Posted on 04/13/2005 9:30:29 PM PDT by Cato1
The way I see the situation...anything that can improve the current liturgical situation is good. A new liturgical movement already exists, despite Ratzinger calling for one.
The liturgical battle, as I see it, has currently two fronts:
1. The TLM, of which you and I are part. This must be allowed complete freedom to grow, and grow it will.
2. The tolerance of the NO. If we were to outlaw the NO tomorrow, we would only make the same rash mistake that the innovators did 40 years ago. I say we slowly reform it in the way Ratzinger has called for. Restoring the traditional Offertory and mandating the sole use of the Roman Canon would essentially do this, such that the core texts of both rites would be the same. This change would also have the least affect on the people, since these are texts only recited by the priest.
I very much agree with your point about genuine liturgical reform extending beyond the Mass to other liturgical events. Many people don't realize that certain things they think of as being "since forever" - such as the (traditional) Easter vigil - had actually fallen into disuse until they were revived by the liturgical movement in the 1940s and 50s.
Interestingly, where traditional processions and other "para-liturgical" practices are being revived, you can see a surge in church attendance and piety - Madrid comes to mind, where over the years, I have watched the piety of the people grow as the Archibishop has encouraged the revival of the these things.
I don't advocate the outlaw of the NO. I don't think it would be necessary if the right of every priest to say the TLM without needing a bishop's approval was recognized. I think the NO would eventually self destruct on its own.
The 12 minute Masses were a particular feature of big urban churches, especially downtown churches where people would come for speedy Masses at noontime. They were sloppily said but they "counted." Another thing that was clearly an abuse was that many people skipped the Mass altogether - they would come flying down the aisle just in time to drop down in front of the altar rail and take Communion, and then they would fly right out again.
I agree...I have seen a situation where an Indult TLM started up. Originally, it had about 20 attendees all made up of ex-SSPX people. In about a year, this Mass became full (about 200), and about half of the people there came over from the NO (being celebrated in the same church).
One of the things that always amazes me is how everybody, even people as powerful as Cdl. Ratzinger, has to pay lip-service to VatII, even though its effects were clearly disastrous and there is so much about it that must be undone that this will probably be the task of the Church for the next hundred years.
Not only was there probably a plot before VatII to use it as an opening through which to shove radical changes and completely deform the Church, there is still somehow a reluctance or fear of naming the problem and perhaps drawing some kind of retribution from people who must still be very influential in the heirarchy.
Also, I think people who are trying to find the "real" (and supposedly good) VatII behind the actual disastrous one are motivated by a desire to protect or defend the motives of some of the people who were involved, such as Paul VI (and in all fairness, I don't think he wanted or intended to destroy the Church, but was simply weak and confused).
It's significant that R. was at Regensburg, which was home to the major liturgical music reforms which began in the late 1800's.
Those reforms were more oriented toward 'housecleaning' than toward revolution--sort of the difference between defragging your C drive and re-installing Windows.
Although the document on the liturgy was "clean" on the surface, and R approved it, it was the implementation, run by Bugger Bugnini, which was the problem.
R became aware of the disastrous wording of the DOL just a little late, after Bugnini & Co had loosed the hounds of Hell.
A splendid image!
I honestly believe Ratzinger would reform the NO in the way I described.
As far as translations go, we would have two issues:
1. To the extent Latin is reintroduced into everyday NO Masses, the need for official translations varies. I would hope that the Liturgy of the Eucharist would always have to be said in Latin again.
2. Where translations are required (e.g. Readings), they should decide on an English edition of the Bible which pre-dates 1970 to supply those texts. For non-scriptural texts, I think the reformed ICEL under Vatican watch will suffice.
Your take comports with mine.
R. has some exceptionally good stuff on the topic of Sacred Music which places him FIRMLY in the Traditionalist camp on the liturgy/worship question.
Not surprising--his brother was Kappelmeister at the Cathedral of Cologne.
What you recall is a book called "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber," by a pseudonym priest, Fr. Xavier Rynne (sp?)
Ah, yes, Bugnini. I had forgotten about him...
IF a priest has his own personal indult from the Vatican, which is still valid, the priest does not need permission.
But there aren't many of those permissions floating around...
Pinging someone who actually knows.
A good translation of EVERYTING--orations, readings, and the Ordinary--not to mention restoration of the "forgotten" texts such as the Introit, Offertory, and Communion versicles--would be a start.
IF a priest has his own personal indult from the Vatican, which is still valid, the priest does not need permission
Even so, those priests are likely forbidden to offer the TLM in public. Hence, their personal indult is usually relegated to private Masses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.