"A congregation of liturgical philistines may lack the religious sensibilities to perceive what is properly there. Just as in art, one has to learn what to look for, to be properly habituated to the sensibilities appropriate to what is expressed in the Mass."
As one of the Philistines and "pew peasants", I await your list of proper sensibilities so that I might understand them properly thereby joining the ranks of the Pharisees. Please translate the list into English following the enhanced translations approved by Dummett. And here all I really wanted was a "feel-good" Mass sung by Abba!!! 
Nice pictures; gives things a good contrast.
The reasons Catholics do things are not always consonant with the art criticism of the realist schools.
The fact is that the "New Rite" is normative for Roman Catholics. That's all. That's the objective standard.
Dr. Blosser rightly frames an analysis of the relative merits of the old and new rites. Feelings are indeed subordinate to "objective properties of the rite and ritual itself...are the majesty of God, the holiness of His Sacrifice, the divinity of His Presence on the Altar expressed by the Mass?" I agree completely.
But the pictures Dr. Blosser chose to include of the new rite set up a straw man. Of course the new rite celebrated in these ways fall short of the Tridentine Mass based on the objective standards I would use. However, Dr. Blossers's implication would be less persuasive had he instead included a picture of Pope Benedict celebrating the new rite. An even better example is the Society of St. John Cantius in Chicago, a Latin Mass order of priests that offers the "Missa Normativa" every morning and which is spectacular.
The Tridentine Mass may or may not be uniformly superior to the Norvus Ordo based upon objective criteria. More likely they each win "points" based on a variety of objective criteria and I believe one may "prefer" one to another based on the relative importance an individual places on the various criteria used. In any event, an honest comparison must look at the "best" of each Mass (new and old) to be both fair and accurate.
"Missa Normativa." Sounds so much better than "Novus Ordo."
Bah! A virtue of the so-called "old" mass was its uniformity. It always "looked" the same. The "new" mass does not. Sometimes it looks fairly normal; other times, it looks like a bazaar in downtown Baghdad. Its lack of uniformity, which its defenders prefer to think of as tailoring to the expectations of the people -- "vernacular" in the broadest possible sense -- is a big part of the problem.
So how to picture it? Instead of the "best", which is a meaningless concept in NO, since opinions vary, [Doug on one end of the spectrum, clowns, ballerinas, grunge rockers, and pizza delivery boys on the other], why not "typical" as the criterion? The "typical" Tridentine Mass would not look terribly different than the "best" Tridentine Mass. Can you say the same of the NO? Of course, you can't -- that is why you're complaining.
I'm not saying there's no room for "reform of the reform." I think that is exactly what's needed. Not because there is anything wrong with the Missa Normativa (Missa Normativa, Missa Normativa) that some good textual work like Dr. Pristas' can't fix, but because at the same time the liturgy changed, our anthropology changed. And seminaries goofed. So now we have sll sorts of nonsense that, if you read the book, is not there. If it is, I'll give you a goat.
all sorts of nonsense
(pizza delivery boys. You crack me up, man.)
At first blush, I am sympathetic to Ralph's comments. However, the logic stikes me as the same as my Evangelical Protestant friends and family who judge Catholicism based on the "witness" of dissident or disinterested Catholics. I am forever urging them to judge the Ancient Faith based on what She actually teaches, not some bastardization of the Truth. So, I still maintain that you must judge the new rite by the prescribed manner of celebration. Abuses must be vigorously confronted, which requires courage and hard work. I am under no illusions. It will be a long and painful fight and I (at age 36) will certainly not live to see a widespread "reform of the reform."
Finally, I must say I frequent Tridentine Masses and I've been to MANY where the priest celebrated Mass like he had a rapidly approaching tee time. Rushed. Hurried. Perfunctory. Not as bad as clowns or interpretive dance, but bitterly disappointing given my much higher expectations.
The fact is that the "New Rite" is normative for Roman Catholics. That's all. That's the objective standard.
Maybe you could expound on this. I can readily agree that the current rite is "normative," but in what sense is it the "objective standard"? Isn't an objective standard something that cannot change or be improved upon? Or is it just that whatever rite of the Mass happens to be current is the objective standard for the laity, but not for the clergy who are responsible for making ritual changes? If the bishops of Vatican II thought that their then-current rite could be improved, then was there something wrong about pre-VII laity thinking the same thing? I'm a bit confused (obviously); please explain.
Well, I held up the liturgical joy and beautiful singing of the Indonesian community here in Tokyo (poor migrants) and as a result I exposed them to the scorn of the esthetes here. Are these people, filled with the Spirit, to be dismissed as liturgical philistines? What about inculturated African liturgies -- which the vernacular has made possible? Even a Latin Mass can be richly adorned with dancing, singing etc that allows the riches of present spiritual culture to be unfolded -- I cite, for instance, the Mass in St Peter's Square for the beatification of Mother Teresa. Schoolmasterish censures are not the way to encourage a living, vibrant liturgy. Also, have you ever taken part in Jewish liturgies? The spirit of communal joy is the vehicle of the divine presence there, a presence that is familiar, familial, caring for God's people, not stiffly cast in the mold of ultra-transcendent majesty and numinosity. I suggest that contemporary Judaism gives us some hints to understanding what biblical festivals were like, and consequently what the Christian passover-meal should be like.
As usual, Fr. O'Leary has completely missed the point.
Others: With as many legitimate "options" as there are in the Missal of Paul VI, it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between a well celebrated Mass and a poorly celebrated one. Therefore, a Missa Normativa is, largely, a matter of more or less God-centered celebrant and liturgy committee.
Objectively, the Missal of Pius V is a better vessel, even if the amount of available grace is the same in both cases.
I presume you are comparing the LATIN texts of the Pius V and Paul VI masses. How you come to the judgment that OBJECTIVELY the former is a better vessel of worship is unclear to me. Would you be able to assess the comparative objective method of the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox liturgies as well? Could you put in a nutshell your principal REASONS (not just indignant fuming) for your confident judgment that the Novus Ordo is objectively inferior to the Mass of Pius V? You differ on this point, as you know, from the Vatican and from the world's episcopate; so your reasons should be pretty solid.
Or to put the question to Ph Blosser: on what basis do you claim that the Novus Ordo (in Latin) is confused in its symbolism and failing to reflect divine presence, holiness of the Sacrifice etc.? You say these defects are objective -- so please point out exactly where you find them? And exactly where the Pius V mass is clearer in its symbolism or more powerful in its testimony to the holiness, real presence etc?
Realist former Convergent,
Sometime I'd like to know the significance of your interesting name, if you wouldn't mind sharing that. I've been curious for a while but never troubled to ask.
As to proper sentiments and all, you state quite humorously that here all you wanted, after all, was "a 'feel-good' Mass sung by Abba!!!" That was cute. I suppose I might suggest a kind of eschatological test of what I mean: imagine the Parousia, the return of the King (and I'm not talking Tolkien here). Were HE to enter, as promised, in all His glory, I wonder whether the "'feel good Mass' sung by Abba would be the order of the day.
Kathy, you write: "The fact is that the "New Rite" is normative for Roman Catholics. That's all."
But that's not "all," of course, as many others here have suggested, and as you conceded when you acknowledge room for the "reform of the reform." The trouble is that the "new rite" is far from being an established rite, but something more like a continuing experiment. As I've said before, there are three identifiable Roman rites since Vatican II, as far as I can tell: (1) the Traditional Mass of the 1962 Missal permitted under the Indult, (2) the reform of that rite mandated by the Vatican II document, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and (3) the Novus Ordo of the 1969 Pauline Missal, which, even before the myriad innovations were introduced since 1970, was nothing like the reform of the Mass mandated by the Council Fathers.
The current Novus Order, of course, includes countless compromises -- numerous practices, first introduced as abuses by dissenting groups, subsequently mainstreamed and normalized by Vatican approval, such as female altar servers. These are all now part of what you call the "objective standard." On top of that, of course, are numerous other overlooked current abuses, which may or may not be normalized and officially approved in time (who knows?)-- such as the 8-10 Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion who practically eclipse the role of the priest as nearly every Mass.
But it's not merely these latter abuses in the "current rite," that are problematic. The Holy Father himself, as Cardinal Ratzinger, offered numerous criticisms of the Pauline Mass of 1969, such as its introduction of the versus populum, as well as criticisms of the document, Sacrosanctum Concilium itself. The fact that something is currently considered a normative discipline hardly means it is above criticism, as I'm sure you will agree.
I have to laugh out loud at Kathy... Her opinions are not based on anything other than various types of strictly emotional disagreements. Where is the content? How can you honestly expect to be taken serious in a dialogue about this very complicated topic by replying with apparently unsubstantiated opinion?
I do have to agree with Doug whose point is well stated. The New Mass - note, not the Missa Normativa (yet another innovation ex nihilo) - can and is celebrated in some ways with equal respect and grandeur as the old... However, the reason for that stems directly from the fact that it is celebrated as much as possible in continuity with tradition.
An exact study of the rubrics calls for the priest to face the altar - and therefore not the people - and to celebrate with a noble simplicity, which is distinct for a pastoral mediocrity well illustrated by the chosen images in the original article.
