I vastly prefer a well-done Novus Ordo Mass in Latin
This may well explain why you find the attention given to this issue disproportionate. If one believes a) that the Liturgy and how one worships are at the very center of public Christian life and of the utmost importance, and b) that the Novus Ordo is defective and substandard in itself and not merely in its abuse--although abuses make things much worse--then this question becomes of the utmost importance, being about whether Catholics are allowed to worship in the best way, rather than in a merely "adequate" or "valid" way.
I'm not a Traditionalist but I do agree with them on this issue. Personally I'd much rather see the "Tridentine" Mass widely celebrated in the vernacular than for the standard to become "a well-done Novus Ordo Mass in Latin". How well-done it is, which again is extremely important, still doesn't change what is being prayed, and in this respect the N.O. is highly inferior.
Mike,
I like your "take it slow, with a raised eyebrow" approach, and encourage the embrace of tradition - and not traditionalism - that I believe the MP will foster.
That being said, I would be interested in hearing your take on why the MP was needed in the first place. What the Pope giveth, he can taketh away. Or in this case, he tooketh away, and now giveth back. Is this a legitimate concern?
(And, on another level, as I hope it would be irrelevant, would you answer this differently if the question was not arising from one of your Orthodox fans? Or have I discredited the issue merely by raising it? I can't seem to get a response from other Catholics in blogdom, and if you think that's the reason, let me know.)
In the short term there will not be a vast increase in the number of Tridentine Masses. I think that it is reasonable to conclude that the number will increase 4 fold to 10 fold worldwide within the next twenty years, if the rules remain as they now are. For one thing, there are some conservative Catholic countries in Africa and Asia and some conservative dioceses in South America in which one may find that bishops encourage a large minority or even a majority of Masses to be Tridentine. Not to mention the fact that there has been a well publicized increased interest among your new seminarians in Latin and older liturgical forms. One thinks of hip young priests like Fr. Jim at Dappled Things and his ilk. I think it quite possible that one in ten coming out of American Catholic seminaries in years to come will be able to do the Tridentine Mass. If that is the case, the number of such Masses will increase in America significantly.
All that said, I do not think this will radically help the liturgical crisis within Catholicism, and, for different reasons than you, I also see this as a move which Pope Benedict pretty much had to do but which comes with pros and cons. But I go into that and other issues related to the MP on my blog, and will not bore the good people here.
You mention the revised lectionary. One vast improvement in that area, at least in the US, would be to dump the NAB for the Catholic Edition of the old RSV; for my money, it is the best English translation available.
Michael:
Among the aspects of the N.O. I said I liked, I did not mention "what is being prayed," by which I assume you mean mostly the propers, since the Ordinary has changed much less, and in my opinion for the better. I agree with you that the collects and certain other prayers of the Tridentine Mass are superior to those of the N.O; and I wouldn't at all mind seeing many of them integrated into the N.O. as a "reform of the reform." But I really don't think the matter has the importance you give it.
In either form, the Mass is the Mass; indeed, when the N.O. is done as it should be, what's essential to the Mass is more perspicuous, at least to me, than it was in the Tridentine. In childhood I felt like a mere spectator at the latter, and did so even in adulthood when I learned Latin well enough to understand what was being said. I've never felt that way with the N.O. I also find the Tridentine "High" Mass way too stuffy for my taste. But all of that is just that—a matter of taste. Even the theological content of the prayers can be communicated in other ways.
In short, I don't believe anything of cosmic significance hinges on this.
Best,
Mike
Stephen:
I would be interested in hearing your take on why the MP was needed in the first place. What the Pope giveth, he can taketh away. Or in this case, he tooketh away, and now giveth back. Is this a legitimate concern?
I thought I'd already indicated why the MP was needed: As a matter of tactics, it is probably the only way to bring closer that "reform of the reform" which Joseph Ratzinger has long thought necessary. I think such a reform necessary too. For myself, I'd much prefer that it be done directly, using some aspects of the Tridentine Mass as inspiration, rather than bringing the older form back as a standard option; but that's no more common a preference than the N.O. in Latin, which not many Catholics seem to be interested in, even though it's the normative form. So the Pope is probably right that we'll have to rely on the Tridentine Mass, at least for the time being, to make people more aware of the great tradition of liturgy than they are now.
For the record, Ratzinger was always pretty appalled by what Paul VI's liturgical commission came up with. He never thought the Tridentine Mass should be, in effect, suppressed, and he didn't think the N.O. should have been as different as it turned out to be. But JP2 wasn't that interested in the liturgy wars, and so it's only now that his old right-hand man is getting the chance to do something serious about the problems.
This is just a first step.
Best,
Mike
Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
Mike,
I agree with you that the Church's hopes for the long term involve the reform of the reform, not just the availability of the Tridentine use, and I definitely think that this is intended to be a catalyst towards that; Benedict implies as much in his letter to the bishops.
However, it seems to me you focus too much on the negative aspects of the Motu Proprio, i.e., allowing Catholics opposed to the council to attend the Tridentine Mass with good conscience. That presumes that most of the Catholics who seek the old use are opposed to the Council. That certainly is one significant demographic, but as the Pope's letter to the bishops made clear, there are also plenty of others who simply love the Tridentine use as a liturgy, and this particularly includes young people. Myself and many of the other seminarians I know fit in this category.
