Do you reject these declarations of the council? Was the council wrong?
Fr. Anthony,
In point of fact, after the 1965 changes were made that implemented almost all of Sacrosanctum Concilium, countless bishops were calling on the Vatican to halt the liturgical changes. The Consilium even denied that they were working on the Novus Ordo as their next project! That, of course, was a lie.
Nick
Nick,
A twisted view of papal authority lies at the heart of this tragedy. Just like any priest or bishop, The pope is a servant of the liturgy not its master.
"If you do not think that that it has been common to claim..." No, I don't think it has been a common claim. I think you construe people's disagreement with and opposition to your preferences as such.
Yes, Vatican Two has been invoked regarding changes in the liturgy - and rightly so. The Father of the Council, following the example of Trent, set out to make changes to the texts and rites of the liturgies. These were needed, they said, "to accommodate them to the ethos and needs of our day."
Since the Middle Ages the faithful had become mere spectators at mass. The remedy began with Pius X; Pius XII established a commission in 1948 that produced a full volume of suggestions. He restored the Easter Vigil in 1961 and the liturgy for the entire Triduum in 1955.
The need for the revisions did not appear suddenly under Bugnini - he was carrying out a schema that already existed in the Church.
Did the Consilium and the world's bishops lead us to preserve Latin and Gregorian chant? Or did they, with whom authority rests, do otherwise.?
And regarding Latin, Maximos IV who was a Syrian Catholic prelate who served as Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, and Alexandria, and Jerusalem in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, and a Council Father said, "The almost absolute value assigned to Latin in the liturgy, in teaching, and in the administration of the Latin church, strikes us from the Eastern church as strange. Christ, after all, spoke the language of his contemporaries . . . In the East there has never been a problem about the proper liturgical language. All languages are liturgical, as the Psalmist says, "Praise the Lord, all ye people" . . . The Latin language is dead, but the Church is living, and its language, the vehicle of the grace of the Holy Spirit, must also be living because it is intended for us human beings, not for angels."
You do not think that it has been a common claim because it has not been directed at you. Believe me, and many others to whom these claims have been directed, it has indeed been very common. You may recognize it because you have not experienced it, but you cannot deny what I and many others have experienced.
The question is not whether or not Vatican II called for changes. This is beyond dispute. What is the question is the magnitude of those changes. Sacrosanctum Concilium was clear, those changes were to be made that were required. It was not supposed to be a full rewrite. What the council was calling for, and what everyone was expecting until the new Mass came out, was a tweaking of the liturgy, not its replacement with a new one. What the council fathers envisioned was accomplished by the reform of 1965. I again challenged you to justify why any of the changes introduced by the new Mass that went beyond this were required, the standard that was established by Vatican II.
We have to distinguish between what Vatican II called for, what was implement by the promulgation of the new Mass, and how the new Mass was subsequently celebrated. Vatican II is clear on this point, Latin was to be preserved and Gregorian chant was to have the pride of place. As for the promulgation of the new Mass, I remind you that it was done so in Latin and that a new Graduale Romanum was even prepared for it in Latin. So even the promulgation of the new Mass preserves Latin and Gregorian chant. Even now Canon Law declares that the Mass can be celebrated in Latin. It is only in the third phase, how the new Mass was celebrated subsequently, that Latin and Gregorian chant disappeared. You may say that this was right and just, but is clearly contrary to what Vatican II called for.
I have repeatedly said the liturgical peace could be achieved if we were just to go back to the second phase, what was actually implemented with the promulgation of the new Mass, and not force the more radical changes that came afterwards. To be clear, I am not advocating mandating a purely traditional form (as popularly understood) of the new Mass on everyone. There are clearly those who, after two generations, are attached to a more modern form of the liturgy. All I am saying is that those who are attached to this more modern form stop forcing on others and recognize that it is neither required by Vatican II nor even the new Mass itself. Why is this so hard to accept?
And I will highlight a false tactic that you and others repeatedly use: Vatican II called for change in the liturgy, therefore all the changes that happened afterwards were justified and cannot be questioned. Some change, however, does not mean major changes. Yes, Vatican II called for a reform of the liturgy, but what happened afterwards goes way beyond the limited changes that were envisioned, and to say otherwise is dishonest. Defend those changes if you want but do not use the authority of Vatican II to do so.
Anthony - SC was not the end of the changes, nor was it intended to be. Were that the case, the Consilium would never have been formed and its recommendations never authorized. The authorization of the Consilium and the approval by the pope are justification. You can question that changes that went beyond what YOU consider the vision of the Council Fathers all you want. I leave the determination of their legitimacy to the people who have the authority to do so, that that doesn't include you or me.
I would remind you that the NO is every bit as traditional (as the Church understands it) as any other form of the liturgy.
Why is it so hard for you and others to accept that a return to the 40's style liturgy will not solve the problems the Church is facing. Latin isn't going to end divorce and remarriage among Catholics. Gregorian chant isn't going to inspire the "nones" to sign up for the next OCIA session in their local parish. Celebrating ad orientem is not going to restore 100% belief in the mass as a true sacrifice. And excluding women from being altar servers sure as heck isn't going to lead to any noticeable uptick in vocations to the priesthood.