Again, the matter is not something that can be spoken of completely in just a few paragraphs, but this article is an excellent summary of the key issues.
"Spirit," or should I say "Spirit of the Chameleon,"
The irony of your queries are beyond amusing. You're one to scoff about the "scorn of the esthetes," what, with your ebullient accolades for the aesthetic sensibilities of Anglicanism and harping about the flat, bloodless Roman liturgies and pathetically unnuanced translations of the Latin forsooth! Your brazenness is just charming.
Still, you raise some good questions about the objective criteria and so forth. Believe me, there are plenty, as should be intimately familiar for anyone who has taken the time to examine why our top liturgical scholars, like Louis Bouyer and Klaus Gamber, who were initially enthused about the reform of the Mass in the planning for Vatican II but then bailed out in horror and despair at the direction Bugnini took things. The criteria are also amply available for anyone willing to take the time to read the currently available works by our brightest scholastic lights today, including the former Cardinal Ratzinger, Alcuin Reid, Aidan Nichols, to mention only a few. Had I the time, like you, I would be happy to cull their works and detail their criteria. In the meantime, there is what I have written on "The Enlightenment's impact on the Mass" (Feb. 24), and "Fr. James McLucas on the MOTIVES for restoring the Mass of Pius V" (Feb. 17) and "Giving the Devil his due" (Feb. 13) for starters.
Father Ryan Humphries, I can only hope that it is the depth of your charity that brings you to "laugh out loud" at me. Very nice.
However, you stay on my good side by correcting Dr. Blosser's idea that the rubrics call for the versus populum. The books are nearly entirely fine. The books are the objective standard. If you don't believe me, consult the Canons, particularly 838 sec. 2. It is the execution that falters.
(No goat for you, by the way.)
Kathy,
If I crack you up, check out the following:
http://www.expagan.info/blog/?p=123
The pizza delivery boy is just off camera, to the left of Fr Bozo and Archbishop Doodles.
Jon, I should have said that the Rite, as it is in the 1969 Missal, is the CURRENT objective standard. It can be changed, but the changes in the Rite were universally promulgated. Unless special permission is given for changes, or if other legitimate changes are made by those with the canonical competence, the Rite is normative.
Otherwise people will be importing all these other "objective standards" like the various schools of art criticism--none of which, I hope we can agree, has the degree of intimacy with God the Holy Spirit enjoyed by the Magisterium.
Oh poo! I gave you the Episcopalean one. Aren't the pictures keen?
Here's the Catholic one:
http://www.stjosephsmen.com/lett...s/
clownmass.htm
As usual, Fr Joe is right, we have been outdone by our Episcopalean brothers and sisters. Haven't found the Catholic pizza yet, but its there, and I'm looking.
Pertinacious Papist,
"Realist former Convergent" is based on my original desire to see all religions "Converge" into one so that all these religious conflicts would end. See James Somerville's short but excellent reviews on the convergence of religions at http://www.theosophical.org/theo...00/exclusivism/
and http://www.theosophical.org/theo...000/somerville/
.
Highlights from Somerville's articles (as noted previously):
1. "The faith of the vast majority of believers depends upon where they were born and when."
2. "Religion is our vehicle for the journey. Once arrived, it will be left at the door."
"James M. Somerville taught philosophy for many years at Fordham University, where he was chair of the department and co-founder of the journal International Philosophical Quarterly. He is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy from Xavier University in Cincinnati and a Quest Book author (contributing to The Goddess Re-Awakening, 1989). His most recent book is The Mystical Sense of the Gospels (Crossroad, 1997). "
Based on recent events, I "Realized" that religious conflicts were not going to end and actually were intensifying.
Dear ralph roister-doister
Regarding the 'clown mass' picture... Please note that these are not merely simple 'lay' clowns, nor are they mere (extra) ordinary liturgical ministers, no - they are visiting liberal Catholic priest-theologians, dignitaries of great honor at a special gathering/meal event in Las Vegas. Among the progressivists, the best and brightest, and most colorful.
What you see is the main celebrant (holding book) conjuring an anathema against Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then head of the CDF. To those gathered there ‘making’ liturgy, this moment was full of feeling.
==
Kathy,
You ended a sentence thus: ...Dr. Blosser's idea that the rubrics call for the versus populum.
Permit me a friendly caveat, but I don't think I said anything about rubrics. Fr. Fessio's excellent essay on the 'Mass of Vatican II' makes the point that the new Mass can be celebrated ad orientem or versus populum. But isn't the point that it's simply an option? And how many priests are going to resist the conventional pressures of our time and do what they do, say, at the Brompton Oratory in London?
You refer to canons and the books, which, you state, are "nearly fine." Setting aside the pregnant "nearly" for the moment, one could still ask where the books are followed. On a more existential level, one could also ask what liturgical rationales, as opposed to political pressures, justify the free standing altar, the removal of the Communion rail, the removal of the altar, the removal of kneeling for Communion, the multiplication of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, female altar servers, etc. -- all of which are generally accepted by the bishops as accepted standard fare.
Realist, former Convergent,
Thanks for that rationale for your curious nom de plume. I hadn't realized you had entertained such hopeful views as that all religions of the world (some of which are utterly agnostic about the existence of a theos) could converge. I congratulate you on your nascent 'realism'.
Kathy,
Another point I would add -- my final one for today, most likely -- is that by "objective standards" we may means several different things. You bring up the important judicial point that under canon law that the "nearly fine books" of Paul VI's 1969 Mass is the objective standard. True enough. I agree. But I also had in mind a number of other sorts of standards -- such as the standards by reference to which we determine whether those books are, in fact, "nearly fine." Those standards obviously cannot be simply juridical. They lie in the objective nature of things, like liturgy, symbolism, theological realities, and metaphysics generally, quite apart from what may be canonically permitted or mandated.
For example, the Kyrie eleison, depending on the musical setting that is used for it, may be a cry of utter despair, an act of humble contrition, a pleading, or a singing of calm faith. The Credo of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis descends an octave and a fourth in the span of two measures, whereas that of Palestrina's Pope Marcellus Mass takes three measures to descend a sixth. Both settings fit the words. However they fit very different understandings of the situation: in Palestrina the coming of Christ is a serene passage into the world from a realm not utterly remote, whereas in Beethoven it is a dramatic plunge of the totaliter aliter.
What matters is not only beauty, but truth. What is the theological truth being enacted in the Kyrie or Credo? How is this objectively best expressed? The standards are objective. One can analyze these different settings and sort out which understandings the most clearly express. The same with things like posture -- kneeling vs. standing to receive Communion. These things warrant careful scrutiny. After all, to call to mind some of the illustrations recently offered in this comment box, the Communion line objectively isn't a pizza line at Papa John's -- not, at least, according to my understanding.
Dear PP,
Thanks for your replies. I think we're not far apart.
(Just as an aside, pizza goes well with a good hoppy ale.)
The original question seemed to me to be framed as old rite vs. new rite. We're agreed that the new rite is normative. I would also say that the new rite is very rarely done as it should be, and that the first step of reform IMHO is to turn the altars back around.
With all due respect to Kathy, the Novus Ordo is not and cannot possibly be an objective standard for anything, given the tremendous latitude given to each celebrant in terms of both gesture and words used **in the official rubrics**.
The Novus Ordo can be celebrated entirely in Latin, ad orientum, strictly according to the written text, the Consecration using the Roman Canon (EP #1), with all male servers, the readings delivered by either deacon or priest, Holy Communion delivered to kneeling recipients at the altar rail on the tongue from the hands of the priest.
Or the Novus Ordo can be celebrated entirely in a doctrinally defective vernacular translation, facing the people over a table-form altar, with the priest making many ad-libs where the rubrics say he may, taking options that have him never once mentioning the word "sacrifice", with all readings except the Gospel delivered by laity of either gender, all female servers, and Holy Communion delivered into the hands of standing recipents by "extraordinary" EMs of either gender.
Both are entirely within the rubrics. These liturgies, in their words and gestures, communicate very different views of the Faith. Which is the standard?
(Here, it must be pointed out too, that the texts are quite different, even according to the Latin typical edition. The priest is praying for very different things in the New Rite vs. the Old, even when the New Rite is said in Latin. But that is a lengthier issue.)
As argued strenuously by Msgr. Klaus Gamber in his unfortunately out-of-print book "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy", just as the fixed and non-vernacular Latin language is the only reasonable standard for the Catholic Church's official utterances, so too only the fixed and non-vernacular traditional Roman Rite can serve as a liturgical standard in the West. The Pauline Rite isn't a standard since it isn't a unified rite.
It can be changed, but the changes in the Rite were universally promulgated. Unless special permission is given for changes, or if other legitimate changes are made by those with the canonical competence, the Rite is normative.
Ok. I guess I'm still a little confused, though. Sure, the rite is normative, but why exactly does this mean that we can't critique it? Is it wrong of me to think that, for example, the Liturgy of St. James is superior to the Tridentine Rite? Or is it permitted for me to critique these liturgies because they are not normative (though they once were)? Maybe the Magisterium's "intimacy" with the Holy Spirit led them to create the current rite, but surely the same can be said of all previous rites. I don't see lovers of the Novus Ordo moralizing against those who rip the Tridentine rite to shreds.
