Posted on 10/22/2006 1:33:05 AM PDT by Antioch
While the contents of what Pope Benedict XVI may eventually say about the pre-Vatican II “Latin Mass” remain a tightly guarded mystery, that vacuum hasn’t stopped Vatican officials, bishops and liturgists from pondering the possible fallout – from the political to the eminently practical.
In the Vatican, one concern is that such a move would be seen as an ideological statement about the general direction of the church, and especially its commitment to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). They insist that Benedict XVI’s motives are actually pastoral rather than ideological.
Some bishops, meanwhile, hope that if a ruling does come, it will still allow them discretion to regulate use of the old Mass, making judgments about whether it might put unacceptable strains on priests and parishes in given locations.
“The bishop has to be able to make decisions about the liturgical life of his diocese,” Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in an Oct. 18 interview.
Finally, liturgists find themselves pondering the practical dimensions of a potential Vatican ruling, meaning its possible implications for seminary training, church architecture, even something as banal as Mass schedules.
All of this suggests that the question of whether there will be a papal document may, in the end, prove less puzzling than what to do with it if it ever arrives.
Speaking on background because no public decision has yet been taken, Vatican officials insist that while Pope Benedict XVI has a personal preference for more traditional forms of liturgical expression, he has also made it clear he does not want new liturgical upheaval. Hence, they insist, his motives for contemplating a more liberal stance on celebration of the old Mass are actually pastoral, not political.
They lay out the argument as follows: First, the pre-Vatican Mass was celebrated by the church for five centuries, so there’s no question of it being “abolished”; second, if a small group of faithful are attached to it, and if wider access might bring some of them back into communion with the church, why not?
The reference is to the followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who broke with Rome in 1988 in part over the question of the older Mass. Members of his Society of St. Pius X are conventionally numbered at perhaps one and a half million worldwide.
Most Vatican officials argue that the number of Catholics likely to seek out the old Mass is relatively small, less than one percent of the total Catholic population, and hence that the impact of broader permission would be limited.
Moreover, officials argue, even within Latin Christianity there is a history of diversity in liturgical rites. In earlier centuries of church history, different geographic areas celebrated the Eucharistic according to their own customs, and some of these rites survived until quite recently: the Celtic, North African, and Gallican rites are all well-attested. Others are still in use today, such as the Mozarabic rite in Spain and the Ambrosian rite in Milan.
(This is a precedent many liturgists would contest, on the grounds that these are rites circumscribed by a particular culture and region, while the pre-Vatican II Mass is not.)
While all of that may be grist for the mill for historical and theological debate, liturgists also have to contemplate the practical dimensions of the question. What would it mean to restore in a more systematic way a rite that has not been widely celebrated for almost 50 years?
Viatorian Fr. Mark Francis, superior general of the Clerics of St. Viator and a distinguished American liturgical writer, spelled out at least seven questions that occur to him in an Oct. 17 interview with NCR: • Aside from the Mass itself, will priests also be expected to offer other sacraments according to the pre-Vatican II rites, such as funerals, weddings, and baptisms? If many priests lack familiarity with the older Mass, even fewer would feel at ease with more “occasional” sacraments; • Will liturgical preparation in seminaries need to be revised? “If there is going to be a universal indult, then seminaries would feel honor-bound to offer courses to prepare priests to celebrate both rites,” Francis said. • What about church architecture? “It’s difficult to celebrate the Tridentine rite in a Vatican II space,” Francis said. “Will we have to move the altars back and forth? Will we have to install altar rails?” • Assuming the liberalization applies to the 1962 version of the Roman Missal, the last before Vatican II, where will people find it? It would have to be reprinted and distributed quickly, Francis said – joking that in the end, the 1962 Missal might make the rounds more quickly than the new English translation of the post-Vatican II Mass, a project that has been in the works for the better part of a decade. • Will the normal expectation be for celebration of the “low Mass” according to the older rite, or the far more complex “high Mass?” If the latter, then various other ministers and a choir conversant in older musical scores, at a minimum, would be required, and that could be problematic in many places. • Will some of the older disciplines that surrounded the pre-Vatican II rite be restored, such as Benediction after Mass, which is actually forbidden under current liturgical law? In some cases, the older Mass was celebrated in the presence of the exposed sacrament, also currently prohibited. How will such canonical conflicts be sorted out? • Finally, if the church allows traditionalists attached to the old Mass to hold onto their customs despite official changes in policy, what would prevent more liberal Catholics, for example, who oppose the new, more “Roman” English translation of the post-Vatican II Mass from requesting permission to use the previous English version? “Are we creating a procedural monster?” Francis asks.
