Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
It is understandable why in the post-MP world, some might begin to get the impression that NLM is about the extraordinary form: most of the pictures, articles, etc. that have been posted have dealt with the MP and the extraordinary form. But that is because, as Jeffery pointed out below, the MP is big news, and it's obviously what's getting everyone's attention right now.
It seems to me that most of those who are committed to the reform of the reform recognize that the freeing of the extraordinary form has an indispensable role to play in being a catalyst for such reform. The MP is not the end of that reform, but it is a huge step towards it, in addition to being a very worthwhile thing in and of itself. Pope Benedict recognizes as much in his letter to the bishops accompanying the MP.
Reform of the reform may not have been necessary if "Father Entertainer" and his coterie had faithfully followed the Novus Ordo
texts, rubrics, used the Roman Canon with frequency, and employed chant and more traditional music and instruments, such as the organ. I may
be mistaken, but I believe the insanity and ultimate degradation of the Roman liturgy flowing from the "make it up as you go along" and "customizaton" ethos created the present crisis in liturgy thereby creating a demand for the TLM. Hopefully, the motu proprio and TLM will serve as a means to recover what should never have been lost. Tom
TJM,
Well again, I'd point to what I noted about the differences in thought about a reform of the reform. The deeper understanding from whence the name seems to derive itself moves beyond simply the matter of "saying the black, doing the red".
I think its important to bear that "school" of the reform of the reform in mind to really have a full appreciation of all the aspects and nuances of matters like these.
Today is 2 Oct. The MP came out on 7 Jul and took effect on 14 Sep. We are just now gettting used to the novelty of it all. I think it is a little hasty to talk about "abandoning" the Reform of the Reform.
Anyway, concerns such as this are against the spirit of the new regime in the Church. We have the MP- Now, rather than "labor" at a reform, let us see what happens, after 40 years of "labor" in the liturgy, when the Church can sit back and let true organic development take over.
WAC
Dear all,
Forgive me it this may sound naive, but I happen to think 'neat theory' is very tedious and can sometimes be so cold as to against the desired goal itself.
What appears to be happening (or has potential of developing in to) are two distinct ends of the same thread which want to appear mutually exclusive from each other.
We are all 'entitled' to our tastes and preferences on what we find more appealing or feel strongly for in the EF and OF as long as they correspond to the rubrics and the tradition/mindset from which it has grown from. But all in all, this is about recovering the sense of the sacred, is it not? And what is that about other than to bring ourselves closer to God and nourished by his law of charity?
Thus, it would help (IMHO) if some of us who feel strongly for the TLM would also grant that some good fruits come out of the reverent celebration of the Novus Ordo, despite us not liking some of the innovations. It is a legitimate rite after all. Could you imagine if we didn't have liturgies such as the ones in St Agnes and London Oratory at all. I have often heard some traditionalists whinge and whine about how we are merely dressing up the Novus Ordo which they perceive to be a rot. Rot or not, Christ is present. Not liking a rite is fine, but to blaspheme reverence itself or acts to make better out of the perceived deficiency is like persisting that a sinner should always only sin because that's what a sinner is.
Similarly, those who still very much love the Novus Ordo (esp in Latin) should not be treated (similarly) like 'lepers' as those in the TLM camp would be able to relate to. But those who love the modern rite should also rejoice with those who have suffered long in the psedo-ghetto we have learned to call Traditionalism. Rejoice for the mother rite, at least. We should rejoice when (in this age of political correctness) we have recovered something which we have lost , that which can edify us on our earthly exile. Fine, TLM may not be your cup of tea, but souls are being won for God through this rite!
Despite how much we may lament that Bugnini gave us the '69 Missal, we must also distinguish the mind of the Church from his personality. It is 'a' and 'the' rite of the Church.
I'd suggest that we never cease to pray that despite our sufferings and inability to perceive the holiness in the new missal, we never give up on our responsibility in assisting at every mass (both EF and OF) to the best of our ability.
Charity, charity, charity. We must make Christ known and loved everywhere.
