Tridentine Mass "Not a Priority," Says Cardinal Arinze (Vatican Synod)

Zenit News Agency ^ | October 13, 2005

[NYer]

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 13, 2005 (Zenit.org).- No one at the Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist has addressed the issue of the "Tridentine rite" Mass that the Latin Church used before the Second Vatican Council.

The prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, Cardinal Francis Arinze, mentioned this at a press conference today when he evaluated the first phase of the synodal assembly.

"No synodal father has mentioned this point," said Cardinal Arinze, the co-president of the assembly. The so-called Tridentine rite was approved by Pope St. Pius V.

"If there are groups that desire the Tridentine Mass, this is already provided for," he said. "Bishops may allow it for groups."

"It is not a priority for the synod, as no one has spoken about it," the cardinal concluded. "The problem we have discussed is that many people don't go to Mass, and those that come don't understand -- they go to Communion but not to confession, as if they were immaculate."

[B Knotts]

I don't know that it's a given that it's the NO liturgy per se, that is drawing in converts. Perhaps it's simply the working of the Holy Spirit through other aspects of the Church.

How do we know there wouldn't be more converts with the more ancient liturgy?

My point is that the reform that occurred was not what was forseen by the conciliar documents, which has been noted on occasion by the Holy Father when he was a cardinal.

[mike182d]

[describing the de facto suppression of the traditional Latin Mass Pope Paul VI]-“a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic.”

Yes, this is true. Suppression of the Tridentine Riteis just as problematic as suppression of the Maronite Rite would be. Nothing against the NO here.

“I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”

Yes, this is true. The Liturgy has collapsed at the hands of liberal liturgists who refuse to celebrate a NO Mass as the rubrics prescribe. Nothing here against the NO Mass either.

and also referred to the NO as:
“fabricated liturgy… a banal, on-the-spot product.”

Please provide the full quote. I cannot make an assesment of this statement because the actual subject Benedict XVI is speaking of is suspiciously absent.

So, are you accusing the pope of "say[ing] that Christ lied and that the Church failed to protect what was most Sacred"?

If Benedict XVI is saying that Vatican II was a failure, then yes.

[murphE]

It begs the question: Sure, more people were there in attendence, but were they really there in the celebration of the Mass?

Polls show that about two thirds of Catholics do not believe in Transubstantiation and about ninety percent practice birth control, are they "really" there?

They weren't there to "celebrate", they were there to "hear mass" and "to assist at" the Holy Sacrifice, and the priest was there "to offer" the Holy Sacrifice.

[mike182d]

Polls show that about two thirds of Catholics do not believe in Transubstantiation and about ninety percent practice birth control, are they "really" there?

Absolutely not. But that has more to do with tree-huggin' liberation theologists who educate their flock in the ways of Dissention of Mother Church.

If every Mass in the nation was like the Mass on EWTN, or maybe even closer to the original intent because even EWTN makes some exceptions, I guarantee that we would not have the same problems.

Celebrate the Novus Ordo with Latin and Gregorian Chant as it was meant to, and actually "preach" the Truth during the homily - not tell us that Jesus is a big, cuddly teady bear. That is the problem with the Church and Liturgy today, not because the form of the Mass is that of the NO.

[mike182d]

To say that the gates of Hell will not prevail over the Church is to say that In The End, GOD wins. Not that the Church will sail through history unmolested.

I would not be too comfortable with that line of reasoning because all that means is that everything the Church teaches could be in error right now, just as long as in the End, Christ comes back and sets us straight.

We need some sort of surety in the present moment that what we believe is 100% correct, not just the hope that Christ will fix everything in the End. That eliminates all trust in His Church altogether.

[murphE]

It's from the article I posted the link to before, look it it up yourself or put me on the payroll as your research assistant. The article was quoting the preface written by Cardinal Ratzinger to the book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy , by Monsignor Klaus Gamber.

Cardinal Ratzinger not only endorses this book which is highly critical of the NO, but also praises the author.

Do you still think this statement of yours:

you cannot criticize the Novus Ordo Mass without criticizing the whole of the Church and the promise of Jesus Christ.

is true?

[Pyro7480]

Because, marshmallow, people preferred it when others would not be able to understand anything that was going on so opted to say rosaries during the entire Liturgy

I know you were being sarcastic with the above statement. However, true liturgical reform was already underway. Pope St. Pius X began the process on an ecclesial level by encouraging frequent communion, as long as you have gone to Confession regularly, and lowering the First Communion age to the age of reason. Pope Pius XII continued it during his reign. It was all distorted with the abuses over the past decades.

[mike182d]

It's from the article I posted the link to before, look it it up yourself or put me on the payroll as your research assistant. The article was quoting the preface written by Cardinal Ratzinger to the book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy , by Monsignor Klaus Gamber.

I will have to read this book, then.

Do you still think this statement of yours is true?

Yes. However, for the sake of clarity, I would replace "criticize" with "reject." My use of the word "criticism" was in regards to one's flat out rejection of the Novus Ordo as being valid. Certainly one can criticize the current Novus Ordo Mass as I do it quite frequently. I am not, however, attacking the Novus Ordo Mass as a whole.

Do you not find it curious that Ratzinger, after becoming Pope, has no intention of removing the Novus Ordo Mass? If Ratzinger thought of the Novus Ordo tragic in itself, I find it a very peculiar move as Supreme Pontiff to further insist on its usage despite objections by "Traditionalists."

