The Battle Over the Mass [Catholic Caucus]

CatholicExchange.com ^ | 2-22-07 | Dr. Robert Moynihan

[Salvation]

Dr. Robert Moynihan	Other Articles by Dr. Robert Moynihan Printer Friendly Version
The Battle Over the Mass

---

February 22, 2007

Why is such a battle over the Mass occurring now, 40 years after the Second Vatican Council? Because Benedict XVI wishes to restore what has been lost.

Pope Benedict XVI, against the opposition of many, is preparing to issue a "motu proprio," or personal decision, allowing wider celebration of the old Mass. We applaud his decision and urge him to publish it quickly. The time has come for the restoration of the perennial liturgy of the Church. It has been too long since the sublimely beautiful and holy liturgy of our ancestors, and of our own youth, was abandoned for light and transient reasons.

Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez has stated publicly that the document's publication is imminent, so it would not be surprising if the document were issued even before this issue of Inside the Vatican appears. It would be good if it were so.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, a "motu proprio" is "the name given to certain papal rescripts on account of the clause motu proprio ('of his own accord' or 'by his own decision') used in the document." The encyclopedia continues: "The words signify that the provisions of the rescript were decided on by the Pope personally, that is, not on the advice of the cardinals or others, but for reasons which he himself deemed sufficient... A Motu Proprio was first issued by Innocent VIII in 1484. It was always unpopular in France, where it was regarded as an infringement of Gallican liberties, for it implied that the sovereign pontiff had an immediate jurisdiction in the affairs of the French Church. The best-known recent example of a motu proprio is the instructions issued by Pius X on 22 November, 1903, for the reform of Church music."

There are those who have argued that such a papal decision will "cause confusion," will be "too abrupt." But the decision which caused our current confusion was the decision after the Second Vatican Council to change the Mass, abruptly. That decision was taken virtually overnight, without consultation with the faithful around the world. And so let the return of the old Mass be brusque, let it come quickly and decisively, as the banishment of the old Mass was quick and decisive.

Pope Benedict has argued that the profound root of the ecclesial crisis of our time is liturgical, that the crisis of the sense of the sacred, the crisis in the sense of God's presence, which has characterized our time, is a liturgical crisis. If he acts now to restore the old liturgy, he will be coherent with everything he has been saying and writing for 50 years. A decision to delay the document, or set it entirely aside, would be out of keeping with his own expressed convictions over a lifetime of reflection.

The International Federation in support of the old Mass, Una Voce, on January 29 published an eloquent manifesto in support of the Pope. "There has been much speculation in the media in recent months about the expectation from Rome of a document that will grant greater freedom for the celebration of the traditional ([so-called] 'Tridentine') Roman rite of Mass," the document begins.

"There have been some highly critical comments from certain quarters, especially from the French and German bishops, who do not agree with the prospect of loosening the very tight restrictions imposed by most bishops around the world. It is a fact, for whatever reason, that these bishops oppose greater freedom for the celebration of the traditional Mass and have no interest in the opinions of the laity or even of many of their own priests who long to celebrate this ancient rite; a rite that has never been abolished and is still valid...

"In 1971 many leading British and international figures... presented a petition to His Holiness Pope Paul VI asking for the survival of the traditional Roman Catholic Mass on the grounds that it would be a serious loss to western culture. The then Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Heenan himself appealed to Pope Paul for the continued celebration of the traditional Mass. The full text of this appeal in 1971 was:

'If some senseless decree were to order the total or partial destruction of basilicas or cathedrals, then obviously it would be the educated — whatever their personal beliefs — who would rise up in horror to oppose such a possibility. Now the fact is that basilicas and cathedrals were built so as to celebrate a rite which, until a few months ago, constituted a living tradition. We are referring to the Roman Catholic Mass. Yet, according to the latest information in Rome, there is a plan to obliterate that Mass by the end of the current year. One of the axioms of contemporary publicity, religious as well as secular, is that modern man in general, and intellectuals in particular, have become intolerant of all forms of tradition and are anxious to suppress them and put something else in their place. But, like many other affirmations of our publicity machines, this axiom is false. Today, as in times gone by, educated people are in the vanguard where recognition of the value of tradition is concerned, and are the first to raise the alarm when it is threatened. We are not at this moment considering the religious or spiritual experience of millions of individuals. The rite in question, in its magnificent Latin text, has also inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts — not only mystical works, but works by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries and epochs.