Thank God for Holy Mass,
Isaac.
(btw this 'naughty' boy assists at mass at n SSPX chapel and Novus Ordo)
Isaac,
I think you've very much hit the points I've also been addressing. There is need to work together, not against one another; not to think in strict linear ways about what belongs to which and what, but rather about the Roman liturgy generally.
The other questions and issues can and should be looked at, but that does not mean that there cannot be a co-existance and a corelation.
+AMDG+
I think most posters, so far, have it right.
1. We are only a few short weeks into the new era, where our Holy Father, in his wisdom and obviously guided by the Holy Spirit, has relaxed the artificial restrictions on the Mass of All Times. Think back to the late 60s/early 70s (the NO was not introduced in the Trenton NJ Diocese until Easter Vigil 1973!): the displacement was discussed for years afterward. Something beautiful had been changed, and we didn't really understand how much, for a long time.
Something has been changed, yet again, with the implementation of SP. And, for most of us, we're hoping for the better. The signs are there.
2. Dignity and due honor is never out of fashion, thus the excitement that some decorum (grudgingly in some places, based on some of the documents over at Fr. Z's blog...) and true reform of the Rite may be allowed to 'organically' happen rather than be manufactured based on the spirit of the times is evident.
3. For many of us, September 14th was like Christmas morning. We're so enthusiastic over this precious gift that our Pope has given us, we can't let it alone.
Maybe it's hopefully the same way we will be when, at the end of our lives, having lived and suffered and hoped for Christ's loving embrace (having been purged of our sins, failings, and rendered due satisfaction in Purgatory...), we have that knowledge that, assistng in this most august never-ending sacrifice, we somehow are united with Him here on this earth. I don't know about you all, but just that thought makes me hungry to experience it ever more.
4. The final chapter is not written yet on the implementation of SP. We want to get it right (it is the right of the people to have it. Not the right of the hierarchy to refuse it...as was implied before). We have to lead the way. We have to pray for our priests more ferverently now than ever before. We have to pray for the Holy Spirit to infuse the hearts of all so that the usus antiquor will become the spark that lights the fire of the rebirth of our Faith.
Sure, it's exciting. Sure, everyone is talking about it. Sure, lots of ink is being spilled over it.
Because, IMO, what was hidden and forced into the shadows by those who had their own, not the Church's, agenda and controlled the discussion are fading away, and Jesus' promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail is being shown, once again, to be a sure sign of His presence amongst us.
Bryan
It may be a small point, but for instance: At a meeting yesterday with our Pastor, he suggested (on his own!) that we begin using the recited Confiteor with a sung Kyrie at those Masses where the priests are not comfortable singing, or a chanted "Lord Have Mercy" with verse, sung by the Priest, if they are comfortable doing so. He also suggested that we begin singing the Lord's Prayer as well. These are both very radical suggestions in this parish, where the long-standing practice has been "creativity", reductionism and use of music as performance. This sudden turn-around came from somewhere, probably our new Bishop, and I think it bodes well for our parish, as well as our Diocese. Again, these are minor chnages, but seem to indicate the beginnings of a movement towards better things.
If I haven't permanently earned the name of "troublemaker" around there, a few quick comments:
1) Probably like most other "novus ordo" readers here, I am indeed very happy for lovers of the EF and also for the Church as a whole about the motu proprio. I certainly don't think it's a bad thing to have the historic liturgy (and hopefuly liturgies if the Ambrosian and other traditional Western rites are also freed) of the Church celebrated more often. My only fear in regards to NLM coverage was that if it becomes primarily focused on the EF and on how celebration of the EF at a parish helps celebration of the OF at the same parish -- it will become less applicable to my own situation, since I don't think we'll be seeing the EF at our parish or any of the directly surrounding ones any time soon.