I guess my concern is that you seem to be saying that whatever is the current normative rite of Church is therefore beyond reproach and/or criticism. But rites are not dogmas, and I don't see why they should be treated as such. Rites are, as apologists love to say, traditions with a lowercase "t." Or do you think that even traditions are beyond critique from the laity?
I'm probably not quite getting your point. Feel free to correct me.
Jon, as someone pointed out to me recently regarding another question, it is well within our rights as members of the Catholic faithful to make recommendations (Canon 212).
But it's much different to write a letter to your bishop (which is what the canon seems to mean) and to keep grousing, in public, about the current situation.
It's one thing to complain about abuses. I'm almost (pregnant adverb again) all for that. But many people, especially my good friend Mr. Roister-Doister, seem to often equate abuses with the Rite. That's not true or fair. Just because the abuses came in at the same time as the Rite, are given some scope and allowance in the Rite (Mr. Wanna-be's "ad libs") and are nearly always done in the Rite, doesn't mean the Rite is bad.
By the way, one REAL solution can be found in the Adoremus Bulletin this month.
Just because the abuses came in at the same time as the Rite, are given some scope and allowance in the Rite (Mr. Wanna-be's "ad libs") and are nearly always done in the Rite, doesn't mean the Rite is bad.
Fair enough, but rather than just saying "bad" can we make a distinction between "aesthetically bad" and "morally bad"? I would readily agree that there is no moral evil in the current rite; to say otherwise would be heresy, as far as I'm concerned. But certainly we can say that a particular rite is put together aesthetically in such a way that it may be more or less conducive to proper worship. Both the Tridentine and the current rite seem to me lacking in worshipful aesthetics, though the current rite more so than the former. I doubt that the Holy Spirit inspired those who wrote the liturgy to artistic perfection, so I think we are perfectly in our rights to call for a reform on this matter.
Just as an aside, I wonder if we could make some moral judgments on a particular rite. If, for example, we have a rite that speeds through the liturgy too fast or with much confusion, couldn't we argue that the rite is contributing to moral error in the laity? Or is this a different question?
The point you made about public complaints or dissent is interesting. Being a recent convert I was not raised in an environment where I was told to be very respectful to clergy. Short of denying Catholic doctrine, I still have a hard time figuring out where the boundary is for public criticism of the clergy and the liturgy. Maybe Dr. Blosser could start a new post for this topic.
Thanks,
** Just because the abuses came in at the same time as the Rite, are given some scope and allowance in the Rite (Mr. Wanna-be's "ad libs") and are nearly always done in the Rite, doesn't mean the Rite is bad. **
How exactly can the New Rite(s) be an "objective" standard for the Catholic Church's liturgy, while at the same time "scope and allowance" for ad-libbing is given within the Rite(s)? What, exactly, is objective about permission to ad-lib? What objective criteria would you apply to exclude or approve Father X's ad libs?
And, to press the point again, how can the New Rite(s) be an objective standard when the latitude given within the official rubrics allows celebrations of radically different character and content?
Pertinacious gives as objective reasons just smears against Bugnini and a vague appeal to Cardinal Ratzinger, now the chief celebrant and defender of the Novus Ordo, which Pertinacious, for reasons that remain more obscure than ever, confidently judges to be objectively defective. I am truly in the dark here. What terrible heresies does he find in the liturgy? I have celebrated it all my life as a priest, and while I deplore the flatness of the English and Japanese translations (not the French) and a certain deadness due to over-strict Roman control and timidity, I have never found this objective defects he seems so certain are there. Could he just list them in simple form, sine ira et studio? If facing the people counts as a defect, I fear that Jesus Christ himself, who faced the apostles at the Last Supper, would be found defective.
Thomist WannaBe, it's ad orientem not ad orientum.
Community participation in the Eucharist is helped by the adlib permitted by the Novus Ordo.
The convergence of world religions is a theme of Paul VI who on Christmas Eve 1975 declared: I see the religions of the world converge on the Crib of Bethlehem and as I say this my voice trembles not with incertitude but with joy, la mia voce trema non d'incertezza ma di gioia. His vision was rooted in Vatican II and in the Greek Fathers.
"I would readily agree that there is no moral evil in the current rite; to say otherwise would be heresy, as far as I'm concerned."
Yes, it seems to me that if the Roman Missal in itself contained such grave moral or doctrinal error, so that it was in essence heretical and unacceptable to God (effectively ending Catholicism)..., well, maybe then we should all go join the Old Believers in Russia, or whatever you want. This is my opinion, I could be wrong.
Like you, as far as I am concerned, those who suggest or hold that the Missal contains grave moral or doctrinal error, are heretics, on very thin ice, or on the path to schism and heresy. They are not Catholics.
====
"They are not Catholics."
On this blog that is a tough accusation to substantiate, considering we have "Spirit of Vatican II", who despite celebrating the Norvus Ordu liturgy all his adult life can hardly be said to give credence to much if any orthodox Catholic doctrine.
Kathy, is"not bad" synonymous with "good" or "desirable"? Part of me thinks that in terms of the Mass, any expression which unnecesaarily lessens the amplitude of its expression is certainly hard to embrace as more than minimalistically good. Reaching for a parallel, is preaching that is not false "good"? I don't know.
The ad-libs are only permitted at certain moments, not sprinkled throughout, the way they often are. I think that they were originally envisioned as being helpful to the prayer of the people: a very brief introduction to the readings, for example. Not: "I'd like to thank the choir for their beautiful music (applause) and the altar servers, one of whom is entering the seminary in the fall (applause), and the lady who arranged the candles in their exact position (applause).
The versus populum posture is loved by the left for all the wrong reasons. The priest is elevated, but in a way that fosters clericalism of the worst kind. Priests begin to take on "liturgical personalities," as though the people come to Mass to be entertained by the force of the human qualities of the priest. And the people respond: "I like Fr. x better. He's more friendly." Blah. A downward spiral.
This is the direct result of the priest facing the people. Instead of the delicate balance of being towards the people as their teacher and with the people as their leader before God, the priest is always pro populum. This makes for some really bad acting, an MC or newscaster persona, and also reinforces the Kantian legacy at the heart of all our troubles: it is hard for the modern mind to believe that God can be truly present among us. The presence of God in se is strongly implied by the priest's offering of the sacrifice "towards God"--i.e. ad orientem.
Joe, I tend to favor all that unites. Maybe too much. Having a unified rite, or at least having everyone accept it as what we have all agreed on for the time being, seems very important to me.
An analogy: A group of friends and I went to another city for dinner. After looking at a few places for a free table, we decided on a place and were seated. Immediately it gave evidence of being very mediocre. I wanted to go scout out another place while they all had drinks, but someone stopped me as I rose, saying that everyone was just eager to sit there and talk.
If there is no heresy in the rite, let's just do it. In the next round, it will be improved. In the meantime, I think we should all be doing what we can to put pressure on people to do things according to the rite. Unfortunately, however, many people have been trained to do things wrong, and may be intractable.
By the way, one REAL solution can be found in the Adoremus Bulletin this month.
Kathy, my friend, what ever could you mean?
Pertinacious gives as objective reasons just smears against Bugnini and a vague appeal to Cardinal Ratzinger ...
Joseph, my former classmate, what ever could you mean? How can you stoop to something so low as tarring me with this uncouth suggestion that I offer 'smears' as though they were 'reasons' and then call upon me to respond sine ira et studio ('without anger or bias') with a laundary list of my objections to the new Mass? [In Doc Holliday's voice]: Does this mean we're not friends anymore? I surely hope not, for I don't know if I could bear it.
I must say, this makes me feel a bit like a man of color might feel upon being asked by a Klansman to present a list of what he finds objectionable about the KKK. The Klansman assures me that in all his years in the Klan, he has never found the objective defects that I, as a man of color, seem so certain are there. Could I just list my objections in simple form, sine ira et studio? Why of course, Mr. Klansman, and I'm quite sure this would make a profitable use of my time and that you'd find these reasons quite convincing.
[Leaving the analogy]: To begin with, I'd have to argue that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ of Faith and convince you that He has been resurrected from the dead in time and space, something which you've previously either denied or declared unnecessary or unimportant for you as a Catholic priest: whether Jesus' body is moldering somewhere in a grave somewhere in Palestine, you said, is a matter of indifference to your Catholic faith. But without that lynchpin in the Catholic Faith, why should I not be wasting my time on details concerning the objective criteria for the superiority of one liturgy over another, which criteria, after all, rest squarely on the objectivity of the Risen Presence of the Jesus of history in the Mass.
I did not offer 'smears' as objective 'reasons', but alluded to the profound opprobrium taken by those who were initially collaborators with Bugnini in the reform of the liturgy during the Second Vatican Council -- opprobrium at the way he and his liberal lackeys in the Concilium hijacked the reform and its implementation, until his excesses become too much even for Paul VI, who had him 'promoted' to Teheran where he could do no more damage than he'd already done. I've not given you more than suggestions of 'reasons' at all, because it would be a waste of my time, and you have more than ample time to chase down the reasons if you were sincerely interested in them. I've already referred to Bouyer, Gamber, Nichols, Reid, Ratzinger, and there are many more I've posted blogs on countless times.