'Thus, it belongs to universal culture as well as to churchmen and formal Christians. In the materialistic and technocratic civilization that is increasingly threatening the life of mind and spirit in its original creative expression — the word — it seems particularly inhuman to deprive man of word-forms in one of their most grandiose manifestations. The signatories of this appeal, which is entirely ecumenical and non-political, have been drawn from every branch of modern culture in Europe and elsewhere. They wish to call to the attention of the Holy See, the appalling responsibility it would incur in the history of the human spirit were it to refuse to allow the Traditional Mass to survive, even though this survival took place side by side with other liturgical reforms.'"

The Manfesto then concludes: "We appeal to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI in 2007 to allow the free celebration of the traditional Roman rite of Mass, the Mass of Ages, the Mass of Antiquity, on the altars of the Church."

Inside the Vatican joins its voice to this appeal

Dr. Robert Moynihan is an American and veteran Vatican journalist with knowledge of five languages. He is founder and editor-in-chief of Inside the Vatican magazine.

[Frank Sheed]

The Holy Father was present as a peritus and much of what is stated comes from his observations. The deconstruction of Churches and the rewording of the actual Canon of the Mass was not envisioned. It is said that when Pope Paul VI saw the first Pauline Mass done, he blanched visibly.

The initial Mass of 1965 was much more in tune with what the Council had envisioned, I believe. The language was beautiful and the participation would have been much more in tune with what Episcopalians are used to. The altar rails still stood, the paten was used in Communion and the language spoken was of great beauty.

The second version that followed circa 1968-69 left many in tears. I witnessed this first hand especially among the old who were in total confusion.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

--Regardless of Novus Ordo or Latin Mass, the most necessary element is to restore the sense of Sacred.--

Amen, Nyer!

[Frank Sheed]

Agreed. I have simply folded my hands in prayer and the gesture is understood.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Before I recently moved, our pastor was a stickler for the GIRM, and really knows how to do a devout mass and lectured more than once about the handholding. The current diocese I live in seems to think handholding is essential. But I am doing some serious praying for the clergy here this Lent...

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[Frank Sheed]

KAC--

I pray for our priests every single day and ask the Mother of God for more. This will be straightened out in God's good time. I can wait for whatever He has in store. It is fascinating to see the differences as one moves about the country, however. I have seen some that are intensely reverent and some that I wondered about. Once, the priest said an entire Mass without glancing at the Lectionary--even for the Gospel. He seemed to literally say whatever popped into his head.

NYer is correct, this is more a matter of obedience to the Rubrics than anything else. Many priests realize it is Christ who is the High Priest and act accordingly in His Name. Others think it is "show time" and about us.

There is where the rubber meets the road.

F

[steadfastconservative]

When the N.O. Mass is celebrated according to rubrics and with reverence, it is fine. When it is not celebrated according to the rubrics and with reverence, when the priest or others do and say things that are not found in the rubrics, then the horizontal aspect of the Mass is wrongly elevated over its vertical aspect. This clearly refutes your claim that the is something intrinsically wrong with the Novus Ordo, that the rite itself elevates the horizontal over the vertical.

The word "liturgy" comes from the Greek and means "public work." In this context it means the public worship or prayer of the Church. The Mass, the Sacraments, the Divine Office, are all parts of the liturgy. It is entirely proper to call the Mass the "liturgy" because that is what it is.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

It's the show time mentality that is the sadness.


I am now in a diocese where that has been an overwhelming theme, evidently. From what I can tell there is an odd mix of strong devotion and flakiness. I will trust that Our Lord brought me here cause he knows that I will be of use and can grow here. He's already led me to a wonderful group of lay Domincans, very serious about their faith, and I will walk in trust.


But o, I miss my former parish!

[Frank Sheed]

In my experience, there is always one "gem" that is around. You just need to seek it out. Even in the most liberal of places (well almost always...), you might be able to find the "pearl of great price."

God be with you!