2) I think that for some of us who seem to regard the "reform of the reform" as consisting primarily of "just doing things right" in the OF, it's not so much a matter of not wanted to ever see revisions in the missal itself as a feeling that the way need to be prepared. It seems to me that as Catholics we should cultivate a very conservative liturgical sensibility, which means that outside of outright abuse (which should always be stopped immediately) it seems dangerous to have sudden changes by fiat, as we did in the early 70s. As such, it would be a great step towards _requiring_ Latin in certain parts of the mass if we could get it to where far more parishes used it voluntarily. And perhaps it would make it more likely that the options on the Eucharist Prayers will be narrowed down to just one or two if more parishes moved to only using I or I and III voluntarily.
3) One of the things I would be very curious to read about (and might be key to the ongoing success of the reform and re-union of the missals) is news about how the EF is being celebrated specifically to address some of the reform concerns that are, perhaps, valid. For instance, is anyone indeed doing the readings in the vernacular? Are some EF groups using the full set of dialog mass options, including the Credo and Pater Noster? Is anyone reciting the canon quietly but audibly? I may be unique in this, but one of my worries in regards to the EF as a means of organic development is that many celebrations of the EF seem to have actively retrenched. (My mother specifically commented on attending an EF low mass recently that it was "much more old fashioned" than she remembered from the '50s, with none of the dialog options at all used, and that's generally been my experience out in this area as well.)
Amen! This also means the NLM will be continue to be a helpful resource to us non-Roman folk interested in reverent, prayerful worship of God.
Shawn, I'm not arguing with you at all regarding the philosophical underpinnings of the reform of the reform. But I think you would acknowledge that if we "said the black, followed the red" and honored our sacred musical heritage, there would not be much demand for a "reform of the reform." The ROFR became imperative because the liturgical progressives couldn't control themselves and honor the books and tradition. That's my point and I believe, other than for true liturgical afficianados with a greater appreciation of the history of the Roman Rite and how it developed organically, that the reform would have been fairly successful under those circumstances. I, for one, as many others on doubt, became disenchanted with the Novus Ordo, not because the texts or the structure were necessarily bad in and of themselves, but because the liturgical left could not discipline itself and saw the Ordo as "mere suggestions" on their joy ride to creativity. Tom
Darwin,
The motu proprio was not to force people who attend the traditional Mass to do it only as a Dialog Mass.
The MP was not to give guidelines on how to say the traditional Mass, but to let everyone know, officially, that is not something to be forbidden and rejected. In fact, the Pope did not even mention the "Dialog Mass."
I do not know how you see that that will help the N.O. improve. No Mass, old or new, nor rubrics, old or new, are going to help improve the way the N.O. is celebrated if the Pope himself does not do something about the liturgical books as they are now officially. The liturgical books themselves (*not* just the translations) need to be stricter and take away the power to decide from the Celebrants because of how creative they all can get.
Adding things from the traditional Mass to the N.O. makes it look like "make up on a pig" as someone else mentioned here. This is because these things are so foreign to the N.O. that in order for them to become part of the N.O. Masses, Rome *has* to make them official... instead of just making them "options" that will depend on which priest is saying the (N.O.) Mass that day and at that time. Or whether the priest is "conservative or liberal, etc."
Now, you are advocating the dialog Mass, while other people had, in the past, advocated for the Solemn Mass to become the "norm" for traditional Masses. Why are people so worried about all of this when the MP itself did worry about any of this? In fact, from what is mentioned here, a lot of people who frequent this blog do not even attend or serve the traditional Mass frequently... so why all these opinions about changes and options without really knowing how the rubrics of the traditional Mass work? Or without thinking about the possible consequences that all these new "alternatives" or options could cause in the future?
This is why I do not support at all the reform of the reform: because the whole idea of choices and mixing and matching that goes on in the N.O. is advocated as part of the traditional Mass just because... and no really good reason is given.
All these things that were allowed (dialog Masses, people saying some of the prayers, etc.) were not asked for by the people. It all came from the top and not always with the best of intentions or with careful consideration of the possible results. People who advocate of all these things now is because of the N.O. that they have been attending for years. Just because you have seen it before, does not mean that you have to see it in the traditional Mass.
