Combox for:
Apologia For the Mass of Pope Paul VI, With Massive Historical Documentation From Catholic Tradition / Summary of Vatican II on Liturgical Reform
[18 June 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ul-vi-
with.html
Thank you Dave! I, for one, really appreciate the time you put into this article as well as the cites to the articles by Matt1618 and Mr. McElhinney. I also went and picked up several of Pope Benedict XVI's books which appear to cover many of the things that you have written (I haven't read them all yet).
God bless!
Dave,
I do not know how you have the time to dish out these wonderful informative articles but I thank you none the less.
Thank you.
Dave, that's pretty good. One of the better pieces on the subject.
That being said, I would like to offer two points of criticism. One is that your frequent appeals to going further back to ancient Christian tradition are not consistent with the teachings of the popes on the proper development of Liturgical tradition. Pius XII condemned this very practice as "false archaeologism" or some such thing. In one of the quotations you cite in this piece, he alludes to the same thing: "But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device." There is some value to returning to antiquity, but it is not as simple as saying "this is more ancient, so it's more traditional," or better. This idea has been explicitly rejected. The reason I point this out is that traditionalists will havea field day with you on this one and rip apart your entire article.
The other thing is in regards to the sign of peace. It is not a criticism per se, more a point. I happen to believe there is a very good reason for it being where it is. At this point of the Mass, the offering has been made to the Father, and (symbolically and in reality) we are now at peace with God. Notice that at this point, many things change. We stand up - we are no longer bowing before God as subjects, and we rise to symbolize the rising to new life brought to us by the Sacrifice that has just occured. We then call upon God as Father, that familial relationship brought into being again by the Sacrifice. We do all of this at this time for a reason. It symbolizes what the Sacrifice has accomplished. The sign of peace is also symbolic - we are now in a very real sense at peace with one another, or we ought to be. We have been adopted as children of the Father, and so we ought to treat one another as brothers and sisters, and hence the sign of peace.
Peace and God bless
Ed Snyder wrote a good article for my website arguing against the lay offertory procession:
http://www.pugiofidei.com/gifts.htm
[ ...your frequent appeals to going further back to ancient Christian tradition are not consistent with the teachings of the popes on the proper development of Liturgical tradition. Pius XII condemned this very practice as "false archaeologism" or some such thing. ]
Correct. It's a serious flaw in the essay. The heart of the effective traditionalist argument isn't that the various aspects reintroduced into the Pauline rite are intrinsically wrong--there is acknowledgement that they did at one time exist in the Church. Rather, the argument is that the innovations were neither required for the good of the Church, nor were they introduced in an organic way. Sacrosanctum Concilium insisted that, "care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing." I would argue that in numerous instances among those examples you cited, that dictum was violated.
This highlights the need for some serious interaction with scholarly traditionalist sources such as Msgr. Klaus Gamber's "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy" and others. As it stands your presentation lacks balance and cogency.
Indeed, certain aspects of your article lack any support at all. For example, you assert that the priest facing the people at Mass was a fixture of ancient custom (although even if it was it doesn't mean that we should return to it; see above.) You highlight this assertion at the very top of the article. But you don't cite anything to back it up. Fr. Bouyer, whom you frequently cite, highlights the difficulty with the argument from antiquity:
"In no meal of the early Christian era, did the president of the banqueting assembly ever face the other participants. They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a C-shaped table, or of a table having approximately the shape of a horseshoe. The other side was always left empty for the service. Nowhere in Christian antiquity, could have arisen the idea of having to 'face the people' to preside at a meal" (cited in J. Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 78 ).
And others issues, such as the difficulty with the offertory procession (which Ben Douglass pointed out) and the "kiss of peace", are features introduced into the Pauline rite based on historical misunderstandings.
Your essay would be stronger if you could go down the list of innovations and show, not that they existed somewhere, sometime, in some unknown measure in Church history, but rather that they "in some way grow organically from forms already existing." I think it would be difficult to pull that off for the majority of examples you cited, e.g. altar girls, the priest facing the people, Communion in the hand, etc. But at least that would engage the heart of the issue.
In general, Dave, I'm a little troubled by this. You have stated repeatedly when engaging traditionalists that you don't really want to get into liturgical issues, because it's not your forte. W
You have stated repeatedly when engaging traditionalists that you don't really want to get into liturgical issues, because it's not your forte. We have tried to point out some of these weaknesses in your argumentation, but you beg off with reference to your lack of expertise. You stated this just days ago on the ACM blog: "On this one I'm happy to grant you the last word, because liturgy has never been an area of expertise for me." Okay, fair enough.
Why, then, this article?
A few more quick comments:
I think Bouyer is mistaken that the Scripture readings are "directly and exclusively intended for the instruction of the people." The Scripture readings are, rather, a liturgical prayer.
The argument about countries which speak Romance languages holding the faith better than countries which do not, because it's easier for them to understand the Latin Mass, does not hold water. The Irish spoke English and Gaelic. Gaelic speaking Scots held to Catholicism better than their English speaking compatriots. The Huegenots spoke French. The people of Austria and Southern Germany spoke German.
It is far easier to explain which countries held the faith and which turned Protestant by other factors, such as which religion the King chose. This goes a long way towards explaining England, Scandanavia, and Northern Germany.
Next, I don't grant you the premise that the revised Holy Week liturgy promulgated by Pius XII constituted a return to an older tradition. That assertion is highly debatable. Pre-conciliar Popes were just as capable as post-conciliar Popes of making negative changes to the liturgy (as St. Pius X did to the breviary). The secretary of the commission which revised the Holy Week liturgy was none other than Annibale Bugnini, after all.
Also, it's inconsistent to say that the Novus Ordo has four Scripture readings whereas the Traditional Mass only has two. If you're going to count the Responsorial Psalm in the Novus Ordo as a Scripture reading, you should also count the Psalms in the Tridentine Ordinary, Judica me and Lavabo.
Furthermore, obviously, the Last Gospel in the Tridentine Mass is from Scripture as well: the prologue of St. John. So, rather than saying that the Novus Ordo has more Scripture readings than the Tridentine Mass, it would be better to simply say that it has a greater variety of Scripture readings.
Your essay would be stronger if you could go down the list of innovations and show, not that they existed somewhere, sometime, in some unknown measure in Church history, but rather that they "in some way grow organically from forms already existing."
This is true, but I think that there can be a misunderstanding about this as well. It often seems as that those in favor of the pre-conciliar Liturgy, as well as those simply opposed to the post-conciliar Liturgy, often conceive of this as entailing addition but excluding subtraction. In reality, I don't think there is anything at all opposed to an organic development entailing returning to an earlier form. If an earlier form was able to organically develop into what we have now, I think it's certainly possible for what we have now to organically return to that. In other words, the fact that a development from X to Y occured in the first place shows that sufficient connection exists between X and Y for an organic development.
I don't intend to oversimplify things, or to suggest that it is as simple as doing in the reverse direction of the original development. That would be, in my initial reaction, a problematic statement. What I do intend to do is make the point that we don't have to take the 1962 Missal and add a bunch of stuff to it for their to be authentic and organic development. Prayers can be removed, the order of Liturgical actions can be switched, postures can change.
Now you may disagree, but when I look at the 1962 missal and the current Ordinary Form Missal, I don't see something radically different. I see something that is, in all essentials, the same. The structure is the same, the theology is the same, the actions are the same, etc. There are differences, of course. Some actions have been swapped. Some prayers have been eliminated, others have been added. The point is that it's not in any way the dramatic departure that it is so often portrayed as. To quote Cardinal Ratzinger:
"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." - The Feast of Fatih: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy
Peace and God bless
Thanks for your comments, Shane.
[ Now you may disagree, but when I look at the 1962 missal and the current Ordinary Form Missal, I don't see something radically different. ]
Yes, I disagree. A side-by-side comparison shows that virtually every text is different, ofttimes very different. This is especially true if something other than "Eucharistic Prayer #1" is used. I can provide numerous examples, but this isn't a great forum for that sort of presentation. (And I guess it depends on the definition of "radically".)
[ The structure is the same, the theology is the same, the actions are the same, etc. ]
Structure, yes. Actions, not always. Theology, very different emphases. As I wrote over on another blog recently, put the propers of the TLM and NOM side by side and you will find consistent patterns of theological excision--removal of references to judgment, purgatory, hell, intercession of the saints, miracles, rejection of worldly things in preference for those of heaven, military themes, etc. I agree with the prominent liturgical scholar who said of the NOM:
"Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology—for example, references to a God who judges and punishes."
[ I don't think there is anything at all opposed to an organic development entailing returning to an earlier form. If an earlier form was able to organically develop into what we have now, I think it's certainly possible for what we have now to organically return to that. ]
This is an interesting point. I am interpreting "existing forms" to mean something that presently exists, not something that existed sometime in the past but fell out of use. To me that's the only way that something can organically develop, from an existing (present tense) form. Any number of analogies (plant growth, etc.) would support this. It's an area deserving of some discussion.
Let me deploy my favorite counter-example, Communion in the hand. Here was a practice that was admittedly in evidence in the early Church. But it fell out of every single rite, East and West, in the entire Catholic Church (and those apostolic communion separated from her as well.) There were excellent reasons for this (danger of profanation, lack of due reverence, etc.) It was reintroduced by Protestant heretics precisely to undermine the peoples' faith in the Real Presence--at this, it seemed effective. Then it was reintroduced by modernists after Vatican II (I would argue for the same reason.) How, then, would this qualify as an "organic development"?
The case for altar girls and women reading the Epistle (both of which Dave defends) is, it seems to me, even weaker since (as far as I know) these were never considered anything other than outright abuses at any time prior to the late 1900s. I do not understand how does a serious abuse undertaken in flagrant violation of stated liturgical norms becomes a legitimate organic development.
Yow! I meant to say, "I do not understand how a serious abuse undertaken in flagrant violation of stated liturgical norms becomes a legitimate organic development."
God bless.
Dear all here,
Not false modesty; am a observer of these things and I don't know the history of liturgy. I am making every effort to read up but I can't hold it all in my head.
This issue I would say troubles me.
I waver between both Traditional undestanding and Post-Conciliar understanding. I now realise.
I have been very struck by that quote; 'care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing'. I think it would be hard to argue that the Pauline mass grew 'organically' because it was looking back to the early church?
But then 'from forms already existing', what are the 'forms"?
That's where the ignorance kicks in, so I go back to simple human things. Say, Dave Palm, you write; 'The case for altar girls and women reading the Epistle (both of which Dave defends) is, it seems to me, even weaker since (as far as I know) these were never considered anything other than outright abuses at any time prior to the late 1900s''. But it occurs to me on the human level what abuse is there in having a girl on the altar? It doesn't matter if they were 'considered' abuses before or after1900. Why is it an abuse to have a girl on the altar? Is there some theological objection to it?
That sounds more contentious than I intend. I should have said that to John and Mike-that my writing sounds more contentious than it means to be.
I write in a short-hand way because I don't know the detailed arguments.
But I stand by my questions.
In Christ,
[ But it occurs to me on the human level what abuse is there in having a girl on the altar? It doesn't matter if they were 'considered' abuses before or after1900. Why is it an abuse to have a girl on the altar? Is there some theological objection to it? ]
James, you raise a good question. First, there are any number of articles out there pointing out the difficulties of female altar servers. A good one is "The Emasculation of the Priesthood" by Fr. James McLucas, http://
www.latinmassmagazine.com...asculation.html. So yeah, there are good reasons that this isn't a good idea.
But let me present a counter-question. Do we have any examples prior to the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms in which a liturgical innovation introduced into the Church, **with the intention of undermining the Church's teaching**, was in that very historical context sanctioned by the Church? Let's be candid about what groups were responsible for introducing the innovations of Communion in the hand, female lectors, female altar servers, etc. It wasn't CUF, The Wanderer, Catholic Answers, or EWTN that were clamoring for these changes. I'm not aware of any orthodox Catholic organization or prominent individual who thought these were good ideas. Rather, it was groups like Call to Action and liberal European bishop conferences who were in the vanguard. Orthodox Catholics were resisting these changes, modernists were pushing them.
My reading of liturgical history shows that the Church has consistently adopted liturgical disciplines that directly *countered* the actions of heretical groups and individuals. A faction begins teaching that you must receive under both species in order to receive validly, the Church dictates to her children that they *must* receive under one species. But during the Manichean heresy, the heretics abstained from receiving under the species of wine and in reaction the Pope demanded that all receive under both species. The discipline was actually the exact opposite in these cases, but what remained the same is that the Pope adopted a disciplinary counter-measure to the heretical incursion. He didn't give them what they were asking for.
But are there examples prior to the 1970s of dissident/heretical groups agitating for practices that they knew undermined Church teaching and discipline, only to have these practices actually adopted by the Popes? There may be some. I'm not aware of any. If there are not, then it seems to me that we are faced with a significant shift in the approach to Church discipline. And the fruits have not exactly been great.
I may be missing some pertinent counter-examples. I'm open to examining them.
God bless.
Dave also fails to justify his historical claim that the Novus Ordo is closer to the primitive liturgy than the Tridentine Mass. That's going to be very hard to demonstrate, given the scarcity of evidence. Speculative reconstructions of the primitive liturgy by people like Gregory Dix are not sufficient proof.
Incidentally, Ed Snyder has written an article refuting Dix which I will publish next month.
Dear David,
I believe that during the Protestant Reformation, before the Council of Trent, the Church conceded communion under both kinds in certain places in order to appease Catholics who were attracted to Protestantism.
[ I believe that during the Protestant Reformation, before the Council of Trent, the Church conceded communion under both kinds in certain places in order to appease Catholics who were attracted to Protestantism. ]
This would be an interesting counter-example. Do you have documentation? Was this actually a universal concession issuing from the Pope, or was it enacted by individual bishops? And then a follow-up question would be, did it work? I.e. did the appeasement achieve its desired goal?
God bless.
Here's what I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia (s.v. "Communion Under Both Kinds" ; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
04175a.htm ):
"The Council of Basle granted (1433) the use of the chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under certain conditions, the chief of which was acknowledgment of Christ's integral presence under either kind. This concession, which had never been approved by any pope, was positively revoked in 1462 by the Nuncio Fantini on the order of Pius II. The Council of Trent while defining the points already mentioned, referred to the pope the decision of the question whether the urgent petition of the German emperor to have the use of the chalice allowed in his dominions be granted; and in 1564 Pius IV authorized some German bishops to permit it in their dioceses, provided certain conditions were fulfilled. But, owing to the inconveniences that were found to result, this concession was withdrawn in the following year."
Hi Mr. Palm, You wrote:
"This is an interesting point. I am interpreting "existing forms" to mean something that presently exists, not something that existed sometime in the past but fell out of use. To me that's the only way that something can organically develop, from an existing (present tense) form. Any number of analogies (plant growth, etc.) would support this. It's an area deserving of some discussion."
As I understand it from Mr. Armstrong's article as well as from reading some of Pope Benedict XVI's books (right now "Spirit of the Liturgy") and other sources, the Tridentine Mass was specifically formulated to combat the heresy of Protestantism. The Novus Ordo Mass was formulated to be what was to believe closer to older forms of the Mass. Reading St. Hippolytus' "Apostolic Traditions" and the Sacramentary of St. Serpian, as well St. Justin's explanation of the Mass in his work, it would appear at least to this untrained observer to be accurate. The Tridentine Mass was developed to combat Luther, Calvin and their ilk. Looking at Protestantism as a whole, with few exceptions, Protestantism is a dying heresy soon to be consigned to the dustbin of history like Docetism, Nestorianism, Arianism, and Manicheeism. The Novus Ordo was developed to fight other kinds of heresy. Perhaps it needs to be corrected just as the Tridentine Mass was a correction of other earlier forms of the Mass, but we should focus on the corrections and not on tossing it out altogether.
Also, I think this is a fair question: why is it necessary that the Mass be restricted to developing "organically" only? What is wrong with having a Mass that is more oriented towards Scripture (NAB problems aside) or that is designed to de-emphasize the role of the priest in favor of emphasizing the role of Christ in the Mass?
Rather than getting into debates about the forms of the Mass, we should be demanding that seminaries be more exacting in teaching the theology of the Mass so our priests understand what they are doing. We should demand that our Catholic schools, RCIA and CCD or whatever abbreviation Sunday school is called now actually teach the Mass as opposed to learning to touchy-feely semi-Protestantism. Then we would not need to have these discussions because each form of the Mass emphasizes different aspects of the same Truth that we share as Catholics. Instead, we would be talking about how we can make sure that the Masses are being said in a way that reaches that Truth.
JP & Anonymous,
You're welcome!
Shane,
My argument was not to imply that the most ancient traditions are necessarily better, but rather, that there does exist precedent for things that are often regarded as radical innovations (IOW, it was to offset the claim of arbitrary innovation out of nowhere).
I don't always make an argument as to why something in the Pauline Mass is "better" or even "good". Sometimes the folks I cite do that. It would be a good project to show how the Pauline Mass exhibits consistent development.
My position is that of the Holy Father: both the ordinary and extraordinary forms are good. Why do we have to say one is "better" than the other? Why do we have to categorize ANY of the 22 Catholic rites? We don't say one book in the NT is "better" than another. The only reason I even have to defend the Pauline Mass is because it has been savaged and pilloried mercilessly by the "traditionalists" and because of the myriad liberal and ignoramus abuses of it.
David Palm,
You have stated repeatedly when engaging traditionalists that you don't really want to get into liturgical issues, because it's not your forte.
This is especially true when the issue is approached "legally". I approach things more so from the perspective of premise and principles (what lies ultimately behind things and the overall thing rather than every jot and tittle). I also like historical perspective on things, which one sees in this paper.
We have tried to point out some of these weaknesses in your argumentation, but you beg off with reference to your lack of expertise. You stated this just days ago on the ACM blog: "On this one I'm happy to grant you the last word, because liturgy has never been an area of expertise for me." Okay, fair enough.
Why, then, this article?
You assume that one has to be an "expert" on something to write anything at all on it. This is not true, and obviously so. In this case, as often in the past, I have done a survey and an overview, mostly dependent on the thought of others. I always do that when I feel that I don;'t have adequate knowledge of something.
I'm not an expert on the issue, but Shawn McElhinney and "Matt 1618" are, and so are Bouyer and Dix and Fortescue and Pope Benedict XVI and past popes and the bishops of Vatican II. Therefore, one can cite others when one is not an expert on something. Or is that objectionable too?
When I swore off of answering Ryan in the latest round, it was because he was getting into highly particular things I haven't studied, such as intrigues and subterfuge at Vatican II with regard to liturgical reform, that are always bandied about.