The Consilium was not the council fathers. It was a body of chosen men who had a greater commitment to change than was present on the council floor. The attempt to cloak the work of the Consilium with the authority of the Council is dishonest. Their work may well have been approved by the pope, that I do not dispute, but that is not the Council. What we have today is the Pauline reform, not the reform of Vatican II.
At the Council itself there were many conflicting voices. It was because there was no unanimity within the Council that such vague language had to be used. If the Council fathers themselves were committed to the massive changes that followed, they would have said so plainly. And in fact, where they did speak clearly with regard to Latin and Gregorian chant, it is clear that they were opposed to what would later be done in their name. I remind you that even Archbishop Lefebvre signed Sacrosanctum Concilium. Are you going to claim that he envisioned and approved the changes that came after the Council?
I also remind you of the three phases in which the changes were made, the reform of 1965, the new Mass as promulgated, and the subsequent manner in which the new Mass has been celebrated. Even the new Mass itself, what was actually approved by Pope Paul VI, does not require many of the changes that we now see. If you hold what the pope has approved in such high regard, then let us go back to what he actually approved, which would allow the use of Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem worship, etc., etc., etc.
You may doubt the value of returning back to the historical form of worship, but clearly the new Mass and the way that it is celebrated today has not cured all the problems that you mentioned. So why insist on it? And as for the possibility of an increase in vocations, I will point out the increase in vocations to societies devoted to the old Mass and the increasing interest in it among vocations in the diocese. The younger generation is going beyond the revolution that happened after, not at, Vatican II. What is happening on the ground does not match your expectations.
"The Consilium was not the council fathers." No kidding? I never knew that.
"It was a body of chosen men who had a greater commitment to change than was present on the council floor." Evidence for this claim?
"The attempt to cloak the work of the Consilium with the authority of the Council is dishonest." Again, evidence for this claim?
The Council did not speak in "vague" language. As a pastoral council, yet authoritative, the Fathers eschewed the dialectic style of Scholasticism in favor of an epideictic style, known to the Romans as "ars laudandi." The choice was made because the world had changed since Trent and the language of Trent was inadequate. I would remind you of #4 in Gaudium et Spes: "4. To carry out such a task, the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel. Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of the one to the other. We must therefore recognize and understand the world in which we live, its explanations, its longings, and its often dramatic characteristics. Some of the main features of the modern world can be sketched as follows."
What the popes actually approved was the changes made by the Concilium along with what was stated in SC.
"If the Council fathers themselves were committed to the massive changes that followed, they would have said so plainly." SO now you know what the individual Fathers were thinking...?
"I will point out the increase in vocations to societies devoted to the old Mass." We'll know in 10 years or so, maybe sooner, of what this "devotion" consists. Our diocese already had one defection of a recently ordained (2019) when he learned that restrictions were being placed on the use of the old rite. If these men are devoted to a RITE there will be problems.
The evidence of the claims is what Sacrosanctum Concilium actually said vs what the Consilium produced. I will rest my case with that and you can spin it however you want. If Vatican II is so clear, why are we still arguing about what it meant? Yes, what the popes actually approved was the new Missal as promulgated. This includes the use of Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem worship, etc. Why will you not accept this? And you still have not answered why insist on a restricted form of the new Mass if it does not cure the problems you listed? And finally, if there is a problem with men devoted to the old rite, why is there not also a problem with those devoted to the new rite who want to restrict the old rite?
Anthony - Consilium is not SC and did not have identical purposes or marching orders.
You search for "clarity" will never be satisfied, just as if you were to search for licorice in a shop that sells only chocolate. The goal of the Vatican Two documents is not to correct errors or formulate dogmatic certitudes. If you're not finding didactic language here, that should not come as a surprise. You find fault with the Council because it is not like other Councils; the fault is yours, not that of Vat II.
"Ars Laudandi" is an invitational style, not a teaching or correcting style. Think of a speech that may be delivered on Independence Day. A speaker could recite the US Code, or sections thereof, making clear that the intentions of the Constitution were enshrined in the laws of the land, finishing with, “And that’s the law you must obey!” (That’s Didactic.) Another speaker could present examples of how the values of our Constitution are lived out in the lives of Americans, how living out those values can lead to the establishment of a more perfect union, and how human lives anywhere in the world can be improved when our Constitutional values are lived out. (That’s Ars Laudandi.)
You say, “And you still have not answered why insist on a restricted form of the new Mass if it does not cure the problems you listed?” And there’s the nub of the matter. While many, many traddies insist repeatedly that the changes on the mass have been a direct cause of divorce and remarriage among Catholics, of the rise of the “Nones,” of the diminished understanding that the mass is a true sacrifice, of the decline in mass attendance, etc, they are simply wrong. That misdiagnosis leads to an erroneous prescription for remedy, to wit, just put the mass back as it was in the 40’s and all will be well.