Why not do the same with the other Rites of the Church? Why not change the way the incensation is done in the Ambrosian Rite to the way it is in the Roman Rite? We are all certainly used to the Roman Rite more than to the Ambrosian Rite...
This all shows poor knowledge of rubrics and liturgy...
I work in a parish where reform of the reform has been taken seriously over the years; excellent music (mostly latin), good altar serving, beautiful vestments have been retained. However, there are (inevitably) those inside and outside the parish that wish this were not so. The perceived hard-won gains in respecting rubrics and maintaining a reverential approach to the Ordinary Form are now held up as an obstacle to the introduction of the Extraordinary Form in this parish. We have the resources to implement Summorum Pontificum and for the two forms to exist side by side but there is a concern amongst the clergy that the delicate balancing act which has kept our beautiful Solemn Novus Ordo mass going over the years would have been in vain if the classical liturgy were to be reintroduced. I find this sad but interesting - is it an admission that the efforts of those who bring beauty to our liturgy might seem more appropriate in the end to the form of mass they have grown from? Is the concern that the extraordinary form may indeed threaten liturgical gains in the ordinary valid? After all, the naysayers have been claiming for years that our parish has been clinging to the old ways and ignoring the 'spirit of vatican II'. I suppose we wouldn't want to prove them right.
Vaughan, a quick thought (for that is all I have time for).
The groups have worked in relative isolation that this new post-MP world that introduces a greater "rubbing of shoulders" if you will, brings with it some challenges.
As the Pope has noted however, there needn't be an opposition. There is no necessity of such.
TJM,
In terms of popular demand, you might of course be correct, since most I think are concerned with the experience of worship rather than the deeper, underlying issues.
I am of course speaking more on the level of principle as relates to the liturgy, the tradition, the Council, continuity, and so forth -- which is what ultimately should drive such a matter I believe.
Of course, some of those very things mentioned do also effect the experience of worship. I think for example of the wide options allowed and what Fr. Robinson commented about that in The Mass and Modernity. It is an interesting point.
I only want to keep emphasizing that the reform of the reform does really touch into these deeper issues at its very core. That is why I wanted to note that in regard to your own comment.
Reform of the Reform is now more important than ever. Like it or not, Sacrosanctum Consilium applies to the Missal as published in 1962 - let's face it, it's the form of the Roman Rite that was envisaged when they proposed their reforms.
Talk in traditional circles about whether the people should make the responses during the mass if they wish so to do is irrelevant - the Council spoke on this issue. By the same token, and thinking of the same text, there ought to be no need to discuss people at a NO Mass making their responses in Latin and to the simpler Gregorian melodies. V II bites both ways, and I would hope that Reform of the Reform types would continue to push for the enrichment of the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite.
It would be great if EF types didn't feel obliged to wear 18th century lace and ancient fiddlebacks - and that OF types felt that they could from time to time.
More controversialy, it might be appropriate for a priest who wants to introduce his parish to the EF to celebrate it facing them once in a while - and to celebrate the OF ad altare once in a while too. Don't get me wrong - I know where I want to end up, but there are legitimate options within the two forms of the rite.
Seems to me that we need to abandon our entrenched positions, exploit the riches that the liturgy offers us and set about the job of being the Holy Father's chaps (and chapesses) on the ground. My guess is that he's smarter than me and I might want to fall into step with him!
Shawn, I love your blog, and respect you and your stated objective of reform-of-the-reform.
But, put me down for restoration. I think it is going to happen; slowly perhaps, but it will, as the inevitable result of what is now reality. The reform of the reform cannot happen fast enough to prevent a practical choosing with our feet between the TLM or the n.o. as it exists for most Catholics: one or the other. Tradition or novelty.
If I'm wrong, and the ROTR's win out, I will consider it as a consolation prize. An acceptable one, but a consolation prize nonetheless.
Shawn, Who is the Hemming you mention?
Shawn, thanks for your kind acknowledgement.