I decided to do this paper because of the persistent criticisms of the Pauline Mass. I kept hearing that the TM (or TLM) was "objectively better." The more I thought about it (and having attended a TM just a few weeks ago) I got to thinking about how some things in the Pauline Mass are arguably an improvement, or at least not "bad" in and of themselves.
Also, a person on the forum where I moderate was highly interested in the topic, in the last week, so I got stimulated to see what I could come up with, in reply to her strong advocacy of the TLM. Then I just sort of started off with the papers from folks who have studied this a lot more than I have, and the project took on a life of its own. One can do overviews without claiming to be personally an expert. If my arguments are dumb, and you or someone else feels they can rip them to shreds, then be my guest. I'll enjoy the learning experience. That's what dialogue is about, ain't it?
But as a general rule of thumb that almost always applies to me; I write about whatever I'm interested in at the moment. This topic became more and more fascinating to me as I wrote, so that I now have more interest in the liturgy and its nature and history than I ever have before. Part of that is due to my dialogues with Ryan and other "trads."
Hi Paul, thanks for responding. You wrote:
[ As I understand it from Mr. Armstrong's article as well as from reading some of Pope Benedict XVI's books (right now "Spirit of the Liturgy") and other sources, the Tridentine Mass was specifically formulated to combat the heresy of Protestantism. . . . The Tridentine Mass was developed to combat Luther, Calvin and their ilk.]
No, this is not correct. The "Tridentine Mass" (or Gregorian Rite as Cardinal Hoyos has recently insisted is its correct name) was not formulated by the Council of Trent. It had been celebrated for well over a thousand years prior to that council. Rather, the Council of Trent cracked down on the liturgical uncertainty/anarchy of that day by mandating that unless a liturgy could prove its pedigree to be more than two hundred years old it had to give way to the Gregorian Rite as codified by its celebration in Rome. Luther, Calvin, etc. reacted to the profound catholicity of this Rite, not the other way around.
[ The Novus Ordo Mass was formulated to be what was to believe closer to older forms of the Mass. Reading St. Hippolytus' "Apostolic Traditions" and the Sacramentary of St. Serpian, as well St. Justin's explanation of the Mass in his work, it would appear at least to this untrained observer to be accurate. ]
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Paul. The Novus Ordo, unlike any other rite in the Church, was indeed formulated. And this has, as the Holy Father has pointed out, given even good and faithful Catholics the idea that the liturgy is something created, not received. (My blog hosts a good talk about this by Fr. Chad Ripperger, http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/20...-voce-
2004.html )
[ Also, I think this is a fair question: why is it necessary that the Mass be restricted to developing "organically" only? What is wrong with having a Mass that is more oriented towards Scripture (NAB problems aside) or that is designed to de-emphasize the role of the priest in favor of emphasizing the role of Christ in the Mass? ]
Vatican II mandated that the changes to the liturgy develop organically from *existing forms*. Upon some reflection, I think I want to camp on the position that "existing" means presently in existence, not just resurrected from the distant past after umpteen centuries of extinction (or, in the case of such things as female altar servers, female lectors, etc. introduced based on no historical precident at all.)
I am making the argument that that mandate was not fulfilled in the case of many changes allowed into the celebration of the new liturgy--I have cited a few examples, but many more could be offered. Again, your question betrays a completely modern view of the liturgy--it is ours to change according to every circumstance. I submit that approach to the liturgy would have been utterly incomprehensible to the Father, Doctors and Popes prior to Vatican II.
God bless,
Let's be candid about what groups were responsible for introducing the innovations of Communion in the hand, female lectors, female altar servers, etc. It wasn't CUF, The Wanderer, Catholic Answers, or EWTN that were clamoring for these changes. I'm not aware of any orthodox Catholic organization or prominent individual who thought these were good ideas. Rather, it was groups like Call to Action and liberal European bishop conferences who were in the vanguard.
I think this is a reasonable thing to consider; however, technically, it is the genetic fallacy. One could also argue that the Hussites and the Protestants reintroduced communion in both kinds; therefore it is a bad thing. But it has never been a "bad thing." The Church simply decided for various reasons that communion in one form alone was best, and then recently decided that both could be offered at times also, as was routinely done in the early Church.
But following your reasoning, it would become "bad" because of the "recent" origin (in the 1500s!) by the Protestants. Protestants have traditionally emphasized Scripture and the vernacular more than us, too. Does that make those things "bad"? Of course not.
Genetic fallacy . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Gen...Genetic_fallacy
This fallacy is also rampant in "trad" excoriations of ecumenism, as is the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy ("after this, therefore because of this") in the analyses of the post Vatican II mayhem and nonsense that liberalism has created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pos...rgo_propter_hoc
Dear David,
To say that there is no historical precedent for women serving at the altar is actually too weak a statement. Historical precedent is positively against it:
"Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: "Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry." We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21" (Pope Benedict XIV, Allate Sunt).
But are there examples prior to the 1970s of dissident/heretical groups agitating for practices that they knew undermined Church teaching and discipline, only to have these practices actually adopted by the Popes? There may be some. I'm not aware of any.
Would kneeling qualify? I know my sources traced that to the early Middle Ages, but apparently kneeling was and is a big Anglican thing. One might, therefore, argue, that Catholics were influenced to some extent to adopt the practice. The Eastern Catholics and Orthodox don't do much of it. Early Catholic tradition unanimously favored standing.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Genuflexion" notes:
"In the twentieth canon of the Council of Nicća (A. D. 325) the fathers lay down (the canon, though passed over by Rufinus, is undoubtedly genuine): —
'Because there are some who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost [the fifty days between Easter and Whit-Sunday]: that all things may be uniformly performed in every parish or diocese, it seems good to the Holy Synod that the prayers [tas euchas] be by all made to God, standing' ".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
06423a.htm
Church pews might arguably be another counter-example. According to the first article I found in a search, they were introduced in the 14th century and rapidly grew in use in the 15th. Before that, worshipers either stood or sat on backless seats.
This article claims that the Protestants emphasized pews as facing towards the pulpit, which was their big thing.
http://www.dankimball.com/
vintag...are_these_.html
I also found a fascinating article by an Orthodox (priest?) giving many arguments against pews, which idea he said was borrowed from the Catholics who in turn borrowed it from the Protestants:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Chris...tory-pews-
1.htm
The Wikipedia article on the subject states:
"Churches were not commonly furnished with permanent pews before the coming of the Protestant Reformation. The rise of the sermon as a central act of Christian worship, especially in Protestantism, made the pew an indispensable item of church furniture. Most Orthodox churches do not have pews; they have stands instead."
In both cases the innovations preceded Protestantism, yet the latter seems to have had an influence.
Another area is, I submit, hymnody. Were not the (rather glorious) hymns of Charles Wesley et al sung in the Catholic Church before the 70s (not to mention all of the wonderful Bach liturgical music)?
Vernacular is yet another. The Protestants understood that very well. But even Catholic missals weren't allowed to have the translation side-by-side into the vernacular until Pope Leo XIII. Catholics eventually got it, but the Protestants had almost 400 years earlier. In any event Leo XIII reigned over 100 years ago.
Brian Harrison has a good article (as always) arguing against altar girls. He notes, however (quite surprisingly to me!) that female eucharistic ministers were sometimes allowed through the centuries:
". . . even having women functioning as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist was not at all unprecedented. In an excellent study on the question of female altar service which was published in France only weeks before the Vatican's fateful announcement in April 1994, Abbé Michel Sinoir, a priest of the Archdiocese of Paris, records evidence that right from ancient times, in convents of cloistered nuns situated far off in the desert where priests and deacons seldom visited, the Church allowed the Mother Superior to take the Eucharistic Body of Christ from the tabernacle in order to give Holy Communion to the other sisters; however she was not allowed to make use of the altar in doing so. 5
"This condition is very significant, and was also reflected in the wording of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 813, §2, of the old Code, already referred to, stated: "A woman may not be a minister of the Mass, except when no male is available and for a just cause, and under the condition that she make the responses from a distance, not under any circumstances approaching the altar"
Of course, he is saying the prohibition of being near the altar would forbid altar girls.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt88.html
Kenneth Whitehead wrote another critical article:
http://www.adoremus.org/
0302Alta...Altargirls.html
Helen Hull Hitchcock wrote another critical article in ,This Rock, in 1993, but this was before the Vatican changed the legal status in 1994:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock...93/
9305fea2.asp
I'll definitely read these materials. It's quite possible I could reverse my opinion on this, since I am generally very liturgically traditional. My own parish has never had an altar girl or (in my memory) reader or any eucharistic ministers, even male ones, in my 17 years there.
Dear James,
You ask for theological arguments against against women at the altar. Here goes:
It is evident from the Old Testament that God jealously guards the holiness of His santuary. Holiness comes from a root meaning "otherness." God's sanctuary is to be clearly delineated as a distinct, consecrated space, a space set apart. As such, it cannot be treated as any common space. In biblical Greek, koine means both "common" and "unclean" and koinao means both "to make common" and "to defile."
So, God's sanctuary must be treated as other than common. This means that only specifically appointed people should enter it, and only for the specifically appointed purpose. The Jewish High priest was the only person who could enter the Holy of Holies, and that only once a year, on Yom Kippur, to sprinkle the Mercy Seat with the blood of a goat. In the Old Testament God was never too pleased when someone touched His ark or entered His sanctuary who wasn't supposed to (cf. 1 Chron 13:10).
The Catholic Church, before Vatican II, clearly lived by the same principle of sanctuary. The sanctuary was fenced off by an altar rail. Women were not allowed to enter. You didn't have "extraordinary ministers" coming and going. You didn't havel lay men and women walking in and out to read the different readings and pray the general intercessions. Only the priest and his priestly caste of vested servers entered, at least during Mass.
Allowing women to serve at the altar is just one of the many post Vatican II changes (whether mandated or merely permitted by Rome) which have broken down many of the tangible, sensible, specific differences which distinguish the sanctuary from common space. As a result, most Catholics today lack the sense of the otherness of the sanctuary which God has clearly been inculcating in his people for all of salvation history.
He notes, however (quite surprisingly to me!) that female eucharistic ministers were sometimes allowed through the centuries
There are also stories about saints receiving Communion from the Blessed Virgin Mary.
But if these women Fr. Harrison mentioned distributed consecrated hosts drawn from the Tabernacle, would not the Tabernacle have been on the altar in many if nor most cases (let alone also in the sanctuary)? That's what I wondered about.
If so, then that is allowing women to approach the altar and to be eucharistic ministers, a long time ago.
Only the priest and his priestly caste of vested servers entered, at least during Mass.
So a seven-year-old altar boy can enter the sanctuary because he is in the "priestly caste of vested servers," but not a pious, devout, prayer warrior, 50 year-old woman with a Masters in Theology degree, to read the Bible?
At my parish, I was asked once by one of the altar servers to come after Mass to move the altar table to the side room.
Also, last year, my 5 yo daughter crowned Mary. We had to enter the sanctuary to access the statue of Mary which was on the side a bit but still beyond the altar rail. So she and I both sinned, with the express permission of our priest at the time, who is VERY liturgically traditional?
Dear Dave,
I don't know whether Benedict XIV's claim that it is "evil" for women to serve at the altar can be defended. My argument neither requires nor demonstrates that it is sinful per se for women to enter the sanctuary or serve at the altar. I argue simply that it has a harmful effect, namely that it serves to break down the symbolic structures which teach Catholics to reverence and fear the sanctuary as God's consecrated space. Things can have harmful effects without being sinful per se, as witnessed by the entire liturgical reform. Sorry for not making things clearer at first.
Female lectors raise the additional question of women speaking and teaching in Church (cf. 1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:12). I don't have a definitive position on this issue, but if I were a woman, my conscience would not allow me to lector.
Great; so what's your answer to my question that you studiously avoided answering?:
"So a seven-year-old altar boy can enter the sanctuary because he is in the 'priestly caste of vested servers,' but not a pious, devout, prayer warrior, 50 year-old woman with a Masters in Theology degree, to read the Bible?"
As I already said, I do not have a definitive position on the per se morality or sinfulness of female lectors. On the other hand, if your question is whether this practice is good for the Church, or is harmful in the sense described above, my answer is the latter.
Also, the Church approving female lectors creates a tension between biblical inerrancy (cf. 1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:12) and the indefectibility of the Church. This has surely caused pain to a number of Catholic consciences, and has contributed to the growth of movements like Lefebvrism and Sedevacantism.
Scrolling down;
'Rather, it was groups like Call to Action and liberal European bishop conferences who were in the vanguard' but they are catholic groups, they have an opinion. Their argument might be sound, even though it's liberal.
liberal European bishop conferences' Eoropean bishops are our enemy?
I think Ben's point salient, powerful. Even with my very limited reading I think I was aware of the paucity of material from the very primitive period. Almost by defintion (because it was the very early church) there would be a paucity.
'given even good and faithful Catholics the idea that the liturgy is something created, not received' received from God like the Bible? The words of the mass are the inspired words of God?
All the different rites?
I for one thought it was created. Could you explain David?
Tha would be crucial to an unchanging liturgy then.
'*existing forms*. I've changed my view. Or else it would have simply said' 'present existing forms' I have to go will post this
palm if the liturgy was received from God then it shouldn't possibly be changed.
Hi Dave, Of course, you are free to write on whatever topic you please. My concern is that your discussion intersects with the many interactions you've had with traditionalists on liturgical issues. But you did not balance your presentation with interaction with solid scholarship critical of the NO. This is most evident in your frequent deployment of the "it's ancient, therefore it's okay" argument. As an argument to establish that a given action or text is not inherently evil ("bad" as you say) it's okay. But it does not address what I see as the heart of the issue, namely, that the liturgical "reforms" were not organic developments but artificial constructs--sometimes more or less supported by historical precident, sometimes not at all, and sometimes outright condemned as Ben has noted in the case of female altar servers.
There are any number of excellent works to balance your presentation. The most important, to me, is The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr. Klaus Gamber. The trilogy by Michael Davies is also excellent. Perhaps Ben can suggest some titles. I think so highly of Msgr. Gamber's book that if you say the word I will gladly order a copy and send it to you. Some excerpts may be found here: http://www.unavoce.org/gambhlts.htm
[ I'm not an expert on the issue, but Shawn McElhinney and "Matt 1618" are, and so are Bouyer and Dix and Fortescue and Pope Benedict XVI and past popes and the bishops of Vatican II. Therefore, one can cite others when one is not an expert on something. Or is that objectionable too? ]
Shawn and Michael are smart guys but nothing like liturgical experts, as I'm sure they will agree. And their presentations suffer from the same weakness yours does--a lack of interaction with serious, scholarly critiques of the New Mass. They typically engage the position that calls the New Mass invalid or various aspects of it intrinsically evil. Fine, but as Ben has pointed out, "Things can have harmful effects without being sinful per se, as witnessed by the entire liturgical reform."
[ I decided to do this paper because of the persistent criticisms of the Pauline Mass. I kept hearing that the TM...was "objectively better." The more I thought about it (and having attended a TM just a few weeks ago) I got to thinking about how some things in the Pauline Mass are arguably an improvement, or at least not "bad" in and of themselves. ]
I understand. But please understand that mainstream critics of the NO does not hold that the myriad changes and innovations are intrinsically evil. Even Davies, an outspoken critic, wrote a book in defense of the validity of the NO. Rather, they contend that a) they were not introduced through organic development, b) that they frequently have no historical precident at all or were introduced from dissident influences, and c) that the rapidity and all-encompassing nature of the changes has harmed the Church.
More later...I have to run.
God bless,
At a minimum, I think what I have accomplished is to provide some reasons why the Pauline Mass is as worthy of allegience as the TM (just as the Holy Father has taught). I've provided some rationale for why the major structural changes seen in it were implemented.
In the end, it isn't determined by a gallery of "experts" like Davies or Gamber (or the folks I have cited), but by the Church. I cited plenty of popes. I accept the reasoning of Vatican II and popes.
"Trads" (like the Protestants they detest) apparently do not think that is good enough. And that is the bottom line and the premise I like to critique, underlying the whole thing. Why should I accept the reasoning of a Ben Douglass or a David Palm when it contradicts what the Church has stated in its magisterium?
I based my analysis heavily on Church and papal proclamations and the background of ascertainable facts of liturgical history.
I don't have any burden of trying to prove that the Pauline is "better" than the TM, because that is not my position anyway. It's you guys who say that one is "better" than the other.
What I've argued is that the Pauline Mass has as much support from Tradition as the TM, and that the Church had good reason to promulgate it. It's not merely the largely subjective argument of the trads who aren't arguing for an intrinsic evil or invalidity but that the TM is "better" or "best."
I would say at most (with regard to this comparison thing) that the Pauline Mass does succeed in its aim to be more suited to contemporary times. Even Trent said that was a permissible goal.
But you did not balance your presentation with interaction with solid scholarship critical of the NO.
That wasn't my purpose, which was (in an overview, non-expert, preliminary way) to defend the Pauline Mass against the accusations that it was an outrageous novelty with little historical precedent, introduced by Protestants and Catholic dissidents in order to undermine Catholic dogmas and piety.
Precisely because I allow and encourage comments, and knew full well that this post would receive vigorous feedback from "trads", I didn't have to give the other side. I wouldn't do very well at that anyway. It's much better to let advocates of a position present their case, and that's what happens on this blog.
Have at it and fire away. I ain't gonna do all your work for you. My goal as an apologist was to provide some substantive argument for the goodness and traditional nature of the Pauline Mass.
I suspect that there are many people who are as tired of the incessant "trad" bashing of the magisterium and inability to grasp and submit to the Mind of the Church, as I am.
Why should I accept the reasoning of a Ben Douglass or a David Palm when it contradicts what the Church has stated in its magisterium?
First off, you have not yet demonstrated a contradiction between the Magisterium and anything that either I or David have said.
As to why you should accept my reasoning: you should critically evaluate it and, if you see that the premises are true and the logic is valid, follow the demand of conscience and accept the conclusion. To repeat something from a previous thread: I have no authority per se, only the strength of arguments.
1) Four scriptural readings rather than two, and arranged so that the faithful can hear virtually the whole Bible over three years (the TM has one epistle and a Gospel reading). The more Bible, the better, in my opinion. How can that be criticized?
Dave, as someone else pointed out, you're counting the scripture readings incorrectly. If we only take account of the Epistle and Gospel in the Johannine Mass, then to be strictly analogous we must only take account of the two Sunday/Holy Day readings and Gospel in the Pauline Mass -- that would be three readings, not four. Of course it's actually a bit more complicated than that. First of all, in the Pauline Mass there is just a First Reading and a Gospel during weekday Masses, just as there is just an Epistle and a Gospel in the Johannine Mass. (It should also be observed that the First Sunday Reading in the Pauline Mass is, strictly speaking, optional -- but not many know this, and in practice the First Reading on Sundays is never omitted.) So you should have said "Three scriptural readings on Sundays rather than two."
