I read it this morning in the NYT. I agree. It is a nice sober piece that puts it in perspective.
That's only John Allen's interpretation and Allen desperately hopes the motu proprio will amount to nothing. Mr. Allen has consistently undersold Pope Benedict and this is nothing new. I know you yourself, Mr. Shea, don't particularly care about the motu proprio one way or another, but it will act in synergy with the novus ordo. Of course, the Pope has "modest ambitions," but that doesn't mean he doesn't have ambitions all the same for a purification of the Church and a return to tradition.
I have the feeling that Allen doesn't care that much himself about the issue. He did make the observation that Benedict probably hopes the use of the Tridentine Rite to whatever extent will gradually push the Novus Ordo practice toward more reverence. he also mentioned that the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in latin and with all the "smells and bells" desired. That sounds to me like he harbors some desire for a more reverent liturgy.
Mr. Allen should know enough not to refer to the Mass (Novus Ordo or Tridentine) as a "service."
I would tend to agree with his observations but for one part.
Most basically, there’s scant evidence of a huge pent-up demand for the old Mass. Since 1984, celebration of the old Mass has been permitted with a dispensation from the local bishop. While some dioceses where it’s allowed report that the celebrations are often well attended, sometimes with a surprising number of younger Catholics, there’s been no widespread exodus from the new rite to the old.
This is a bit misleading (not on Allen's part, though). True, some dioceses do allow it with the Bishop's permission, but that permission is extremely stingy and reluctant. Hardly encouraging. It is not unlike arguing there is no demand for a particular film, but then only allowing one showing once a week in one theater for every 1,000,000 movie goers, while other film gets 50 theaters with 2 shows per day, 5 on Sunday.
Case in point - Archd of Galveston Houston. Approx 1.5 million Catholics, upwards of 50 parishes, with 5 masses on Sunday for the N.O. in languages from every continent.
How many TLM masses do you think our extremely generous bishop allows per week to meet the liturgical palates of this million plus flock?
One.
And how jealously is this one TLM guarded? Well, ignoring the who knows how many clown masses going on in our vast metropolis, our bishop paid special attention to one particular priest in Alvin Tx (pop. 5K or so) who dared to celebrate the TLM w/o permission.
Now, I do not question for one second the Bishop's right to prevent the Alvin priest from doing so, but it does seem to skew a bit the observation that "no demand exists."
If each parish offered one TLM on Sunday, alongside all the N.O. masses, then we might get a better indication of the demand.
Why did he have to screw things up with the reference to the Pope "jettisoning Limbo." People are already confused enough about what he did and Allen isn't helping with a throw away comment like that.
but that doesn't mean he doesn't have ambitions all the same for a purification of the Church and a return to tradition.
As the Church herself defines what is and isn't Tradition and tradition...
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions...
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
And as the Pope said the Normative Mass is part of Tradition...
The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy...
Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its contents in concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather with that of continuity within a single liturgical history.
In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church?s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer....
how can we have a return to that which exists?
This post Vatican II- Novus Ordo Catholic would suggest that
we look at how Allen uses language regarding "conservatives" and "liberals".
The conservative's argument fails the smell test while the liberals
only use selective perception.
There is the condescending statement "It’s worth noting, however, that the new Mass can also be celebrated in Latin, with all the “smells and bells” dear to the high-church set.)"
Traditionalists pester priests.
Then there is this:
. "If only we could convince the activists to slug it out in Latin,"
If Allen had wanted to appear the least bit unbiased he might have said "Latin and Pantomime"
He is a liberal hack, and I am using his liberal/conservative terminology.
‘On the political front, Benedict has demanded debt relief for impoverished nations, said that “nothing positive” has come from the United States-led war in Iraq, and denounced capitalism as an “ideological promise” that “has proven false.”’
What I find ironic is that while conservatives may have problems with that, publications such as the Remnant, a traditionalist newspaper, have argued strongly against capitalism and the Iraq war, going so far as to allow advertising for anti-Iraq war books.
I forgot to give Allen credit where credit is due when he writes this:
"And, of course, we in the press will abet the hype because it’s about conflict, which is the motor fuel of storytelling, and because we need to “sell” the story in order to win air time and column inches. "
air time, column inches, and with the new media, web site visits.
Mr. Allen should know enough not to refer to the Mass (Novus Ordo or Tridentine) as a "service."
In City of God, St. Augustine writes of Service...
This worship, then, which in Greek is called λατρεία, and in Latin "servitus" [service], but the service due to God only; this worship, which in Greek is called θρησκεία, and in Latin "religio," but the religion by which we are bound to God only; this worship, which they call θεοσέβεια, but which we cannot express in one word, but call it the worship of God,—this, we say, belongs only to that God who is the true God, and who makes His worshippers gods.