[livius]

That's what I do, too, but to show you how far this has gone, about two months ago, I was at Sunday Mass in my NO church and said the Our Father in my usual way (as you have described). Then came the dread handshake of peace, which I really dislike but which I obediently do anyway - and the lady who was in my pew (the only other person in the pew) refused to shake my hand. She said, "well, if you didn't want to hold hands with me at the Our Father, I guess I don't want to shake your hand now." I was dumbfounded. So much for "peace!"

It just shows you what a completely distorted idea of this "Our Father" moment most people have gotten. And I have yet to hear the clergy say anything about it.

[Frank Sheed]

>>>>>>When the N.O. Mass is celebrated according to rubrics and with reverence, it is fine. When it is not celebrated according to the rubrics and with reverence, when the priest or others do and say things that are not found in the rubrics, then the horizontal aspect of the Mass is wrongly elevated over its vertical aspect. This clearly refutes your claim that the is something intrinsically wrong with the Novus Ordo, that the rite itself elevates the horizontal over the vertical.<<<<<<<<<<


Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Schools of Spirituality, by Cardinal George

[Source: Catholic New World]

Last year, the mostly lay Archdiocesan Pastoral Council asked the Presbyteral Council to consider how the homily at Mass might be used to deepen lay people’s understanding of some contested mysteries of faith. The request arose during a discussion on what it means to be Catholic. Many of the more external signs of Catholicism, the practices people associated with life in the Church, were abandoned thirty or more years ago. The disappearance of external protections left the internal life of faith exposed to error and confusion. The priests took the time to clarify with representatives of the Archdiocesan Pastoral Council just what was being asked for, and a list of six topics was finally agreed upon. The six topics that are to be discussed at some time over the course of the year, depending on the liturgical readings and season, are: the Eucharist, ordained priesthood, penance or reconciliation, marriage, the Blessed Virgin Mary and immigration.

The first impression this list, minus the sixth concern about immigration, leaves with me is that we’re back to the Protestant Reformation. At the time of the Reformation, when the visible unity of the Church was broken for doctrinal reasons, the Mass became a memorial service for most Reformers, its unity with Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary became purely “spiritual” and the objective, sacramental, substantial re-presentation of that sacrifice was denied. With the disappearance of the sacrifice of the Mass, the ordained priesthood was reduced to ministry, a function or service based only on baptism. The sacrament of Holy Orders was lost to the life of the Protestant faith communities. With the loss of ordained priesthood, the sacrament of penance or reconciliation became unnecessary, for neither the Church nor the priest mediated the penitent’s relationship to God’s mercy. Nor did the bond of marriage continue to enjoy the character of sacramentality, opening that tie to the contemporary reduction of marriage to an external, legal permission to have sex between two consenting adults. The individualism that is left when mediation disappears makes even the saints competitors with Christ, so there is no room for the Blessed Virgin Mary and other saints to pray for us or care for us. At best, they become reminders of good behavior in past history; devotion to them is classed as a form of idolatry.

There are many good people whose path to holiness is shaped by religious individualism and private interpretation of what God has revealed. They are, however, called Protestants. When an informed and committed group of Catholics, such as the Archdiocesan Pastoral Council, comes up with an agenda for discussion that is, historically, Protestant, an important point is being made. Catholics assimilated to American culture, which is historically Protestant, are now living with great tension between how their culture shapes them and what their Catholic faith tells them to hold.

This is not surprising. Many writers who claim to be Catholic make names for themselves by attacking truths basic to our faith. Without the personal integrity that would bring them to admit they have simply lost the faith that comes to us from the Apostles, they reconstruct it on a purely subjective, individualistic basis and call it renewal. The Second Vatican Council wasn’t called to turn Catholics into Protestants. It was called to ask God to bring all Christ’s followers into unity of faith so that the world would believe who Christ is and live with him in his Body, the Church. The de-programming of Catholics, even in some of our schools and religious education and liturgical programs, has brought us to a moment clearly recognized by the bishops in the Synod of 1985 (when the Catechism of the Catholic Church was proposed as a partial solution to confusion about the central mysteries of faith) and acknowledged by many others today.

[...]

I’m looking forward to the next year. If we are to propose to the world our faith, we need to be better grounded in it. Proposing, as Pope John Paul II often said, is not imposing. Any proposition should be respected because of the person proclaiming it; but it should also be contested when it is false. In matters of faith, truth and falsity depend on theological warrants from history. Since history, for many Americans, is bunk and, for some academics, is only a field to be reworked at will, we’ll see how far we get this year.

