AmericanPapist Comments
I voted "No" because a universal indult can lead to abuse by priests. Some may choose to only celebrate the Tridentine Mass and this would divide us into two Churches. The '62 Missal has, for some, also become a symbol of a revolt against Vatican II. This is not orthodoxy; it is disobedience. It is no more correct for a traditionalist to speak against the Magisterium than for a progressive to do so. Both make arrogant claims of knowing what is "true" for the Church and themselves. I agree that Vatican II was a disaster aesthetically: architecture, music, and liturgical dancing. We need a middle road where bishops allow a limited use of the '62 Missal and where they crack down on improvising during the current Mass. A wise bishop will allow liberal use of the Tridentine Mass, but he must be allowed that discretion to prevent abuse.
I voted yes. I agree with Casey in that it may create a real and formal schism in the Church between those who want the traditional Mass and those who want the 'modern' one. I'm all for tradition, and I support the reform of the reform.
BTW, I don't think that it would be wise or prudent to go into rants saying, "My Mass is better than your Mass."
I think the reason Benedict might do a universal indult is because the majority of the Bishops have not been very generous with granting the indult. Of course having two rites at the same time is totally unprecedented.
That being said, if people were more educated about the Liturgy and the nature of the Liturgy, then they would probably support having things like Gregorian chant, pipe organ, and Latin, etc. So really what the Church needs is a widespread renewal. John Paul started it, now it will hopefully be continued and expanded by Benedict.
I voted Yes. I don't see how the Tridentine mass can lead to more abuses than the Novus Ordo. The Tridentine mass is much harder to fool around with than the new mass. As for the split into "two churches" this would not occur. The vast majority of masses would still be N.O., especially since most churches aren't designed for the old mass since they are new or have been "renovated" (i.e. destroyed), and many priests do not know how to say the old mass. Most of the people calling for the old mass are not rejecting the new mass (although we are troubled by the high amounts of abuses that the new mass seems to draw, the horrible translations, the ability for the new mass to be transformed into a pseudo-protestant service etc.). Rather than trashing the new mass we just want to Church to make hundreds of years of beautiful tradition available to the faithful. Whats the harm in that?
I have to admit that I am still undecided about the issue. On the one hand, I do love the Tridentine rite. On the other hand, it CAN already be said by permission, and I'm not sure whether the worldwide reception of a universal indult would be beneficial enough in the long run to justify the tumult it would no doubt provoke from some circles...
anyway, this is good for me to read your comments and see the various thinking pro/con... thank you!
I voted undecided, but almost voted no. Had this poll come out a week ago, I may have voted yes. I mentioned the situation to a member of my faculty I trust very much, and he said the indult would probably be a bad idea. He even added that the tradition of the local bishop deciding which language to say Mass in is a very old tradition we have as Catholics, going back to the second century.
Plus, I worry that some overzealous priests who don't know latin as well as they might think might butcher everything beyond recognition.
That all being said, I really like the rite.
I've said yes, I see no reason why this would create a rift or schism in the Church. And personally, I would appreciate any return to traditional rites.
I voted yes because I believe that most priests and laity exposed to the Tridentine Mass would be more reverent in all Masses. Reverence is too lacking.
Well, this was a difficult choice for me - but I decided to vote “no.” The primary reason for my decision is not ‘schism’ but that I have many reservations about the “universality” of such an indult. First, as someone already mentioned, the Mass and the public celebration of the sacraments by clergy has always rested with and been regulated by the Bishop of a local Church (diocese) who alone has the fullness of Holy Orders. That said, I do believe that any such indult given will be “universal” only for private use, and that any “public use” (meaning, use at any of the Sunday Masses in a parish) of the liturgy would need to be approved by the local Ordinary. Second, within the Church today, we have entire generations of priests (and laity) who have had, at best, limited exposure to the Tridentine liturgy, many with only a modest knowledge of Latin, etc. Therefore, any indult would need to be met with much preparation on the part of the presbyterate and catechesis for the faithful. I do believe that this would lead to many abuses if it were not regulated (i.e., unless the Bishop ensures that the priests afforded the indult are duly prepared.) Third, the Tridentine liturgy does not ensure reverence. While I would not say that such an indult would result in “more” abuses, I would say that it will not eliminate them. There were many abuses within the Tridentine liturgy in the 50’s and 60’s and probably throughout its long and venerable history. Granted, it is more difficult to “fool around with” this liturgy because of its rubrical specificity but elements were omitted on a regular basis, the Latin was often slurred and rapidly spoken (often beyond recognition and certainly without reverence), and there were plenty of places within the liturgy where “innovations” or “improvising” occurred. I suppose this brings me to my final point, that the Tridentine liturgy is not a divine bandage that will heal our broken liturgy and liturgical sense. If the more liberal usage of the ’62 Missal is viewed as such, it will only contribute to the problems. Many believe that this will help to solve many of the problems (liturgical and otherwise) within the Church. In terms of the liturgy, we do need a more widespread liturgical renewal. I do not believe that we, as a Church, even after 40 years, have truly implemented the liturgical reforms of the Council Fathers and until that day comes, we must reserve our assessment of the liturgy (while continuing to point out blatant abuses). If, however, the Tridentine use is viewed and celebrated in a manner so to preserve and celebrate our Tradition, offering the faithful an equitable form of worship, then it will unquestionably bear much fruit. Personally, I think this can only be ensured with appropriate regulation on the part of the local Ordinary, as outlined above.