As for the claim that the new lectionary is "arranged so that the faithful can hear virtually the whole Bible over three years," that is a gross exaggeration. I know, I know, everybody says it -- even Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos recently repeated that line, but all the same it's a liturgical "urban legend." With the new lectionary, the faithful hear a LOT more of the Bible than they do with the Johannine Missal, but it's doesn't come anywhere close to "virtually the whole Bible."
http://catholic-resources.org/
Le...oman_Missal.htm
http://catholic-resources.org/Le.../
Statistics.htm
Counting just the Epistle and the Gospel (leaving out the mandatory scriptural proper chants -- the Introit, Gradual, Alleluia or Tract, Offertory, and Communion), the Johannine Missal uses 22.4% of the Gospels, 11% of the rest of the New Testament, and 1.02% of the Old Testament.
In comparsion, counting just the First and Second Readings and the Gospel (leaving out the Psalm and the optional scriptural proper chants -- the Introit, Alleluia or Gospel Acclamation, Offertory, and Communion), the Pauline lectionary uses 13.5% of the Old Testament, 89.8% of the Gospels, and 54.9% of the rest of the New Testament, for a grand total of 71.5% of the entire New Testament.
So, with the new lectionary, one does hear much, much, much more of the Bible than one would hear at a Johannine Mass, but even so, a mere 13.5% of the Old Testament (minus the Psalms) and 71.5% of the New Testament is still not even close to "virtually the whole Bible." The Old Testament alone is simply too massive to be able to be read in anything like a continuous cycle of readings, which is probably one reason why the Church pretty quickly moved to reading intentionally arranged pericopes rather than taking a "Read-the-Whole-Bible-in-A-Year" approach.
Now, you say "the mo
Now, you say "the more Bible the better," and overall I'm inclined to agree. Nevertheless there are many valid criticisms and objections that one can and probably should raise to the new lectionary as compared to the traditional scriptural propers. Note, I say "traditional scriptural propers" rather than "old lectionary," because the old missal does not have a separate lectionary -- all the readings are integrated with the rest of the propers of the Mass. And that is the most serious problem with the new lectionary: it is inorganic and detached from the other Mass propers. Generally speaking, the readings and responsorial psalm were treated as separate and different from the other propers that original had been chosen thematically. Consequently the Introit, Offertory, and Communion usually do not have anything to do with the readings and the responsorial psalm.
Another objection that can be raised is that the new lectionary is not as effective didactically because of the three-year cycle of Sunday readings and two-year cycle of weekday readings. A simple one-year cycle, with a limited number of doctrinal and moral themes throughout the year, is a better teaching tool than the massive and complicated three-year/two-year cycle. By the time we're in Cycle C, how many of us remember what the Church had tried to teach us during Cycle A?
Again, the simple fact that we have a system of three-year Sunday readings with two-year weekday readings is another weakness of the new lectionary, giving the impression that we're randomly hopping around the Bible without an rhyme or reason to it. Or one might say that it gives the impression of a machine whose gears don't quite fit together -- you can hear a clash and a crunch every now and again.
One can also raise various objections to the choices that were made on which readings to include and which to leave out, and what days certain readings would be on. There are several traditional Sunday readings that the new lectionary includes only during weekdays, when most Catholics will never hear them -- and other traditional Sunday readings have been deleted altogether. In addition, there have been certain serious omissions of portions of a reading. For example, on Corpus Christi the new lectionary no longer includes St. Paul's warning about eating and drinking damnation, not even as an optional reading. In other places, one occasionally finds a tendency to skip over or leave out a scripture passage that mentions the danger of eternal damnation. These traits reflect a shift in emphasis, a tendency away from a consciousness of sin, the reality of hell, and our desperate need for God's mercy and grace (a tendency that is even more marked in the current "lame-duck" English pseudotranslation of the Roman Missal).
All in all, while it is a good thing to hear more of the Scriptures during Mass (and that's one of the things I like best about the reformed Roman Rite), I can't avoid th
All in all, while it is a good thing to hear more of the Scriptures during Mass (and that's one of the things I like best about the reformed Roman Rite), I can't avoid the conclusion that the traditional one-year cycle is superior to the new lectionary -- the traditional propers and integrated and organic, but the new lectionary has all the feel of a die-cast assembly line product, and one that didn't benefit from quite enough Research-and-Development before they tooled and prepped the assembly line. The traditional propers also seem to do a better job of communicating the truths of the faith than the new lectionary. It's an irony that the traditional propers have much less of the Bible but seem tell more of the faith and seem to be clearer in their telling than the new lectionary.
[ Precisely because I allow and encourage comments, and knew full well that this post would receive vigorous feedback from "trads", I didn't have to give the other side. I wouldn't do very well at that anyway. It's much better to let advocates of a position present their case, and that's what happens on this blog. ]
Okay. That's a different kind of scholarship than I'm used to, but at least we know what the protocol is.
[ Have at it and fire away. I ain't gonna do all your work for you. My goal as an apologist was to provide some substantive argument for the goodness and traditional nature of the Pauline Mass. ]
I have given several examples that you defended which I believe I demonstrated cannot be considered valid examples of organic development. You have not interacted with those. I also countered your asserted, which you made without any support, that it was commonplace for the priest to celebrate Mass versus populum in the ancient Church. It betrays your lack of research (even Fr. Bouyer upon whom you rely, rejects that notion.) Rather, it could happen that a particular church (St. Peter's Basilica being the most famous example) was built so that people had to turn to face East with the priest during the Holy Sacrifice. But there is no evidence in the ancient Church, or any other time for that matter, for a Mass said facing the people, as is almost universally done in the Novus Ordo.
[ ...you have not yet demonstrated a contradiction between the Magisterium and anything that either I or David have said. ]
I echo this. I have tried to set the boundaries of the debate more clearly above. But if our bona fides is to be questioned, then let it be demonstrated, not just asserted.
[ I suspect that there are many people who are as tired of the incessant "trad" bashing of the magisterium and inability to grasp and submit to the Mind of the Church, as I am. ]
Once again, as Ben said, you have yet to give any examples in which we have "bashed" the Magisterium or where we have departed from the mind of the Church. If that's all you think of what Ben and I are saying then there's little point in continuing. But perhaps you weren't referencing us in the above quote.
God bless,
Okay. That's a different kind of scholarship than I'm used to, but at least we know what the protocol is.
Who said it was "scholarship" in the first place? I do popular apologetics, and this is a blog. If you want to do "scholarship" then get published in a peer-reviewed journal (and let me know when you do). I make no pretense to that.
I think a lot of people get a blog or a website and make some analyses and impress a few folks and so they fancy that they are some sort of pseudo-scholar. Not I (though I get falsely accused of that now and then).
I have given several examples that you defended which I believe I demonstrated cannot be considered valid examples of organic development. You have not interacted with those.
I was essentially taking a three-day weekend off of writing. I went bike riding yesterday with one of my sons (having posted my paper on the Mass late Thursday). Today we're preparing for a big party (up to 50 guests), which is tomorrow. I made some comments because I saw that the combox was lively. Right now, e.g., I'm waiting for dinner and had a few minutes to spare.
If you want to nitpick, you issued a challenge or query about innovations before the 70s that came from Protestants. I suggested kneeling, hymnody, pews, and vernacular. Not a peep from anyone yet in response to that . . .
Once again, as Ben said, you have yet to give any examples in which we have "bashed" the Magisterium or where we have departed from the mind of the Church.
So you accept all (or even most) of what Vatican II stated about liturgy? That's what I meant. Do you accept that Paul VI had the prerogative to reform the Mass? Do you claim to know more about liturgy and its history than the last five popes? That is certainly the impression one gets when reading "trad" criticisms of the Pauline Mass: as if a pope had very little idea that what he was doing went against tradition and consistent development alike (so we are told ad nauseum).
If you want to really get into this, I'd be happy to go over your writings to find statements along these lines. And then you can defend them, rather than make out that you and your comrades have stated nothing that is controversial or objectionable from an orthodox Catholic perspective.
It's the attitude one takes towards the magisterium, even when it is not a matter of de fide dogma: this is one of the strong themes in my criticisms of "trads". I have backed up my positions with Church teaching. Many "trads" who write about these issues do that relatively little and instead rely on "scholars": precisely as the liberals and Protestants usually do.
Jordanes,
Your observations are duly noted, and I revised the "Bible" section in my post, citing your words about relative use of the Bible in the two forms.
David Palm wrote:
Indeed, certain aspects of your article lack any support at all. For example, you assert that the priest facing the people at Mass was a fixture of ancient custom (although even if it was it doesn't mean that we should return to it; see above.) You highlight this assertion at the very top of the article. But you don't cite anything to back it up. . . .
I also countered your assert[ion], which you made without any support, that it was commonplace for the priest to celebrate Mass versus populum in the ancient Church. It betrays your lack of research (even Fr. Bouyer upon whom you rely, rejects that notion.) Rather, it could happen that a particular church (St. Peter's Basilica being the most famous example) was built so that people had to turn to face East with the priest during the Holy Sacrifice. But there is no evidence in the ancient Church, or any other time for that matter, for a Mass said facing the people, as is almost universally done in the Novus Ordo.
I would like to retract my original statement that facing the people was the prevailing practice of the early Church. One of my sources must have gotten that wrong, based on what I have read in the last few hours.
BUT, I have now provided some evidence of this practice in the past, which is all I really had to do, for my purposes.
Note that in the five things I wrote about at the end (A-D), I was highlighting possible arguments against the Pauline Mass. I stated afterwards that my positions toward them were neutral except for one (lay eucharistic ministers). I have provided some degree of historical support for all. The "ad orientem" issue was the only one of the five that I had no documentation for in the original post. That has now been corrected.
So thanks for stimulating me to provide that further support.
ropers of the TLM and NOM side by side and you will find consistent patterns of theological excision--removal of references to judgment, purgatory, hell, intercession of the saints, miracles, rejection of worldly things in preference for those of heaven, military themes, etc. ....]
I've heard this argument many times and I would agree that -laid out side by side on a webpage- the TLM prayers seem richer than the more sparse NO prayers but - in real life - who's to know? Yes, there are 100's or even 1000's of TLM fans who study the mass at home and appreciate the differences but muttered in a quite chuch the effect is quite lost. At least I can follow the NO mass, even in Latin, as it is spoken out loud for the whole world to hear.
Also note as the TLM mass goes I would be better off praying the rosery or some private devotion as trying to follow the priest in a missel. as far as prayerfulness goes the ability to hear and respond trumps nicer unheard words.
David Palm wrote:
The heart of the effective traditionalist argument isn't that the various aspects reintroduced into the Pauline rite are intrinsically wrong--there is acknowledgement that they did at one time exist in the Church.
( 6-20-08 )
And:
But please understand that mainstream critics of the NO [do] not hold that the myriad changes and innovations are intrinsically evil. Even Davies, an outspoken critic, wrote a book in defense of the validity of the NO. Rather, they contend that a) they were not introduced through organic development, b) that they frequently have no historical precident at all or were introduced from dissident influences, and c) that the rapidity and all-encompassing nature of the changes has harmed the Church.
( 6-21-08 )
The first statement contradicts Part B of the second. Which is it? do the innovations of the Pauline Mass have historical precedent ( 6-20-08 ) or "frequently" have none ( 6-21-08 )?
If they have historical precedent, then obviously they were not "introduced from dissident influences." They may have been to some degree RE-introduced by a dissident, but in that case he at least agreed with ancient precedents (and even the unplugged clock is right twice a day, so a liberal could stumble upon a truth despite himself). It's not an absolute novelty, though, in any event; nor is it "unCatholic" or fundamentally hostile to the Mind of the Church as it has developed through the centuries.
I think I have showed that there is some (and often, quite significant) historical precedent for all of these differences from the TM.
One Deacon Scott Dodge wrote about Msgr. Klaus Gamber:
"Granting of the universal indult to celebrate mass according to the 1962 missal would supercede the current indult, granted by Pope John Paul II, that ended the suppression of the Latin Mass allowing its celebration only at the discretion of the local bishop. Granting such an indult universally would effectively accomplish what Gamber called for in a chapter of his book entitled "Attempting to Resolve the Problem". The best way to resolve the problem, according to Msgr. Gamber, is to allow the co-existence of two distinct rites in the Western Church. The first is what he calls the ritus modernus, or modern rite, also known as the novus ordo, the new order, which is the rite we use now. Gamber does not challenge the validity of the novus ordo, but he does challenge whether its creation, or, to stick with Ratzinger's term, the "fabricated liturgy", and its promulgation was licit. In other words, he does not believe Pope Paul VI had the authority to either promulgate a new ordo missae, or to supress the Latin mass."
http://scottdodge.blogspot.com/2...aus-
gamber.html
This is, of course, the case now (universal indult). So why the continued carping on and on about how inferior the Pauline Mass is? Why not just worship as you see fit and the allow others to do the same? If the Holy Father has done what Msgr. Gamber recommended (and the latter's book is THE book that "Trads" want to recommend regarding liturgy) then where is the beef?
The pope has clearly stated that both are here to stay. David Palm wrote in his article for the radtrad rag Seattle Catholic:
"one must immediately acknowledge that certainly there is clearly a grave danger in falsely concluding, as the liberals do, that we can simply ignore the Pope when his opinions clash with our own, so long as he is not speaking ex cathedra. We must continue to reject and expose such pernicious error."
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/
a...e_20040406.html
The Holy Father has given his firm opinion on this issue (with less than ex cathedra authority). Will the "trads" accept this or not? Even Gamber apparently conceded that the Pauline Mass was not going to go anywhere.
But it seems that David Palm wants to continue to quibble with the pope since in his latest blog article he contends that the extraordinary and ordinary expressions of the Roman rite are really two rites, which is directly contrary to what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Summorum Pontificum:
"These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite."
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/20...-two-
rites.html
In order to maintain the opinion, he argues that various practices (read: abuses) in how the Pauline Mass is observed amount to it being a different rite (at least in those instances).
Pope says no. Palm says yes. I go with the pope, because he is the head of the Catholic Church.
And this is a straightforward example of what I meant by opposition to the magisterium and the Mind of the Church, that ruffled Ben's and David's feathers. Why even bother to have a pope if he is to be frequently disagreed with based on a clash with one's own prior, preconceived opinions? Sorry; that is the rule of private judgment, which is a defining feature of Protestantism, not Catholicism.
If that makes y'all angry, so be it. I didn't get into the apologetics business to win a popularity contest.
Another question for David Palm:
If in fact Klaus Gamber argued that the creation of the Pauline Mass was not licit, and you say, to the contrary, that it was licit (as I read in one of your papers), then why do you recommend this book? Is that not a major difference of opinion?
What book would you recommend, then, that agrees that this Mass was promulgated licitly, and goes on to criticize it as inferior to the TM?
Gamber writes:
"and we now contemplate at our feet the ruins, not of the Tridentine Mass, but of the ancient Roman Rite which had developed and grown to maturity during that long period." (p. 26)
"Today, we are standing before the ruins of almost 2,000 years of Church tradition. We cannot help being apprehensive: the numerous reforms made have damaged Church tradition to such an extent that it will be difficult to bring it back again." (p. 95)
This is the book you want me to read? It's the same old attitude of what I have called "quasi-defectibility."
My gosh, Mr. Armstrong, do you really have a dog in this fight? Why must you sow such myths of the outdated scholarship of Jungmann just to make arguments against your fellow Catholics? I thought you were all about converting people to Catholicism, not arguing for one faction of our Church against another?
Indeed, the tide is turning little by little in the traditional direction, and it is counter-productive to drag out archeological evidence to justify this or that abuse that has arisen in the modern liturgy. Indeed, I could drag out similar evidence to argue for the Protestant position itself, and it would avail us nothing. Such arguments smack of sour grapes, of being bitter that the "rad-trads" have been in part redeemed in their cause. I suggest you get with the program, keep coming up with arguments against the Prots, and pray that the liturgical restoration goes on unabated for the greater glory of God and the triumph of the Church.
[I suggest you get with the program, keep coming up with arguments against the Prots, and pray that the liturgical restoration goes on unabated for the greater glory of God and the triumph of the Church]
ie Only Trads are allowed to argue. All others are traitors and must be quiet.
It would surprise you that a lot of the arguements you assert here about liturgy were devised not only by the reformers, but by the Jansenists, who were condemned by the Church after the robber council of Pistoya. Gregory Hull in this essay writes a great account of how the Jansenists came up with many of the liturgical reforms that were implemented last century. I excerpt one part of it, though I recommend that you read it in toto:
"What shape, exactly, did the Jansenist liturgical reform take? Inspired as it was by rationalism, the prevailing tendency of the age, this movement subjected the traditional liturgical texts to the most relentless criticism. As the work of revision progressed, no element thought to be post-Patristic was suffered to survive, so that propers, prayers and hymns composed in the Middle Ages were all replaced by texts from the Bible, especially those thought to favour Jansenist interpretations of dogma. While not giving formal adherence to the Lutheran doctrine of the priesthood of all baptized believers, the reformers tended to reduce the role of the ordained priest to that of president of the Christian assembly. Consequently they attacked private masses at which members of the laity were not present, discouraged votive Masses and anniversary requiems, and took a subjectivist view of the Real Presence in contending that one did not truly receive Christ in Holy Communion administered outside Mass. Attacking the extra-eucharistic cult of the Blessed Sacrament, Joseph II saw fit to ban the use of the monstrance and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament; while in Tuscany Grand Duke Leopold forbade the laity to hear Mass in monastic churches so as to stress the essentially communitarian nature of the Eucharist."
So be careful when you argue about the virtues of the Pauline Missal, since you really don't know who in the end you are getting into bed with.
"This is the book you want me to read?"
The foreword to Msgr Gamber's book was written by Cardinal Ratzinger who praised him unreservedly and called him 'the father of a new liturgical movement.'
His Eminence also criticised those who sidelined him and refuse to deal with his arguments.
Pope says no. Palm says yes. I go with the pope, because he is the head of the Catholic Church.
The word "rite" has different shades of meaning. Juridically, the 1962 Missal and the 1970/2003 Missal are two uses of the one Roman Rite -- but in the sense that the differences between the uses are much, much more numerous than the similarities, one can distinguish them as two different rites.
