Posted on 06/04/2004 11:27:13 PM PDT by ultima ratio
Restore the Old Mass by Robert Moynihan
"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song: and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy." (Psalms 137: 1-6 (KJV))
On April 23, the Congregation for Divine Worship issued a 60 page instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, ("The Sacrament of Redemption"). It is the result of long and serious deliberations on how the Mass is being celebrated today in the Church, and sets forth a standard of solemnity to be followed everywhere. (Even in Rome, I would hope: a couple of weeks ago at the Church of San Giovanni dei Fiorentini, I heard "Danny Boy" played during Communion).
No one can deny the desire on the part of the authors of this instruction to impart a sense of the sacred to the new Mass.
But after studying the catalogue of the "do's and don'ts" in the document, one senses a reluctance on Rome's part to get to the root causes of the problem: namely, the new Mass itself.
There have been books written on what's missing in the new Mass, by Cardinal Ratzinger among others, and the authors of this instruction are aware of these studies. But they do not pinpoint the real source of the 40-year secularization of the Mass. The problem is that the new Mass attracts and "enables" abuses because it was intentionally shaped to diminish the "transcendent" and emphasize the "profane" dimension.
The new Mass has turned out to be a rite too rapidly produced and too influenced by the rampant secularization of the 1960's. Patching it up is a vain effort.
At least in this one area it is possible for the Church to take decisive action.
The successor of Peter can even tomorrow issue a solemn decree more or less as follows "The cries of God's people are at last heard; the winter is over, the true springtime is come; the ancient, holy liturgy of the Roman rite, cherished by so many saints, will, with no further delay, be restored in all the churches of Christendom..."
Then the Pope would set forth the steps by which innovation, experiment, and individual artistry would come to an end and the ancient sacrificial offering of the Mass — in all dignity and solemnity — would be restored. Some would argue that such an action would be a grave mistake, that making such a liturgical change would both "impede ecumenical progress" and "further confuse the faithful."
I understand these arguments and feel their force.
But I am persuaded that the restoration of the old Mass, with its simple solemnity and rich symbolism, would not offend non-Catholics, as is feared, but attract them and attract them profoundly.
And I am persuaded that the restoration of the old Mass would not "confuse" the faithful, but would "galvanize' them, deepening their Christian faith, confirming them in the love of God and their neighbor. And this, in fact, is what the bishops at Vatican II most deeply desired.
I am convinced that the restoration of the old liturgy would be a consolation to many, who have attended the new Mass, not to "participate more fully" in the new liturgy, but, out of obedience to a Pope and hierarchy which has asked them to "give up" the Mass they love.
I am persuaded that the restoration of the old Mass would be a "festival day," a day of universal celebration and, as such, would mark the beginning of a great renewal in Church life."
Some will argue that such a restoration would be disrespectful toward Pope Paul VI, who promulgated the new Mass in 1969.
I disagree. Paul VI himself was hesitant about the new Mass, as he was about so many things. He approved it half-heartedly. It is said that after he attended a "trial run" of the new Mass, he said, "But where is the mystery? The mystery is gone!" He himself felt something was missing in the new Mass, but promulgated it anyway.
In April I had a conversation with Fr. Jean Marie Charles-Roux, 90, one of the priests who celebrated Mass for Mel Gibson in Rome during the filming of The Passion of the Christ. Charles-Roux was ordained in the 1950's. He knew Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI personally, In 1971, after celebrating the new Mass for about 18 months, he asked Paul VI to receive him at Castel Gandolfo. Paul agreed. Charles-Roux said to Paul: "For 18 months I have celebrated the new Mass, but I cannot continue. I was ordained to celebrate the old Mass, and I want to return to it. Will you permit me to do so?" And Paul said: "Certainly, I never forbade celebration of the old Mass; I have only offered an alternative."
The alternative has become the norm, and the perennial liturgy of the Latin West is celebrated in only a few chapels here and there, almost furtively, as if in hiding, as if in a time of persecution.
So let us read the sign of the times and restore the liturgy of the ages, the liturgy of Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of England, of Boniface and Bernard, of Francis and Clare, of Aquinas and Bonaventure, of Ignatius and Bellarmine, of Newman and Chesterton, and our own parents and grandparents.
Let us preserve from oblivion the beautiful and holy liturgy which we inherited from our forefathers, that our posterity may thank us for having the courage to do what is fitting and just in an age of iron and lead.
*** Robert Moynihan is the editor of Inside the Vatican magazine.
What was it all for--the endless changes, the destruction, the alienation of millions, the collapse of faith everywhere? The Novus Ordo makes no sense at all.
Pure and simple - For the destruction of the last vestige of God's Church on earth.
It has been a systematic destruction, all planned from the very beginning by those with an agenda, operating from within the Church. From the list of culprits you can pick from Communists, Marxists, Masons, Protestants, any one of which would consider it their 'sacred' duty to make the Church 'right.' Has anybody read the book "AA-1025"?
Hopefully it was all allowed by God to seperate the sheep fom the goats.
As I've said before, I wouldn't want the Church to unilaterally revert to the Tridentine Mass. I would prefer it to be a choice, so that the goats can stay where it makes them happy.