"In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church?s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer...."
And that, of course is one of the primary debates which authors such as Dietrich von Hildebrand, Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr. Thomas Kocik, Fr. Aidan Nichols and others have been engaged in for a number of years. And even Cardinal Ratzinger took part at a liturgical conference in Fontgombault, France, where the liturgy was discussed.
And then again Cardinal Ratzinger also said this:
"What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.
We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product."
http://www.latin-mass-society.or...rg/
ratzshow.htm
I may stand corrected.
Brennan. Tis true. The Pope has said/written such different things about the Liturgy that one is hard-pressed to identify one concretised idea.
At times he writes what I quoted. In other settings, conferences etc, he says other things.
I do know that in promulgating the Mass, Pope Paul VI wrote...
How could such a change be made? Answer: It is due to the will expressed by the Ecumenical Council held not long ago. The Council decreed: "The rite of the
Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished.
5. "For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, while due care is taken to preserve their substance. Elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded.Where opportunity allows or necessity demands, other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the Holy Fathers" (Sacrosanctum Concilium #50).
6. The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from the Church. It is an act of obedience. It is an act of coherence of the Church with herself. It is a step forward for her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality, to which
we all must give prompt assent.
... The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had.
+++++ end of quotes+++++
So, Liturgical Wars are a sign of unity 
I’m not Spartacus,
I certainly agree that the Novus Ordo was promulgated in response to the Second Vatican Council, and also that the Pope has the authority to alter the liturgy. And that, spiritually speaking, any valid Mass, whether Tridentine, Eastern rite, or Novus Ordo, is a Mass even if the liturgy is markedly different in each of the rites.
However, although Pope Paul VI maintains that the Novus Ordo is a step forward for her authentic tradition, that is a debatable point. Obviously, the Pope is not speaking infallibly here, and, as I said earlier, that point has been debated by a number of faithful Catholics (among other things). Dom Alcuin Reid, in his work, “The Organic Development of the Liturgy: The Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their Relation to the 20th Century Liturgical Movement Prior to the Second Vatican Council” demonstrates how, more than once, liturgical changes have been promulgated, even by a Pope, which were not in keeping with organic liturgical development. Granted, someone my disagree with Fr. Reid and his conclusions. However, my main point is to show that it is legitimate to debate whether or not a liturgical change is truly in line with authentic liturgical development.
Nevertheless, the Pope still has the authority to promulgate liturgical changes whether or not they are in line with authentic liturgical development.
Thanks for the link Mark.
Allen is a wonderful journalist who can move beyond the polimics and offer a reasoned view of this matter. Despite a few calling him a "liberal" or whatever, he is a very good journalist. Furthermore, one, in a spirit of charity, should consider his faith just as sincere as anyone elses faith.
The truth is that really (in the big scheme) very few people really care about this issue. Issues like raising your kids, affording catholic school for those kids, a concern over priest shortages, the sex abuse scandals, the war on (of?) terror, abortion, gay marriage, torture, immigration, living wage, etc, etc are FAR more important to the church then the manner of which the Mass is celebrated. Yes, there are some abuses in the rite (there always have been, check out St. Paul's letters!), but is that worth a schism (SSPX)?
my 2 cents
pax
"The truth is that really (in the big scheme) very few people really care about this issue. Issues like raising your kids, affording catholic school for those kids, a concern over priest shortages, the sex abuse scandals, the war on (of?) terror, abortion, gay marriage, torture, immigration, living wage, etc, etc are FAR more important to the church then the manner of which the Mass is celebrated. Yes, there are some abuses in the rite (there always have been, check out St. Paul's letters!), but is that worth a schism (SSPX)?"
I never thought I'd see Dale arguing for a much broader availability of the old rite.
Excellent post, Dale!
What he said!!!
I've made the argument before, and I'll restate it here with a link to the long version.
Liturgy matters.
Even to those of us with "kids, affording catholic school for those kids, a concern over priest shortages, the sex abuse scandals, the war on (of?) terror, abortion, gay marriage, torture, immigration, living wage, etc, etc."
Perhaps especially to those of us with all of this.
Like it or not, Mass is our primary interface with the Church, with the truths of the faith, and with the sacraments.
If the form of liturgy didn't matter, a communion service would do. Mass should be a catechism, not a fellowship meeting. The difference it makes in us, in our attitude toward worship, is profound.
STeve
On a personal note (being a medievalist and all) I enjoy the "old" rite, BUT I add that there are many catholics that are devout (or orthodox or whatever the right word is I'm looking for here) who DO NOT EVEN SORT OF "ENJOY" (bad word not sure what word to use here?) the "old" rite. a lack of a feel of a communial aspect, a sense of exclusion, a sense that one is alone, or, in a more mundane sense, boredom, difficulty following the rite, etc are the issues that many feel.