The decree that they are two uses, not two separate juridical rites, is supremely important, because if they were two different rites in the eyes of the liturgical law, then priests in the Latin Rite would need an indult to celebrate according to the 1962 Missal. However, since the Pope has made clear that they are two uses within one rite, all Latin Rite priests have permission to celebrate according to either the 1962 Missal or the 1970/2003 Missal, without having to obtain an indult from their bishop. In other words, if a Latin Rite priest wants to celebrate a "Tridentine" Mass, he may do so -- he doesn't have to ask his bishop first, and he doesn't even have to wait for a group of lay Catholics to approach him and ask him. He has that legal right as a Latin Rite priest with faculties to celebrate Mass according to his own rite, the Roman Rite. (This is better than the "universal indult" that traditionalists had desired -- the Pope says Latin priests don't even need an indult, whether universal or not.)
All the same, the debate about whether or not the two juridical uses are de facto different rites remains open.
My gosh, Mr. Armstrong, do you really have a dog in this fight? Why must you sow such myths of the outdated scholarship of Jungmann just to make arguments against your fellow Catholics? I thought you were all about converting people to Catholicism, not arguing for one faction of our Church against another?
You have it exactly backwards. As I've stated several times, I am enthusiastically in favor of letting Catholics worship as they please. I love the new universal indult and think it was way overdue. I'm not arguing that the Pauline Mass is "better" than the Tridentine. I'm saying it is meaningless and divisive to engage in those quarrels, since the Holy Father has stated that both will be maintained and that both are forms of the Roman rite.
I defended the Pauline Mass because "trads" continue to bash it as if it has no rationale or historical precedent. And of course that ruffles lots of "trad" feathers because no one is supposed to make such arguments, even on the stumbling, bumbling, preliminary, introductory level, as in my case.
"This is the book you want me to read?"
The foreword to Msgr Gamber's book was written by Cardinal Ratzinger who praised him unreservedly and called him 'the father of a new liturgical movement.'
His Eminence also criticised those who sidelined him and refuse to deal with his arguments.
That's all fine and good. I didn't say anyone should dismiss the arguments out of hand. That would be stupid.
If you would read my words in context, you'd see that I was simply wondering why someone who thinks the Pauline Mass was licitly promulgated would recommend a book that took the opposite position. I think that is a very important distinction. which is why I asked for a book recommendation from an author who did NOT take that particular position, and wondered aloud what would be a book along those lines.
[ The heart of the effective traditionalist argument isn't that the various aspects reintroduced into the Pauline rite are intrinsically wrong--there is acknowledgement that they did at one time exist in the Church. [[snip]] b) that they frequently have no historical precident at all or were introduced from dissident influences, ]]
Thank you for allowing me to clarify. A conflation of my two postings would capture what I was trying to convey, namely, that *some* of the changes have historical precident and to cite this precident against those who would argue that the NO is invalid or intrinsically evil is legitimate. However, this does not make their reintroduction an organic development, since an organic development can only come from “existing forms”. And, as Ben and I have noted, there are other aspects of the Pauline rite that have no historical precident at all or were introduced from dissident influences.
I do not argue that the NO is invalid or that these practices are intrinsically evil (that would violate the doctrine of indefectivility.) Rather, I argue that the introduction/imposition of so much non-organic change has (gravely) harmed the Church. I would further argue that it would be good for the Church that many of these features of the NO eventually be supressed (which is why I, at least, continue to discuss these things openly.)
[ If you want to really get into this, I'd be happy to go over your writings to find statements along these lines. And then you can defend them, rather than make out that you and your comrades have stated nothing that is controversial or objectionable from an orthodox Catholic perspective. ]
The positions I have espoused should not leave my orthodoxy in question.
Ben and I have introduced some concrete examples in order to illustrate that the liturgical reforms, even as approved by Rome, have not been organic developments, as even Vatican II called for. The response I would look for isn't yet another swipe at my fidelity and orthodoxy as a Catholic, but a reasoned reply as to how those things really are organic developments. A reply along the lines of--Well the Pope did it officially, so it's by definition an organic development--is not adequate. We are well aware of the doctrines of papal infallibility and ecclesiasial indefectibility.
[ This is the book you want me to read? It's the same old attitude of what I have called "quasi-defectibility." ]
Cardinal Ratzinger said of Msgr. Gamber that he was, "the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking of the center of the Church." Lots of people (Gamber, Davies, the von Hildebrands, etc.) have written openly on the very lines that Ben and I are and they have been praised, not condemned, for it. I'm suggesting, Dave, that you have drawn the lines of acceptable discourse in the Catholic Church much too narrowly. Use of vague neologisms such as "quasi-defectibility" is no substitute for substantive counter-arguments.
It is a misrepresentation of Msgr. Gamber's work to say that he held the NO to be illicit. Rather, I would say that he argued that the 1965 revision of the Roman missal was an organic development along the lines of what Vatican II actually called for, whereas the NO was uncalled for by Vatican II, contained numerous inorganic and highly imprudent innovations, represents a radical break with the Roman liturgical tradition, went beyond the authority that any Pope had ever arrogated to himself in matters liturgical, and in the main has gravely harmed the Church.
Bottom line is that if you believe that the entire approved liturgical reform has been represented by nothing but true, organic developments, then you will need to provide a different set of arguments than those contained in your essay. Otherwise you are to an extent tilting at a windmill. And the whole notion of organic development would seem to be right up your alley.
God bless,
[ I'm saying it is meaningless and divisive to engage in those quarrels, ... ]
You may be right, Dave. I have just returned from Mass and pondered this there. The bottom line is that I'm grateful for those who kept at me and finally convinced me that the TLM is the treasure that it is. But I see how easily these discussions can be taken wrongly and can do more harm than good.
I believe that you have misrepresented my writings above. I will let things stand there and encourage people to read for themselves my pieces that you cited and decide if I really did say what you claim I said.
We are spread out along a large territory of issues right now. If it is not profitable to continue, I'm fine with that.
If we are to continue, perhaps we should confine ourselves to just one or two issues. If so, I propose an example as a test case: the Mass said versus populum rather than ad orientem. The question on the table is this: is the almost universal adoption of this orientation in the celebration of the NO a result of organic liturgical development and a legitimate application of Vatican II, or does it represent a liturgical novelty and an abuse of ecclesiastical authority?
You could raise one more test case, if you see fit.
Like I say, we can continue or not--it's cool either way with me.
God bless,
Who said it was "scholarship" in the first place? I do popular apologetics, and this is a blog.
One ought to hold oneself to certain standards of scholarly rigor whenever one engages in public religious writing. To say that this blog isn't a peer reviewed journal is a complete red herring.
Do you claim to know more about liturgy and its history than the last five popes?
Another red herring. There have been many Popes who have been Thomists. How dare you, then, promote Molinism? Do you claim to know more than all these Popes? Or do you recognize that it is possible to disagree with someone without claiming to know more than him?
I have backed up my positions with Church teaching.
Granted, you have quoted a large number of Church documents. I deny that you have demonstrated a contradiction between those Church documents and anything David or I have said. In particular, you misrepresented the contents of David's latest blog article.
Many "trads" who write about these issues do that relatively little and instead rely on "scholars": precisely as the liberals and Protestants usually do.
Well, in areas of theology where the Catholic Church has no magisterial teaching, Catholics will naturally rely on the arguments of scholars. If you, Dave, were to write an article on the morality or immorality of embryo adoption, could you quote an explicit Church teaching in favor of your position? Or would you be confined to simply quoting Catholic principles, and then applying your own private, fallible reasoning, and the private, fallible reasonings of Catholic scholars, to those principles? Similarly, in your promotion of Molinism, can you demonstrate that you are right and your opponents are wrong, simply by quoting Church teaching? Or do you have to apply your own fallible arguments and the fallible arguments of scholars to the question?
The thesis in dispute in this thread, that the Tridentine Mass is objectively superior to the Novus Ordo, belongs in the same category.
I defended the Pauline Mass because "trads" continue to bash it as if it has no rationale or historical precedent. And of course that ruffles lots of "trad" feathers because no one is supposed to make such arguments...
On the contrary, if you had stuck to historical and liturgical argument, I don't think the discussion ever would have become this heated. What "ruffles" traditionalist "feathers" is obnoxious and unjust accusations of opposition to the mind of the Church, such as the following:
And this is a straightforward example of what I meant by opposition to the magisterium and the Mind of the Church, that ruffled Ben's and David's feathers. Why even bother to have a pope if he is to be frequently disagreed with based on a clash with one's own prior, preconceived opinions? Sorry; that is the rule of private judgment, which is a defining feature of Protestantism, not Catholicism.
If in fact Klaus Gamber argued that the creation of the Pauline Mass was not licit, and you say, to the contrary, that it was licit (as I read in one of your papers), then why do you recommend this book? Is that not a major difference of opinion?
Even if Msgr. Gamber had argued this position, which I do not grant, that would not destroy the value of his work. It is possible for a book to contain good research and arguments, yet overreach in its conclusions. The SSPX's book, The Problem of the Liturgical Refomr is like that. It can be profitably mined for insightful arguments which suffice to demonstrate the superiority of the Tridentine Mass. That the book concludes that the Novus Ordo is evil doesn't change the fact that these are good arguments.
Dave Palm wrote;
'I do not argue that the NO is invalid or that these practices are intrinsically evil (that would violate the doctrine of indefectivility.) Rather, I argue that the introduction/imposition of so much non-organic change has (gravely) harmed the Church'
'(gravely) harmed the Church'
Strong words, grave words. I was taught to use the word grave when confessing mortal sin.
The Pauline mass was presumably introduced/imposed by Pope Paul. So Pope Paul was guilty of gravely harming the church?
This present Pope and all the heirarchy of Bishops hold this mass to be the sacred mass of the Catholic Church. So the present pope and the heirarchy are all gravely harming the church NOW?
You might reply with it was all the trendy reformers, but surely if it was and is 'gravely' harming the church it should have been stopped many years ago.
It's that contant harsh critiicsm of the Church which wrankles with me as well as with Dave.
Dear James, you wrote:
[ It's that contant harsh critiicsm of the Church which wrankles with me as well as with Dave. ]
I reviewed what I have written in this thread and I don't find any "harsh criticism of the Church".
I wrote, but never disseminated, a paper called "I Agree With Them" in which I cite scholars such as Gamber, the von Hildebrands, Fr. Brian Harrison, Michael Davies, etc. who have convinced me of the position I hold. They have written these things publicly, they were/are Catholics in good standing, and some of them have been publicly praised for their works by prelates such as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. As I said, I think that the boundaries of acceptable discourse are drawn too narrowly.
Dietrich von Hildebrand said in The Devastated Vineyard that, “Truly, if one of the devils in C. S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better.”
I cited him at greater length in my New Oxford Review (not Seattle Catholic) article:
"A third false response, and perhaps the most dangerous one, would be to imagine that there is no destruction of the vineyard of the Lord, that it only seems so to us — our task as laymen is simply to adhere with complete loyalty to whatever our bishop says….
At the basis of this attitude is a false idea of loyalty to the hierarchy. When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, then unconditional acceptance and submission is required of every Catholic. But it is false to extend this loyalty to encyclicals in which new theses are proposed. This is not to deny that the magisterium of the Church extends much farther than the dogmas. If an encyclical deals with a question of faith or morals and is based on the tradition of the holy Church — that is, expresses something which the Church has always taught — then we should humbly accept its teaching. This is the case with the encyclical Humanae Vitae: although we do not have here the strict infallibility of a defined dogma, the content of the encyclical nevertheless belongs to that sphere of the Church’s magisterium which we must accept as true.
But there are many encyclicals which deal with very different (e.g., sociological) questions and which express a response of the Church to certain new conditions. . . . But when it is a question of practical ordinances such as concordats, or the suppression of the Jesuit order by Pope Clement XIV, or the introduction of the new missal, or the rearrangement of the Church calendar, or the new rubrics for the liturgy, then our obedience (as Vatican I declares), but by no means our agreement, is required…. In the history of the Church there have been many unfortunate ordinances and practical decisions by popes, which have then been retracted by other popes. In such matters we may, while obeying an ordinance, with all due respect express opposition to it, pray for its elimination, and address many appeals to the pope."
First of all, let me get this straight. "Trads" can habitually claim that recent popes and Vatican II have violated Catholic Tradition (or, little "t" tradition: take your pick) and the Mind of the Church, but if I dare submit that you may have done the same, then I am misrepresenting, causing the discussion to become "heated" and personally insulting you. Is that how it works? Popes are fit targets for certain criticisms but "trads" must never be accused of the same sorts of things?
Secondly, let's cut to the quick. I'd like to know if you agree or disagree with the following statements of Pope Benedict XVI, from Summorum Pontificum:
1) The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. . . . They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
Answer: AGREE or DISAGREE.
2) These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief).
Answer: AGREE or DISAGREE.
3) We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed", and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.
Answer: IT IS ESTABLISHED or IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED.
And from the Holy Father's accompanying letter:
4) The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
Answer: AGREE or DISAGREE.
5) There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. . . . Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
Answer: AGREE or DISAGREE.
Thanks for your cooperation. I appreciate it.
If we are to continue, perhaps we should confine ourselves to just one or two issues. If so, I propose an example as a test case: the Mass said versus populum rather than ad orientem. The question on the table is this: is the almost universal adoption of this orientation in the celebration of the NO a result of organic liturgical development and a legitimate application of Vatican II, or does it represent a liturgical novelty and an abuse of ecclesiastical authority?
I'm not motivated to devote time delving into this particular topic in great depth because I am not committed to one position over against another in the first place. As I wrote concerning this in my paper: "I take a more or less neutral position."
I just had at my party yesterday the priest at my parish who celebrated the Tridentine Mass yesterday (Fr. Joseph Skelton). He thinks it is atrocious and divisive for "trads" to continue complaining, especially after the universal indult has been granted. Also at my party was a professor of theology, Dr. Robert Fastiggi. He said that it was scandalous and unseemly for "trads" to continue this line of protest by virtue of the principles of Catholic assent to magisterial utterances (even if sub-infallible).
One thing I was definitely trying to do in my entire paper was to overthrow notions such as what you expressed:
"And, as Ben and I have noted, there are other aspects of the Pauline rite that have no historical precident at all or were introduced from dissident influences."
I submit that this has been overthrown, even in my preliminary, introductory paper, since I easily found counter-examples in every case, even the ad orientem issue that you wanted to press (because you probably thought it was your strongest case for non-precedent).
That was the most central reason for the paper: to refute this mentality that the Pauline Mass was revolutionary and literal novelty, in light of past liturgical history.
If you don't like versus populum, then I suggest you take it up with the Holy Father. The original picture for my post showed him celebrating Mass versus populum in Yankee Stadium. Now, why is he so ignorant that he doesn't know as much as you and Ben do: that this is a fundamental violation of an organic development of the liturgy? Any way you look at it, it stinks. If he doesn't know that it violates liturgical development (as you claim), then he is ignorant (and this would be a most remarkable charge leveled at him). On the other hand, if he does know it, he has deliberately gone against this knowledge in how he celebrates Mass, which is even worse, because now he is a hypocrite, causing public scandal.
And this is all the more astonishing if in fact what David Palm wrote in his latest blog post is true: "this Pope is dead serious about work for a widespread restoration of Catholic Tradition. Deo gratias!"
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/20...-two-
rites.html
Or am I a naughty boy to dare question y'all in such a fashion when you disagree with popes? Will I get yet another slap on the wrist lecture about how mean and nasty I am or will you at last grasp the relevance of the analogies that I draw, and seriously grapple with them?
Dear Dave Palm,
Substitute mortal for grave. This Pauline mass is doing mortal harm to the church. THINK what those words mean.
Dave, if you had written say the Pauline mass doesn't enhance catholic spirituality I think that would be ok. But the criticism is much harsher- and goes to the heart of the chruch.
In my opinion a good catholic should never critiise the pope or the heirarchy. As a matter of protocol almost. It sounds bad.
The Pope is the CEO of the Catholic Church. Surely his first responsibility is to stop at once anything that is doing grave, serious, mortal harm to the church.
If it is the case that grave harm is being done to the church then he is at fault. He is in charge. The blame should be laid at his door.
Would you say you are part of a group, a movement, or a faction?
If the Pope and the Majisterium and the Heirarchy of the Church aren't COMPETENT in this liturgical area then who is? I mean it's their job to be competent isn't it?
'I reviewed what I have written in this thread and I don't find any "harsh criticism of the Church".'
It's implicit.
You wrote; 'I wrote, but never disseminated, a paper called "I Agree With Them" in which I cite scholars such as Gamber, the von Hildebrands, Fr. Brian Harrison, Michael Davies, etc'
Those words, 'but never disseminated' does that mean it was risky criticism of the present church and that to publish it would dangerous? I kept it for my iluminated trad friends who understand these things. For their eyes only.
See Dave (in all charity) it's that mind-set, that mentality both I and Dave object to.
I've got to say there is an intellectual pride fast turning into spiritual PRIDE to it. I have a trad friend. At my Parish church he dismised the priests 'what do they know...their simpletons' about what had happed to the Church.
Only we understand where the mass came from, only we have the full knowledge of what it means, only we have the quality of miind to fully appreciate it. Only we are the true catholics.
Sorry, I don't say that's what you believe, but that's where it can lead to
God bless all here,
Ps I listen to CREDO lll everyday, to give me peace.
I've a tendency to be contentious. Just how my mind works. I am a born reactionary in argument. Please Dave Palm reply, I woud like to know what you think about what I have written, but then I maybe will leave a reply. I mean leave off replying. That's my new self-imposed rule. Not to keeping going at it.
Thanks,
In my opinion a good catholic should never critiise the pope or the heirarchy. As a matter of protocol almost.
I think this takes it too far. I don't assert that one can NEVER do this, but only that it should be relatively rare, and only for the most compelling reasons. See my papers:
Laymen Advising and Rebuking Popes
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...king-
popes.html
Are All Catholic Laymen and Non-Theologians Qualified to Freely and Frequently Criticize the Pope's Opinions and Prudential Judgment? (vs. Mario Derksen)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...en-and-
non.html
The Pauline mass was presumably introduced/imposed by Pope Paul. So Pope Paul was guilty of gravely harming the church?
Whether he was guilty of gravely harming the Church I'll leave to God. But yes, de facto, he did gravely harm the Church.
By the way, your attempt to equate grave harm with mortal harm is fallacious. Grave means serious. Serious sins cause the death of the soul, but serious harm to the Church does not cause the death of the Church.
So the present pope and the heirarchy are all gravely harming the church NOW?
The present Pope is just obeying the liturgical laws as he has received them. He can't ram through all the reforms he wants overnight, since many bishops are entrenched opponents of his program and the Catholic masses have become accustomed to Mass being said in a certain way. Nevertheless, he appears to be gradually pulling the Novus Ordo in the direction of Tradition. In so far as bishops resist this program, they are gravely harming the Church. In so far as they cooperate with it, they are doing good for the Church.