This is a very important article. Here we see one more "conciliar Catholic" coming around to realize the importance of tradition. I'm pretty sure that "Inside the Vatican" is one of Fr. Fessio's publications, and he has always been in favor of the "reform of the reform." I once supported that position also, but like the author of this article, I eventually came to realize that the traditional Latin Mass is the only solution. As Moynihan says, the problem is the New Mass itself. No amount of documents attempting to correct various abuses will ever be able to alter the fact that it is inherently deficient.
I believe this may have been posted once already, but there were so many active threads at the time that it was overlooked and didn't get any response. It deserves to be read and discussed, especially by those "conciliar Catholics" who are still on the fence.
Would it be possible for the Roman Catholics to agree to return to the Traditional Mass and retain a mix of Latin and vernacular in the service as a compromise?
One thing is not clear to me and possibly even to many Roman Cahtolics: what was wrong with the Tridentine Mass and why was it changed?
There is no such thing as a "conciliar Catholic", but only Catholics. Your use of the term demonstrates a schismatic mindset.
Like the Chi-Com CPA church?
The problem is that the new Mass attracts and "enables" abuses because it was intentionally shaped to diminish the "transcendent" and emphasize the "profane" dimension.
This is a statement one would never have thought to be justified in making, but it's absolutely true and most disheartening.
The alternative has become the norm, and the perennial liturgy of the Latin West is celebrated in only a few chapels here and there, almost furtively, as if in hiding, as if in a time of persecution.
This is also true, but I would say that we as Traditional Catholics should do our best to confront those who would seek to marginalize us in a very forceful way. IOW, let us never feel ashamed, and let us take on those who wish to promulgate the notion that we are somehow backwoods people in this regard with a vehemence that makes them realize we are not content to fiddle while the Church burns .
Let us preserve from oblivion the beautiful and holy liturgy which we inherited from our forefathers, that our posterity may thank us for having the courage to do what is fitting and just in an age of iron and lead.
This is beautifully worded because it reflects the majesty and beauty of the Old Liturgy and ties in to my point about not allowing the opponents of the Old Liturgy to rest. The new liturgy has turned the Mass into a performance piece, applause and all, and hasn't the power to inspire, even when then the intention to inspire is there.
Rome itself has admonished traditional Catholics for not thinking along the lines of the "conciliar Church"--revealing the true mindset of postconciliar modernist prelates who separate themselves from the previous two millenia of the Church's existence. The Pope has constantly spoken of a "New Advent" or a "New Pentecost"--as if the Church could start all over from scratch. He very seldom alludes to his preconciliar predecessors--and has spent his pontificate apologizing for imagined preconciliar Church offenses. Cardinal Hoyos of Ecclesia Dei used the term "conciliar Church" frequently in his correspondence with FSSP priests.
Very good points - agreed 100%. But I will go one step further: remember in AA-1025 that the basic ocnept of the plan for autodestruction from within was the need to find willing candidates for ordination who would be moles ripe for use, who would willing ly carry out such plans. Well, if the recent crisis in the church in the USA has taught us anything, that group of candidates are known as gay priests. For a gay man the priesthood is a perfect cover - social repectablility, super comfortable lifestyle with many creature comforts, a feeling of status and superiority which they crave (giving them relief from feelings of inadequecy due to their unresolved inner spiritual conflict caused by their homosexuality), and lots of money to play with. Now add to this the capacity of their superiors to blackmail them with the common knowledge that they are gay (to keep them in line, working for the sutodestruction agenda, and oyu have the perfect servitors of evil. Add to this the fact that the traditional mass and sacraments, doctrine/dogmas are inimical to their "lifestyle", and gross departure from the truth is a guaranteed result. One only needs to view the state of the church in this light to understand the mechanics of how this has happened over the past 40 years. The gay priest will certainly not want a return to true Catholic faith and practice, much less to the old mass, as it would force him to confront his sins!
Ping.
Well, like optional celibacy, it can "discussed" til the cows come home, but the Novus Ordo is not going to be suppressed in your lifetime.
Rather, you should work and pray for a Tridentine Rite, with an apostolic administration.
This would have already happened had not Fellay and crowd sabotaged it with their "all-or-nothing" demands on the Holy Father.
What on earth is Moynihan smokin'?
Ninety-eight percent of the world's bishops would oppose this, vigorously.
"Ninety-eight percent of the world's bishops would oppose this, vigorously."
How many are sodomites or enablers of same?
I have to laugh at this.
It's as if, like a spigot, gayness in the priesthood was manifest only after Vatican II.
If you think this, you are simply not fortunate enough to know any Catholics over 70, who can raise the hair on the back of your neck with stories of priests in the 40s and 50s. Gay priests who were more or less discreet in their encounters with young men.
Associating sexual abuse with the Novus Ordo is another of the heinous and bogus tactics of some traditionalists who are hell-bent to convince some very gullible Catholics that the Holy Spirit disappeared after Vatican II.
I thought you knew, narses.
All bishops are fey. It's a requirement for the job.
Of course not. And Mahoney has much to answer for, not least of which is the construction of that monstrosity of a Cathedral.
However, it is simply ridiculous to claim that only after 1965 did homosexual men find a receptive home in the Catholic priesthood.
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.