Liturgy DOES matter. You are dead on about that. It is the form of the liturgy that is open to 'debate'.
I find the actions and wording of the "old" Mass to be intrigueing and they really move me. But, I also find that the "new" Mass can just as easily do the same thing.
pax
The new rite is of course holy, an authentic vessal of grace - but as worship, the glorifying and praising of God - it is inadequate.
But so are we, the deracinated of the early 21st century West.
"...there's been no widespread exodus from the new rite to the old."
I am currently living in Germany. In 1994, there were six indult Masses here. Today there are thirty-six. I'd call a six-fold increase in thirteen years a pretty steady rise. The SSPX have about fifty chapels here too.
It seems common sensical that the issuance of the motu proprio will not result in the emptying out of Novus Ordo masses and the filling of Tridentine ones. Which really begs the question as to why there has been such determined episcopal resistance to this long overdue act of charity. Many diocese offer very limited access to a traditional latin mass, if they allow it all, often at odd and inconvenient times and places. The ones who do have done so only after a lot of campaigning by Catholics who want access to it. Even now, the French and German bishops reportedly made special appeals to the Pope to not derestrict the old rite. Granting what John Allen is saying may be true one has to then ask, why such strong desire to not allow this? Why is a Motu Proprio even necessary considering the wish of the previous Pontiff expressed in Ecclesia Dei?
Michael,
because (this is just a guess here) of a number of issues. The number priests clearly is a factor, as well as the add'l training that would have to go along with this. I've also heard (I don't buy this but I've heard it said) that the Church should concentrate on one ritual and not have a variety of different ways of the rite being celebrated.
Also, the old stubbornness of someone who wants to assert their authority. The bishops are really supposed to be their own boss. Yes, the pope is the head of the church, but the bishop is in charge of his area and aside from some basic elemental things, they have a great deal of authority. In other words, human nature.
pax
Dale
Bishops in the Roman rite tend to be chosen from the ranks of pastors who are not seen as likely to cave into demands from the people in the pews. It's not rocket science.
As I was reading the article, a thought popped into my mind, and then the article said it: "Sources close to the pope I have spoken to say his modest ambition is that over time, the old Mass will exert a 'gravitational pull' on the new one, drawing it toward greater sobriety and reverence."
I agree, and I hope it will be so.
The new rite is of course holy, an authentic vessal of grace - but as worship, the glorifying and praising of God - it is inadequate.
Wrong.
We Christians have had one Mass since The Last Supper. The Mass is Jesus, as both priest and victim, offering himself to God as an act of propitiation on our behalf.
We redeemed Christians still, as we always have done, discharging our duty as members of the Royal Priesthood, gather at the altar with the priest to offer our Adoration, Petitions, Reparations, and Thanksgivings, which are made acceptable to God because they are swept up into Jesus' Pluperfect Sacrifice of the New Covenant.
And then we redeemed Christians eat the New Covenant Meal, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.
Because it is Jesus who is offering himself in the Pluperfect Sacrifice it is always and everywhere adequate, despite what Liturgy it is this Sacrifice occurs within.
However, although Pope Paul VI maintains that the Novus Ordo is a step forward for her authentic tradition, that is a debatable point
Earlier, I quoted Pope Benedict:'..
In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church's earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer....
Brennan, it seems to me both Pope Paul and Pope Benedict have written the reform was/is part of tradition.
From what I can see, the "debate" is more about how it was accomplished rather than whether or not the reform is or is not part of tradition.
Because the Mass was promulgated and because it is approved for use by Holy Mother Church, doesn't it automatically become part of Liturgical tradition?
In any event, while I am very interested in Liturgical history and while there is in existent nobody who aches more for a solemn, reverent, and beautiful Mass than my own self,I realise my interests make me part of an extremely tiny minority .
Yes, the pope is the head of the church, but the bishop is in charge of his area and aside from some basic elemental things, they have a great deal of authority. In other words, human nature.
Dale, I also think we Christians sometimes forget the Bishops authority, like that of the Pope's, is of Divine Origin.
Lumen Gentium...
Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, (11*) presiding in place of God over the flock,(12*) whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing.(13*) And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles' office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. (14*) Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, (15*) as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.(149)(16*)
Dale,
When St. Augustine first converted to the faith, he found the Sacred Scriptures to be tired and cumbersome reading--especially in light of his classical training. His response, however, did not amount to a determined and thoughtful effort to make the reading of Sacred Scripture easier of more enjoyable (by altering its content or style); instead, he resolved to resume his efforts when he "had more practice in the Lord's style of language."