I have greatly expanded my section on the offertory procession or "bringing up of the gifts" in response to criticism and challenge from Ben Douglass and David Palm. Thanks for the opportunity of considerably strengthening my argument beyond what it was at first, guys! I think it is great that the weakest parts of one's paper are the ones that are attacked most vigorously. That allows one the chance to go brush up on those portions and to either strengthen the case or retract opinions, as the case may be. I'm absolutely delighted that I could do the former in this instance and also regarding the ad orientem (priest facing the altar or the people) issue.
Meanwhile I continue to await reply concerning my submitted possible counter-examples (in reply to David Palm's challenge), of kneeling, pews, hymnody, and vernacular:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=51759#165954
The addition was added at 1:45 PM EST on 23 June 2008 (Monday).
But yes, de facto, he did gravely harm the Church.
And if he had taken your advice at the time, he wouldn't have done that, right Ben? Perhaps you could apply to be a special advisor to the pope now! We need your help before further grave harm is done!
[ 1) The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. . . . They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite. ]
I agree. Jordanes noted above that this language is juridical. Following the hermeneutic laid out by Cardinal Ratzinger, liturgically we can still speak of two rites, as Cardinal Hoyos has recently done.
[ 2) These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). ]
I agree. In its Latin typical edition there is nothing contrary to the Church's lex credendi in the Pauline rite.
[ 3) We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed", and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary. ]
It is established.
[ 4) The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. ]
I agree.
[ 5) There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. . . . Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness. ]
I agree, read strictly and in the context of what you stripped out in the ellipses (what you left out makes clear that this is an appeal to moderns not to scorn the older rite, not to "trads" concerning the newer rite.)
For my part, I'd like to leave it there. Despite my constant struggle with pride (wanting to appear to "know it all"), I am sincerely wrestling with the issues raised here. Most to the point, I do not see how an appeal to authority--even papal authority--trumps what appear to me to be concrete facts. I hold to all that the Church teaches. But she does not appear to me to teach the view of the exercise of the papal office that seems to be held by Dave and others, namely, that everything approved by the Pope liturgically is by definition an organic development that could not possibly harm the Church. The arguments advanced by others--Gamber, Davies, the von Hildebrands, Fr. Brian Harrison, et al.--seem more convincing to me. I would love to have that discussion. But I strongly sense that this is not the appropriate forum for that. What is that forum? I'm not really sure.
But please forgive me if my tone has been unnecessarily belligerent or disrespectful.
God bless,
The original picture for my post showed him celebrating Mass versus populum in Yankee Stadium. Now, why is he so ignorant that he doesn't know as much as you and Ben do: that this is a fundamental violation of an organic development of the liturgy? Any way you look at it, it stinks. If he doesn't know that it violates liturgical development (as you claim), then he is ignorant (and this would be a most remarkable charge leveled at him). On the other hand, if he does know it, he has deliberately gone against this knowledge in how he celebrates Mass, which is even worse, because now he is a hypocrite, causing public scandal.
This is a false dilemma. Yes, the Pope knows that Mass versus populum is a rupture with litugical tradition. See: http://www.adoremus.org/0500-Rat...-
Ratzinger.html
No, this does not make him a hypocrite, because the practice is licit per se, and it's how most everyone expects him to say Mass.
And if he had taken your advice at the time, he wouldn't have done that, right Ben? Perhaps you could apply to be a special advisor to the pope now! We need your help before further grave harm is done!
Dave, if you had a chance to tell Pope Clement XIV not to suppress the Jesuits, would you do it? Should I mock you for presuming to know better than Pope Clement XIV?
I would love to have that discussion. But I strongly sense that this is not the appropriate forum for that. What is that forum? I'm not really sure.
I've been having rather fruitful, cordial ongoing discussions with Ryan Grant (according to our mutual opinion). So it is indeed possible between so-called "neo-conservatives" and so-called "traditionalists." And that is rather heartening to me after a long history of being called names and being subject to severe criticism from that camp (often due to their misunderstanding of the exact nature of my arguments on this score), so that I had given up on dialogue, for the most part, since the year 2000.
But please forgive me if my tone has been unnecessarily belligerent or disrespectful.
Sure, and please forgive me in this regard, too. As always, my remarks are not intended as disparaging people or their good faith or honesty, but are directed towards positions.
I can say this a million times and try my best to live it out by God's grace, but there still are people who will be offended. What can I say? I'll continue to do the best I can, to make this distinction, and to defend what I understand to the best of my ability, to be Catholic teaching.
This is a false dilemma. Yes, the Pope knows that Mass versus populum is a rupture with litugical tradition.
No, this does not make him a hypocrite, because the practice is licit per se, and it's how most everyone expects him to say Mass.
I see. so you're saying that the Holy Father knows that facing the people is anti-traditional, yet he does it anyway because folks expect him to do so.
So this (great) pope, whom David Palm praises in recent days as undertaking a great reform of the liturgy along lines that are amenable to "trads" -- is so malleable according to present usage that he can't even do what priests routinely do at my own parish, even in the English Mass (i.e., face the altar)?
If he wants to face the altar in his heart of hearts, why in the world should he not do it?
Dave, if you had a chance to tell Pope Clement XIV not to suppress the Jesuits, would you do it?
First of all, it's easy to analyze that situation with the benefit of hindsight. Now, most of us can say he was wrong. Perhaps it was not quite that clear at the time. I highly suspect that it wasn't.
Secondly, as I reiterated above (and not under any direct challenge), I agree that there are rare times when a pope can and should be rebuked, even by a layman. It's happened in history. And the most notable ones who did this are saints.v Whoever is unaware of this doesn't know Catholic history very well. I've been writing about it for many years. It's nothing new in my opinion.
Should I mock you for presuming to know better than Pope Clement XIV?
No, because, again, you and I both have the benefit of hindsight on that situation, which is always a great advantage. If I had been present at the time, I highly doubt that I would rebuke the current pope.
But you think nothing of doing that, even if it contradicts the current pope (one who is, ironically, about the best that "trads" have hoped for).
You disagree with what the Holy Father is saying NOW (i.e., in the last year), in the motu proprio. And this leads you to the absurdities that I pointed out above, regarding facing the people at Mass. You have to play games leading you to conclude what logically reduces to Pope Benedict being a sort of silly, cowardly man who can't even act upon his own expressed preferences for fear of what people might think.
That's an insult both to him and to logic.
Or am I being too critical again, so that I need to shut up and go back to my "neo-conservative" closet and just stick to the contra-Protestant apologetics we all agree on, for the most part? 
By the way, I'm delighted to see that David Palm answered my five questions in ways where I would wholeheartedly agree. Excellent.
Of course, to me that means that one should sensibly cease comparing the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the Roman rite to the detriment of the latter: and that for the good of the Church and unity.
"Trads" have gotten what they wanted: freedom to worship as they please and prefer, and compete latitude for availability of the TM potentially, if not actually, in every parish.
Now, that would seem (to the hypothetical "neutral" observer) more than sufficient to allay their central (?) concerns about the modern Church. But I would have predicted (I don't think I actually did, but I quite possibly COULD have) that this wouldn't be good enough, and that they would continue to gripe and find something in the Church to excoriate.
Looks like I would have been right if I did that, though the new situation seems to have at least taken the wind out of many "trad" sails, and to have stolen a great deal of their fire: which was, of course, part of its purpose. If something is causing schism or significant and troubling sub-schismatic division and discontent (apart from the complex question of causation) and one (i.e., a pope) can do something to lessen that potentiality and tendency, and to strengthen existing Catholic norms and practices, then it is good to do so.
I have been in favor of this latitude in freedom of worship all along. It was wrong to suppress the TM. Likewise, it is equally wrong (and hypocritical, given this recent history) for "trads" to want to suppress the Pauline Mass entirely, in favor of the TM (or to begrudgingly accept it as "valid" and "licit" etc. while constantly running it down).
Mr. Armstrong's most recent post makes me think of the fact that one of the things that has always really bugged me is groups like the FSSP, though I have unfortunately never been able to put into words exactly why this is.
There is something about a group loyal to the Church rejecting a part of Her Liturgy that doesn't sit well. It almost seems like obedience to the letter but not the spirit. I don't want to overstate my point here, and convey the impression that I think these groups are awful, evil, or so forth. That's not what I mean. There's just something that's always bugged me. I wish I could explain better.
For this reason, the MP, recently quoted by Mr. Armgstrong, is very intriuging to me where it declares that " in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books." This is something very similar to the sentiments I have been feeling - or at least related to them in some way.
Peace and God bless
James wrote: [ Please Dave Palm reply, I woud like to know what you think about what I have written, but then I maybe will leave a reply. I mean leave off replying. ]
James, I wrote my last reply before I saw this from you. I agree with what Ben said concerning "grave" versus "mortal." I don't consider myself part of any "group", per se. I call myself a "traditionalist" for the reasons here:
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/
20...atholicism.html
[ Those words, 'but never disseminated' does that mean it was risky criticism of the present church and that to publish it would dangerous? ]
No, that's the funny thing. It's just quotes from sources that are respected even well outside of "rad trad" circles. Stuff from Homiletic and Pastoral Review. From Dietrich and Alice von Hildebrand. From Msgr. Gamber, a liturgical scholar whom the current Pope hugely respects. I have found their arguments persuasive; I agree with them. It seems that their position is a legitimate one in the Church.
I don't believe things that I write are replete with special gnosis only to be shared with the initiated. But alas, I am proud; it's constant fodder for the confessional.
I genuinely struggle with what has happened in the Church. Mine is a constant search for the Grand Unified Theory of "What the Hell Happened?" My blog moniker, The Reluctant Traditionalist, is exactly what I am.
Here's a concrete example for you. Dave said, [ It was wrong to suppress the TM. ]
Okay. But who de facto suppressed it, despite the pleadings of the faithful? And who issued an "indult" for something that a commission of his own cardinals (including one who has become Pope) told him had never been de jure suppressed?
Now, that cardinal-become-Pope has told us publicly that it had never been suppressed and never actually required permission. But we were excoriated (by some of Dave's "liturgical experts") just a few of years ago for arguing that the TLM had never been suppressed and that no priest of the Latin Rite needed permission to say it. We were told then that we lacked the proper deference to the Church's authority for adopting such an obviously wrong position.
Except that we weren't wrong, we were right.
Of course, it's nice to be proven right, at least on one point (and a stopped clock is right twice a day, so I've got one more coming.) But it's not so nice to be considered a traitor in the meantime.
[ it's easy to analyze that situation with the benefit of hindsight. Now, most of us can say he was wrong. Perhaps it was not quite that clear at the time. I highly suspect that it wasn't. ]
I would submit that a lot of things about the liturgical reform aren't clear right now. I do wish for a forum in which one could ask the hard questions and wrestle with them without being suspected of treason.
God bless,
I don't suspect anyone (except maybe Gerry Matatics) of "treason." Perhaps others here may think so, but I don't. For heaven's sake, I even think that Luther and Calvin were sincere persons (as opposed to deliberate rebels and renegades) but with serious error in their thinking. I'm not one to cast aspersions on motives. I deal with propositions and beliefs and premises of same.
If you think I approach these things personally, and think ill of people on a fundamental level, then you don't know me very well (though at one time it seems that you did), and understand my reasoning processes even less.
I think there has been some confusion in liturgical matters, even at the highest levels. We can wholeheartedly agree on that. My own desire is to see all factions move ahead by accepting the Holy Father's Motu Proprio.
I'm not the one to figure out all these little details. I have no desire to do so and I don't feel that I have to. I can't explain all that. I don't have it all figured out by a million miles. But the Church is our Guide and Mother. We've been shown the way to move ahead and beyond this internal conflict.
I think y'all should drop the incessant criticisms of the Pauline Mass. You don't like it. You have huge problems with it. We get that. But you've now been allowed to worship as you want to, without feeling like you're disobedient or sneaking around in the shadows, wondering whether it is right to go to an SSPX chapel and what-not. That's all history, or should be. Let us worship as we see fit, too, without being regarded as second-class, spiritually stunted Catholics who know little about legitimate liturgical tradition. This is divisiveness. Even you are torn to some extent about that, because you've said so more than once. So it can't be absolutely clear-cut for you. Perhaps my approach (which is the pope's: liturgical tolerance and latitude) is the right way to go?
If the "experts" I cited think you were a traitor, then you need to take it up with them, but please don't extrapolate their views on that issue onto me.
I have experience with one of them, actually, of being called "Benedict Arnold" (and a host of other things: an onslaught of astonishing proportions) because I disagreed with him on an ethical issue, so I understand the dynamic, believe me. But I also know that not everyone with whom I disagree is inclined to name-call and escape into self-contained worlds and sealed bubbles, immune from all criticisms and counter-opinions.
Okay Dave, you agree to stop calling Summorum Pontificum a "universal indult" and I'll not mention the Pauline rite until you write another article about it. Deal?
What's objectionable about that, pray tell? It seems neutral enough . . .
Which "that"? The "universal indult" or you article?
By the way, Dave, you really ought to think twice before you take Dom Gregory Dix's word on anything. He involved himself in a great deal of speculative reconstruction of the liturgy of the early Church, much of which you will probably reject. I quote a few samples from The Shape of the Liturgy:
"We have seen that the liturgical eucharist, as it emerged from its association with a meal in the ‘Lord’s supper’, consisted always of four essential acts, all of which were derived from the jewish customs of the chaburah supper: (1) The offertory, the ‘taking’ of bread and wine, which in its original form in the four-action shape was probably derived from the bringing of contributions in kind for the chaburah meal. (2) The prayer, with its preliminary dialog of invitation, derived directly from the berakah or thanksgiving which closed the chaburah meal. (3) The fraction, or breaking of the bread, derived from the Jewish grace before all meals. (4) The communion, derived from the distribution of the broken bread at the beginning and the cup of blessing at the end of the supper of every jewish chaburah. The liturgical eucharist consisted simply of those particular things in the ordinary chaburah customs to which our Lord at the last supper had attached a new meaning for the future. These had been detached from the rest of the chaburah ritual and perpetuated independently. To these the primitive church added a preliminary greeting and kiss, and a single final phrase of dismissal. This is the whole of the pre-Nicene eucharist."
"[T]he institution narrative is originally an addition to the primitive prayer, though an early one, perhaps the very first of all the various items which were appended in the course of time to the primitive nucleus of the Egyptian prayer."
"your" article....oh how I wish your blog allowed editing comments.
By the way, I'm delighted to see that David Palm answered my five questions in ways where I would wholeheartedly agree. Excellent.
Of course, to me that means that one should sensibly cease comparing the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the Roman rite to the detriment of the latter: and that for the good of the Church and unity.
B does not follow from A. David Palm's quotation of Dietrich Von Hildebrand bears repeating here: "[O]ur obedience (as Vatican I declares), but by no means our agreement, is required... In the history of the Church there have been many unfortunate ordinances and practical decisions by popes, which have then been retracted by other popes. In such matters we may, while obeying an ordinance, with all due respect express opposition to it, pray for its elimination, and address many appeals to the pope."
That's my attitude towards the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, in a nutshell. You have heretofore failed to demonstrate any contradiction between the Holy Father's statements in the Motu Proprio and this attitude.
"Trads" have gotten what they wanted: freedom to worship as they please and prefer.
You are thinking in thoroughly subjective categories. The whole thesis under dispute here is whether the Tridentine Mass possesses an objective and demonstrable theological superiority over the Novus Ordo. Given that I believe this to be the case, not only do I wish myself to be able to attend the Tridentine Mass, but I want the entire Latin Rite to return to the Tridentine Mass (and the unreformed Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, etc.), for the greater glory of God and the salvation of more souls.
Likewise, it is equally wrong (and hypocritical, given this recent history) for "trads" to want to suppress the Pauline Mass entirely, in favor of the TM.
I distinguish. It would be harsh and imprudent to suppress the Novus Ordo immediately. It is good and praiseworthy to work and pray that it will be suppressed and replaced eventually.
If he wants to face the altar in his heart of hearts, why in the world should he not do it?
He faces the altar in his private Masses:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-contin...ivate-
mass.html
As for why he doesn't celebrate more ad orientem Masses in public, I can think of a couple of reasons. (1) He does not want his liturgical praxis to be perceived as a sharp rupture from the immediately preceding tradition, i.e., the liturgical praxis of John Paul II. (2) He knows that the ad orientem posture is off-putting to many people (especially women) so he wants to introduce it gradually, laying plenty of groundwork, so that people understand the theology behind it and accept it gladly, instead of resisting it.
First of all, it's easy to analyze that situation with the benefit of hindsight. Now, most of us can say [Clement XIV] was wrong. Perhaps it was not quite that clear at the time. I highly suspect that it wasn't.
When Pope Clement XIV published his bull suppressing the Jesuits, the people of Rome greeted it with silence. When Pope Pius Pius VII restored the Jesuits, Rome cheered. Clement XIV was quite obviously wrong.
Furthermore, we do have historical hindsight concerning the promulgation of the Novus Ordo. That was almost 40 years ago. About 40 years elapsed between Clement XIV suppressing the Jesuits and Pius VII restoring them. If that's enough time to figure out that suppressing the Jesuits was bad policy, it's enough time to figure out that promulgating the Novus Ordo was bad policy.
[ In such matters we may, while obeying an ordinance, with all due respect express opposition to it, pray for its elimination, and address many appeals to the pope." That's my attitude towards the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, in a nutshell. You have heretofore failed to demonstrate any contradiction between the Holy Father's statements in the Motu Proprio and this attitude. ]
I agree.
[ It would be harsh and imprudent to suppress the Novus Ordo immediately. It is good and praiseworthy to work and pray that it will be suppressed and replaced eventually. ]
I agree that outright suppression of the NO would be as unjust and traumatic as was the de facto suppression of the traditional Roman Rite. I also agree with Msgr. Gamber, Dietrich von Hildebrand, and Ben Douglass in praying for the day in which the traditional Roman Rite will be once again the normative Rite of the Roman Church.
[ As for why he doesn't celebrate more ad orientem Masses in public, I can think of a couple of reasons. (1) He does not want his liturgical praxis to be perceived as a sharp rupture from the immediately preceding tradition, i.e., the liturgical praxis of John Paul II. (2) He knows that the ad orientem posture is off-putting to many people (especially women) so he wants to introduce it gradually, laying plenty of groundwork, so that people understand the theology behind it and accept it gladly, instead of resisting it. ]
I agree that these are probably the reasons. Now come on, Dave. There is absolutely no doubt from reading the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger that he believes that the ad orientem posture is superior theologically and historically. Do you think he just abandoned all of that when he became Pope?