(continued on next comment ...)
You ask, "What terrible heresies [do you] find in the liturgy?"
It's not a matter of heresies, my friend. There are no heresies in the new Missal any more than there are heresies in the Bible, although an improper interpretation can turn either into a Rorschach blot for any heresiarch. Moreover, it's also a matter of which words (in whatever Missal) express most aptly the doctrine of the Catholic Faith. As I've already illustrated (earlier in this comment box) in the different settings of the Credo found in Palestrina and Beethoven, the same thing can be fittingly expressed in different ways but yield radically different understandings. So there are several levels of concern: (1) Does the Pauline Missal express the Catholic Faith about what is happening in Mass more clearly than the earlier one? (2) What translation of the Pauline Missal is best? (3) How is the Mass interpreted by the officiating celebrant?
I still haven't given you your laundary list of 'objective reasons' and I don't intend to for the moment, because I consider it fruitless, and, as Newman said in response to potential converts wanting to know reasons for converting, let them fend for themselves, if they're serious. Besides, again, you have far more time. Or would you be willing to help grade 170 mid-term exams if I air-shipped them to you?
Gee, Dr. Blosser, I'm glad you asked.
Follow this link http://www.adoremus.org/0306TOC.html
to the March online edition of the Adoremus Bulletin. There you will find tasty recipes, or rather, among the writings of leading neo-cons on liturgical matters you will find a very nice translation of a Latin hymn. It behooves my characteristic modesty to refrain from naming the translator, whose last name rhymes with truth, Ruth, and Duluth.
Also worth close study is the report by Susan Benofy on the BCL's Music committee.
(But the hymn really stands out, I think--whoops, there's that womanly emotivist subjectivity again.)
(Double whoops: um, the Holy Father contributed a very nice essay too!)
"The traditional liturgy in fact gives acute expression to the Sacrifice of the Cross made present on the altar, orients the soul toward God, and witnesses our adoration of His Real Presence. Clearly the Mass should not be viewed as a theology lesson, but it's prayers express a doctrine eloquent indeed, including the four finalities of the Holy Sacrifice: adoration, thanksgiving, propitiation, and petition."
from: THE LITURGY OF 1962
http://www.fssp.org/en/liturgie1962.htm
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
==
Kathy, good job on the hymn. The English is written to be chanted to the same music as the latin, right (8 beats to a line). Forgive me I am a mathematican and not a musician, a poet a theologian or a latin scholar. I suppose someone could chant the English and make it accessible on-line.
Dr. Blosser wrote: ** Likewise with litugy: the question needs to be settled in terms of objective properties of the rite and ritual itself. Are the majesty of God, the holiness of His Sacrifice, the divinity of His Presence on the Altar expressed by the Mass? And here, remember, we're not talking primarily about how one feels but about qualities in the rite and ritual itself. **
This is the heart of the matter. And again, with due respect to Kathy, the NO may be celebrated--taking lawful choices and according to the rubrics--in such a way that the word "sacrifice" is never once used and all of the actions and postures of the priest reflect a meal instead. How would one argue that the NO expresses the notion of sacrifice equally with the traditional Latin Mass (TLM) when one can take options in order to celebrate the NO without a single use of the word "sacrifice"? This is one of many objective ways in which the TLM better represents the Catholic Faith than the NO.
I would disagree with one point Dr. Blosser makes, however. He wrote: **The trouble is that the "new rite" is far from being an established rite, but something more like a continuing experiment. As I've said before, there are three identifiable Roman rites since Vatican II, as far as I can tell: (1) the Traditional Mass of the 1962 Missal permitted under the Indult, (2) the reform of that rite mandated by the Vatican II document, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and (3) the Novus Ordo of the 1969 Pauline Missal, ** So far so good. But then he says, **which, even before the myriad innovations were introduced since 1970, was nothing like the reform of the Mass mandated by the Council Fathers.**
Here I think you run onto the horns of a dilemma. Both Paul VI and John Paul II have stated several times that the 1969 Pauline Missal was exactly what Vatican II called for (I can provide the quotes, if you desire.) That would seem to undermine the "Council fine/implementation bad" argument at its heart. The men most responsible for its implementation have repeatedly said that the implementation is 1) what the Council called for and 2) has brought about a great liturgical renewal in the Church.
To Spirit: Thank you for correcting my spelling. In turn I hope you will allow me to correct you. It is highly unlikely that Our Lord faced the Apostles at the Last Supper. Rather, it is much more likely that they all sat on the same side of the table, facing East together, as the research of such worthies as Jungmann, Bouyer, and Gamber has demonstrated. Similarly (to anticipate you, perhaps) it is not possible to prove the assertion that Our Lord spoke the vernacular Aramaic at the Last Supper--it is at least as likely that He spoke the non-vernacular Hebrew.
Kathy wrote: ** I would also say that the new rite is very rarely done as it should be, and that the first step of reform IMHO is to turn the altars back around. **
Basically, Kathy, I think you're making the unwarr
......Basically, Kathy, I think you're making the unwarranted leap from the fact that the NO is the normative rite for the Roman Church (no argument there) to the conclusion that therefore it represents some sort of objective liturgical standard. What I have argued--and I don't think you've really addressed this--is that the NO is incapable of functioning as an objective standard because it is itself a rite (or more accurately, rites) in flux and contains within itself so much subjectivity. For that and many other reasons, if there is to be any "reform of the reform", the real objective standard against which such reforms are measured must be, can only be, the TLM.
"This is the heart of the matter. And again, with due respect to Kathy, the NO may be celebrated--taking lawful choices and according to the rubrics--in such a way that the word "sacrifice" is never once used and all of the actions and postures of the priest reflect a meal instead."
Please prove this, using offical Catholic sources.
==
"How would one argue that the NO expresses the notion of sacrifice equally with the traditional Latin Mass (TLM) when one can take options in order to celebrate the NO without a single use of the word "sacrifice"?"
Please prove this, using offical Catholic sources. Thank you.
==
Hello ThomistWannaBe, Did you mean Eucharistic Prayer II?
"The Pauline Rite Mass teaches clearly that the anamnesis, the prayer which follows the words of consecration "makes memory" of the death and resurrection by the priest offering his body and blood (made present by Transubstantiation ) to the Father.
The first Eucharistic prayer retains much of the Roman Canon. It is too long to recite here but it maintains the idea that it is sacrifice. The traditional Roman canon retains the place of preeminence among the four chief Eucharistic Prayers. For example, it includes:
“Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in sacrifice.... We offer you this sacrifice of praise.” These are similar to the Tridentine Mass.
Eucharistic Prayer II is substantially that of St. Hippolytus that goes back to the year 215 AD, and declares:
"In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup."
If any objections are made to the above prayer, one is objecting to the most treasured, and ancient of Eucharistic prayers, (and by no means Protestant).
Eucharistic Prayer III says:
We offer you in thanksgiving THIS HOLY AND LIVING SACRIFICE. Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see t he Victim, whose death has reconciled us to your self."
To be continued...
==
Continued...
"Eucharistic Prayer IV says:
We offer you his body and blood, THE ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICE which brings salvation to the whole world. (Whitehead, 120-121)
We thus see in the prayers that Pauline Rite Mass maintains completely Catholic orthodoxy-because it is a sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who is both Priest and Victim, and who offers Himself as a victim in propitiation for the living and dead."
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/n.../
novusordo.html
==
You're making my point, Mr. Borealis. First, EP II does not in fact use the word "sacrifice" does it? That was my claim and EP II meets that criterion. Beyond that, there are a total of 10 EPs approved for the U.S. and several of them diminish the notion of sacrifice even further.
Second, the word "offer" doesn't necessarily connote "offer in sacrifice, does it? I hope not since earlier in the Pauline Rite the priest says, "Blessed are you, Lord, God of all-creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, . . . . Through your goodness we have this wine to offer,"
I hope you're not going to argue that the priest is offering God bread and wine as a sacrifice?
By the way, how can EP II be one of the Church's "most treasured" prayers when the prayer it is (rather loosely) based upon fell completely out of use and stayed that way for nigh unto 1800 centuries?
Also, how does EP I "retains the place of preeminence among the four chief Eucharistic Prayers" when it's hardly ever used? What official Church document do you point to, to demonstrate this alleged "preeminence"?
(But again, you're making my point. If the TLM was the standard for any "reform of the reform" then indeed EP I would have an objective preeminence.)
Thanks, Charles!
I'm really grateful to an early hymn-type tutor of mine who was adamant about meter.
TWB, you said What I have argued--and I don't think you've really addressed this--is that the NO is incapable of functioning as an objective standard because it is itself a rite (or more accurately, rites) in flux and contains within itself so much subjectivity. For that and many other reasons, if there is to be any "reform of the reform", the real objective standard against which such reforms are measured must be, can only be, the TLM.
(Continued, sorry)
The TLM seems like an objective standard now. But forgive me, I think that this is an arbitrary standard. It is an old, established rite, still within living memory. This makes it seem above reproach and ideal. But for the next generation, what then?