What seems clear to me is that God is calling us to be authentically Catholic in our faith and also, perhaps paradoxically, Protestant in our culture. We live where we are, not in some ideal world where everything works smoothly. Those who withdraw into sectarian enclaves, even in the name of orthodoxy but without respect for or obedience to the mediators called bishops, are simply repeating the Protestant Reformation with Catholic tags. The one thing necessary is to live with discerning hearts and minds. We need to keep asking ourselves what is influencing our ways of thought, our decisions, our feelings and affections. A life of constant discernment is not always easy, but it’s joyful because it means living with the Holy Spirit, whose presence brings truth and consolation and unity.

In the Spirit, the relationships that bind us to Christ and one another remain strong. Our hope, even our optimism, remains sure no matter the challenge. We face each challenge, including those we create by our own sinfulness, not only together here and now but with all the saints and with Christ himself. May God bless you and make you holy in the community of faith and obedience and love that is his Church.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Francis Cardinal George, OMI
Archbishop of Chicago

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I had someone do that to me the other day, but I can't help it if they don't understand. It's sad.

[steve86]

dread handshake of peace

...The proximate reason I stopped attending the Novus Ordo, although I subsequently learned there were infinitely more important liturgical reasons to limit my attendance to the old rites.

She said, "well, if you didn't want to hold hands with me at the Our Father, I guess I don't want to shake your hand now."

I just asked a local NO parishioner if they hold hands in this parish during the "Our Father" and she said "No, not anymore". So I guess things could be worse here locally. I also get the impression they have returned to less progressive music.

It amused me last summer when I came across a Lutheran newsletter saying that their local church offers both a traditional and a progressive service (or words to that effect). So I guess Catholics are not alone in this Novus vs. Trad struggle. Unfortunately, people's tastes often split generationally, although I know that in the Catholic world there are a number of young people who correctly perceive the merits of the pre-Vatican II rites.

[steadfastconservative]

This is a good speech and I agree with it but I don't see how it contradicts anything that I have said.

[Frank Sheed]

It was not meant to imply a contradiction to what you said. I just have the opinion from things that I have read by the Holy Father and others that the "reform of the reform" is beginning. I don't believe the Mass was expected to have been transformed to the degree it has. And I think the aftereffects of that are among the things that Cardinal George is addressing now. The massive disconnection has affected all aspects of our Faith life especially with regards to catechesis and in such essential matters as the "Real Presence."

[old republic]

Sorry, After going back over the Vatican decree, I think my statement about only allowing certain prayers in the vernacular is a bit misleading. Here is an excerpt from the decree Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Vatican II decree on the Liturgy) so you can read it for yourself, instead of using my possible mistatement on the vernacular. In my interpretation the decree states Latin is to be maintained in the Latin rite, and that the vernacular may only be used in certain prayers. The kicker is that the local Bishops get to make exceptions and decide which prayers are in the vernacular (which today in most places has become the entire mass rather than certain only certain parts).

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

Hope that was helpful.

Dominus Vobiscum

[old republic]

"well, if you didn't want to hold hands with me at the Our Father, I guess I don't want to shake your hand now." I was dumbfounded.

Wow...so much for the Spirit of Vatican II. She is treating you like you have been anathemitized. You know I don't think that there is any version of the Novus Ordo Missal that allows for the holding hands thing....you know that they write the rubrics down for a reason, namely to prevent liturgical abuses and corruptions.

[livius]

It was pretty stunning. But it just goes to show you how completely confused people are (leaving aside this lady's appallingly uncharitable behavior).

Personally, that's why I think the NO has got to go away. It's terminally broken in many places and I honestly don't think it can be tinkered with to make it better. There are too many things wrong with it and too many loopholes - er, "options" - in it where people can do what they want. I'm not saying the Tridentine Rite should necessarily come back, particularly as it was 45 years ago, but I think something has got to happen that means a fresh start.

[SuziQ]

Good point about the politicization aspects of the vernacular languages. Mass is not supposed to be about dividing.

[SuziQ]

A lot of people have an idea about the 'Old Mass' that it was so much more reverent. Not necessarily. There were priests who could do 'shotgun' Masses in Latin as well as they can nowadays in English. Just because it's in Latin, doesn't make it any more reverent.