Vaughn, I frequently attend St. John Cantius in Chicago (to retain my sanity) and at this parish they do the Novus Ordo in both Latin and English and have the TLM. All are done with great dignity and beaty. It seems to be working well there.
As an aside, although I love the TLM and attend both forms of the Rite, I actually find myself more attracted to the Novus Ordo celebrated ad orientem in Latin for the following reasons:
1) No Last Gospel which seems anti-climatic;
2) Greater variety in the readings;
3) Proclaiming the readings in the vernacular facing the congregation; and
4) Simpler rubrics.
I know this will not be popular with some of the folks here, but that's my view. However, I would fight to the death the need to retain the TLM. It's just too magnificent and prayerful to surpress.
Tom
How many traditional Latin Masses do not already have, with respect to TJM's #3, the Epistle and Gospel read in the vernacular from the pulpit following the Latin readings at the altar? Weak point.
My apologies Father, Rev. Dr. Laurence Hemming. He is a philosophical theologian, and has presented papers at the likes of CIEL, is involved with the Society of St. Catherine of Siena and so forth.
The Timman,
Well, let's keep in mind its not a matter of winning out. We can support both.
If someone were to ask me whether I "belonged" to the classical liturgical movement or the reform of the reform, I'd have a very difficult time coming up with an answer. I support both initiatives.
I happily and joyfully attend and work for the increase of the classical liturgy in the Church, and I likewise am delighted to go to the Toronto or London Oratories (for example) and promote their reform of the reform liturgies.
They each have their own particular purposes in our present context.
The *just do the NO Mass right* approach is NOT a reform of the reform. Think about it. What is being reformed by simply doing what the rubrics and texts already prescribe?
The reform of the reform will not happen on a wide scale because the liturgical books are too ambiguous and permit too many options. One can attend two NO Masses both done *right* according to the NO rubrics and texts yet they are completely different. One can be more traditional and the other unrecognizable from a traditional perspective.
So what can be done today at the NO Mass until the liturgical books are gradually reformed?
Prepare the faithful for the reform by always siding with tradition when choosing options from the GIRM and the Roman Missal. (To know tradition though one has to be familiar with the 1962 Missal.)
Ken, in regards to point 3: instead of reading them in Latin at the altar and then repeating them in the vernacular, my preference is to have them just read in the vernacular ab initio facing the congregation. For a solemn high Mass, I am not adverse to having them chanted in Latin first, then repeated in the vernacular, but this so seldom occurs, I did not make that point. Tom
TJM:
Then I would say High Masses should be celebrated more frequently ; )
I'm grateful for the clarification of NLM's mission. And I look forward to more articles about both movements, classical and reform of the reform.
In my experience, the ordinary form Mass where I live has come a long way since the 1970s. In my parish there was always a love for tradition, so when almost all the other churches in our largely Catholic city abandoned their statues and stained glass, our parish kept them, though we lost our Communion rail and side altars. Even so, it's probably the most beautiful church in town.
In this environment and under the care of faithful pastors, the liturgy has made progress from the post-concilliar confusion and innovations to a consistant worship experience true to the Missale Romanum (imperfect as it may be?). At our parish, Mass is reverent and solemn, the organ plays, Latin is frequently employed for some of the ordinary, and we are planning to start chanting some of the Propers. (And none of this feels out of place or tacked on to the celebration - these are all native to the Novus Ordo, just not always employed.)
Ours used to be a parish of retirees, but more and more young families are joining. People come from miles around to go to confession, which is available almost every day.
The unspoken law is to make haste slowly, but there is a beautiful transformation in progress. I just thought I'd offer that as a story of a reformed OF underway.
TJM ... your way of defending (or supporting I should say) the traditional Mass is very similar to most people who just want it because it provides the possibility of improving the N.O. This is very selfish and I would even say disrespectful (to real tradition)... "I love the 1962 Missal, but..." "Take it from someone who loves the traditional Liturgy, but..." and so on and so forth.