God bless,
There is something about a group loyal to the Church rejecting a part of Her Liturgy that doesn't sit well.
I think the FSSP would object to being characterized as "rejecting" the Novus Ordo. They do not say the Novus Ordo as a matter of discipline. However (although you might find exceptions among individual priests), I think the priests of the FSSP would be open, as a matter of principle, to saying the Novus Ordo. I think they would accept that clause of the Motu Proprio.
Speaking for myself, as one applying to the FSSP, I would hope to be able to celebrate the Tridentine Mass exclusively. However, if my superiors ordered me to say the Novus Ordo, I would do so. Also, I can imagine certain circumstances in which I would say the Novus Ordo voluntarily (e.g., a bishop wanted proof of my loyalty).
I added a silly remark from Michael Davies to the "standing and kneeling" section of the post, as of 11:15 PM EST 23 June 2008.
Which "that"? The "universal indult" or you article?
The former.
Dave, you really ought to think twice before you take Dom Gregory Dix's word on anything.
If you think he is such a lousy scholar, then take your own advice and refute him rather than engage in ad hominem. If I went after Gamber like you do Dix you would have a field day. But of course I haven't done that because I try to avoid the Genetic Fallacy.
Given that I believe this to be the case, not only do I wish myself to be able to attend the Tridentine Mass, but I want the entire Latin Rite to return to the Tridentine Mass (and the unreformed Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, etc.), for the greater glory of God and the salvation of more souls.
Then you are completely out of sync with the Mind of the Church, as expressed through the present Holy Father. The fact that this seems to not give you the slightest pause is far more alarming, IMHO, than the erroneous opinion itself.
There is absolutely no doubt from reading the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger that he believes that the ad orientem posture is superior theologically and historically. Do you think he just abandoned all of that when he became Pope?
My queries didn't have to do with whether he believed in the superiority of ad orientem but rather, why he didn't do it if he did believe it? I could just as easily speculate that he thinks both are valid, even if he prefers one over the other. I do that myself. I stated that I was "more or less neutral" on the question, but if pressed I would say I probably preferred ad orientem. But while I prefer it, I don't excoriate versus populum as completely anti-traditional, since it isn't.
Ben,
From my (admittedly limited) understanding of Pope Benedict's Liturgical thought, the concept of surpressing the Ordinary Form would be, to his mind, entirely contrary to tradition. It is by its very nature of having been promulgated by the Church a part of tradition, and constitutes a thread in the unbroken fabric of the Church's Liturgy. I can certainly understand and accept, whether I agree with it or not, the desire that the Pauline Liturgy become the extraordinary form of the Latin rite - to be used when for some reason the vernacular, simplicity, or facing the people is beneficial for some particular set of circumstances - and the Pian (or Gregorian, as it is now becoming trendy to call it) Liturgy come into use as the ordinary form.
However, to desire the supression of the current Ordinary Form would seem to me to fall into the very error for which then Cardinal Ratzinger chided both traditionalists and modernists alike: viewing the Pauline missal as some "new" missal, as some invention rupturing tradition, rather than as a continuation of the same unbroken Liturgy dating back to Gregorian times.
Peace and God bless
Mr Douglass,
'In such matters we may, while obeying an ordinance, with all due respect express opposition to it, pray for its elimination, and address many appeals to the pope."
This has been quoted more than once. Who is this guy? You quote him as if he's some law-giver.
Could it be-that the legalistic phraseology gives you a way to disobey the church and feel ok about it?
And the picture we have of the present Pope. You portray him as a man who LITERALLY doesn't know which way to turn. He's so weak and feeble and befuddled he doesn't know which way to turn. He would like to turn ad orientum but he's concerned how this would be 'perceived' by people.
So there we have it, the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, not focusing on the Sacrificial Offering to The Father, but how things look.
James,
Dietrich Von Hildebrand was a German Catholic philosopher, theologian, and anti-Nazi hero whom Pius XII described as "a 20th century doctor of the Church." His theology of marriage has been heavily influential on the thought of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict XVI recently received his widow, Alice Von Hildebrand, in a private audience, where he praised her later husband's work profusely. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he wrote, "I am personally convinced that, when, at some time in the future, the intellectual history of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century is written, the name of Dietrich von Hildebrand will be most prominent among the figures of our time."
Von Hildebrand is not a law-giver, just someone who knows what he's talking about.
You portray him as a man who LITERALLY doesn't know which way to turn. He's so weak and feeble and befuddled he doesn't know which way to turn. He would like to turn ad orientum but he's concerned how this would be 'perceived' by people.
This is a silly misrepresentation of my argument. I did not argue that Benedict XVI celebrates versus populum because he is "weak and feeble and befuddled." Rather, I argued that he chooses to celebrate versus populum for carefully considered prudential and pastoral reasons.
My queries didn't have to do with whether he believed in the superiority of ad orientem but rather, why he didn't do it if he did believe it? I could just as easily speculate that he thinks both are valid, even if he prefers one over the other.
There Dave goes again with the subjective language of preference. The Pope doesn't merely "prefer" the ad orientem posture, he believes it is theologically superior.
Dave,
Before you tell us what the Pope thinks about a subject, maybe you should find out. The question of ad orientem liturgical posture is addressed in his book, The Spirit of The Liturgy. Ben is right.
Also, injecting the word "valid" into the debate on a question of liturgical orientation simply muddies the waters. Of course facing either direction is "valid" why, its even "licit" but that does nothing to address which direction is better.
Incidental to discussions of liturgy and traditionalism, everyone should pray that Bishop Fellay et al. over at SSPX accept the conditions offered by the Holy See (which they must do by the 28th) and return to full, complete communion.
[ Which "that"? The "universal indult" or your article? The former. ]
Okay. The phrase isn't appropriate because an indult is, by definition, a special permission to do something contrary to the norm. The Holy Father has made it clear that the traditional Latin Mass was never suppressed and therefore no "indult" is (or ever was) needed to celebrate it.
[ Could it be-that the legalistic phraseology gives you a way to disobey the church and feel ok about it? ]
James, neither Ben nor I have in any instance advocated disobeying the Church here. Why heat things up like this?
[ But yes, de facto, he did gravely harm the Church.
And if he had taken your advice at the time, he wouldn't have done that, right Ben? Perhaps you could apply to be a special advisor to the pope now! We need your help before further grave harm is done! ]
Dave, there were many pleading with the Pope at the time not to do what he did, including prominent cardinals and archbishops, as well as many priests and laypeople (even prominent non-Catholics!) They warned him that his course would harm the Church. Now, especially in hindsight, we see that they were right. And there were ample warnings from Tradition that such radical liturgical change would have disastrous effects (I have documented some of this in my piece cited above.) If Ben aligns himself with those who hold this legitimate position, why the need for such sarcasm, as if he is arrogating all of this to himself alone?
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:
"setting it [the new Missal] as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision" (Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977, p. 148 ).
It is not difficult to identify who is ultimately responsible for setting the new missal as a new construction over against what had grown historically. The firm impression was given to all the faithful that the traditional Latin Mass had been officially suppressed. This impression was officially reenforced by the promulgation of a series of "indults" giving "permission" to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass. (There is a fascinating account of the so-called "Agatha Christie indult" here: http://www.latin-mass-society.or....org/
themil.htm ). In my opinion this has indeed caused us "enormous harm". I do not see how making these connections should be taken as any sign of disloyalty or disobedience.
And yes, let's pray that the SSPX can soon be reconciled to the Holy See. The longer that goes on, the less likely that becomes.
God bless,
Hi John,
Before you tell us what the Pope thinks about a subject, maybe you should find out. The question of ad orientem liturgical posture is addressed in his book, The Spirit of The Liturgy. Ben is right.
Before you tell me what you falsely think I believe about what the Pope thinks about a subject, maybe you should read what I wrote!:
"I see. so you're saying that the Holy Father knows that facing the people is anti-traditional, yet he does it anyway because folks expect him to do so.
"So this (great) pope, whom David Palm praises in recent days as undertaking a great reform of the liturgy along lines that are amenable to "trads" -- is so malleable according to present usage that he can't even do what priests routinely do at my own parish, even in the English Mass (i.e., face the altar)?
"If he wants to face the altar in his heart of hearts, why in the world should he not do it?"
* * *
"My queries didn't have to do with whether he believed in the superiority of ad orientem but rather, why he didn't do it if he did believe it? I could just as easily speculate that he thinks both are valid, even if he prefers one over the other. I do that myself. I stated that I was "more or less neutral" on the question, but if pressed I would say I probably preferred ad orientem. But while I prefer it, I don't excoriate versus populum as completely anti-traditional, since it isn't."
* * *
To me, the most plausible explanation is that he thinks both postures have support in tradition, but ad orientem is his own preference. If he thought versus populum was "bad" then he wouldn't do it. But he doesn't think like "trads" do in the first place. He becomes a hypocrite only if false "trad" categories of thought are superimposed or projected onto him.
THAT was what I was getting at, but "trads" have to "get out of their own heads" (i.e., presuppositions) to realize what my argument was in the first place. Instead, I get non sequiturs back, and so the discussion can't make any progress until each side comprehends the other's position . . .
Hi David,
And there were ample warnings from Tradition that such radical liturgical change would have disastrous effects
Of course I deny your premises:
1) That the Pauline Mass is "radical liturgical change" in the first place. My long paper defending it was designed to overthrow this assumption by establishing that it had precedent in Tradition at all points.
Precisely because this is the case, the Holy Father has reiterated that it is normative and ordinary. He could have just as well suppressed it. He had jurisdiction to do so just as Paul VI had the prerogative to promulgate a revised Mass. But he didn't. And that cannot be discounted as of no import.
2) That the "disastrous effects" stemmed from the (wrongly perceived "radical") Mass rightly celebrated, as opposed to liberal abuses of same (and of Vatican II). "Trads" continually conflate abuses of the Mass with the Mass itself. This drives me nuts, but there is little I can do about it; it's a fallacy so thoroughly entrenched in y'all's thought.
Now, when you quote the current Pope from his cardinal days, I can't tell without more context whether he is talking about the Pauline Mass per se or the corruptions of it wrought by the liberal dissidents. It's a crucial distinction. Here again, you assume that he is talking about the thing itself. I suspect that he was not.
For example, in The Ratzinger Report [1985], Messori cites his words from a 1975 article:
"It was right and proper to open up the liturgy to the vernacular; even the Council of Trent saw it as a possibility. Furthermore it is simply untrue to say, as certain integralists do, that drawing up new forms of the Canon of the Mass is a contradiction of Trent."
(p. 120)
Other words from the same article are clearly talking about abuses:
"It follows that we must be far more resolute than heretofore in opposing rationalistic relativism, confusing claptrap and pastoral infantilism. These things degrade the liturgy to the level of a parish tea party and the intelligibility of the popular newspaper."
(p. 121)
Then Cardinal Ratzinger reiterated that he hadn't changed his mind ten years later. Then his 1981 book, The Feast of Faith is cited:
"One shudders at the lackluster face of the post-conciliar liturgy as it has become, or one is simply bored with its hankering after banality and its lack of artistic standards."
(p. 121)
Again, I think this is clearly talking about the Pauline Mass as practiced, not per se. Cardinal Ratzinger made this very clear in his comments in the 1985 interview, referring to:
". . . the contrast between what the authentic text of Vatican II says and the way in which it has been understood and applied." (p. 122)
Referring to the issue of liturgical language:
"This is another of those cases which are all too frequent in recent years, where there is a contradiction between, on the one hand, what the Council actually says, the authentic structure of the Church and her worship, the real, contemporary pastoral requirements, and, on the other hand, the concrete response of particular clerical circles." (p. 123)
. . . neither Ben nor I have in any instance advocated disobeying the Church here.
It's not so much outright disobeying, as it is a stubborn refusal to conform your thinking with that of the Holy Father, in the broad terms of a proper liturgical pluralism and tolerance. The pope thinks in the usual Catholic terms of "both/and": ordinary and extraordinary forms. You and Ben and "trads" in general reject that and continue to think in pseudo-Protestant "either/or" ways: the Pauline Mass is bad or inferior and the Tridentine is superior.
To continue to harp on this, against the expressed Mind of the Church (through the Holy Father) is to cause needless division and to maintain the "quasi-schismatic" attitude that I have critiqued for years. It's not technically or legally disobedient; it's not technically schismatic (very typical of the non-radtrad "traditionalist" mentality, as I note over and over in my book on the subject), but it is NOT good; it sows discord and division, and this is altogether unnecessary, especially now, when you have been granted the freedom and legal right to worship at Tridentine Masses.
You can't complain about being deprived of your "liturgical rights" (pun half-intended), but you can continue to complain about how rotten the ordinary form of the Mass is. What possible good can come of that, seeing that it has been stated in no uncertain terms that the Pauline Mass will continue to be celebrated as the ordinary form of the Roman rite?
You'll just continue to reinforce your ironclad image (that I know you can't stand) of negative pessimists, complainers, grumblers, never-satisfied malcontents. Now, I agree, many times "trads" (those who aren't radtrads. like you and Ben) are unfairly characterized and accused. I don't agree with that when it is done to anyone, but I'm saying that if you keep up this futile fight against the Pauline Mass, it won't do YOU any good (in terms of image and goals sought after) and it won't do the Church as a whole any good.
Thanks for "listening," and for sharing your opinions on my blog. Long live dialogue!
[ the discussion can't make any progress until each side comprehends the other's position ]
This goes both ways, Dave. You have characterized your opponents' view of the Mass celebrated versus populum as "bad" and "anti-traditional". But I tried to make it clear at the start of this thread that this position is a strawman. The argument isn't that it is intrinsically wrong and it is conceded that there are certain churches here and there where the architecture brings this about (although you have still overstated your case, since, again, the people would also turn to face East for the Holy Sacrifice, so they were not facing each other.)
For my part, I would submit that the questions on the table would be 1) was the introduction of the almost universal celebration of the NO Mass versus populum an organic development in the liturgy that was certainly required for the good of the Church and 2) is the ad orientem orientation superior theologically, traditionally, and pastorally? Certainly Ben and now John (I hope) can add to that as necessary, but I do think you've mischaracterized our position as well.
No surprise that to those questions I would answer No and Yes.
Point taken.
However, the most plausible explanation is not what you've said but rather that His Holiness is a prudent gradualist.
Versus Populum has a terrible pedegogical effect on the modern faithful--there is a reason most of those that used it in the early Church eventually abandoned it and I feel quite sure that they lived in societies less dedicated to solipcism than our own.
However, a rapid, jarring change (like the post VII "reforms") is more dangerous and, indeed, more immediately dangerous to unity and the souls of a poorly educated, "me first" laity than facing the people at mass. After all, the damage is already mostly done on that score.
The Pope is concerned about saving as many souls as possible and driving as few away from the Church as he can. As is proper. He is shifting things slowly but surely in a more traditional direction to avoid excessive conflict.
Eventually, the progressives and maybe even the conservatives will wake up to find that their world they've taken for granted for so long isn't their world anymore. Only by then, it will be too late and there won't be any good reason for them to fight.
Mr. Palm,
I want to make sure that your use of Cardinal Ratzinger's quote is understood for what he intends by it, and taken in the context of his overal Liturgical thought. You quoted him as saying:
"setting it [the new Missal] as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision"
From this passage alone, I believe it is possible to understand his true meaning, but it is especially clear when taken in the context of other things he has said:
"Hence those who cling to the “Tridentine Missal” have a faulty view of the historical facts. Yet at the same time, the way in which the renewed Missal was presented is open to much criticism. We must say to the “Tridentines” that the Church’s liturgy is alive, like the Church herself, and is thus always involved in a process of maturing which exhibits greater and lesser changes. Four hundred years is far too young an age for the Catholic liturgy - because in fact it reaches right back to Christ and the apostles and has come down to us from that time in a single, constant process. The Missal can no more be mummified than the Church herself. Yet, with all its advantages, the new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual grown process. Such a thing has never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth, and it has resulted in the nonsensical notion that Trent and Pius V had "produced" a Missal four hundred years ago. The Catholic liturgy was thus reduced to the level of a mere product of modern times. This loss of perspective is really disturbing. Although very few of those who express their uneasiness have a clear picture of these interrelated factors, there is an instinctive grasp of the fact that liturgy cannot be the result of Church regulations, let alone professional erudition, but, to be true to itself, must be the fruit of the Church’s life and vitality.
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
Hi Dave,
I'd like to steer around the ad hominem and neologisms and stick to the issues.
You have said that, "It was wrong to suppress the TM." It seems that you hold that view in light of the recent motu proprio.
Would you concede, then, that it was one of Benedict XVI's predecessors who de facto suppressed it, giving every public impression that it had been done de jure (by issuing highly restrictive "indults" for example)? And the next who reenforced the impression of a de jure suppression by issuing further "indults" (even after being told by his own cardinals that no such de jure abrogation had happened)?
How could there help but be the impression of one Missal set over another when one appeared to be officially suppressed by the Church's highest authority?
If it was wrong, in your opinion, then how is it that you know better? You have upbraided us for such an attitude.
What I'm suggesting here, Dave, is that there are facts that won't go away through a simple (but technically flawed) appeal to authority. It is uncomfortable to look at them, one can indeed become saddened by them, but facts don't change because we wish things were different. Presenting them does not make one a bad Catholic, just a realist I think.
Is what I'm saying about the de facto suppression of the TLM right or not? If not, please explain.
God bless,
I have another question, Dave, which I ask in all sincerity and seriousness.
What was the true mind of the Church in 1989? That an indult was required to celebrate TLM, or that it had never been abrogated and so no indult was required?
"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."
The Cardinal's problem with the new missal is not that it itself creates a rupture with Liturgical tradition, or that it is a new construction that was invented by somebody, but that it was presented and introduced to the faithful as if that were the case. "This is the new Mass, that was the old Mass."
I do not believe that even the total surpression of the 1962 Missal would have been opposed to these sentiments from the Cardinal. When Pius V promulgated his missal, it was not presented as some new missal that was to be followed, to the exclusion of all older missals. Rather, it was presented as being the same missal as those various forms that were in use at the time, but the official and reformed version of it.
Pope Benedict believes that grave harm was done to the Church by presenting this as a new Mass, rather than doing what Pius V did: presenting the "Pauline Missal" as being the same missal as the 1962 missal, but merely being the now official and reformed version of it.
Rather than saying "this is the new Mass," it ought to have been said something like (I'm not attempting to put together a perfect statement here), "the Church has cleaned up the Mass, and some parts of it will be a bit different." The way we celebrate Mass will be changing a bit, rather than, we will be celebrating a new Mass.