I don’t share that fantasy. The reasons for the tectonic shifts is culture and society go far, far beyond the pages of the Missale Romanum or the walls of any Catholic church.
You say, “And finally, if there is a problem with men devoted to the old rite, why is there not also a problem with those devoted to the new rite who want to restrict the old rite?” The devotion to the old rite arises from the fantasy I describe above. That’s why its problematic. It is also problematic because Pope Benedict’s contention that there are two forms of one rite is unprecedented. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what uber-traddie Dr. Peter Kwasniewski writes: “Thus, while Benedict asserts that there is no contradiction and no rupture, at the same time, and startlingly, he allows for the coexistence of two canonically equal forms of one and the same liturgical rite—an unprecedented and, in many ways, unintelligible situation. As we have seen, there have always been many different “uses” in the Latin Church, but that the use of Rome should be thus doubled has never been seen before. It may be likened to a case of dissociative identity disorder, or schizophrenia.”
"Consilium is not SC and did not have identical purposes or marching orders."
Thank you for making my point. Now stop investing the Consilium with the authority of Vatican II.
"The goal of the Vatican Two documents is not to correct errors or formulate dogmatic certitudes."
Again, thank you for making my point. Vatican II produced nothing new dogmatically. Stop treating the Ars Laudandi of Vatican II as if it were dogmatic. One can take issue with the particular formulations utilized by Ars Laudandi and not reject Church teaching. And again to clarify, I am not saying that there is nothing good in what Vatican II presented, only that we should not treat it as dogmatic because it is not.
We disagree radically with the consequences of the liturgical reform. But you are mistaken if you think that fans of the old Mass are only drawn to it as a cure to the ills of the Church. We are drawn to it because of its antiquity and as stronger sign and participation in the apostolic faith that has been handed down through the centuries. You may not share that evaluation but yours is not the rule by which all opinions are to be judged. The new Mass has clearly not been a remedy for the ills of the Church. So why insist on its use and deny the use of the old Mass for those who prefer it?
As I have stated, you have misdiagnosed the attraction to the old Mass. The new Mass was introduced to address the supposed changes in society. Given the failure of the new Mass to strengthen the faith in the modern, perhaps you, too, should question if there was also a misdiagnosis that led to the reforms.
What is truly unprecedented is the suppression of a form of worship that has been celebrated for 1500+ years. The two forms that Pope Benedict proposed was a correction of this. But, as I have repeatedly said, it would be enough just to accept the new Mass as it was promulgated and remove all the restrictions that have been placed to prevent its use in a manner that mirrors the old Mass.
And finally, how can you demand that others accept the new Mass when you yourself do not? As approved and promulgated by the popes, it allows for the use of Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem worship, etc., etc., etc.
Anthony - Suppose a small percentage, 5 or 6 people, of our 7:30 a.m. Sunday mass crowd, asked for Latin/Ad Orientem/Gregorian Chant/NoFemale Servers at that mass. A assistant pastor was willing to fulfill the request.
Suppose that request was granted and, following adequate catechesis, the mass was celebrated as they desired.
Suppose the other 90 or so 7:30 regulars, after attending this "traditional," as you call it, mass for 4 or 6 weeks, approached the pastor and said that this form of the Roman Rite did not meet their spiritual needs and that, if this form continued, they would, with no ill-will toward anyone, register and attend at a nearby parish.
Would the pastor simply tell them, "Well, Fr. X has Rome's permission to do what he is doing and there is nothing I can do to prevent his celebrating mass according to the given norms?"
You say, "One can take issue with the particular formulations utilized by Ars Laudandi and not reject Church teaching."
Does that apply to NA #3? "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."
Does that apply to UR# 3? "It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
You say the old mass offers a, "stronger sign and participation in the apostolic faith..." What is "apostolic" about aspects of the old mass that did not exist for centuries after the last Apostle died? Does Latin make the truth of Christ's divinity more participatory for you? Is the sign of ad orientem celebration and enhancement of the truth of Mary's perpetual virginity? Does the exclusion of females from serving at the altar make the truth of Christ's two natures more evident?
I think your statement "The new Mass was introduced to address the supposed changes in society." is entirely wrong.
5 or 6 people? Maybe because you have made it quite clear that they are not welcomed at your parish. There is an evident growth of interest in the old Mass among younger people. The attendance at the parish I work at has doubled in the past 10 years, and this is not unusual parishes that celebrate the old Mass. I had over a hundred people in today's daily Mass. This should be applauded rather than dismissed.
Vatican II produced no dogmatic statements, therefore by definition nothing that Vatican II said can be taken dogmatically. This is simple logic. That does not mean that it is not true. There is much that is praiseworthy in Vatican II but, not being dogmatic, no one incurs a censure of excommunication for heresy for rejecting these statements.
You may not like options for a form of the new Mass celebrated in the manner of the old, but they have been duly approved by the popes, which you propose as the reason all should accept the new Mass. Physician, heal thyself and accept the new Mass as approved. Otherwise, how can you insist that others accept it when you do not?
If the whole point of the reform was not to adapt it to the changes is society, something you yourself have proposed, what was the point?
Post a Comment