I agree that if we want to compare parts of the rites to others, e.g. to count the number of times the word "sacrifice" is used in the Missa Normativa, then it makes sense to compare it to a past rite. Or to one of the sister rites. But retrograde motion is not what the Church is about--not according to Dei Verbum, she added, disingenuously opening another can of worms.
"You're making my point, Mr. Borealis."
Really? *LOL* Maybe I did a little, but I will not leap off the cliff. Please everyone, keep the Faith, and communion with Pope Benedict XVI, Apostolic Successor of St. Peter. Seriously. May God bless us, guide us, and have mercy in these dark disorientating times.
"Unfortunately, alongside these lights, there are also shadows. In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet."
http://www.newadvent.org/
library...docs_jp02ee.htm
Encyclical Letter "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" of His Holiness Pope John Paul II (April 17, 2003).
==
"The point you made about public complaints or dissent is interesting. Being a recent convert I was not raised in an environment where I was told to be very respectful to clergy. Short of denying Catholic doctrine, I still have a hard time figuring out where the boundary is for public criticism of the clergy and the liturgy."
You are raising excellent questions, maybe we should explore this further. There has to be limits. We are not free to attack God's Church, and lead people astray. We must not be secular liberals, or protestants, but responsible. We must be prudent and wise. This is serious, it could cost us and others our very salvation. What, for example, does sacred Scripture say?
I understand you are a recent convert. Please do not ever allow public criticisms of the Holy Mass, which is celebrated by our Pope, cause you to lose trust and faith in the action of our Lord Jesus Christ in the offical Catholic Liturgy. He protects his Body, the Church. He will save us, if we do our part. We must with great humility serve Truth and Love.
==
Paul, thanks for your kind words. I've been slowly inching into the larger discussions about the liturgy for the last year or so, and there are some dangerous waters abroad. I've attended most of the widely-used Catholic rites since my conversion, and currently attend an indult Tridentine Mass and a well-done N.O. Mass at the local cathedral. The tensions and paradoxes can be frustrating, but I try not to worry about it too much, except when a priest horribly mangles the liturgy.
I would be interested in reading more about ecclesial dissent and criticism, and where the lines are to be drawn. Surely we ought not to cause scandal for anyone, but if the pope suddenly decides to get a public lover, horde riches and assassinate his enemies, I'd be sorely tempted to at least burn him in effigy. In fact, it might cause scandal if I didn't.
Just a thought.
Kathy wrote *The TLM seems like an objective standard now. But forgive me, I think that this is an arbitrary standard. It is an old, established rite, still within living memory. This makes it seem above reproach and ideal. But for the next generation, what then?*
The TLM is very far from being an arbitrary standard for the reform of a new rite of the Roman Church, precisely because it was the established rite of the Roman Church for at least 1000 years. Again, I must ask, what other standard could there possibly be? The NO can't serve as its own standard, since it is not in any meaningful way a unified, cohesive rite. It is still in almost constant flux and the range of options is enormous. A standard is required to reform it. What could that be but the TLM?
For the next generation, what then? If (and I stress if) the NO could ever settle down into a fixed, unified, cohesive rite unto itself, then that fixed, unified, cohesive rite could indeed be used as a standard for the organic developments that might effect future generations. I think that's a long shot, but there it is.
*I agree that if we want to compare parts of the rites to others, e.g. to count the number of times the word "sacrifice" is used in the Missa Normativa, then it makes sense to compare it to a past rite. Or to one of the sister rites. But retrograde motion is not what the Church is about*
With due respect, Kathy, I think you have an understanding of Catholicism tainted by modernism. In the past the Church has always gauged the legitimacy of developments (whether doctrinal or liturgical) in terms of how well they harmonize with her established doctrine and liturgical tradition. The post-Vatican II era is the only time in her history in which that criterion has ceased to be primary when evaluating such developments. The result has been tragic.
Mr. Borealis wrote: *Please everyone, keep the Faith and communion with Pope Benedict XVI, Apostolic Successor of St. Peter. Seriously. May God bless us, guide us, and have mercy in these dark disorientating times.*
Amen. And then, quoting John Paul II:
"Unfortunately, alongside these lights, there are also shadows.... At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet."
Unfortunately, the post-conciliar Popes must share a significant part of the blame for this, as has been discussed even on this blog. These are human failings, not touching on the divine promises to the Church. But they are serious enough and I firmly believe that the sooner mature Catholics begin to face these realities, the sooner we can return to some sanity.
A huge first step would be to take the ridiculous restrictions off the TLM and allow it full and free expression. Then, even without a formal declaration of that rite as normative for the Roman Church, it would extend its influence as s
Joe, you are incorrect to say that I do not give credence to much Catholic doctrine. I give credence to all of it in fact, though I call for development in areas where I am one with a great number of respected exegetes and moral theologians, as well as in my own area of dogmatic theology. I fear you have a poor understanding of what orthodoxy means and requires.
ThomistWannaBe, the idea that Jesus and the apostles all faced east at the last supper is new to me, though maybe Leonardo would vouch for it. I think it is unlikely, though, because the eucharist happened in the context of an ordinary meal ("When supper was ended, he took the cup," etc.).
Eucharistic Prayer II, which is very short, does not use the word sacrifice, though it is heavily used in EP IV. This is hardly a mark of imperfect orthodoxy. The meaning of the word "sacrifice" is not even defined by the Council of Trent (though I think they had discussions about it, and abandoned the effort at definition). Early twentieth century eucharist theology (De la Taille) had many bizarre theories as to where the sacrificial action in the Mass occurred. Today we tend to think that the Mass reenacts or make present the one Sacrifice of Calvary, and all four EPs express this clearly.
Developments of doctrine are far more innovative than you suggest in criticizing Kathy as modernistic.
The most famous of all doctrinal developments is the homoousios of Nicea. It was previously used by Gnostics and arch-heretic Paul of Samosata. Its novelty stuck in the craw of bishops for decades.
Mr. Thomist,
I know you wouldn't consider the DOGMATIC Constitution on Divine Revelation modernistic. Here's the section that talks about the development of doctrine. Note esp. the second paragraph:
8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).
I fear that I'm not communicating well. I never said or even implied, as Spirit suggests, that failure to use the word "sacrifice" in EP II represents a breach with orthodoxy. With the Pertinacious Papist, I consider the position that finds actual heresy in any approved rite of the Church to be itself at least proximate to heresy.
What prompted this discussion was PP's assertion that the TLM is objectively superior in communicating various aspects of the Catholic Faith. I chose one, the idea of sacrifice, as an example. I find it hard to understand how a celebration of the NO which is specifically trying to emulate the supposed "meal-like" qualities of the Last Supper in its external actions and nowhere contains the word "sacrifice" can be said objectively to communicate the notion of sacrifice equally with the TLM's text and rubrics.
Perhaps a short anecdote will help. I have a convert friend whose rather anti-Catholic father used to attend Mass with him sometimes (no more, now that my friend attends the TLM.) When he was attending the NO, the priest would normally say EP II and my friend's father didn't complain too much. But one Sunday, for some reason, the priest said EP I which, as Mr. Borealis said, is essentially the old Roman Canon. My friend's father was scandalized and started an argument over the notion of offering the Body and Blood of our Lord in sacrifice, which of course is a Protestant buggaboo. This subjective anecdote underscores an objective reality, namely, that the sacrificial content of the NO has been (purposely) diminished to the point that for many, as John Paul II laments, it disappears entirely.
And Kathy, I explicitly said that there is legitimate development in the Catholic Church, both liturgical and doctrinal. So I'm not sure what was the purpose of the lengthy quote from Dei Verbum. Of course there is such a thing as legitimate development, but I would argue that its legitimacy is gauged by its harmony with her established doctrinal and liturgical Tradition. That is true even for the homousion, contra Spirit, although that would be a lengthy discussion.
I would argue that developments of doctrine or liturgy should only take place with reference to and in harmony with the Catholic Church's established doctrinal and liturgical Tradition. So, for example, any developments of papal doctrine would have its fullest expression (at Vatican I) as its starting point, not the less developed version of Florence And, to use an example that's on the table, the Church would normally use the fullest and most perfect expression of her liturgy (the TLM) as the standard for future development, not something like the so-called Canon of Hippolytus which, strangely, cannot be proven to ever have been in actual use, let alone to have been a venerable part of the Roman Church's liturgical patrimony. That would ordinarily be seen as the kind of "retrograde motion" that Kathy mentioned.
I wrote: "I find it hard to understand how a celebration of the NO which is specifically trying to emulate the supposed "meal-like" qualities of the Last Supper in its external actions and nowhere contains the word 'sacrifice'" etc.
I did not mean to imply that the celebration of the Mass does not have both the characteristics of a meal and of a sacrifice. It has both, of course. My wording above is lousy. What I was trying to highlight is the elevation of the notion of a meal, to eclipse that of sacrifice.
With regard to the placement of the sharers of an ancient meal, here's a good introductory quote by Fr. Louis Bouyer, cited in the third chapter of Card. Ratzinger's "The Spirit of the Liturgy." Fr. Bouyer and Msgr. Gamber have backed up such assertions with loads of evidence:
"The idea that celebration versus populum was the original form, indeed the way the Last Supper itself was celebrated, rests purely and simply on a mistaken idea of what a banquet, Christian or even non-Christian, was like in antiquity. In the earliest days of Christianity the head of table never took his place facing the other participants. Everyone sat or lay on the convex side of an S-shaped or horseshoe-shaped table. Nowhere in Christian antiquity could anyone have come up with the idea that the man presiding at the meal had to take his place versus populum. The communal character of a meal was emphasized by precisely the opposite arrangement, namely, by the fact that everyone at the meal found himself on the same side of the table."