As Robert Louis Wilken notes in "First Things":
http://www.firstthings.com/artic...?
id_article=224
St. Augustine "recognized that if he were to enter the Church he would have to learn this new tongue, hear it spoken, grow accustomed to its sounds, read the books that use it, learn its idioms, and finally speak it himself. He had to embark on a journey to acquaint himself with the mores of a new country. Becoming a Christian meant entering a strange and often alien world."
I think the same may be true of those of us who are not accustomed to the Old Mass. That is to say, I think its a better approach to say with St. Augustine, "The problem lies within me", instead of pointing out all of the "shortcomings" of the Old Mass (a.k.a. all the things I don't like).
I'm not Spartacus,
Yes, I can see that as the New Mass has been promulgated it has become a part of the tradition of the Church. However, I do think there are those who (legitimately) debate whether the Novus Ordo is an organic development from the previous liturgy or whether it is truly a new rite (albeit having some parts in common with earlier liturgies).
Brian
Then cannot the same exact thing you said be applied to the "new" rite?
Pax
Mark, please don't assume that either you or John Allen knows the mind of Pope Benedict. Both as Cardinal Ratzinger and as Pope B16, Benedict has consistently indicated that he sees restoration of the TLM as an important priority. I have no dog in this fight--I'd settle for a more reverent Novus Ordo--but I respect the fact that the motu proprio is indeed important to a LOT of people, including, apparently, the pope.
JPII referred to such people as having "legitimate aspirations." Why do you feel it necessary to mock and marginalize them?
I for one believe that restoration of the TLM can only be a Good Thing. It's sure to help spur a widespread movement toward greater reverence and respect for tradition--across the board, among us Novus Ordo goers as well as in the traditionalist community.
Dale,
Well played. The Novus Ordo certainly also represents the "Lord's style" of worship, which we must also strive to conform ourselves to. But please note, I never denied this, and I affirm with you that the Novus Ordo can be very nourishing to the soul. However, my comments were intended to help you consider the possibility, that your laundry list of complaints regarding the Old Mass, has more to do with condition that St. Augustine described, and less to do with the nature of the rite.
Brennan. Thanks for the cordial exchange. That is sometimes a rarity with this topic.
FWIW, I was raised in the Old Rite and I still love it.
Maybe it is because I was raised old school that I give such deference to the Popes.
I reflexively am trusting of the Church and skeptical of my Gov't.
I have been lucky to have lived during the reigns of excellent Popes - from Pius XII onward.
And to have been alive during the reigns of two of the holiest and brilliant Popes of all-time,Johannes Paulus Magnus and now Benedict, well, who has any right to expect such a thing?
Back to the Liturgy. I wonder how many of us Christians who love and read and write about Liturgical matters take the time to offer Thanks we were Born Catholics in America and have such easy access to Mass?
It is a very easy thing to take for granted yet it is the single most important action occurring on Earth every single day.
Bishops in the Roman rite tend to be chosen from the ranks of pastors who are not seen as likely to cave into demands from the people in the pews. It's not rocket science.
Is this true? I have never heard this assertion. But the bigger issue of course is that it is the Pope's demands that the bishops have opposed. The last two Popes have desired to provide this to the people in the pews. The Bishops have stood almost in unity opposing the legitimate asperations of some in their flocks and also the express will of their Pope. Does simple obstinance explain this? Maybe they believe that their own preference represents a liturgical reality or maybe they cannot bring themselves to let anyone opt out of what they have embraced as their project. Just speculating.
As I've said before, the late 1960s and 1970s looked as if the Fathers of Vatican II went home and immediately forgot what they had promulgated.
Fathers of Vatican II went home and immediately forgot what they had promulgated
One, Lefevbre, even forgot he signed all of the Documents
Nevertheless, the Pope still has the authority to promulgate liturgical changes whether or not they are in line with authentic liturgical development.
Absolutely. But just because someone has the authority to do something does not necessarily mean actually doing it (or how it gets done) is an unqualified good thing.
"Liturgy DOES matter. You are dead on about that. It is the form of the liturgy that is open to 'debate'.
I find the actions and wording of the "old" Mass to be intrigueing and they really move me. But, I also find that the "new" Mass can just as easily do the same thing."
I think we would all (most?) agree, with the possible exception of the truly staunch "Orthodox" among us, that a reverently and properly celebrated Novus Ordo Mass is, or can be, a thoroughly fulfilling liturgical experience. Now...
Q: What is it that is more difficult to find in a U.S Diocese than an "Indult Mass"?
A: A reverently and properly celebrated Novus Ordo Mass.
Have I made my point?
27 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
