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.”
Thanks for the kind words, sister. I am the most efective opponent of the sspx schism and effectiveness breeds opposition. C'est la vie :)
Agreed. Our pastor continually reminds us to Confess our sins and then drop memories of them into the deepest part of the Ocean and begin again because Jesus has made everything new
Sounds like you have a serious problem at this chapel that needs to be addressed. My suggestion would be to familiarize yourself with the information provided at the following link, compile a list of abuses and address these with the chaplain. You can make a difference!
Is Your Mass Valid? - Liturgical Abuse.
bump
Its not that kind of situation. The priest is very sound doctrinally, but he likes to leave people alone and not stir up trouble. And this quasi-Gloria is in the popular missalette that has the nihil obstat, etc. Its one of those situations in which even I am being a wimp about the matter. I was once in a parish where I helped lead a charge to purge such abuse (though IMHO a heretic priest was in charge of that place) and it was emotionally draining and not good for our family's spritual life. So I am reluctant to make waves simply about innocent use of this stupid quasi-Gloria and other liturgical peeves (that I don't thgink are being done to thwart doctrine, unlike the many places where promotion of heresy IS the goal). I suppose the bottom line is that I am too lazy and too worried about being labelled a meanie to try to fix the problem.
And with 7 kids and a job outside the home, too busy!
I think all of those paraphrases or troping (the Gloria is a frequent victim, but there are other parts of the mass where they have introduced a few little "special touches," too) are supposed to end when the new translation is approved. They were actually supposed to end last year, I believe, when the GIRM came out and specifically discouraged them, but the bishops don't seem to have gotten the message. Or more likely, the liberals in charge of the USCCB ignored it, the way they ignore everything that comes out of Rome.
Of course, as far as the translation goes, the bishops are dragging their liberal heels on that, too, but I think there's a limit to their power to prevent it. This is primarily because the new English translation will be effective for all English speaking countries, and therefore our bishops don't have their usual unilateral veto power over Rome.
Liturgists and "ministers of music" will continue to use that drivel as long as their puppet-masters at OCP and NPM publish and promote it.
I've only been catholic for a few months, but I agree with you. I think the NO has its merits. It is good for young and new Catholics who may eventually "graduate" to the Latin. At my parish, we have both vernacular and Tridentine masses. The confession lines are the longest before the vernacular masses, because that's the one most of us go to. It's SRO at this mass with people standing in the vestibule. That's not to say language isn't important. I think in English, I struggle with Latin. I am not in favor of scrapping the vernacular as long as it's orthodox, but I think there should be a latin option whenever a parish is able. They should never have chucked the communion rails. Faith, Hope, Love, and catechesis is the key.
Do not address a post to or about Slugworth.
OK
Wait, we're on the same page here, is there a blue moon this month?
"My military chapel parish NEVER prays the Gloria and the song we sing in its place (Gloria * *[clap-clap], Gloria [clap-clap]...) has made up lyrics."
Unfortunately a large part of the official English Gloria also has made up lyrics.
There is no difference between the Latin Novus Ordo Gloria and the that of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Bumpus ad summum
Bumpus
What exactly are the made up lyrics in the official English translation? I find some ugly translating, but nothing "made up." Most certainly not a "large part" made up.
Gloria in excélsis Deo
Et in terra pax homínibus bonæ voluntátis.
Laudámus te.
Benedícimus te.
Adorámus te.
Glorificámus te.
Grátias ágimus tibi propter magnam glóriam tuam,
Dómine Deus, Rex cæléstis, Deus Pater omnípotens.
Dómine Fili unigénite, Jesu Christe.
Dómine Deus, Agnus Dei, Fílius Patris.
Qui tollis peccáta mundi, miserére nobis.
Qui tollis peccáta mundi, súscipe deprecatiónem nostram.
Qui sedes ad déxteram Patris, miserére nobis.
Quóniam tu solus Sanctus.
Tu solus Dóminus,
Tu solus Altíssimus, Jesu Christe,
Cum Sancto Spíritu in glória Dei Patris. Amen.
Literal English Translation (according to me.....)
Glory to God in Heaven
And on earth peace to men of good will.
We praise You.
We bless You.
We adore You.
We glorify You.
We give You thanks on account of Your great Glory.
Lord God, King of Heaven, God, Father almighty.
Lord, only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father.
You who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
You who take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer.
You who sit at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For You alone are Holy One.
You alone are Lord.
You alone are Most High, Jesus Christ.
With the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
English Translation
Glory to God in the highest
and peace to His people on earth.
Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father
we worship You, we give You thanks, we praise You for Your glory.
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father
Lord God, Lamb of God, You take away the sins of the world,
You are seated at the Right Hand of the Father, receive our prayer.
For You alone are the Holy One,
You alone are the Lord,
You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ,
With the Holy Spirit in the Glory of God the Father. Amen.
Gotta say...that really isn't showing the love of Christ now is it? There are many groups that are in communion with the Holy Roman Catholic Church that still offer the traditional way of celebrating mass. (Fraternity of St. Peter, Christ the King Institute, etc.)
Personally, I like the mass that one can attend in almost any city daily, but I also respect the fact that there are those out there that have a special love for the former liturgy. The previous missal was never abolished and I see nothing wrong with reports that the pope is considering issuing an indult to allow for more people to attend it. The traditional mass has it's own special beatuy, but both sides, the traditional AND the progressives, need to remember that the most important part of mass is Christ truely present in the Eucharist.
Yes, we need better catechisis, yes we need better respect for the laws of God that the Church gives us, but we also need a better respect for both sides of this debate. It is amazing to see how hostile this debate on a document that HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET has already gotten.