Thomist, if you don't want to be misunderstood, don't say people's Catholicism is "tainted with modernism." That sort of wild accusation tends to lead to long quotations.
Hello. I am not an expert on the Liturgy, so I welcome correction. I found online an example of the Mass using Eucharistic Prayer II. In the "Preparation of the Altar and the Gifts" portion, (found before Eucharistic Prayer II), and part of the Liturgy of the Eucharist (Liturgia Eucharistica) section, there is use of the word 'sacrifice'. It reads:
=
P: Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God,the almighty Father.
P: Oràte, fratres, ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptàbile fit apud Deum Patrem omnipotèntem.
C: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church.
C: Suscìpiat Dòminus sacrificium de mànibus tuis ad laudem et glòriam nòminis sui, ad utilitàtem quoque nostram totiùs que Ecclèsiae suae sanctae.
=
So here is explicit use of the word 'sacrificium' (sacrifice).
http://www.latinliturgy.com/
noma...l#lit_eucharist
==
From the "Sacrifice of the Mass":
"In reality, that part alone [the Consecration] is to be regarded as the proper sacrificial act which is such by Christ's own institution."
"The priest does not however assume the personal part of Christ either at the Offertory or Communion. He only does so when he speaks the words: "This is My Body; this is My Blood" [...]".
"While the Consecration as such can be shown with certainty to be the act of Sacrifice, the necessity of the twofold consecration can be demonstrated only as highly probable."
"[...] the double consecration [...] brings before our eyes the Body and the Blood in the state of separation, and thus represents the mystical shedding of blood. Consequently, the double consecration is an absolutely essential element of the Mass as a relative sacrifice."
J. POHLE
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
10006a.htm
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X
==
Okay. This is how I understand it. This prayer (i.e., part of Eucharistic Prayer II - please see below), because it is takes place after the Consecration, conveys its sacrificial meaning and purpose, even though the word 'sacrifice' is not specifically used. It is not needed in this ritual context. The real Crucified and Risen Christ - the body and blood of Jesus now Present - the Lamb of God who we remember really died for us - our Offering (= sacrifice) - is here 'offered' to the Father....
This is (at least) part of what I think is being communicated, and what is happening.
=
P: In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread [body], this saving cup [blood]. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.
May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in the unity by the Holy Spirit.
P: Mèmores ìgitur mortis et resurrectionis eius, tibi, Dòmine, panem vitae, et calicem salùtis offèrimus, gràtias agents quia nos dignos habuisti astàre coram te et tibi ministràre.
Et sùpplices deprecàmur ut Corporis et Sànguinis Christi partìcipes a Spìritu Sancto congrègemur in unum.
==
Maybe I should have written: 'the Body and Blood (i.e., the living Sacrifice) of Jesus who died for us on the Cross, and now Present on the altar because of the ritual words of Consecration spoken by the Catholic priest - is offered to the Father in Heaven'.
"we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread [body], this saving cup [blood]."
==
I hope what I wrote is helpful in some way, and sheds a tiny bit of light on Eucharistic Prayer II. Spiritual things like the Holy Mass are difficult for me to think about and grasp. Comments? Criticisms? God bless. Thanks.
==
"I would be interested in reading more about ecclesial dissent and criticism, and where the lines are to be drawn."
Good question. Jon, have you read this (I have given this link here in the past):
http://www.latinliturgy.com/
calk...instalk_lla.htm
==
Benedict XVI stressed strongly at the recent Synod that there is no contradiction whatever between the Eucharist as meal and the Eucharist as sacrifice, but that the two are intimately co-implicated (as any historian of religion or of Judaism would know, even apart from the constant references to the Eucharist as a meal in the New Testament).
There is a big difference between a semi-circular banquet arrangement in which all participants can see each others' faces and the situation in which the priest is looking away from the people and cannot see them behind him, nor can they see his face. Is the latter what opponents of versus populum are urging? Or would they be content if the faithful gathered in a semicircle around the priest (a not uncommon formation in present-day eucharistic celebrations).
Father O'Leary:
Leaving aside the question of obedience to the existing rubrics -- i.e., the fact that a goodly number of priests simply ignore the clear instructions of the Missal of Paul VI -- I offer the following very simple facts for considering the Missal of Pius V a superior one.
1) The regular, obligatory use of certain parts of Holy Scripture: Lavabo inter innocentes ...., Munda cor meum..., the Last Gospel...., the triple repetition of the Domine Non Sum Dignus instead of one use of it..., there are other examples.
2) The existence of fewer changeable parts -- that is, there is only one Roman Canon instead of at least 8 approved Eucharistic prayers. I submit that this is a superiority of the Missal of Pius V precisely because it allows us to concentrate on the familiar words themselves rather than on the novelty of whichever approved prayer is being used. Again, I'm not speaking here of idiosyncratic personal restorations, but of approved prayers.
3) The prayer of the priest during the distribution of Holy Communion: it is a prayer, not a declaration.
4) The confiteor invokes the assistance of St. Michael, St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Blessed Mother, instead of "fratres" ... and here again I ignore the personal restorations which make "fratres", "sisters and brothers" and other such nonsense.
The prayers of the saints are, de facto, more efficacious than those of us still on our pilgrimage -- which is not to say that our prayer is useless. I don't have to prove such a thing. I merely need to assert what the Church has always taught -- that we should pray for the intercession of the saints. The approved confiteor (when it is used) of the Missal of Paul VI simply doesn't do such a thing.
Others more knowledgeable are welcome to the fight.
Gee, Dr. Blosser, I'm glad you asked.
Nice job, Kathy. I'm glad I asked too! Don't know how I could have missed that.
But then [Blosser] says, **which, even before the myriad innovations were introduced since 1970, was nothing like the reform of the Mass mandated by the Council Fathers.**
Thomist-WB, you make a good point in noting a certain dilemma here. I, too, am acquainted with the statements of Paul VI and JPII to the effect that the 1969 Missal is what the Council envisioned. What I had in mind, however, was the reaction to the Pauline Mass by the Council Fathers when it was first offered by way of a 'trial run.' They were scandalized, as you may recall (and, I would add, with good reason). Quite apart from the question of its licitness or validity (neither of which I contest), there is the little matter of 'rupture' in liturgical tradition that our current Pontiff notes, and which was experienced as such by nearly all the faithful, who neither desired nor asked for any such change in their worship. I'm inclined to believe that the judgments of Paul and JPII in the statements in question are precipitous and not very well founded. Their views are at odds, certainly with those of the former Cardinal Ratzinger, Louis Bouyer, K. Gamber, A. Reid, A. Nichols, etc., none of who deny that the traditional rite of Pius V was in need of some fine tuning as envisioned by the Second Vatican Council.
Paul B., I sincerely appreciate your tone, as well as the content of your remarks -- particularly in your exchanges with Thomist-WB.
Thomist-WB, thank you for your substantial contribution here. I heartily appreciate it.
Kathy, it's always good to hear from you.
Jon, you too.
Chris-GZ, my friend, I like your list of points comparing the TLM with the NO. Substance here.
"Spirit," your remarks are welcome, as always. Always erudite, Fr. Joseph O'Leary, who calls himself here aptly the "Spirit of Vatican II," is as interesting as he is sometimes unorthodox. In fact, for those of you who might be newcomers to this blog, he might just be my "favorite heretic," as others will know (see, e.g., my summary of his unorthodox theology HERE).
Joe, when "Spirit" writes: "I fear you have a poor understanding of what orthodoxy means and requires," in response to you, take it cum grano salis, or with a large grain of salt. When he calls for theological "development," what that translates into by ordinary Catholic standards is "transubstantiation" into something altogether heterodox. I intend nothing mean-spirited in saying this, but only to describe what is the case.
The substance of this dissention can be seen also from the fact that "Spirit" is selective in rejecting genuine Catholic developments where it may not suit him. For example, in response to Thomist-WB's point (quoting Bouyer) about the possible origin of the ad orientem positioning of the priest during the Eurcharistic liturgy, "Spirit" suggests that the semi-circular banquet arrangement might be used to support the not uncommon contemporary arrangement with the faithful gathered around the priest at the altar, which ignores the weight of the natural and organic development of the liturgy from liturgy of St. James through Gregory, Pius V and Pius XII up to the Missal of 1968.
This, of course, calls to mind Pius XII's Mediator Dei, which declares that "an ancient custom is not to be considered better, either in itself or in relation to later times and circumstances, just because it has the flavor of antiquity," but that organic developments in the liturgy are to be respected because they were introduced under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He continues: "The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table; to want black eliminated from liturgical colors, and pictures and statues eliminated from our churches, to require cruicifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer; to condemn polyphonic chants," etc.
(continued ...)