This is so critical because of the very nature of the Mass. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. The Mass celebrated today is the very same Mass celebrated at the Last Supper. Yet, when the faithful is given the impression that the Mass is being done away with and a new one instituted, this can grossly distort the notion of what Mass is. Rather than being reforms in the one eternall Liturgy, it appears something more akin to moving between two different Protestant groups and worshipping in an entirely different way - moving between a traditional Presbyterian group and a rockin' evangelical service. They are not the same thing
They are not the same thing. It gave many of the faithful the impression that there was nothing special about the Mass, and that it was just a different way of doing the same thing Protestants do, rather than an entirely different, eternal, continuous prayer.
I think that sometimes, those who are so in favor of the 1962 Missal actually miss this, which is the entire reason it is so important. They perceive it merely as a matter of "this Mass is better than that Mass," and fall into the very same errors that many of the faithful did with the proulgation of the "new" missal. In the extreme, this leads to things like believing that the "novus ordo Mass" is invalid, or somehow less pleasing to God. If this were so, then that would mean that there could be some list put together of all the different Liturgies throughout all the rites of the Church, ranking them from most pleasing to God to least.
That's utterly absurd: the Mass is the Mass is the Mass. It is today - in B16's thoughts - the same Mass today as it was in 1900 and in 1500 and in 1000 and in 500, and that is a sense that must be recaptured.
This is why I believe that Ratzinger wrote that "Hence those who cling to the “Tridentine Missal” have a faulty view of the historical facts." This is critical, guys. If you spend all your time focusing on the prayers, the rubrics, the motions of the Missal, you're missing the pope's whole point, and you're missing the great cause of harm to the Church that truly needs fighting.
This is not to say that these various rubrics and prayers don't matter. I agree with many of the criticisms of the Ordinary Form, at least in some way. I believe ad orientem posture ought to be the norm. However, the way that the Pope is very, very, very slowly implementing all of these things - why he has not celebrated ad orientem publicly, for example - is to prevent doing the very same thing that he faults the institutors of the Ordinary form with. He has to help people to realize that the two missals are not indeed two missals, but that there is a continuity between them. Who is to say he may not expect the Extraordinary Form from falling out of use, or even eventually being surpressed lawfully? I believe his purpose in all of this is not so much about supporting the EF, but about showing that the EF and the OF are really the same Mass, andso celebrating them side by side is no contradiction.
Peace and God bless
Hi David,
You wrote on 6-22:
The question on the table is this: is the almost universal adoption of this orientation in the celebration of the NO a result of organic liturgical development and a legitimate application of Vatican II, or does it represent a liturgical novelty and an abuse of ecclesiastical authority?
As I understand it, Vatican II didn't discuss the issue. As for the development vs. novelty question, I would say this: ad orientem (as I continue to study all these things, and it is a new area for me) was clearly predominant. And, of course, it had completely prevailed in terms of the Tridentine Mass these past 450 years. So in that sense there was (at the very least) a change of direction (I swear I didn't intend that as a pun! .
The task I set for myself in my defense of the Pauline Mass was to find if all these changes could be backed up by Tradition (since there are accusations that they have "NO" precedent: at least in some cases). Obviously it is a question of degree and extent in many cases, and reasonable people can disagree (as indeed we are doing).
So how do I defend versus populum (insofar as I wish to do so at all, and it's really not something I wish to fight about or for)? Just as I in fact did: there were at least some precedents. Though it was a minority position of all times and places, still I think it is highly significant that it was in Rome where the priests (and popes) faced the people. I understand that it was still ad orientem because the priest was facing east, and that the people turned east when they prayed, but at least this is some significant precedent for the priest facing the people. And that was all I was trying to point out.
In other words, once again, this was not some radical, completely new proposal from dissident catholics and their fellow traveling liberal Protestant opportunists.
And that was apparently at least part of the rationale for adopting the practice (I haven't delved into all that). As I am essentially neutral on the question (only slightly favoring ad orientem: which is how they do it at my own very traditional parish), it's not that big of a deal to me, but I have no objection whatsoever if someone prefers ad orientem. If the pope decrees that all Masses shall henceforth be performed in that way, that's fine with me. I would have no objection whatsoever. I only object to the continued running down of the versus populum orientation.
Granted, once again the lines can be very fine. You would say, "hey, our preference has a lot more historical precedent and should, therefore, be given the pride of predominance or the normative status." This is a respectable argument.
I guess I would throw something out as a possible argument along these lines.See what you think of this (and it gets into my great love of the topic of development of doctrine). Fr. William G. Most has noted (I showed this in a paper of mine about salvation outside the Church) that there were two simultaneous strains of thought in the patristic period about salvation outside the Church: a "strict" line (leading to Unam Sanctam in 1302) and a more "open" strain that spoke of those technically outside of the Church still being able to possibly be saved (that I would argue is a straightforward application of Romans 2). Even St. Thomas Aquinas made many indications of the latter position.
The Church traditionally has followed the more strict approach (as one would expect, especially after the advent of Protestantism). And of course, now the more open approach has become more prominent with the (authentic Catholic!) ecumenical movement and Vatican II.
The question is whether this is a contradiction, or a corruption as opposed to a development? I submit that it may properly be regarded as a paradox (like many theological doctrines), with different emphases stressed at different times for various reasons. It's NOT the case that one position has all the support in Tradition and the other has none. That's what makes it an interesting question to discuss.
BOTH have support in Tradition, as Fr. Most has documented. Both can draw from Tradition and claim to be legitimate developments of same. I think this is because it is a very complex, nuanced issue (like predestination, the nature of God, and other such "heavy" issues). The complexity leads to the controversies and entrenched position-taking: one against another. But is it really necessary to adopt an "either/or" mindset?
No. The solution, IMO, is to acknowledge both aspects of what is ultimately the same truth: two sides of the same coin. The Church has done this. The Church is ecumenical, but the Church has also reasserted the more "hard-line" approach in Dominus Iesus. This is not a cojtradiction. It's perfectly harmonious. I knew the Church taught both things all along, but many want to make out that the Church was either "universalist" or (on the other pole) almost Feenyite. So some folks are scandalized by Dominus Iesus and some are shocked and offended by, say, the Assisi conferences. I enthusiastically embrace both and refuse to set them against each other.
Now, keep that in mind as an extended analogy. Now we go back to the "priestly direction" issue. We have seen that ad orientem has more support in Tradition than versus populum. But the latter has significant support in Rome (of all places). Apparently it was also the case in St. Augustine's Hippo and St. Charles Borromeo's Milan. This is significant and can't be cavalierly dismissed! Popes in Rome and Augustine? That is something that has to be given weighty consideration.
So, on this issue, you ask in your latest post:
"1) was the introduction of the almost universal celebration of the NO Mass versus populum an organic development in the liturgy that was certainly required for the good of the Church."
And, following the reasoning above, I can answer that it was an organic development of one strain of liturgical tradition (that of Rome, Milan, and Hippo, and wherever else it was practiced). Why can't one argue that "we prefer the form of the Mass, as it was performed at Rome by popes." What's wrong with that? It's not like this is a dogma, where there is no variability allowed. No; there is liturgical diversity. The Church has 22 rites. Therefore, it has support in tradition and can be seen as a legitimate development from these instances.
Ad orientem also is a consistent development. Both of them are; that's why both are practiced. But since versus populum (as I understand it) wasn't expressly stated by either Vatican II or Pope Paul VI's liturgical proclamations, it is not essential to the Pauline Mass in the first place.
So it can be eliminated if that is the will and mind of the Church. But at the same time I refuse to accept the notion (from wherever it comes: talking generally now) that versus populum is a brand new novelty, unsupportable from Tradition.
I hope we can discuss this, as I think it may possibly offer a way or "model" of analysis that both sides can discuss without rancor.
Hi Shane,
Mr. Palm is my father. I'm just David. You raise many excellent points, with which I really hope to interact.
I would ask some clarifying questions:
[ "This is the new Mass, that was the old Mass." ]
Would you agree or not that this precise impression came from the Church's highest authority?
[ Pope Benedict believes that grave harm was done to the Church by presenting this as a new Mass, rather than doing what Pius V did: presenting the "Pauline Missal" as being the same missal as the 1962 missal, but merely being the now official and reformed version of it. ]
But now, Shane, it is my impression that the Holy Father has settled this question by making official that we do indeed have two missals, two separate liturgical calendars, etc. in the one Roman Rite. This is why even Cardinal Hoyos can speak of the TLM as a separate liturgical rite (the "Gregorian Rite"). This has existed in the Latin Rite before, with the Dominican rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Carthusian rite, the Roman rite, etc. all co-existing within the one Latin Rite.
Unless I have missed something, I don't think it's possible anymore to speak of "the 'Pauline Missal' as being the same missal as the 1962 missal, but merely being the now official and reformed version of it." Rather, I think it's clear now that we really do have two separate missals and two liturgical rites in the Latin Rite.
What do you think?
Hi David,
I'd like to steer clear of your mistaken accusations of alleged ad hominem attacks and stick to the issues.
You have said that, "It was wrong to suppress the TM." It seems that you hold that view in light of the recent motu proprio.
Indeed, but only partially so, because I've been in favor of what was stated in the Motu Proprio for many years. Remember, I have been liturgically traditional for 17 years at my parish (my entire time as a Catholic): attending the Latin Mass all that time (before you were even a Catholic, let alone a professed "traditionalist"). For this reason Ryan Grant reconsidered his categorization of me and acknowledged that I did indeed care about small "t" tradition (the opposite of his original assertion that drew me to his site in the first place, via a Google search).
Would you concede, then, that it was one of Benedict XVI's predecessors who de facto suppressed it, giving every public impression that it had been done de jure (by issuing highly restrictive "indults" for example)? And the next who reenforced the impression of a de jure suppression by issuing further "indults" (even after being told by his own cardinals that no such de jure abrogation had happened)?
I think what can be plausibly argued (and it is just speculation, mind you) is that these popes went slowly in that matter as a result of existing circumstances (the alarming modernist crisis and disobedience of bishops in the implementation of liturgical reform).
In other words, what John and Ben have stated about the Holy Father regarding ad orientem can just as easily be applied to JPII and PVI with regard to the indult proclamations. They wrote:
JOHN: "the most plausible explanation is . . . that His Holiness is a prudent gradualist. . . . The Pope is concerned about saving as many souls as possible and driving as few away from the Church as he can. As is proper. He is shifting things slowly but surely in a more traditional direction to avoid excessive conflict."
BEN: "he chooses to celebrate versus populum for carefully considered prudential and pastoral reasons."
Ben argues the same about the Pauline Mass:
"It would be harsh and imprudent to suppress the Novus Ordo immediately. It is good and praiseworthy to work and pray that it will be suppressed and replaced eventually."
How are the two scenarios different? If you argue that Pope Benedict is going slowly to prevent more problems from occurring, then I can argue the same about former popes and the various indults. It was (quite arguably) prudent to introduce the return to the Tridentine Mass (in practice / de facto) gradually, too. Same difference. People are prone to a black and white / dichotomous mentality (just as Louis Bouyer has insightfully critiqued Protestantism). And popes are wise to take that into consideration in their actions.
How could there help but be the impression of one Missal set over another when one appeared to be officially suppressed by the Church's highest authority?
I think the entire situation was (as so often) screwed up by the liberals and spineless or dissident bishops. The popes had to work around that as best they could, as in many other issues, whether Catholic education, or errors in moral theology, liberation theology, contraception, etc. It's a question of how to best and prudentially do that. It obviously takes many years.
If it was wrong, in your opinion, then how is it that you know better? You have upbraided us for such an attitude.
My attitude (as an obedient, faithful, magisterial Catholic) was directly based on Vatican II, that said the Latin should always be continued. That's not my opinion; it is the extraordinary magisterium. Obviously I agreed with that, as shown by my choice of parish and absolute rejection of all the liturgical nonsense that is out there (that was a gross distortion of Vatican II and the intentions of the entire orthodox liturgical reform movement: folks like Bouyer and the Holy Father himself).
I think recent popes had the same opinion. Cardinal Ratzinger was expressing it in The Ratzinger Report in 1985 (a book that I read with great interest around 1991 or 1992). JPII's enthusiastic reception of "traditionalists" and willingness to allow greater availability of the TM showed this. He was being prudent. The Motu Proprio reinforced it. All through that period I have been in accord with the Mind of the Church and not some loose cannon. You guys are doing that, because you keep thinking in terms of the Pauline Mass being a terrible thing and inferior, and not actually a form of the Roman Rite.
(cont.)
Nice try, then, but no cigar. You'd have more success going after "neo-conservatives" who don't care a whit about "little t tradition" and who would have taken a position through the years against making the TM more available, and putting it down as an antiquated museum piece.
That guy ain't me. I'm at the only parish cluster in the Detroit area that had a Tridentine Mass under the previous indult prior to a year ago. This would be the parish (cluster) where you yourself would have attended if you had lived around here.There was no other alternative for those who preferred the TM.
What I'm suggesting here, Dave, is that there are facts that won't go away through a simple (but technically flawed) appeal to authority. It is uncomfortable to look at them, one can indeed become saddened by them, but facts don't change because we wish things were different. Presenting them does not make one a bad Catholic, just a realist I think.
(cont.)
I'm perfectly realist: there is a sensible way to deal with the modernist crisis and an imprudent, impulsive way. I have faith that the Church will overcome it in due course (it's a ways off yet) and that the popes know what they are doing. I'm a realist without losing my sunny optimism and faith and idealism.
I'd contend that "trads" OTOH, are realists who have a lack of faith that the popes are in control, and in the Mind of the Church to some extent, and who therefore conclude (based on false premises) that things are a lot worse than they are (and they are bad enough in reality).
It's the "quasi-defectibility" mentality. The Church can't go off the rails, but she is hanging over the railroad truss by one tiny cable, dangling over hell.
Okay, maybe some of you think she is hanging by two cables . . .
Perish the thought! This is only one of many crises the Church has endured through the centuries. God will overcome it, just as He has all the others.
You guys think we have our heads in the sand. We think your brains are in the sand (logical problems) and that you suffer from a tunnel vision lack of faith and historical perspective. Nothing personal, I assure you. You say lots of things about us, and invent pseudonyms such as "neo-conservative" and "neo-Catholic" for plain old orthodox Catholics like myself, so don't complain when you get a bit of your own medicine and I use terms like "quasi-schismatic" and "quasi-defectibility."
Is what I'm saying about the de facto suppression of the TLM right or not? If not, please explain.
I've tried to do my best to explain how I look at it. Much of it is speculative, but I think it is entirely plausible, from what I know, and it is partially a direct analogy to what John and Ben have argued concerning Pope Benedict and ad orientem, and about the Pauline Mass. So if my reasoning is rejected, then theirs must be rejected too, by analogy.
I have another question, Dave, which I ask in all sincerity and seriousness.
Fire away!
What was the true mind of the Church in 1989? That an indult was required to celebrate TLM, or that it had never been abrogated and so no indult was required?
I think that "behind the scenes" Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger and others who were serious orthodox Catholics, wanted to gradually reform the liturgy, and saw that encouraging more celebration of the TM was one clear way to do that and to also discourage schism and quasi-schism from "trad" factions. In order to start the process going, the method of granting indults was utilized. Now the Holy Father has brought the process around full circle, to get back to a true liturgical pluralism, just as he has always advocated. So there was an aberration de facto. The question is why that occurred and what the strategy was to overcome it. I don't have all the answers by a long shot, but to me my speculations are perfectly plausible fr
(cont.)
from what I do know about high-level Church operations.
I think it was a brilliant strategy (if indeed it was the strategy) that has borne good fruit already and will continue to do so. If the SSPX comes back in then that will be solid evidence that the Church has been able to minimize the nonsense (as well as legitimate concerns) that emanate from "traditionalist" quarters.
Now, I've patiently answered all of your questions. I'll ask for about the fifth time whether you will interact with my four counter-examples brought on by your challenge (pews, kneeling, hymnody, and the vernacular)?:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=51973#165954
This is the last time I'll ask. If you ignore it again I'll assume that you definitely have no answer and that I was successful in overcoming your objection and meeting your challenge.
[ Do we have any examples prior to the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms in which a liturgical innovation introduced into the Church, **with the intention of undermining the Church's teaching**, was in that very historical context sanctioned by the Church?...But are there examples prior to the 1970s of dissident/heretical groups agitating for practices that they knew undermined Church teaching and discipline, only to have these practices actually adopted by the Popes? ]
[[ Would kneeling qualify? I know my sources traced that to the early Middle Ages, ]]
No. You didn't provide any evidence that kneeling was pushed by any dissident/heretical groups in order to undermine Church teaching and discipline.
[ Church pews might arguably be another counter-example. According to the first article I found in a search, they were introduced in the 14th century and rapidly grew in use in the 15th. Before that, worshipers either stood or sat on backless seats. ]
Ditto.
[ This article claims that the Protestants emphasized pews as facing towards the pulpit, which was their big thing. ]
Have you ever been in a church in which the pews didn't face the pulpit?
Again, you haven't provided any evidence that pews were introduced by groups into the Catholic Church specifically to undermine Church teaching.
[ Another area is, I submit, hymnody. Were not the (rather glorious) hymns of Charles Wesley et al sung in the Catholic Church before the 70s (not to mention all of the wonderful Bach liturgical music)? ]
Were the hymns of Charles Wesley or the liturgical music of Bach specifically written to undermine the Church's teaching? If not, then they don't qualify.
[ Vernacular is yet another. The Protestants understood that very well. ]
This is your best example. Having some vernacular in the Mass was completely uncontroversial, even among very traditionally-minded Council Fathers such as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (not to mention Abp. Lefebvre, who also signed SC.) But as you have pointed out above, the all-vernacular Mass is in violation of the strict text of Vatican II (although the loop-holes let it through.) The case can be made that it was indeed liturgical revolutionaries who imposed it on the people, then rammed it through to obtain Vatican approval. I would argue that the all-vernacular Mass was actually a non-organic and rather traumatic change.
In sum, it seems that our modern era appears to be the first time in Church history that liturgical innovations introduced into the Church with the intention of undermining the Church's teaching were in that same historical context sanctioned by the Church. As Ben has said, just because something is not intrinsically sinful does not mean doing it won't cause harm. Caving in to dissidents and making official the very practices they have introduced to challenge Church teaching demoralizes the faithful and confuses the ignorant, at the very least.
Thank you.
[ How are the two scenarios different? If you argue that Pope Benedict is going slowly to prevent more problems from occurring, then I can argue the same about former popes and the various indults. It was (quite arguably) prudent to introduce the return to the Tridentine Mass (in practice / de facto) gradually, too. Same difference. People are prone to a black and white / dichotomous mentality (just as Louis Bouyer has insightfully critiqued Protestantism). And popes are wise to take that into consideration in their actions. ]
How does the initial suppression of the TLM fit into this analysis?