1) No last gospel -- You are always allowed to leave Mass after the blessing is given. No one can force to remain in church for the reading of the Gospel that deals with the Incarnation of Our Lord.
2) Variety in reading -- I think that most people make this an excuse for not reading the Bible at home. If you want more readings from the Bible, why not read it at home? If the "more variety of readings" part was not made a part of the Mass when people could not read (when it could have been truly helpful and beneficial), why should it be so now? Are we today, who are able to read, "dumber" or lazier now than those before us?
3) Vernacular and facing the congregation -- What's the importance of the "facing the congregation" part? Can you expand on why this is "better"?
4) Simpler rubrics -- Again, this is an indirect way to advocate for the 1967 Missal. Why keep going on and on about simplifications when there are missals that already have these simplifications (and the readings in the vernacular, too - I think)?
Again, no movement, no changes, are necessary and no need to destroy the 1962 Missal or the traditional Order of the Mass. This is all just a waste of time...
"Again, no movement, no changes, are necessary and no need to destroy the 1962 Missal or the traditional Order of the Mass. This is all just a waste of time..."
The fathers of the Second Vatican Council believed otherwise. In the long run, so does the man who once said as much under the name of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Indeed, the very term "reform of the reform" originated with the man who now wears the Shoes of the Fisherman. The real "waste of time" is sustaining any conversation on the future of the Roman liturgy, which does not take any of this into account.
One's own personal preferences notwithstanding.
"Are some EF groups using the full set of dialog mass options, including the Credo"
Most sung masses I've been to have included congregational singing of the Credo.
"and Pater Noster"
I've never seen it recited by the congregation, let alone sung.
"Is anyone reciting the canon quietly but audibly?"
I've seen this done by one priest in Rochester, NY, but I'm not sure it was intentional development vs. relatively unskilled deployment of microphones.
"If the "more variety of readings" part was not made a part of the Mass when people could not read (when it could have been truly helpful and beneficial), why should it be so now?"
The same question could be asked of the Latin liturgy: why have the Mass in Latin at Church when you can just read it in Latin at home?
Because it is in the context of the public celebration of the Liturgy that these things matter. The word of God is to be proclaimed in the Liturgy. Reading it in private is not a substitute for proclaiming the whole of Scripture to the world through the sacred liturgy.
David Alexander,
The 1967 Missal came after Vat. II, so what other changes would you want?
John M,
Because without being present at the Mass, you will not fulfill the precept and you cannot partake of Communion. You make it sound as if Scripture is not read at all in the traditional Mass... you might want to re-read a Missal...
Reading is not the same as being present.
latinmass1983:
I have never discussed any such thing in this thread. I have referred to the discussions at the Second Vatican Council, and the writings of Pope Benedict while he was Cardinal Ratzinger.
I'm attempting to discern "the mind of the church" here. It's not about what I personally want.
Dear all,
It's good that we can discuss this openly and honestly realize that we still have very sharp divisions on where we think the future may be with respect to our convictions on our 'favourite' liturgical form(s). This is an accurate picture of what most of us (liturgical 'maniacs') feel at present, I believe.
On a personal note, I don't really see the ROTR and TLM movement as completely distinct. What's for sure is that they are two different forms. The worrying aspect of the trend to mutually exclude these two 'camps' to me stems from a very narrow belief that either one of these movements will herald a new triumphalism in the Church. I think this is rather selfish, and makes it harder for our Lord to be present in the world. It encloses God's work to a very private opinion and let's face it, none of us trads and even ROTR's can agree on a pristinely clear 'road map'. What we do know is that progress is being made.
This is why I have said it before - I don't believe in neat theory because it's tedious. I once heard a composer say something incredibly poignant, which we may often not realize. He said that 'unnecessary complexity' has always been regarded as something evil in music. And this is what he sees everywhere in the modern world. The notion that particular ideologies will have a 'certain' and definitive impact if carried out to the letter is naive and contrived. Christianity is not an ideology and liturgical norms are not laws that are intended to shape our souls into perfect bite sizes to fit into our conception of God's door in heaven.