(continued ...) Pius described this attitude as an attempt "to revive the 'archaeologism' to which the pseudo-Synod of Pistoia (1794) gave rise," which sought to re-introduce "many pernicious errors." He says: "It is a wicked movement, that tends to paralyze the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father.... See that your flocks are not deceived ... by a mania for restoring primitive usages in the liturgy."
Belated comments:
Fr. O: I am certain I do have a poor unerstanding of aspects of 'orthodoxy.' But I am also fairly certain that when you speak or orthodox theologians, they are ones almost all traditional Catholics would call heterodox. So what we have is a lack of precise vocabulary, to say the least.
Kathy: EXCELLENT analogy. I think 'getting on with it' is important as well. I also think very important is somehow recovering a sense of the sacred, one almost entirely trashed in favor of 'community.' I try to attend a Latin Mass here for the sole rason that I can kneel at a rail. How ironic that this was the standard in my former liberal, Gay-ordaining Episc. Church, but almost ipossible to find in the Church that supposedly champions transubstantiation.
Almost all traditional Catholics would call
Rahner, Teilhard, Schillebeeckx, Brown,
cAlmost all traditional Catholics would call
Rahner, Teilhard, Schillebeeckx, Brown, McBrien, McCormack, Haering
unorthodox? I don't think that is true -- if these traditional Catholics have any knowledge of theology.
However, if you mean traditionalIST Catholics, you may be right.
I certainly believe firmly in the real presence. To say I replace transubstantiation with something altogether heterodox suggests you have not read my remarks. I accept the word transubstantiation itself, as Trent and the Creed of Paul VI do, as an apt description of the eucharistic transformation.
I mentioned semicircular arrangements (common in concelebrated masses with no laity present, for example) only to point out that EVEN if the Last Supper was celebrated in that style it was NOT a case of the celebrant looking away from the others toward God (as the anti-versus populum would want). I do not at all urge the semicircular arrangement as ideal. I am perfectly happy with the versus populum arrangement as used throughout the entire Catholic world since 1965. It is you who are the critic of the Church here, not me, and it is you who are sacralizing outdated customs.
Of course, there's the Judica Me near the very beginning of the Mass ...
Kathy, I'm sorry that I offended you. I didn't think your lengthy quote from DV was ad rem. And I'm still struggling to see how the NO can operate as an objective standard for liturgical reform. I'm not saying you are a modernist, but I do see a hint of modernist influence in an approach that looks hither and yon for a standard of liturgical reform while rejecting the only standard that makes any sense, traditionally speaking, namely the established Roman Rite.
Paul, I understand that it is precisely at the text you cited that there is a "or words to that effect" option. And so we often hear at the NO "Pray my brothers and sisters that our offering be acceptable..." I have tried to secure a sacramentary in the past few days to verify this. I apologize ahead of time if I am mistaken. I think it's not really arguable, though, that the NO represents an objective diminution of sacrificial language and rubric from the TLM. Witness, e.g., Card. Medina who "noted that the Offertory prayers of the old rite are particularly useful in their emphasis on 'the sacrifical character of the Mass: an essential aspect of the Eucharistic celebration'" (www.cathnews.com/news/509/157.html). There is an emphasis on sacrificial character in the TLM Offertory, ergo there is a deemphasis on the same in the NO's Offertory. Said with EP II and facing versus populum (VP), the explicit sacrificial content falls close, if not totally, to zero.
Spirit, one exhibiting Pius XII's "senseless antiquarianism" could indeed take evidence for a semi-circular table at the Last Supper and use it to justify the semi-circular layouts of "worship spaces" today. But it still doesn't support a VP orientation. As far as the evidence goes, in all rites of the Church the priest and people have faced the East together; there is no evidence of a VP celebration prior to the 20th century. And so the VP orientation fails the common sense three-fold criteria laid out in SC 23: That sound tradition be retained through "a careful investigation...into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised", that "the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires" changes, and that "care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing."
Alas, it does not fail the less common sensicle loopholes found later in SC that allow great latitude to the local bishops. This is your strongest argument-that the bishops of the world (including the Pope who has written so strongly in favor of the ad orientem posture) celebrate the Mass VP. It leaves the traditionalist in a quandry. Like Galileo, who is alleged to have muttered soto voce "Even so, it moves", so too the traditionalist Catholic looks at the evidence of the Church's Tradition on the one hand and the current practice of the world's bishops on the other and is forced to mutter under his breath (or shrouded in a pseudonym like me), "Even so, it is a novelty."
Mr. WannaBe, I'll gladly forgive you if you only explain what "ad rem" means.
And if you'll hear me out on the following: Just because a way of looking at things doesn't square with your own doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean that it must be wrong in the same way that some other people who disagree with you are wrong. In other words, I don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean I disagree for reasons having anything to do with "modernism."
So I forgive you, but I fear we won't get anywhere if you keep saying things like "the only standard that makes any sense."
Kathy,
Ad rem means literally "to the matter" or more colloquially "to the point". Thank you for your forgiveness.
** Just because a way of looking at things doesn't square with your own doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean that it must be wrong in the same way that some other people who disagree with you are wrong. In other words, I don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean I disagree for reasons having anything to do with "modernism." **
Your position certainly isn't wrong just because it doesn't square with my own. But you had asserted that the NO is an objective standard by which a "reform of the reform" can be advanced and evaluated. I gave reasons why I didn't think it *could* function as such an objective standard. I don't think you really advanced any counter-arguments. If the NO itself can't function as a standard for the reform of the new Roman Rite then indeed I don't see what other standard there could be besides the TLM. The objections you had concerning the TLM functioning as that standard did strike me as having certain troubling character. And it's by no means personal--St. Pius X called modernism the "pan-heresy" and its influence is everywhere. I find myself constantly seeing its influence in myself, hence my moniker the Thomist wannabe.
Look, I just like a good rough and tumble debate. But I apologize again if I have been too forceful.
Fine--except you've just called me a modernist again. I'm not going to talk with you unless you stop doing that.
I certainly believe firmly in the real presence. To say I replace transubstantiation with something altogether heterodox suggests you have not read my remarks.
"Spirit," why are you writing this? I've not accused you of any such thing. Have you read my remarks? I used the term "transubstantiating" in a non-sacramental context to describe your view of doctrinal "development" as one that embraces doctrinal mutation. You will look in vain for any statement of mine on your sacramental views here or even the implication that you embrace the hypothetical 'semi-circular' arrangement as desirable.
It is you who are the critic of the Church here, not me, and it is you who are sacralizing outdated customs.
(1) A case of the pot calling the kettle 'black', perhaps? Yes, I'm criticizing the Church to the extent that it may be responsible for having permitted liturgical innovators and liberal revisionists like yourself to spread confusion among the faithful. (2) There is no need for me to sacralize what is already sacred, and there is no need for you to declare 'outdated' a well-established liturgical rite accepted by the Church. Would you also consider the Mozarabic rite, Ambrosian rite, or the Divine Liturgy of Eastern rite Catholics 'outdated'? Benedict XVI is on record (as Cardinal) as stating that the Mass of Pius V was not abrogated by Paul VI, and he supports its continued use among those who embrace it.
As to the difference of opinion between Thomist WB and Kathy, my impression is that there were divergent assumptions animating Kathy's ealier use of the term 'standard' and Thomist-WB's later use. I think that, initially at least, Kathy was using the term of the NO in the sense that the Missal of 1969 is the de facto standard in the sense that it is the dominant accepted Missal in the Western church -- but not in the sense later used by Thomist-WB to suggest that the Missal of 1962 provides the de jure norm of an established, stable rite. I don't think Kathy would contest Thomist-WB's observation that there is little in the NO to prevent the Missal of 1969 from being interpreted and applied in radically diverse ways, though I could be wrong.
"Spirit" suggests that nobody would claim that Rahner, Teilhard, Schillebeeckx, Brown, McBrien, McCormack, or Haering are unorthodox who has "any knowledge of theology." Well that's rather baldly ad hominiem, isn't it; and not even supported by more than the glowing authority of his opinion. And then he cavils that "if you mean traditionalIST Catholics, you may be right." If this were true, of course, the "traditionalIST" label would need to be applied to the likes of the Jesuits Cardinal Dulles and Fr. Joseph Fessio, Peter Stravinskas, Germain Grisez, Augustin Joseph DiNoia, Ralph McInerny, Fr. Francis Martin, Fr. Romano Cessario, Karl Keating, Janet Smith, the late Pope John Paul II and His Holiness, Benedict XVI. A tad ludicrous.
Benedict XVI is not a traditionalist but a traditional catholic. That is why he can laud Raymond Brown, also a traditional catholic, as the kind of exegete the church needs more of. Rahner and Ratzinger actually co-authored important books. Schillebeeckx was acquitted of heterodoxy in three Roman "trials" (on ministry, christology and eucharist, I think). Some of the theologians you mention, who are alleged to view the ones I named as heterodox, are indeed traditionalist or even fundamentalist, which confirms the point I made.
Oops, I did misread you on transubstantiation.