As Fr. Newman pointed out a few months ago, for the younger breed of clergy, the Tridentine use is attractive in large part because it gives an instant solution to problems like bad liturgical music, sanctuaries crowded with lay ministers in secular attire. The Tridentine use also gives an instant inroad for ad orientem celebration, and avoids issues of translation. In sum, the Tridentine liturgy, even aside from the merits of its prayers and rubrics, which I think have much to recommend them, has all the elements which we would like to see in the modern liturgy, but which the culture in most parishes makes very difficult to achieve. The Motu Proprio won't change all that, but it does instantly give a certain respectability to practices that most Catholics had previously been taught to regard as outdated unworthy of consideration. In that regard, Pope Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity" has just received a huge shot in the arm.
Finally, it seems to me that the traditionalist world often has the attitude it has because their legitimate desires have been treated so dismissively by the hierarchy. Hopefully, this huge gesture of goodwill on Benedict's part will lead them to come out of the ghetto and take a more positive role in the Church's life, rather than cementing them in their disdain for the post-Vatican II Church.
Michael H:
Huh? I mean, all but one of the "instant" solutions you suggest the extraordinary form provides is something that could be "instantly" adopted in any parish today.
Unless you are suggesting that a young priest who is working at a parish with a pastor who is against these things is going to be more willing to see the TLM held at the parish than the young priest adopt those changes in the mass he celebrates at the parish. The only one that obviously is of a different character is the translation issue.
I hate to speak the harsh truth, but here it is: in North America, the MP will have little effect. There's just no general demand for it.
I hope for the positive effects on both uses that some think Pope Benedict has in mind for proposing this MP and I hope that traditionalists do start to adopt a more positive attitude. But I generally must agree with Mike L. The coverage of this will be so disproportionate to its impact. At least here in the U.S.
I'm not so sure, Jack: I tend to agree with Michael Houser (though I think "instant" is an overstatement).
My wife's parish is as jejune an expression of AmCath as you're likely to find. Not long ago, though, the choir began chanting, post-Communion, a traditional, Latin musical piece almost every week, like clockwork. Why?
I prefer to think this action, well-publicized even in advance of its release, played a role. I think the liturgy should be served in the vernacular, but my hope is that, in any case, Summorum Pontificum is going to represent pressure from the liturgical right that can't be ignored.
As to "no general demand:" give the traditionalists time to work. The publishing of the motu proprio is only the end of the beginning.
I know of a particular seminary in a venerable Irish-Catholic city where a good number of the seminarians really dig the Old Mass, and assignment to indult parishes are coveted.
I guess what I'm getting at is the understanding and acceptance among Catholics that the Pope does indeed have this vast power and the right to exercise it; it just doesn't seem to be an issue that what one Pope can take away, another can give it back, and yet a third may very well take it away again. As Pertinacious Papist said on his blog, "Our response: prayers of petition for what needs changing, and prayers of unceasing gratitude for whatever good gifts we've been given."
The passivity is what is so striking.
Stephen:
As a Catholic, what I find so striking is that polarization within the Church which takes the form of resisting papal directives for opposite reasons.
As I've often pointed out before, there are two kinds of educated Catholics: those who, like me, follow the "hermeneutic of continuity" developed by the popes since Vatican II; and those who, like the progressives on the Left and the traditionalists on the Right, follow a "hermenutic of discontinuity." Thus the progs have regularly accused John Paul II and Benedict VXI of seeking to restore the so-called "pre-Vatican-II Church," as if there were, diachronically, two churches; the trads have regularly accused those popes of gutting traditional doctrine and practice, thus cementing the rupture between the pre- and post-Vatican-II Church, as if there were, diachronically, two churches. The reality, of course, is that the imagined two churches are really one and the same Church, and that the present and previous popes have both tried to preserve continuity amid reform. Benedict's latest directive is an example of that, which is why I like it.
Within the Church, the parties of discontinuity do not appreciate the project; outside the Church, it is rarely and barely understood at all. Your reaction is typical of those in the latter category. I shall continue to do my best to dispel such misimpressions.
Best,
Mike
Michael Sullivan says: I'm not a Traditionalist but I do agree with them on this issue. Personally I'd much rather see the "Tridentine" Mass widely celebrated in the vernacular than for the standard to become "a well-done Novus Ordo Mass in Latin".
This is what some of us who were then only teenagers had hoped would happen after the VII reforms. We had it in our St. Joseph Missals. All that was wanted was to celebrate the Mass as it was then in English with the congregational actaully assisting. Alas, we got instead the "dialogue Mass" and a lot of activity with somewhat less deep devotion.
Charis & shalom,
robert+
Fr. Greg says: One vast improvement in that area, at least in the US, would be to dump the NAB for the Catholic Edition of the old RSV; for my money, it is the best English translation available.
You can say that again. One very good thing about the N.O., though, has been the re-inclusion of regular readings from the Old Testament. Also, the recitation of the Psalm following is not a bad idea were it chanted by clergy and congregation standing, with concluding doxlogoy.
Charis & shalom,
rlb+
Mike L says: In either form, the Mass is the Mass; indeed, when the N.O. is done as it should be, what's essential to the Mass is more perspicuous, at least to me, than it was in the Tridentine. In childhood I felt like a mere spectator at the latter, and did so even in adulthood when I learned Latin well enough to understand what was being said.
I felt the same way too--still do. But this is because the congregation had become to passive with all the work of the Litrugy being done by clergy and acolytes. It doesn't have to be that way. Put it in polished English and get the chanters, choir and congregation involved as we do in Orthodoxy and you will see a transformation.
rlb+
Commenting by HaloScan
