AmericanPapist Comments
Thank you, Holy Father!!!!
Okay, I know this is gonna sound snarky, but (deep breath) here goes. What does this change mean for the argument, constantly touted, that the Tridentine Rite is some kind of a rite for the ages? If THIS reform, which it clearly is, of the Tridentine Rite is so necessary, what about another, ...and another, ...and another?
Personally, I thought the reformability the TR was amply demonstrated by looking through almost any two successive editions of it, but apparently a lot people didn't feel like doing that, so they painted this picture of a rite carved, if not in stone, something close to it, and clamored for its restoration. Which they got. I thought. For a few months.
Well, now I wonder, do they still have what they asked for, or not? If they do, how exactly? If they don't, can they ever?
Ed, I think this change will palliate few and anger many. It certainly doesn't go as far as many in the Jewish community (e.g. Abe Foxman) would have wanted, and it goes further than many in the TLM can stomach.
The question that needs to be asked is - why? Why did the Holy Father make this change? If he did it to satisfy the critics of the 1962 prayer, he failed miserably. I find it hard to believe that someone as theologically and politically savy as Benedict would set out to do something to satisfy critics and then fail.
That leads to a couple possible conclusions. Either 1) someone else made this change, or 2) Benedict made this change, but not to palliate the critics.
I find #1 to be far-fetched, and so I'm staking my claim on #2.
If Benedict didn't make this change in order to cave in to critics, why did he? I suspect (and realize that I'm going out on a limb here) he did it precisely because of the attitude you mention - the notion that the TLM is set in stone - a fly in amber, as Fr. Zuhlsdorf often states - that is impervious to change and almost on a par with Holy Scripture in its relationship to the hierarchy. I think Benedict is making a point and issuing a challenge to those devoted to the TLM (among whose number I would count myself).
There are those who will scoff at this change and either use it to justify their schismatic tendencies. There are those who will see it with jaundiced eye as the first chink in the armor. There are those who will see it as needless tinkering. All these may throw their hands up in disgust and walk away from Benedict's project of liturgical and ecclesiastical reform. Yet the faithful, I believe, will nod to the pope's clear authority to regulate and alter liturgical texts; will pray this prayer (quite beautiful, actually) on Good Friday; and will continue to demonstrate their loyalty (not blind obedience, but loyalty in matters which demand loyalty) to Christ's Vicar. Frankly, I'd be happier if he had mandated this as the prayer to be used in both the ordinary and extraordinary form, but I don't get to wear the white beanie.
I would not be surprised to see some further "tinkering" down the road - surely some work on the calendar, possibly the rubrics with regards to the Epistle and Gospel in Latin or the vernacular. With this, I think the Holy Father is saying to the faithful, "The 1962 Missal is not a fly in amber. It can be changed by the competent authority (i.e., me). Let those who have ears, hear."
Ed Peters: Well, who says the people who exaggerated the "timelessness" of the TLM weren't doing just that?
One good that this change accomplishes is that it gets the 1962 Missal in the news yet again. Maybe the Pope can issue a revised Good Friday prayer for the Jews EVERY Ash Wednesday from now on.
After waiting a couple of years, after the election of JPII, for "the crackdown," which never came, I am not sitting on pins and needles, but BXVI has already taken action on several matters on which, for whatever reason, action by JPII had come to be unthinkable.
My wishlist for the Pope's visit would be: 1) an explicit instruction to those bishops who refuse to obey Canon 915, sufficiently explicit to take it out of their hands; 2) an explicit abrogation of all these diocesan "regulations," designed to discourage the celebration of the E.F.
The 1962 missal is the highpoint of liturgical development in the Latin rite. Sure the calendar needs some updating. Liturgical development was frozen at the 1962 missal and has not been allowed to be used, much less updated. Instead we are always told to be satisfied with the lousy reading of the New Mass as practiced in most parishes. We are always told that things will get better with the next bishops' meeting. It is always one step forward and two steps backward. I'll be dead by the time a majority of bishops discover traditional liturgy and how practical and fitting it is to the truths of our faith. Meanwhile my children would no longer be attending Mass. The traditional Latin mass is the superior to the new rite.