The pope does not need to offer an ultimatim. What is wrong with saying "The mass can be said in either format, the tridentine or the novus ordo"? NOTHING! I agree that it is a shame that the members of SSXP have went the route they have, but there is compelling reasons listed on their web site as to why they are not schismatic, although I do prefer the term "irregular". Either way, shouldn't we be encouraging them to return to regular relations with the Church?! Of course, and we don't do that with threats.
There can be no compromising with the truth, that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, that Christ is truely present in the Eucharist, etc. But there is room to work with in terms of which mass people can attend.
Forgetting the SSXP issue for a minute, can anyone say that the tridentine mass is "bad"? No? That's because it's not. I've seen no report that the pope is considering having the universal church use only the tridentine, but rather that he recognizes that many people have a special love in their heart for this way of celebrating mass and he wants to respond.
It's like when people invite me to "praise and worship" sessions, they don't attract me, I don't like to go. But I'm fine with those people worshiping God in their own fashion. I'm fine with both ways to say mass as long as it is LITUGICALY CORRECT. I am not studying to be a priest who says the tridentine mass, but I do think that it should be offered more because there is a growing group that wants to celebrate that way. (Just as praise and worship [NOT DURING MASS...we hope] is becoming much more common, and I'm fine with that)
To conclude this rather lengthy post, take a deep breath, count to five, and wait for the document to come out before making hyperventilating posts.
P.S. "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."
-Actually, there are also many orders that offer the tridentine mass that are not the SSXP. I've listed some above.
"They already have the Mass and while it is illicit, and while they illicility operate in the Jurisdiction of legitimate Bishops, I see no reason to accomodate this protestant cult."
-The tridentine mass was never abolished, the missal was replaced so the traditional way of celebrating mass is not technically illicite. Also, as previously stated, having a love for the tridentine mass does not make one a member of a "protestant cult" although I appreciate that you were speaking about the SSXP they are not a protestant cult. At worst they could be called schismatic, but a schismatic act is that of not recognizing the authority of the pope, which they do. Therefore they can not be considered schismatic.
"If anything, the Pope should issue a warning that he considers anyone who attends one illcit sspx liturgy shall incur an automatic excommunication. Then, POpe Benedict could pick a date, say May 15 (Feast of St. Dymphna), and declare that any in the schism who have not reconciled with the Catholic Church by then will be formally and publicly excommunicated en masse and no further talks will be held with the schism."
-Here is a case that shows that such an act is inconsistent with the Church' teaching on the matter...
On May 1, 1991, Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii “excommunicated” certain Catholics of his diocese for attending Masses celebrated by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, and receiving a bishop of the Society of Saint Pius X to confer the sacrament of Confirmation. Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, overturned this decision:
"From the examination of the case... it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity." (June 28, 1993)
*The SSPX continues to misuse and misapply this case so as to defend its schism and confuse Catholics
PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DEI
N. 117/95
Rome, 29 September 1995
Mr. Scott M. Windsor, Sr.
P. O. Box 11502
Prescott, Arizona 86304-1502
U.S.A.
Dear Mr. Windsor,
Thank you for your letter of 4 September 1995 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters related to our particular competence.
We are aware of the lack of authorized celebrations of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal in the Diocese of Phoenix and we can appreciate your desire to assist at the traditional Mass. We also recognize your earnest desire to remain in full communion with the Successor of Peter and the members of the Church subject to him, a desire which obviously prompted you to write this letter. In order to answer your questions we must explain the Church's present evaluation of the situation of the Society of St. Pius X.
There is no doubt about the validity of the ordination of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. They are, however, suspended "a divinis" , that is prohibited by the Church from exercising their orders because of their illicit ordination.
The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2 ). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.
While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior of the Society in the United States, has publicly stated that he deplores the "liberalism" of "those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the postconcilliar church." With such an attitude the society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. According to canon 751 such "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him" constitute schism. Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.
The situation of at least one of the "independent" priests in the Diocese of Phoenix to whom you allude is somewhat different. He and the community which he serves have declared their desire to regularize their situation and have taken some initial steps to do so. Let us pray that this may soon be accomplished.
Finally, we may say that "the Hawaiian case" resulted in a judgment that the former Bishop of Honolulu did not have grounds to excommunicate the persons involved, but this judgment does not confer the Church's approbation upon the Society of St. Pius X or those who frequent their chapels.
With prayerful best wishes, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Msgr. Camille Perl
*Sorry, son. I am happy you are studying to be a priest. Kudos.
However, you are factually wrong about the sspx. they are a schsm.
Ecclesia Dei...
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5) But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.
*What a schism claims about itself ought not convince anyone about anything, especially one studying to be a priest
Good translation.
You are quite the Latinist.
Too bad the ICEL folks didn't get you to do their "translations", but then again, they clearly wanted to put their own spin on things, and this would be difficult with an honest translator.
As to made up sections of the Gloria.
"peace to men of good will" not the equivalent of "peace to His people" Some folks have been twisting the meaning of the words of the biblical angel "peace to men of good will" into "good will toward men" for centuries. ICEL leaves this element of "good will" out compleatly.
Bless, adore, and glorify watered down into "worship".
"Only-begotten" watered down into "only".
"Have mercy on us" is expressed twice in the real Gloria. It is completely omitted in the phoney, made up ICEL version. I guess folks no longer require God's mercy. This is common in ICEL "translation" of the Mass propers. Mercy becomes kindness or something similar.
What they have done is not merely "ugly translating" it is deliberate distortion.
I can't believe the ICEL couldn't have done better if they really wanted to.
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.