On Catholic fundamentalism see http://www.christiansofiraq.com/.../
ecumenism.html
http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/...0924/
essays.htm
I;m always interested in discussions of eucharistic theology and practice. On the subject of Sacrifice I'd like to note that in the mass there are, in a sense, two sacrifices. First, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and of ourselve brought together in the elements of bread and wine in the offertory, which, after consecration and invocation of the Holy Ghost, become Christ's body and blood in substance, and are joined, with us, in Christ's once-for-all-time fully sufficient sacrifice which is eternally pled by him before the Father. The idea that Christ is sacrificed again and again in each mass was a crude and incorrect twisting of the patristic and medieval expression of Sacrifice and contributed to some of the heated polemics of the 16th and 17th centuries. How do some of the commentators in this thread understand when the Real Presence is confected - at the words of institution or at the invocation, or at the combination of both? Orthodox and Anglican belief apparently hinge on both, and Lutheran on the words of institution only. Thx.
Sorry for the very late comment - only just found this thread.
I'd love to know where Spirit of VII found those Jewish liturgies in which 'the spirit of communal joy is the vehicle of the divine presence there, a presence that is familiar, familial, caring for God's people, not stiffly cast in the mold of ultra-transcendent majesty and numinosity'.
My own experience of Shabbas worship (I'm Jewish by birth and upbringing) consisted of the men downstairs, dovening, and the women upstairs in the gallery, chatting about their holiday plans and Mrs L's new hat, gewalt! This was typical of Orthodox worship: Reform put the women and men together, so there wasn't so much chattering, but there was no sense of worship at all, frankly, and certainly no joyous abandon, or whatever.
I'm not suggesting that either a subjective sense of the numinous, or the spirit of communal joy is vital to authentic worship - simply that Fr O'Leary has possibly extended Chassidic spontaneity (which doesn't necessarily extend to Shabbas worship) to normative Jewish liturgies - wrongly.
Hi Sue Sims, I am surely guilty of extrapolations. I attended two synagogues a few times when living in Squirrel Hill, Pittsburgh, also a very liberal one in New York. The Orthodox one was rigidly segregated and stuffy. The liberal ones were probably Reformed and had what seemed to me joyous abandon and warm community feeling. I took part in two Talmud sessions, one in Jerusalem, and found them deeply spiritual and human. Toss in the countless Jewish rituals seen in movies and some idealizing literature and you can paint a beautiful picture of an ideal Jewish liturgy -- I hope that somewhere it exists.
Father O'Leary:
I'm puzzled why you have not responded -- even by comment bombing -- to my presenting evidence in support of my claim. I'm certainly no scholar of the Missal of Pius V, but wish sufficiently to follow Our Lord so that I can't avoid the bludgeon-me-on-the-nose-obvious fact that at the Mass celebrated according to the Missal of Pius V EVERYONE THERE is more able to receive the graces available than that same group would be at a Mass (valid, reverently celebrated and all) celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI.
"[...] I can't avoid the bludgeon-me-on-the-nose-obvious fact that at the Mass celebrated according to the Missal of Pius V EVERYONE THERE is more able to receive the graces available than that same group would be at a Mass (valid, reverently celebrated and all) celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI."
Hello. It is not an obvious fact to me at least; I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Questions: What did you mean by 'graces'? Why are they "more able to receive the graces" through one Missal? Does Christ give less grace though the Missal of Paul VI? Is the Blessed Sacrament, the Body and Blood of Our Lord, less powerful, or less abundant? I wonder: Since I think (objectively) the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Byzantine Rite) is superior in many ways to the Tridentine Mass (Latin Rite), does it therefore follow that it gives more graces?
==
Paul:
I'll try not to do what is (or used to be) called flaming -- but I am somewhat overtired as I write this. YOu deserve a reply.
First, the graces available are identical -- that is, the "actual graces" and the "sacramental graces" are the same in both cases, since both are valid forms of the Mass.
Second, as I was reminded this week in my own Catechism class at school, our own disposition plays a large part in how well we receive the available graces of any sacrament. Accordingly, if we strive to receive the full benefit of the Mass according to the Missal of Pius V, we are able to receive them. But if we strive to receive the full benefit of the Mass through the Missal of Paul VI, those graces are obscured by the rite itself: see my previous comments about the invocation of the saints elsewhere in blog-commentboxdom.
Similarly, he who prays entirely by himself is able to receive a gift from God, but he who invokes the intercession of the saints (or even one particular saint) has that much more effective prayer being offered on his behalf.
New rite is normative?
Whatever predominates among the living, for better or ill in year "X", is therefore "normative" Catholicism? Sorry, but this is positivism gone mad - "normative" Catholicism is, by definition, contained in and transmitted through Tradition. Normative Catholic worship is that which developed organically and imperceptibly from its Apostolic origins until the ruinous rupture of the NO. The NO, therefore, can never be anything other than an aberration, however many Catholics become accustomed to it.
MTV, the Rite doesn't just "predominate;" it was promulgated by the Holy See.
Kathy
Even if something is "legally in force" that isn't the same as being "normative for Catholics". Papal decree cannot render something unknown for 1970 years "normative" any more than it can render it "traditional".
MTV
I don't really know what you mean by "normative." I understand it to mean something like "according to the rule." Which the Rite is.
Kathy:
Guesswork here. Thomas MOre was told that all the scholars of his day agreed with the King. He replied to the effect that all the scholars in Christendom agreed with him.
The Holy See is not a body of scholars. The Rite was decided for us, given to us. We are obligated to accept it.
Kathy,
I agree with you that the Pauline Rite(s) is normative for the Latin Rite, in the sense that it is the rite of Mass celebrated by the Sovereign Pontiff. But that, I would argue, is a shame and I would further argue that liturgical sanity will not return to the Latin Rite until the only objective standard, the traditional Roman Rite, is restored as normative and, at least legally, it is the Pauline Rite that are the exception.
As for being obligated to accept the Pauline Rite, I agree that we are obligated to accept that it is a legally promulgated and valid rite of the Church. But we certainly are not obligated to agree that the creation of this rite was a good thing, or in any way positively willed by the Holy Spirit, or that it has brought about a positive liturgical renewal, or even that its ongoing existence is desireable. No Catholic is obligated to believe any of those things.
TWB, you need to go to school. The Rite is not normative because it's celebrated by the Sovereign Pontiff, but because it was promulgated.
** TWB, you need to go to school. The Rite is not normative because it's celebrated by the Sovereign Pontiff, but because it was promulgated.**
Kathy, school may or may not answer this question. Depends on the school. I'm speaking historically. Historically, in the face of more than Latin rite of the Mass, the normative rite of the Latin Church was that rite celebrated by the Pope. The fact is that there are now, once again, two rites in the Latin Church, the traditional Roman Rite and the Pauline Rite. Both have been lawfully promulgated, so promulgation isn't the key. And if you side with the most prominent Roman cardinals, the traditional Roman Rite has never been abrogated, so in certain ways legally (albeit not practically) they exist as equals. That's an oversimplification, but enough for now.
If, God willing, the restrictions are lifted from the traditional Roman Rite and the Pope began to celebrate it himself in public, it would be much more difficult, at least using historical standards, just which rite is normative.
The Tridentine Rite is allowed. There is one Rite, and another is reluctantly indulged.
Promulgation is exactly the key. One was promulgated subsequent to the other, almost certainly with the formula "anything to the contrary notwithstanding." Then the other was allowed, under certain circumstances, by way of exception. Both are valid, of course, and legal, but one is the normative rite and the other is allowed by indult. They do NOT "exist as equals."
(Sometimes I don't think you even believe what you are arguing.)
"the bludgeon-me-on-the-nose-obvious fact that at the Mass celebrated according to the Missal of Pius V EVERYONE THERE is more able to receive the graces available than that same group would be at a Mass (valid, reverently celebrated and all) celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI."
Sententia haeresi proxima.
** The Tridentine Rite is allowed. There is one Rite, and another is reluctantly indulged.**
Four Roman cardinals (Stickler, Ratzinger, Medina-Estevez, and Hoyos) are on public record as stating that that the traditional Roman Rite was never legally abrogated. Card. Stickler has stated that the commission of nine cardinals appointed by John Paul II to study the question, of which he was a member, was unanimous on the point. There has been no official ruling by the Holy See, but so far things look pretty good for the legal status of the traditional Rite.
**Both are valid, of course, and legal, but one is the normative rite and the other is allowed by indult. They do NOT "exist as equals."**
There are many who are a great deal more knowledgeable about canonical matters than I am who hold that the "indult" for the traditional Rite is in fact a legal fiction, that no such permission is necessary because the Rite was never legally abrogated.
The short answer--again, according to those much more knowledgeable than me--to the "anything to the contrary notwithstanding" argument is that a piece of papal legislation such as Quo Primum, phrased as it is, requires more than a blanket "anything to the contrary notwithstanding" in another piece of papal legislation to nullify it. It would have to be explicitly retracted, which has never happened.
So yes, I do indeed believe what I'm saying. The Latin Church has two rites and if the legal fiction of the indult is ever removed--as truth and justice demand--they will exist as equals de facto, as well as de jure.
Wow. I guess you really do believe it.
Well, you seem pretty well convinced, and as nothing to the contrary can withstand your interesting version of the facts, I'll just bow out of this discussion. Thanks--a lot of things have been clarified for me here.
Commenting by HaloScan