“It seems to me there’s a pretty vast set of implications here that have not yet been adequately thought out,” Francis said.
For his part, Francis is not enthusiastic about the prospect of a return to wider use of the pre-Vatican II rite.
“The way you celebrate the liturgy is a theological act,” he said. “It enacts the relationship the church believes it has between itself and God. In the Tridentine rite, we’re saying that the priest is the principal mediator, and the baptized don’t have much of a role. That doesn’t reflect anymore who we are as church, which is the reason the liturgy was reformed in the first place.”
Critics, on the other hand, sometimes argue that it was precisely the excesses of post-conciliar liturgical reform that have created an appetite to return to the pre-Vatican II rite.
“People are tired of not knowing what they’re going to find” when they go to Mass, said Jesuit Fr. Joseph Fessio, editor of Ignatius Press, which has reissued a number of liturgical classics over the years. “Benedict is saying, ‘The people have a right to the immemorial spiritual customs of the church.’”
Skylstad said he hopes that whatever comes down the line will not dislodge the post-Vatican II Mass as the normal way of celebrating.
“We’re a church of unity and of common worship,” Skylstad said. “The thrust of Vatican II calls for more active participation on the part of the faithful in the liturgy itself, and from my standpoint trying to move further in that direction would be most helpful.”
“On the other hand, the Holy Father is trying to reconcile with the Lefebvrite group, whose members have an attachment to the older Mass,” Skylstad said. “To date, those efforts have not been successful, but we are always in the business of reconciling, healing and unifying. Perhaps some further accommodation can be found.”
>>Totally agree with you. People were not educated in the ways of the church.<<
And being Catholic is not a lifestyle anymore.
We don't practice our faith, we live it. Many don't even give it a second thought.
Whether it's the Angelus at noon or grace before meals, the traditions that ran our homes Pre-VII are all but gone. The day to day things that our mothers and grandmothers did, do not exist anymore.
When a household was Catholic years ago, one knew it. Now, once a week is good enough.
**Whether it's the Angelus at noon or grace before meals, the traditions that ran our homes Pre-VII are all but gone. The day to day things that our mothers and grandmothers did, do not exist anymore.**
Or say a Daily Rosary or visit the Blessed Sacrament once a week for an hour or have fish or eggs or cheese at ALL meals on Fridays and Ash Wednesday, etc. etc.
Maybe I am just old-fashioned.
>>Maybe I am just old-fashioned.<<
Nope, you are Historically Catholic.
I am too.
I would argue that it was not catechesis, nor the New Rite.
What took Catholics away from the Church in the West was materialism and consumerism, pure and simple.
There's no "NEED" for heaven, nor God, nor any of that 'hard saying' stuff. Just write a check or take out a loan...
Good point.
There was a disconnect. It played out so that the concept of Fatherhood (divine and human) was distorted into a "Do As I Say, DAMMIT!!" thing, rather than a Father who understood the best uses for the design--similar to a family father whose restrictions and instructions to the children are based on experience.
*You do if your read the post you are responding to.
Man, he's got that right. Just look at the UNITY! The link shows how unified we now are!
Francis
In hindsight, the revolution we underwent in affluent America revealed what was actually in the hearts of those Catholics who came of age back in the day. Once it appeared the rules and regs could change, many were revealed as only having the form of a Catholicity absent the Christian substance.
And, believe me, I am not leaving myself out of the criticism. It is only through a series of crises which followed my abandoning Catholicism that I fell into such a state that I, literally, was reduced to tears and begged my Lord and Saviour to come into my life and save me. For my former friends, I don't think they have, yet, reached that point where they realise they need a Saviour.
Of course it is to be expected others had different experiences in different parts of America. The only universal is sinful man desperately in need of a Saviour.
Thought you'd like this....
Friday, October 20, 2006
Can the existence of two rites fracture unity?
Cardinal Ratzinger explains why not
We have already explained in a more "practical" level why the arguments of liberal critics of a possible papal document restoring the Traditional Latin Mass to its place of honor do not make much sense.
We now turn to the words of the then-Cardinal Ratzinger, the gloriously reigning Supreme Pontiff, answering these specific criticisms.
It is good to remember ... what Cardinal Newman affirmed when he said that the Church in all her history has never abolished or prohibited orthodox liturgical forms (forms which express the true faith) which would be totally foreign to the spirit of the Church.