[badabing98]

<> Its in the rubics of the altar missal. Also - they are read in the venacular facing the people by the priest in the pulpit before he gives his sermon. If you have a missal like I do that I bring to mass, it has the latin and english translations of the entire mass so you can follow what is going on.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I've seen enough well-done Novus Ordo Latin masses as you describe to know that they are still lacking what the Tridentine Mass has, and what the Mass among the Easterners has - awe, mystery, beauty, lyricality, even flow, etc. The Novus Ordo is too bowlderized even when said perfectly - too much has been stripped away, it is hery-jerky in its flow (especially with the Priest standing around listening to the Sanctus and Agnus Dei rather than praying privately, the Memorial Acclimation, the handshake of peace, the offertory procession, etc.), the saints are almost missing from it, and it frequently has strange choices of readings thrown together.

[Pyro7480]

Do you not find it curious that Ratzinger, after becoming Pope, has no intention of removing the Novus Ordo Mass? If Ratzinger thought of the Novus Ordo tragic in itself, I find it a very peculiar move as Supreme Pontiff to further insist on its usage despite objections by "Traditionalists."

I would not be prudent for the Pope to "start with a clean slate" and "turn back the clock" to the pre-1965 Mass. On the surface, it would be seen as "counter-revolutionary," but in reality, it would be revolutionary, in the sense it would cause unneeded chaos in the Catholic Church. Changes need to be done carefully.

[murphE]

My use of the word "criticism" was in regards to one's flat out rejection of the Novus Ordo as being valid.

No one, at least not on this thread I think, has said that the NO was invalid. A satanic mass offered by a valid priest could be valid, in so much as transubstantiation occurs, but I wouldn't go to one.

Do you not find it curious that Ratzinger, after becoming Pope, has no intention of removing the Novus Ordo Mass? If Ratzinger thought of the Novus Ordo tragic in itself, I find it a very peculiar move as Supreme Pontiff to further insist on its usage despite objections by "Traditionalists."

I find many times that what people say one day contradicts what they will say another day. I find that many people are inclined to tailor their speech to appease the specific audience they are speaking to. I also find that many people often point to causes of a particular problem, say what they think should be done, but for any number of reasons don't do it.

[jo kus]

Polls show that about two thirds of Catholics do not believe in Transubstantiation and about ninety percent practice birth control, are they "really" there?

That is due to poor catechizing, not poor liturgical practices. If the Bishops would consider becoming teachers of the faith, rather than administrators or CEO's, perhaps we'd see greater priority placed on instruction of the lay members. The people that go through RCIA are more cognizant of the faith than 90% of cradle Catholics. Who's to blame?

Regards

[jo kus]

They weren't there to "celebrate", they were there to "hear mass" and "to assist at" the Holy Sacrifice, and the priest was there "to offer" the Holy Sacrifice

??? How were they doing that when they were praying the rosary or reading other books to pass the time away until their "duty" was completed? Saying the Mass in a foreign language does not increase participation by the congregation.

Regards

[WriteOn]

Haven't met a baptist kid yet that knows the difference between venial sin and mortal sin.

[murphE]

Mass in a foreign language does not increase participation by the congregation.

I think you base this assumption on a faulty perception of what "participation" is. No one participated more fully in the Holy Sacrifice than Our Blessed Mother, and "all" she did was remain silent at the foot of the cross.

[GF.Regis]

Here is a more complete quote from when Pope Benedict wrote the preface to Msgr. Gambler's book- apparently it may only be in the French edition:

"J. A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our time, defined the liturgy of his day, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a 'liturgy which is the fruit of development' . . . What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product (produit banal de l'instant). [Introduction by Cardinal Ratzinger to La Reforme Liturgique en question (Le-Barroux: Editions Sainte-Madeleine), 1992, pp. 7-8.]

[Pyro7480]

No one participated more fully in the Holy Sacrifice than Our Blessed Mother, and "all" she did was remain silent at the foot of the cross.

Very well put...

[NYer]

How do we know there wouldn't be more converts with the more ancient liturgy?

The following excerpt is from the presentation delivered by H.E. Most. Rev. George Cosmas Zumaire LUNGU, Bishop of Chipata (ZAMBIA)

"Still on the topic on participation of the laity, and this time through music, songs (art.61) and the use of Latin (at international meetings)(art.62), my impression about these articles is that they do not seem to reflect contributions from some mission countries like Zambia. I find this part of the document to be over-optimistic about the organ, Gregorian chant and even the use of Latin at international meetings in an attempt to meet the needs of the people of all time and places. My proposal is that we should not go back to making these instruments of worship universal. Our consideration of our cultural items should not be in comparison to, or in relation to either the organ, Gregorian chant or Latin, although they could still be treated as options for those who find them helpful. Communication and participation is vital in every liturgical celebration including the Eucharistic celebration. Our hope lies in the future and not in the past."

SYNOD OF BISHOPS - 10OCT05 - Participation of the Laity (with music)

Granted, this is only one bishop's presentation but I have read through those delivered by many of the bishops and not one of them suggested a return to the TLM.

[Clemenza]

Be careful. If you believe certain folks on this site, Jesus spoke Latin.

As an outside observer, there is NOTHING SPIRITUAL about the LANGUAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE! If Catholics want a universal language, they can always opt for Aramaic (the language He spoke) or English (the most commonly spoken and understood language on the planet).