By the way, we are still not allowed to have daily old Masses; and Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Saturday Vigil are still not allowed in the entire state of Michigan.
LvB:
All those things are allowed, no matter where you are. That's what the motu proprio was for.
"If he did it to satisfy the critics of the 1962 prayer, he failed miserably. I find it hard to believe that someone as theologically and politically savy as Benedict would set out to do something to satisfy critics and then fail."
I was a critic of the 1962 prayer and I am satisfied. Thank you, Holy Father.
Please educate me: people say that the Tridentine liturgy is unchangeable, and yet it has been constantly changed since its promulgation until Bl. John XXIII. There have been many popes between the Council of Trent and Vatican II who have instituted changes, no? How, then, can the Tridentine Rite be said to be eternal? What does this say about pre-Tridentine worship?
Tim: from the article I read, it seems that the revised prayer is supposed to be used in the ordinary and extraordinary forms. ("The Holy Father Benedict XVI has established that the "Oremus et pro Iudaeis" from Good Friday's Liturgy included in the Missale Romanum will be replaced by the following text...")
For the record, I am not a Catholic.
"The traditional Latin mass is the superior to the new rite."
I've heard more people who grew up with Latin say that if we ever went back to Latin only, they'd stop attending. As for me, I'd probably be in that group. I know Latin as well as I know Russian, so going to Mass would be a waste of my time. If Latin is so superior to the vernacular, I don't hear many clamoring for it. Cardinal O'Malley is right in that only a small minority of Catholics are interested in the Latin Mass.
"... so going to Mass (in Latin) would be a waste of my time. "
This is sad; I shall pray for you.
Unfortunately, most of what I hear and/or see, from insipid to downright heretical (or at least erroneous) homilies to unauthorized innovations or distortions of the rite make most NO masses in the contemporary church a real act of reparation or a near occasion of sin (anger) to attend if not a 'waste of time.'
No need to pray for me. I do just fine at my regular Mass said by faithful priests. And so does everyone else in the congregation.
Nathan, you and Cardinal Sean are doing fine ostrich imitations. And yes, we will pray for you...
I attended my 4th TLM since the motu proprio went into effect (first time at Holy Trinity in Boston). It was wonderful.
Nathan, you and the people on the prayer really-really tempt me big time, for not praying for you fellas. "no need to pray for me" ? No Nathan, I promise to mention you in my prayers. How is that? oh and I have the right to choose the words too whether you like it or not.
ps: your quote is just as ridiculous as your attempt to ridicule extraordinary rite.
Watching people declare that no one is interested in the old rite, yet squirming as if China was going to invade is quite entertaining.
For goodness sake, both rites for the mass are acceptable magisterially. While Il Papa is leaning towards the theological right in his decision making (I can't blame him), this does not mean the moto propiu (sp?) bans the new rite. It allows both rites tobe performed.
Personally i've never had the privilege of seeing a High Mass nor a Tridentine, I'd love to go, (me no speak latin :[), but I recognise the new missal as okay as long as priests don't go clowny on me.
First, I never said no one is interested in the Latin Mass. I said not many are. If you have polling data to counter my claim, then by all means, let's have it. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised if I am. I'm not squirming that some people might be interested in the Latin Mass any more than I squirm that people choose to worship in Spanish. I don't ridicule Spanish Masses, and I would like anyone to point out where I ridiculed the Latin Mass. People are reading into things that just haven't been said.
Secondly, please pray for me. But don't do it because I don't think the Latin Mass is going to make a huge comeback, but because I'm a sinner and need God's mercy.
My comment was a general observation. Not everything is about you. :)
LOL! My fault. :)
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