What I am trying to get at is that I think our fervour and zeal for our liturgical viewpoints on rubrics and what constitutes 'good' tradition has developed into a malaise of angst instead of joy, mutual accusations rather than gratitude.
From my own experience (and I don't pretend to be anywhere close in terms of my liturgical knowledge), my faith has been weighed down before by these big questions
How could the Church self destruct itself in this way?
There are so many contradictions in this regard and they are painful!
How could Paul VI ever enforce the new liturgy with such well formed arguments against it?
How could Bugnini ever be permitted to do this?
What kind of Council Father's would ever be so imprudent to authorize these ambiguities when the possibilities were so obvious?
How could this happen??
We just don't know. But despite of our dismay the Church in her wisdom thinks so. It is difficult and mind boggling but this is an opportunity to increase and show our faith in the sight of God. I am not saying we should accept the new liturgy as it is seen in practice, but that those in the ROTR camp should work through it. It is the right of the Church and the Pope cannot reverse it. The reason why this is so hard to accept is because it is the truth.
So how have we come to this point? Some of us believe that TLM is the only way to go
...continuation...
So how have we come to this point? Some of us believe that TLM is the only way to go for a good number of reasons and likewise in the ROTR camp. But I really do think we don't really have a clue where this will take us. I really do not think anyone in the Church can really know how to interpret Vatican II this soon after it's ended. It takes time. It is not easy knowing exactly what a Council requires us to do. Reforms are not meant to be ignored or zealously promoted to the exclusion of all else. Believing so is plainly naive. It's just not so cut and dry.
We cam theorize just how necessary was SC, but the fact is it's there. Nobody said it will be easy to fulfil the demands of the Council and I don't think by just abandoning it everything will return to normal either.
We just don't know for sure, but we should be vulnerable enough to make sure that the Lord can work through us in the liturgy in ways that ideologies will never satisfy.
I think that the ROTR will happen only if those of us who advocate it will let tradition inform the way we celebrate it. We have to stop thinking of contriving new methods to save the new liturgy. That in itself is exactly what the Consilium did. Just let the renewal happen in hearts free from this anxiety and it will in due course. Really, really all the NOM needs now is for us to celebrate it reverently in light of tradition. We will see where the Lord takes us with it. The NOM will either die with the liberal attitude or be saved, nourished and grow to something 'more beautiful' in 10,20, maybe 50 years' time. For God this is possible. I have this 'theory' that perhaps one reason we ended up with this anorexic tree we call the NOM is that it's in growing pains and it's being pruned for something larger.
At the same time, despite me thinking that TLM is the more 'superior' liturgy, I really find that in time, those who insist solely on the 62 rubrics forever and indefinitely to be rather closed to God's grace. All this time, we've been talking about the banal 69 missal and how it did not evolve organically, and yet I know many who would like to do just that with the 62 Missal. Freeze it forever into an 'organic' ice cube.
I am not saying this journey will be easy. It will be hard. This is why we need charity, because that's all we should have when we find it difficult to agree. Let the Tridentine rite grow and the ROTR will come naturally. After all, if the NOM was clearly doctrinally evil, as some trads would like everyone to believe than it will die a natural death. Thus, traditionalists need not worry if they think it futile to persist in the ROTR, it is already dying a natural death in light of SP. If those who hold this peculiar trad opinion can't agree with this, it must be because this really is not what they know to be the true situation and it is difficult to accept.
My humble opinion. As always I stand corrected if my words fall short of t
latinmass
It was not my intention to make it sound as if no Scripture is read in the EF.
I think you may have missed the point of my analogy: that reading the Latin mass is not the same as being present. Of course it's not. In the same way, reading a wider selection of Scripture at home is not the same as being present when it is proclaimed in the Liturgy.
Re: "sibling rivalry"
Are they in fact siblings, or is one the parent of the other?
They are siblings, because we're dealing with people, and those people have a common Mother: the Church.
15 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