The authority of the Church can define and limit the use of rites in different historical situations. She never prohibits them purely and simply! The Council, therefore, ordered a reform of the liturgical books, but it never forbade the previous books. The criterion which the Council enunciated is both vaster and more demanding. It invites everyone to self-criticism! ...
One must examine the other argument which pretends that the existence of two rites can fracture unity. One must distinguish, here, the [1] theological from the [2] practical side of the question.
[1] Theologically and fundamentally one has to realize that several forms of the Latin Rite have always existed and that they retreated but slowly only as Europe was unified. Up to the Council, there existed along side the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite of Toledo, the Rite of Braga, the Rite of the Carthusians and the Carmelites and the best known: the Dominican Rite; and perhaps other ones which I do not know. Nobody was ever scandalized that the Dominicans, often when present in parishes, did not celebrate like parish priests but rather had their own rite. We had no doubt that their rite was both Catholic and Roman. We were proud of the richness of having several rites.
[2] The free space which the new order of Mass gives to creativity, it must be admitted, is often excessively enlarged. The difference between the liturgy with the new liturgical books, as it is actually practiced and celebrated in various places is often much greater than the difference between the old and new liturgies when celebrated according to the rubrics of the liturgical books.
An average Christian without special liturgical formation would be hard-pressed to distinguish a Sung Mass in Latin according to the Old Missal from a Sung Mass in Latin celebrated according to the New Missal. The difference, by contrast, can be enormous between a liturgy faithfully celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI and the concrete forms and celebrations in the vernacular with all the possible freedom and creativity! With these considerations we have already crossed the threshold between theory and practice where matters are naturally more complex ... .
If the unity of the faith and the unicity of the mystery appear clearly in the two forms of celebration, this can only be a reason for all to rejoice and thank God. In so far as we believe, live and act on these motives, we can also persuade the bishops that the presence of the ancient liturgy does not disorder or injure the unity of their diocese, but rather it is a gift destined to build up the Body of Christ of which we are all servants.
So, my dear friends, I would like to encourage you not to lose patience - to remain confident- and to exercise in the liturgy the necessary courage to bear witness for the Lord in our times.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Conference on the Tenth Anniversary of the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei
Rome, October 24, 1998.
(Translation made available by the FSSP website, with corrections; numbers in brackets not in original text
I ping you for your own good. You need to know and understand the reality of the schism. Your souls are in danger and I have a duty to do what I can to bring you back home
You are violating the religion moderator's rules by presuming not only to know my mind, but the state of my soul. Please do not ping me to anymore of your drivel. This is now my second request officially.
Do not ping narses again.
Thank you!
"I don't know what Catholicism you grew up with, but mine sure wasn't formal, legalistic and devoid of a personal relationship with Our Lord. Nor do I recall that we were urged to adopt that type of relationship. "
And I would add that the saints through the ages surely were not like that either (formal, legalistic, etc.).
For my own benefit, despite searching for it in the information about what is and isn't acceptable behavior in FR, I have been unable to find any rule about pinging or not pinging anyone. Could you please point out to me the existence of the rule. Thank you
You are violating the religion moderator's rules by presuming not only to know my mind, but the state of my soul. Please do not ping me to anymore of your drivel. This is now my second request officially.
Of course, obviously, I don't know the state of anyone's soul. Just as obviously, while alive all souls are, objectively, in dager. One evidence of this is the warning about our battles against principalities and powers.
All of that aside, I would appreciate being shown in the rules where one is prohibited from pinging another.
Thank you
His example is one of the sad things out there.
I am getting ready to move from a parish with a wonderful youngish conservative priest who oversaw the building of our new church where the crucifix is huge (with a corpus of slightly over 5 feet and a very prominant tabernacle right where it ought to be, who will not tolerate any pelagianism in his homilies, although he only cracks down on the worst of the song service (but at his previous parish, replaced the bad stuff they were calling hymnals with the adoremus books, bought at his own expense), to a new town in a new diocese which I know isn't noted for its strong orthodoxy.
I have a feeling I will be taking a trip every couple of months back here just so I can walk into a devout church, have my confession heard by a priest who I know believes, and hear a homily that is orthodox in content, and enjoy being in a church that I helped to build and that reflects that you can build devoutly in the modern era.
I am nervous about what I will find.
Egads. I didn't realize that, although I recall reading when he got his post at the bishops' organization that things were pretty rotten there. I wish they would remove these bishops who have bankrupted their dioceses, but I suppose that wouldn't be fair to their replacements, who would have to contend with a situation that wasn't their fault. Not that Bp. Bill seems particularly disturbed by it.
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.