The Church has several rites. Not only It is enriched by the several Eastern Rites, but also in the West, there is more than one rite (Ambrosian Rite, Anglican Use, etc). And, even in the context of the Pauline Rite (the normative Roman rite), there are several approved variations, including some absurd variations used by the Neocathecumenals and tolerated by the Holy See under Pope John Paul II. (Pope Benedict has approved some of those variations and has insisted that others, that are incompatible with the Tradition of the Church, be abandoned).
In that context, when we already have a multitude of rites, why not allow the classical form of the Roman Rite (Pian, or Tridentine Rite), which is a very reverent rite, was the normative Roman rite for centuries and is dear to many faithful.
What is more, is a day and age when Mahony Fests are commonplace, with grotesque, almost un-Catholic liturgical abuses taking place in several places (by un-Catholic abuses I mean abuses that are not only condemned by the Holy See but that are also grave signs of a loss of respect and lack of adoration towards the Eucharist --- such as the use of glass vessels to contain the Sacred Species), often with the support of the Bishop, who should be the custodian of the faithful execution of liturgical Law, it is clear that the Holy See must back its words about liturgical abuse (several documents were issued on this topic), with action.
Mass can be reverently celebrated using the Pauline Mass. It happens at the Vatican. It happens also in the abbey where I attend Mass (instead of attending Mass at the Parish that is two minutes away from my home, I drive 20-30 minutes by car every Sunday to arrive at that one abbey where NO abuses are commited during the celebration of the Mass, where reverent music is used, etc.)
However, it seems to me that the Pauline Rite, with its several optional formulas, possibilities of variations (giving the priest the impression that he can also add other variations, options, etc), with its simplicity (that can contribute to a diminushed understanding of the theology of the Mass, especially when abuses --- supressions, changes of the text by the celebrant, etc--- take place), and perhaps the way in which its introduction was carried out (with several liturigical changes taking place over one decade, instead of an organized, well prepared change), is more susceptible to abuse than the former normative form of the Roman Rite. Thus, we need a reform of the reform regarding the Pauline Mass, so as to curb abuses, restore a more explicit theology of the Sacrificial nature of the Mass in the texts, show more respect towards the Real Presence, encourage the use of Eucharistic Prayers other than the second one, secure better translations, as well as a greater use of the classical languages, promote good saced music, etc.
But, in paralell with that, and having regard for the great richness of the liturgical tradition of the Church, comp
Well said Professor. I still maintain, however, that the only way to ensure such a result is through some form of regulation at the diocesan level, and not simply through the granting of a .
I voted "yes" because I framed the question in my head in terms of a century rather than in terms of years or decades.
As others have pointed out, muliple rites shouldn't be an issue. I have, however, witnessed first hand the almost reflexive anger those on both sides of the issue can have towards each other, and I think it's going to be a rough ride.
So long as those celebrating either the Pauline or the Tridentine rite display a "holier than thou" attitude, there will be strife in the Church.
HOWEVER, it can only be good for the liturgical life of the Church in the long term. And we've got to think in the long term, while practicing as much charity with extremists on both sides, as we possibly can.
Just the thoughts of a neophyte...
I decided to vote No. I don't want to see the Novus Ordo abandoned to the freaks and liberals. There were very sound reasons why it was decided to issue the Novus Ordo Missae. What is needed is a renewal of the N.O. I would love to see more Latin, more chanting, and more tradition in our Masses. It's up to the lovers of the Tridentine Mass to push to re-include those elements in our Masses today. Think more EWTN, less Mahoney.
I voted Yes although I would agree with the opinion that no permission is needed. If the Old Rite were celebrated more widely, it would be a great help in making the celebration of the Novus Ordo better. Celebrating the Old Rite also helps priests in their own devotion at Mass and emphasises our continuity with the past.
