This is a good move by the Pope. In one action he can welcome traditional rite priests while cutting off SSPX at the root. In this decree establishing the Good Shepherd Institute, Pope Benedict also made the very important point that: “the traditional Missal of St. Pius V is not a separate Missal but rather a special form of the unique Roman Rite.”
This will get it across to all concerned that the Roman Rite is far older than the 1570 Missal of Pius V, which itself usurped even older liturgical traditions. Finally, we will be able to put the 1570 Missal in its rightful place, as part of a tradition, but not as constituting that tradition.
The idea that the 1570 missal is an object of irrational love by traditionalists is a mistake; most of them would be willing to celebrate with a 1070 missal or a 570 missal. Their point is that the 1570 missal is in continuity with the liturgical history and practice of the Lattin rite (it is in fact very little different from the Roman missals that preceded it), whereas the Novus Ordo is not. This point has been more and more driven home by liturgical scholars (eg Klaus Gamber, Alcuin Reid), and I don't know that there is any serious case against it. It is what has led me to become a traditionalist.
"In one action he can welcome traditional rite priests while cutting off SSPX at the root."
Recognising a handful of priest and seminarians who were expelled from the SSPX, or who left the SSPX, is hardly likely to cut off the schismatic SSPX at its root.
"the 1570 Missal of Pius V, which itself usurped even older liturgical traditions."
Wrong. The 1570 Missal changed but little since 600 A.D. It did not "usurp" or replace any older liturgical traditions, because no Latin liturgical tradition existed at that time that was older than the Roman Missal.
"Finally, we will be able to put the 1570 Missal in its rightful place, as part of a tradition, but not as constituting that tradition."
Of course you're right that the Missal of St. Pius V is part of a tradition rather than the tradition itself, but one can recognise that fact while still seeking to worship according to the older Missal rather than the Pauline Missal that represents a drastic and extensive liturgical reform utterly without precedent in the history of the Church.
Also, the 1570 Missal made provision for any liturgical use in existence for more than 200 years, such as the Sarum Rite.
Obviously the Holy Father does not share the disposition of utter recoil from the traditional Roman rite exhibited by most Catholics today, which strikes me as deeply, if unwittingly, symptomatic of a profoundly anti-Catholic pathology. I have often wondered what would happen if, during one of our local Novus Ordo weekday Masses, at that point in the General Intercessions when the priest, as is his custom, asks for extemporaneous prayer intentions from the congregation, I were to speak up, and, without breaking the rhythm of the spoken intentions, verbalize the petition, “For the restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass in our diocese, we pray to the Lord ...” I imagine the rhythm of the conditioned response would most likely remain unbroken; yet I wonder whether the consciousness of what we were collectively praying for at that precise point in time would rise to the awareness of everyone’s mind by the time the words of the antiphonal response had left our lips, “Lord, hear our prayer.” What has thus far prevented me from voicing that petition is the expectation that it would most likely raise hell in the souls of the worshippers around me, as it undoubtledly would in the mind of someone like Janice, were she standing next to me in Mass when I happened to utter such a petition; and I am not yet sure of the propriety of my thus disturbing the spiritual worship of my fellow Catholics at Mass, even though I find my own soul constantly disturbed -- inadvertently, I'm sure -- by the regular circus of cafeteria lines leading to eight different EMHCs, hand-holding, gum-chewing, coffee drinking (no, I am not kidding), and cacophony of bongos, guitars, drums, Haugen, Haas, and Co. cum electronic amplification in excelsis.
Pertinacious Papist,
You have mischaracterized my attitude toward the 1570 Missal. I have great reverence for the old rite and I attend a Tridentine Mass occasionally. Just because I have allowed that the 1570 Missal is only one part of the tradition of the Roman Rite is not a reason to suppose that I dislike it or would react with consternation if you raised a petition for its use. There are, however, problems with the 1570 Missal, in part its use of language with respect to the Jews, and the fact that its restoration is, in some cases, not being done because it is objectively better (which I will grant it is), but because that's the way some people want it and they want it now. It's become a standard-bearer for certain disaffected groups, rather than what it is: a source of prayer, done in the right way, before God. This Missal has been "canonized" by these groups, to the detriment of the objective liturgical variety that existed before it, only they never bother to mention that. I think Pope Benedict is entirely right in his characterization of the 1570 Missal as a special case of the Roman Rite, which it is, and not THE ROMAN RITE.
And by the way, I attend a small urban church in which the celebration of the novus ordo is extremely reverent, where the priest usually uses Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon) and bells are rung at the Consecration. The novus ordo can be celebrated reverently. To see all instances of it as deleterious to the faith is painting with too broad a brush.
