Let's not kid ourselves: it will come down to a special tridentine bishop supported by special tridentine priests, such as FSSP -- two separate liturgical organizations under one wispy umbrella in each diocese. An absentee bishop with priests under joint jurisdiction will be powerless, much as Benedict, bully pulpit aside, is today in most diocese in America. Trouble is, there aren't anywhere near enough bishops in America who are sympathetic to the tridentine liturgy.
There is the Catholic Church, and there is Amchurch: they are distinct, if not exactly separate.
Not exactly the "cross-pollination" Benedict was hoping for, but it is what has been highlighted by the motu proprio.
Is it me, or has the tone of the Catholic press and the officials of the Vatican been a lot less "trad-centric" in the past few months? Maybe the fad is dying down? Since the Church is now so in love with novelty, like the rest of society, maybe the antique novelty of the old liturgy is wearing off? Reality is setting in.
Say what you will about the SSPX, but their idea of "nulla partem" when it comes to the rest of the Church makes a lot more organizational sense. Shuffling the portable table in and out of the sanctuary or having to say Mass trying to maneuveur around it is probably the greatest visual argument for all of the more radical traditionalists' claims. Two systems, separate but equal... pardon me if I am skeptical that it will actually work.
Maybe skeptics prefer that we here in the U.S. get priests who know Vietnamese, Spanish, Chinese (with various dialects), English and whatever language that may enter the spectrum in the coming millennium. Make sure the priest begins training at 15.
Perhaps the Church in it's wisdom can require it's priests to learn Latin and say mass in the traditional way before that tradition is eliminated only after a few decades.
The world has changed and I see a practicality to Latin not just the novelty. This might be the ideal time to try and put this back in play before it is lost forever.
Pardon my optimism, Ralph, but the Motu Proprio has had many saluatary effects. It has brought out into the open the duplicity of bishops who say that this form is only for the few malcontents and that they [the bishops] are following orders from Rome. It has further highlighted the sorry state of seminary formation: every priest should be sufficiently versed in Latin to pray either Ordo in the mother tongue of the Church. How can I call these salutary effects? Simple: once the problem is identified, even in the secular press, everyone has the opportunity to help fix it. How can His Holiness more effectively undo the work of forty years without identifying the particular blockage.
Mr. Garton-Zavesky's counter to Mr. Roister-Doister elicits speculation as to the conditions supporting optimism or pessimism about the prospects of Summorum Pontificum's robust implementation.
Historically, we have two polar opposite examples. Pope John XXIII's Veterum sapientia (1962) insisted that sacred sciences be taught in Latin and that bishops rigorously enforce this, as well as the proper promotion of Latin studies in Catholic schools and seminaries. We all know what happened to that.
On the other hand, there is Pope Paul VI's promulgation in 1970 of the Novus Ordo Missae produced by Abp Annibale Bugnini and his team of liturgical experts after the Council. Although it came to be encrusted with abusive innovations, it was also so utterly entrenched that for decades it was thought that the TLM was outlawed.
Think of the other triumphs of the Benedictine era. His Holiness altered the prayer for the Jews while exposing the absurdity of the complaint. He restored the Gregorian Rite by calling it Extraordinary, thus exposing the absurdity of "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion" and sent Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to announce that the Gregorian Rite is for ALL, not for "many" or "few", thus again bringing another important issue of language to the fore. Perhaps I could also note that through his actions in the celebration of Mass, he is changing the tenor of the liturgical debate. Vatican II, he asserts through his actions, never mandated Communion in the hand.
Sursum Corda.
Pernacious Papist,
How is it that the "Novus Ordo Missae" has abusive innovations? Do you have link that could help me get more up to speed.
For me, the "Novus Ordo" was a warm welcome after getting tired of homilies covering the deacon's three step, Joel Olsteen-style, self-help program for a better marriage. I went to the next closest parish and nothing really seemed different, but I learned that they were okay with singing "Rudolf the Rednose Reindeer" for the Christmas liturgy. I was still very young at the time, but I knew something wasn't right about that. So, When I found a tradionally built Catholic Church all, the while, run by Dominican priests who, all the while, still wore their habits AND ALL THE WHILE used Latin from something called the "Novus Ordo Missae", I felt Catholic again. I began to remember that worship was about more than just going and -
gitt'in a good fix off dat der preacher fella wit a holy bread snack and sometin to wash it down wit tords the end of the show.
Jokes and antedotes aside, I don't see how the Novus Ordo is abusive unless you mean that it has too much flexibility. Maybe it has flexibility that I was luckily/blessed enough to not see get abused?
Dr. Blosser,
It's Mike Foley, whose TLM articles you have sometimes kindly posted on your blog. I have been trying to get a hold of you but have been unsuccessful. Can you contact me at Michael_Foley@baylor.edu?
Best,
Mr. Kouns,
Click on the link to my "Liturgical Position Statement" near the top of the left sidebar on my blog. It offers detailed distinctions between problems of abusive illicit innovations, problems of licit innovations not mandated by Vatican II, and problems with the validly promulgated Missal of 1970 itself, which even Pope Benedict has noted.
Let's cut to the chase.
It's been a year. The motu proprio made a small splash, trendy in a few areas, negligible or close to it in most.
Most bishops will not support it openly with any enthusiasm, and even those who do cannily couch their support in terms of reacting to "demand", as if they were trial-marketing a new brand of laundry soap.
If current conditions persist, the recrudescence of the gregorian rite will die out as swiftly and certainly as the popularity of pet rocks, disco, and Fred Thompson as a presidential candidate.
People obstinately refuse to remember that the NO was foisted upon Catholics in a most undemocratic, unecumenical way. Bishops sent their lackeys to the parishes, and the lackeys said "our way or the highway." No worries about "demand" there. Just shut up and eat your oatmeal!
Of course, now that the spine of the Church has been deliquesced by Protestantism's Favorite Council, that won't be happening again. Too bad.
Ralph:
What's your take on the news from Rome today that the entire staff of liturgical consultants serving under Piero Marini has been summarily dismissed?
Chris,
It means that the bishop of Rome controls the diocesan bureaucracy of Rome. I don't see it meaning a thing in the diocese of Buffalo NY. I doubt that Bp Kmiec knows who Piero Marini is -- and I'm not being flip when I say that.
Cheer up. If the entire liturgical establishment of the Roman Curia can be sent packing without much fanfare, surely an errant bishop or two can be reined in with similar subtlety. Our Co-Adjutor recently made headlines for telling the National G/L conference what the Church teaches on homosexual acts. Bravo!
Commenting by HaloScan