I am undecided. I certainly would love to see it happen, I really believe that many who prefer the traditional Mass have been so persecuted by Church authority.
I am very hesitant about it though because A) I think too many priests would just start doing it, not really making sure they could do it correctly, B) I would wonder how this would be addressed in a true pastoral way.
My concern is that the Council Fathers did think the Rite needed to be reformed (not completely redone, but reformed). Granted, the Council was horribly, horribly, atrociously implemented, but is just "going back" the answer.
But to flip flop again, I do think we need to go back and start with the Rite and properly reform it.
Hello Thomas, hi everyone.
Your comments are all so informative. Thanks for all the thoughtful opinions.
I am undecided, I must admit. Here in the Philippines, where I live, we haven't experienced the horrors I hear about in some liturgical celebrations. So, I can't necessarily say that we're ready for a universal indult, although I know of at least one church in my diocese where the Tridentine Mass is celebrated once a week -- though not on a Sunday, I believe.
That being said, I have to say that I do love Gregorian chant, and the sound of monks chanting the Divine Office is one of the most beautiful sounds in the world. I remember the chants of the Benedictine monks at one of the Vespers services attended by the Holy Father -- I believe it was the one at St. Paul's Outside the Walls -- and it was truly like listening to the prayers of the angels. Hmmm ... wasn't it St. Augustine who once said that "singing is praying twice"? This is certainly true when it comes to the Gregorian chant -- there is a matchless dignity and solemnity about it, and a beauty that no modern music can ever really hope to duplicate, much less surpass.
I wish that I could speak Latin, so I could weigh in on the quality of the translation of the Latin prayers. Since I pray the Divine Office, however, I can say that there are some portions where I do feel that something may have been lost in the translation. Perhaps the same is true with the translation of the Latin prayers for the Mass. I hope those of you who are fluent in Latin can help me out on this?
That being said, I once discussed this with my mother, who was born in 1939, and who remembers the old Latin Mass. She prefers the post-Vatican II liturgy, in that she would rather the Mass be said in English, understandably because she doesn't speak Latin, and she wants to be able to understand what the priest is saying. This is something that many Catholics may be taking into consideration when they discuss the pros and cons of the Tridentine Mass. Even though I told my mother that we can always get a Missal with a translation, she still prefers to attend a Mass where the priest is speaking a language she can understand -- plus, she likes it that the priest faces the congregation, and doesn't have his back turned to them.
Also, there is the problem of whether Latin is indeed being taught extensively in the seminaries nowadays. If it isn't being taught as exhaustively as in pre-Vatican II times (when I think it was the rule that the priest should truly be fluent in Latin?), then we do have a problem, since this generation of priests may not be able to truly comprehend what they are saying -- and thus, we wouldn't be able to guarantee reverence for the Latin liturgy. As CUA-Phl said in an earlier post, "the Latin was often slurred and rapidly spoken (often beyond recognition and certainly without reverence)" -- if this was so prior to Vatican II when Latin was the norm in the se
Oh dear ... my comment was truncated. Moral of the story: keep it short! :)
Thomas, I know this is off-topic but can I make a suggestion for your next poll? Since it's Papa Benedetto's first anniversary as Pope, how about a poll on what we like best about him? Some recommendations (which are, of course, subject to your better judgement):
1. His gentleness, humility and pastoral concern
2. His fantastic homilies and catecheses
3. His reverence in the celebration of the Mass
4. His openness to dialogue
5. His ability to "tell it like it is"
And no, I'm not adding "his Prada shoes, Serenggeti sunglasses, and ermine-trimmed camauro"! :p
Thanks again, and a belated Happy Easter!
L - just add "All of the above"!
Greetings, all,
I voted yes. I believe it best that we have the rite used as often as possible. Now, I cannot stand it. I think there may be many of us youth who would not attend regularly, but who might go occasionally.
I dislike the rite not so much that it is in Latin, but that the dialogue is between priest and acolyte/altar server (male, of course). I sin; therefore I should say, "Confiteo...," and take responsibility for my action.
I voted yes. I have only seen the Piatine liturgy twice, (one low mass-one high mass) and must say that I prefer the Novis Ordo--the participation of the congregation is much fuller.
But the Pauline liturgy is more often miss-celebrated than not, and much of it has been co-opted by interest groups in the parishes and communities in ways that obscure the
meaning and devotion of the most important human endevour on earth: celebrating the Holy Eucharist.
A little "competition" in the religious "marketplace" would either force the liturgy abusers to shape up, or demonstrate that they have become the normative expression of faith. (If that proves to be the fact, I'm going eastern!)
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