Janice,
I agree. The Novus Ordo can be celebrated reverently. St. Aloysius in Oxford, the Brompton Oratory or Westminster Cathedral in London, are good examples, in my experience.
One difficulty I have is that there are so few parameters on how it is celebrated. One can have a reverent Mass such as you (and I) reference here -- or a goofy bongo Mass -- both equaly valid and normative Masses of the new rite.
Jordan has the proper point of departure here: the Missal of Trent is in continuity with all of Sacred Tradition, as is the declaration to respect all lawful rites older than 200 years. The Pauline Missal was acknowledged by Pope Paul himself as a break with tradition in many important ways. Why else did he have to work so hard to keep it Catholic?
Yet I must confess that Janice has a point. The rite can be celebrated with an angry laity just as much as the Pauline Missal can with a reverent, prayerful congregated laity. Our regular family Mass is the Tridentine Rite, for which I am constantly grateful. Our school Mass is the Pauline Missal, celebrated by a priest whose operative rule is "We say the words in black and do the words in red". I am grateful for this holy, humble priest who sees himself as the servant of the liturgy, not its slave-driver. Holiness is allowed to grow in both places, but grace builds on nature.
I see one difference: the actions of the angry laity who sometimes frequent the Tridentine Rite is the exasperation of a father who wishes his son to stop doing drugs, an exasperation which sometimes leads him to sin; TOO OFTEN, but not always, even the reverent laity parrot such nonsense as "We can't turn back the clock" or "We don't want to be more Catholic than the Pope", or even "I didn't like it once, but I wouldn't want that to change".
Janice, I stand corrected in my mis-presumption regarding your attitude toward the 1570 missal.
Let's not forget that the reverent celebration of the Novus Ordo, while it is commendable and the laity actually have a right to expect it, does not mitigate all of the concerns about the Novus Ordo, for instance the replacement of the Offertory prayers.
These are important points, because, more than being a source of prayer, the liturgy is an act of worship, and this act should be most fitting, and the prayers and ceremonial should be the supreme expressions of what we believe in general and what we believe about the Mass in particular. The Traditional Mass does a much better job of this. I return again to the Offertory as my example.
I think the case remains to be made that the Novus Ordo is an established version of the Roman rite. There is certainly little 'established' about it, as we continue to see. Perhaps after another generation or two we may begin to see the outlines of what may be seen as an established and settled new rite. But when it's still in the process of formation, and has such wide breadth of interpretation as can be found from that of Fr. Stravinskas on one end and Cardinal Maloney on the other, one sees little that can be called stable. Certainly it is nothing like the Fathers of the Council envisioned. Perhaps the Ordo Missae of 1964, but certainly not the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969/70.
As far as the Roman Rite is concerned, several things should be noted.
First, the liturgy in Rome before the fourth century was in Greek (cf. the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus). Certainly, Gregory the Great introduced reforms of the liturgy, but I question how much they were honored in his own day. He was, effectively, the only "authority" in the West, since the imperial household was in Constantinople. At lot of things considered "Gregorian" are only such in the sense of Gregory as an eponymous author. After Gregory, there were further, substantial reforms, particularly during the Carolingian era. This is when we get the Gelasian Sacramentary and the Hadrianum, which is an adaptation of the Gregorian Sacramentary. As such, there have been many changes in the Roman Rite that are unnoticed in the rush to canonize the 1570 Missal. While it includes many elements of the previously-mentioned resources, it is only one version of the Roman Rite.
As far as the novus ordo being an "established" version of the Roman Rite, I should also remind you that Pope Benedict is issuing an Apostolic Exhortation in October, which will deal with precisely this. Everyone knows that the imposition of the Paul VI Missal did not allow for a gradual change in the Roman Rite, but established a break. Benedict XVI wants to "go back" in a way, reform the present novus ordo liturgy and publish a missal of his own. This sounds like it will establish the novus ordo as a version of the Roman Rite based on the Catholic liturgical tradition.
Evidence, Janice? The Holy Father has already issued the Universal Indult a gazillion times.
"Some Lefebvre Followers Reconcile With Rome: New Institute to Celebrate Mass in Old Rite
http://www.zenit.org/english/vis...phtml?
sid=94679
ROME, SEPT. 11, 2006 (Zenit.org)."
==
by Brian Mershon
Ex-SSPX Priests Group Approved by Rome
September 21, 2006 09:00 AM EST
http://www.theconservativevoice....icle/
18520.html
==
"Schismatic priests reconcile with Vatican, establish new community
By Carol Glatz
9/12/2006
http://www.catholic.org/internat...ry.php?
id=21228
Catholic News Service"
==
September 12,2006
Former followers of Lefebvre return to Church and found approved Institute
http://www.theindiancatholic.com...ad.asp?
nid=3359
==
Commenting by HaloScan