...initial de factor suppression....
Hey Dave,
I was pondering this on the way home. See if this is at all helpful.
Picture a liturgy celebrated in Latin, with Gregorian Chant in pride of place and drawing from the Church's treasury of sacred music, the priest facing ad orientem, genuflecting when he passes the Tabernacle, all male altar servers, all male lectors, the Consecration said according to the Roman Canon, Holy Communion received by kneeling recipients on the tongue.
It's not a TLM, it's the NO at your parish, as you have described it.
Now imagine another NO said, still according to the approved rubrics, all in English using the Vatican-approved but now admitted-by-the-Vatican-to-be-problematic vernacular translation, priest facing versus populum, all female servers, all female lectors, all modern music, priest not genuflecting as he passes the Tabernacle (now approved), all of the "may" provisions taken in the rubrics so that he ad libs at all of those places, he wanders from the pulpit into the nave during the homily (approved), Consecration done according the least distinctive Eucharistic Prayer he can find, Holy Communion received in the hand by standing recipients. This is your typical Sunday morning experience for perhaps 98% of all Catholics. (Maybe I've missed a few details.)
Please remember, there are no actual abuses in what I have described. Everything I've cited is approved.
The two liturgical expressions are night and day from one another. One is distinctively, unmistakably Roman Catholic. In the other, the actually distinctive Catholic content is approaching zero--it is rapidly approaching a service that many Protestants would find perfectly amenable.
It is still valid. It is still the Mass as Shane has quite rightly pointed out.
But I personally would argue that the first is objectively superior to the second in terms of preserving the Roman Church's venerable liturgical tradition, in expressing the fullness of the Catholic Faith in word and deed, and in instilling by example a holy reverence in the parishioners.
Two abuse-free Novus Ordo Masses. Huge difference. One objectively superior to the other (I would argue) in the ways described above.
If all Novus Ordo Masses were as they are in your parish, we would not be having this discussion because it would be pointless. If the liturgical reform had been enacted along the lines of what is done at your parish we would not be having this discussion.
Do you see what I'm getting at? I would gladly defend your parish as objectively superior to what happens in 99.8% of all other parishes in the world. I don't think that the Holy Father's motu proprio compels us to heartily embrace the second example as hunky dory.
Does this help at all?
If all Novus Ordo Masses were as they are in your parish, we would not be having this discussion because it would be pointless.
I would still be having this discussion, since the text of the Tridentine Mass is still theologically superior to that of the Novus Ordo, regardless of how well the Novus Ordo is celebrated.
[ I would still be having this discussion, since the text of the Tridentine Mass is still theologically superior to that of the Novus Ordo, regardless of how well the Novus Ordo is celebrated. ]
I mean prudentially, Ben. If the Mass were celebrated as at Dave's parish, at that point I do believe the theological richness of the TLM would speak loudly to many priests and they would begin to ask themselves, "Why am I not just saying that rite?" And the upheaval among the people would be relatively mild as well.
the Mass is the Mass is the Mass.
I distinguish. In every Mass, Christ's act as High Priest in worship of the Father is identical. Not every Mass is equally spiritually fruitful on earth.
Your thesis proves too much. If the Mass is the Mass is the Mass in every respect, then a Mass celebrated by a Catholic is equal to a Mass celebrated by a schismatic, a Mass celebrated by a saint is equal to a Mass celebrated sacreligiously, a Mass celebrated reverently is equal to a Mass celebrated irreverently, etc.
How does the initial suppression of the TLM fit into this analysis?
The bishops and local priests did that. The problem then became (given the hijacking of the liberals) how to promote continuance of Latin (in either form).
Does this help at all?
Yes. I think it is thought-provoking, and interesting in that you laid it out with things that are all approved.
Not all things in the examples are as much issues to me, though, as they are to you. I'd contend that one could approve or personally prefer the first, more traditional form of worship while not necessarily looking down on the other as inferior.
I've attended, e.g., charismatic Masses at Al Kresta's and Steve Ray's parish that were, I thought, just as reverential and pious and edifying as the Masses in my church. Very different, but both good. I didn't feel a need to run those Masses down. This my "liturgical pluralism."
So to use your examples:
all in English using the Vatican-approved but now admitted-by-the-Vatican-to-be-problematic vernacular translation,
Lousy translations are bad, but it's not the worst thing in the world, just as you can read a lousy Bible translation (like, IMO, the NAB) and it's still the Bible and anyone could benefit from it.
priest facing versus populum
If popes in Rome did this, and St. Augustine, sounds pretty "traditional" to me.
all female servers, all female lectors
We've been through this. I'd say having all females would be the weird thing, because that seems too far in favor of innovation. I'd feel like I was in a feminist haunt or something . . .
all modern music
Depends on what kind of modern music. Say it was John Michael Talbot. If it was me, I'd be more moved to worship and spiritual reflection from that than I am from Mozart (that is often played in my parish), because I often find the latter to be boring (not being a big fan of the classical period of music, and much more the Romantic). So this becomes a matter of personal taste and aesthetics, to a large extent.
priest not genuflecting as he passes the Tabernacle (now approved)
That's weird. Why would that be approved, pray tell? What document is that from? This is the one that offends me the most.
all of the "may" provisions taken in the rubrics so that he ad libs at all of those places
Could be excessive and objectionable and too "priest-centered" . . .
he wanders from the pulpit into the nave during the homily (approved)
I don't see that this is necessarily a bad thing. We had one priest in our parish who did that at times. It was never hokey and silly. It was just his style or oratory. We have the old-fashioned overhanging pulpit, which is also into the nave . . .
In the days before microphones, this could help people to actually hear the homilies at all.
Consecration done according the least distinctive Eucharistic Prayer he can find,
Well, you're assuming that some of those are bad prayers, which is debatable.
Holy Communion received in the hand by standing recipients
All received standing in the early Church, and many by the hand.
So sure; I prefer my church, but I don't draw the contrasts as starkly as you do. At this point, as the TM is allowed more and more widely, let's just watch and see what happens. If my own choice was between goofy Pauline Masses (with actual abuses) and the TM, I would choose the latter every time. As it is, I like the reverent, traditional Pauline Mass that we have at our parish.
But if people start flocking to the TM, then this will have an effect, I think. If it causes revivals in parishes in the way that apologetics or powerful, Spirit-filled orthodox homilies sometimes have, then that will be a wonderful development.
I will say this: in these discussions I have thought a lot more about liturgy than I ever have, and I think I understand a lot more now where "trads" are coming from in this area, and have more respect for the position. In many ways, I am closer to you regarding liturgy, than to most non-"trad" Catholics.
It's true that in a sense I have been "spoiled" by the spiritual and aesthetic excellence of my parish, so that I could take that for granted and didn't have to think much about it. If I had to endure mediocrity and goofiness and heterodoxy every Sunday I think that would have a huge impact on me; not that I would be a "trad" but perhaps I would have considered liturgy a lot more than I have up till now, and would "resonate" a lot more with that aspect of the outlook and concerns you guys present.
OTOH I would be so disgusted I'm sure I would drive as far as I possibly could to get to a good parish.
Well, you're assuming that some of those are bad prayers, which is debatable.
Dave, you're arguing in the wrong categories here. All of the traditionalists in this thread have deliberately framed our comparison of Rites in terms of superiority and inferiority, i.e., of greater and lesser good, not, I repeat not, in terms of good and bad.
David,
I refered to you as "Mr. Palm" because you share the same forename as our gracious host, and I wished to avoid any confusion. Noting the difference between David and Dave, I will no longer identify you as your father.
I would certainly agree with you that some of the highest authorities in the Church gave the precise impression that Cardinal Ratzinger repudiated. This is an interesting point which I hope may lead to further personal reflection and interpersonal discussion, because I am not sure why you would approach the question from this angle. Our discussion is about the Liturgy of the Latin rite, it's nature, it's identity, and its merits and demerits - not the hierarchy of the Church. There appears to be some necessary connection in your thought (in the post to which I am replying as well as others) between the Liturgy itself as an objective entity and those promulgating and celebrating that Liturgy as subjective persons. In other words, even when we are discussing the Missal in and of itself, your thoughts still seem to tie it to those involved in it.
This is very reminiscent of discussions of I have had with other "traditionalists" (pardon the term - it seems to be the one in use here and I really don't know what else to call the group) in which the Mass itself could not be seperated from the celebrants in their minds. One such person posted all sorts of photos of clown Masses and other such things and a lengthy discussion revealed an unbreakable and certainly irrational identification of the Ordinary Form with these abuses and the priests committing them. I am not referring to the common claim that the post-VII Missal "encourages" or "permits" abuses (a claim which I myself find logically and factually absurd), but to an even deeper identification: the "Mass of Paul VI" is Fr. Smith, and it is a clown suit, in this person's mind. The most interesting thing is that the rest of his comments very directly contradicted this notion, and yet he still put it forth. It seemed very much like he did not even recognize the connection in his own thoughts. He reminded me of a trauma victim who does some action literally without even knowing they are doing it.
Now this person was extreme, but I have seen the same general sort of thought in almost alll of the "traditionalists" I have ever spoken to - some unwarranted identification - not connection, but a true one-to-one identification - of the OF with Fr. so-and-so and abuse X. I mention all of this because I believe I see a minor trace of this in your own thoughts - though please understand I do not accuse you of extremes or absurdities such as the individual I mentioned.
This is something I believe to be very worthy of prayerful meditation... it is a fascinating trend. Perhaps in the "traditionalist" mindset this identification does in some way exist. I do not know.
But now, Shane, it is my impression that the Holy Father has settled this question by making official that we do indeed have two missals, two separate liturgical calendars, etc. in the one Roman Rite. This is why even Cardinal Hoyos can speak of the TLM as a separate liturgical rite (the "Gregorian Rite"). This has existed in the Latin Rite before, with the Dominican rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Carthusian rite, the Roman rite, etc. all co-existing within the one Latin Rite.
Unless I have missed something, I don't think it's possible anymore to speak of "the 'Pauline Missal' as being the same missal as the 1962 missal, but merely being the now official and reformed version of it." Rather, I think it's clear now that we really do have two separate missals and two liturgical rites in the Latin Rite.
I do not believe that this follows at all. For one thing, this would mean that in the days prior to the Pian reform, there were several different rites and missals. However, Pope Benedict has repudiated this view. The missal of Pius V was not some new creation, but the renewal of the same Liturgy that was present before his reform. The various missals in use were truly the same missal, and the wide range of differences required a consolidation at the time.
In fact, I have read one person argue (it may even have been on one of these posts - I simply don't recall!) that the situation piror to the reforms of Pius may have been better, but that the Protestant reformation necessitated uniformity. Uniformity, this person said, is not necessarily desirable in the Liturgy, and it is not a requirement for unity of liturgy. Diversity of Liturgy truly may be the prefence. I believe that this may actually have been Ratinger of Benedict, or at least someone drawing from his writing. This would seem to me to be very consistent with many comments he has made about diversity in Liturgy, and some of his comments about his being pleased with the diversity in Eucharistic prayers and other parts of the Ordinary Form.
In any case, Benedict would not consider those various forms of the Mass prior to Pius V's reforms to have been different rites. They were different forms of the Latin rite, and hence he has chosen to identify the "Pauline" missal and the "Pian" missal as two different forms of the same rite, rather than two different rites. They are both the Latin rite, but simply different forms.
The Holy Father rejects the notion of two different rites, and consideres the "two" missals to be two forms of the same, one missal. Let me try to explain what I mean - this is actually a way of viewing the issue I have yet to see anyone present, and so I wouldn't be surprised if you had not thought of it up until now (or if you had - I don't claim to be a doctoror a prophet ).
Imagine, for a moment, that the EF did not exist and all that we have had for centuries is the OF (a painful thought for you, I am
Imagine, for a moment, that the EF did not exist and all that we have had for centuries is the OF (a painful thought for you, I am sure :p)
Now in any given celebration, the OF can licitly look very different. It may begin with a procession, or without one. The Confiteor may be said, or the priest may omit it and move straight to the Kyrie. Alternatively, the entire thing might be ommitted and replaced with an aspersion rite. There may be one reading and the gospel, or there may be two readings and the gospel. The Offertory may follow immediately, or be preceded by a homily, or by a homiliy and the Credo. The priest may say the offertory outloud and the people respond, or he may do so silently. At this point, any number of prefaces and Eucharistic prayers might be said. Incense may be used for the altar, or the Gospel, or both, and so on.
There are a tremendous number of possibilities - any number of these options may be exercised in any number of ways. The Mass may look in some ways very different from one day to the next - though the overall structure is the same. However, this is one missal - not many. It is one missal with any number of possibilities as to what it will look like, the particular parts that will be present, and the way in which these will be present in any given celebration.
Now let's forget about the Ordinary Form, and simply look to the EF. It, too, can look different from one celebration to the next, but in a much more restricted way. There are only a few possibilities for how an EF can look. Yet it can look different, while it is still the same missal.
I believe that Pope Benedict's vision is exactly what I have just been discussing. There is one rite - one missal, with an "old" form and a renewed form of it - that can look different in any number of ways. A low Mass, an ordinary form with an aspersion rite, an ordinary form with every last bell and whistle, a high Mass, a sung Mass, an ordinary form with no homily, etc. etc. etc. All one rite, one missal, but with different parts, in at times different orders, just as in the one Pauline Missal.
In my understanding of Benedict's Liturgical thought, this is what he is envisioning, and this is what he is trying to achieve. Note the similarity between his terminology - ordinary form and extraordinary form - and the terminology of pre-Vatican II days - high Mass and Low Mass. All one missal, different forms. This is his vision because of all that I mentioned above: the importance of recognizing the continuity and the unity of the Liturgy. There are not two Masses, as the hierarchy at times led people to believe (intentionally or mistakenly), but rather one Mass, with two forms.
Peace, and God bless
Hi Shane,
[ I would certainly agree with you that some of the highest authorities in the Church gave the precise impression that Cardinal Ratzinger repudiated. ]
I appreciate this.
[ This is an interesting point which I hope may lead to further personal reflection and interpersonal discussion, because I am not sure why you would approach the question from this angle. Our discussion is about the Liturgy of the Latin rite, it's nature, it's identity, and its merits and demerits - not the hierarchy of the Church. . . . I have seen the same general sort of thought in almost alll of the "traditionalists" I have ever spoken to - some unwarranted identification - not connection, but a true one-to-one identification - of the OF with Fr. so-and-so and abuse X. I mention all of this because I believe I see a minor trace of this in your own thoughts ]
It is not an angle that I wish to dwell on much here, for fear of generating more heat than light. How to say this delicately, without seeming to level some sort of "counter-accusation"......? Let's put it this way. I have always believed that a father is primarily responsible for the state of his family. The buck ultimately stops with him. I have not been able to follow the tack taken in much contemporary apologetics which places the responsibility for the state of our Catholic family on anybody and everybody, except the father. I don't believe Papa is responsible for everything, but I don't believe Papa is responsible for nothing. The need to "prove" that in certain venues is my own weakness.
I'd prefer not to say any more about that.
God bless,
I wrote: [ I don't think it's possible anymore to speak of "the 'Pauline Missal' as being the same missal as the 1962 missal, but merely being the now official and reformed version of it." Rather, I think it's clear now that we really do have two separate missals and two liturgical rites in the Latin Rite. ]
Shane wrote: [ I do not believe that this follows at all. For one thing, this would mean that in the days prior to the Pian reform, there were several different rites and missals. ]
But there were! See below.
[ However, Pope Benedict has repudiated this view. The missal of Pius V was not some new creation, but the renewal of the same Liturgy that was present before his reform. The various missals in use were truly the same missal, and the wide range of differences required a consolidation at the time. . . . In any case, Benedict would not consider those various forms of the Mass prior to Pius V's reforms to have been different rites. They were different forms of the Latin rite, and hence he has chosen to identify the "Pauline" missal and the "Pian" missal as two different forms of the same rite, rather than two different rites. They are both the Latin rite, but simply different forms. ]
Well, in my latest blog posting I pointed out that Cardinal Ratzinger used parallel terminology in a talk given to Una Voce in 1998. In that talk he spoke of different "forms" within the Latin Rite, but also spoke of them as different "rites" (he lists some half a dozen or more.) In that same talk he speaks of the TLM and the NOM as being two rites. I have suggested that this may be a hermeneutical key to understanding SP. Jordanes offered the very helpful comment above that the language of SP is juridical and this provides the legal basis for any priest of the Latin Rite being able to use whichever Roman rite he chooses (whereas, for example, he cannot simply decide to say the Ukranian rite.)
[ The Holy Father rejects the notion of two different rites, and consideres the "two" missals to be two forms of the same, one missal. ]
I have reread SP and I really beg to differ. In articles 1 - 3 the Holy Father speaks consistently of two Missals.
I have more than once mentioned Msgr. Klaus Gamber in this thread. I continue to find his arguments that the TLM and NOM are two separate litugical rites within the one Roman jurisdiction compelling (and I really do urge a reading of his book.) Basically, the Pauline rite has a different Offertory prayer, different Canons, different propers, a different calendar, different rubrics, etc. At this point I do not see how that can be anything other than a separate liturgical rite.
If in the future the Church insists unambiguously on what you have laid out here, then I will seek understanding and will of course submit. But while your interpretation of SP is certainly possible, I do not see that mine is excluded.
God bless,
I'll take ya up on your offer to buy Gamber for me, David (thanx!). Drop me an e-mail and I'll give ya my home address.
I'm also gonna read the book by Whitehead and Likoudis: The Pope, the Council, and the Mass that was recommended to me by Robert Fastiggi:
http://www.amazon.com/Pope-Counc...14443944&sr=1-
1
If in the future the Church insists unambiguously on what you have laid out here, then I will seek understanding and will of course submit. But while your interpretation of SP is certainly possible, I do not see that mine is excluded.
But this is a characteristic problem of the "trad" outlook: you guys always appeal to "ambiguity." Everything (well, past 1963) seems to be "ambiguous" to you.
[ I'm also gonna read the book by Whitehead and Likoudis: The Pope, the Council, and the Mass that was recommended to me by Robert Fastiggi ]
I'm actually surprised that Dr. Fastiggi would continue to recommend that particular work, given how soundly several of its main theses have been discredited by current events.
[ I'll take ya up on your offer to buy Gamber for me, David (thanx!). Drop me an e-mail and I'll give ya my home address. ]
Done. I hope you find it a worthwhile read.
God bless,
Commenting by HaloScan
