Posted on 07/30/2007 8:19:13 AM PDT by maryz
Editors’ note: This is a preview of our August 17 issue, which will contain four responses to Pope Benedict’s Summorum pontificum, which will make the so-called Tridentine Mass more widely available than it has been since Vatican II. The other respondents will be Peter Jeffery, Joseph Komonchak, and Bernard P. Prusak.
Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum pontificum gives broad permission for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. The motu proprio also permits use of preconciliar liturgical rites for all the sacraments, with the exception of ordination. It lays the groundwork for the creation of two liturgical establishments within the Latin-rite Catholic Church-one worshiping according to rites mandated by the Council of Trent, the other according to rites mandated by the Second Vatican Council.
It was not the intention of Vatican II, or of the popes who implemented it, to create a situation in which two forms of the Roman rite would exist side by side. The liturgical reform of the council was intended as a true reform, addressing genuine problems of the old liturgy for the good of the church as a whole. Now, with the stroke of a pen, Pope Benedict has made that reform optional. Individual priests may use the preconciliar rites at will, and groups of the faithful who ask for celebrations according to the preconciliar norms may not be refused them.
No one familiar with the liturgical views of the present pope will be greatly surprised by his decision. While still a cardinal, Benedict expressed displeasure with the course of liturgical reform since the council, and in various ways he supported a revival of the Tridentine liturgy. It was the support of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger that encouraged Pope John Paul II to give the original indult in 1984 permitting use of Tridentine rites, despite the near-unanimous opposition of the world’s bishops. The professed aim of the indult was to reconcile traditionalist Catholics who, under the leadership of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X he founded, were headed for schism. It did not work-the schism occurred anyway. Nevertheless, the indult was broadened in 1988-this time without any consultation of bishops-and a commission was founded to tend to the needs of those who were committed to the Tridentine liturgy.
At least as important for understanding the origins of Summorum pontificum, however, is a different phenomenon that arose at the same time: A small but vocal group of Catholics began to call for a “reform of the reform” of the liturgy for the church across the board. They are not schismatics, like the Lefebvrites, but they are interested in the restoration of Tridentine liturgical forms and the marginalization of the reformed liturgy. They found a champion and supporter in the future Benedict XVI.
The most visible proponent of this agenda was Msgr. Klaus Gamber of the liturgical institute in Regensburg, Germany. He became known outside scholarly circles when he published a popular book in 1984, which appeared in English in 1993 under the title The Reform of the Roman Liturgy. Gamber did not reject the council. He regarded the liturgical movement leading up to the council as a generally positive phenomenon. Nevertheless, he was highly sympathetic to the restorationist cause. Gamber believed the crusade to reestablish the preconciliar liturgy too important to be left to “a small group of fanatics” who reject the council outright. Yet his horror at the reforms that followed the council was hardly any less dramatic than theirs:
Great is the confusion! Who can still see clearly in this darkness? Where in our church are the leaders who can show us the right path? Where are the bishops courageous enough to cut out the cancerous growth of modernist theology that has implanted itself and is festering within the celebration of even the most sacred mysteries before the cancer spreads and causes even greater damage?...We can only hope and pray that the Roman Church will return to Tradition and allow once more that liturgy of the Mass which is well over 1,000 years old.
Gamber also expressed a definite view about the current Mass. He wanted it not to be considered the Roman rite, but merely retained as a rite ad experimentum until it dies out. Ratzinger found these extreme views congenial, and oddly enough, deemed them moderate. He wrote a preface to the French edition of Gamber’s book, calling him “the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking of the center of the church.”
Another partisan of the “reform of the reform,” Alcuin Reid, OSB, of Farnborough, England, published The Organic Development of the Liturgy in 2004. In giving a positive review to Reid’s book, Ratzinger voiced some of his own views on liturgical reform. He opined that scholars and experts were heeded too much after the council, and that although pastors should have had more of a voice, pastoral insights are unreliable. “Because...people’s judgments as to what is pastorally effective are widely divergent,” Ratzinger wrote, “the ‘pastoral’ aspect has become the point at which ‘creativity’ breaks in, destroying the unity of the liturgy.” Once you’ve eliminated scholarship, expertise, and pastoral judgment, what basis remains for constructive liturgical reform? Clearly, the deck is stacked against the acceptance of any reform whatsoever. In his letter accompanying the motu proprio, Benedict chides those bishops who believe that expanding the use of the Tridentine liturgy will detract from the standing of the Second Vatican Council, of which the reformed liturgy was sign and symbol. Yet surely the bishops’ concerns are justified.
Indeed, the traditionalists Benedict wants to conciliate do not simply reject the Mass of Paul VI-they reject the conciliar theology it embodies. The Society of St. Pius X published a defense of their position in 2001, The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, which showed that their opposition to the liturgical reforms of the council is profoundly theological. They argue, for example, that the idea of the paschal mystery is out of keeping with the true meaning of the Mass. The paschal mystery has been consistently proposed in council documents, papal pronouncements, and all the official teachings of the church since the council as the key to the whole liturgical reform. One would have to look hard to find a concept more universally accepted since the council, yet the traditionalists reject it. In their view, the Mass is only about the expiation of sin. The Resurrection has nothing to do with it. Their glad welcome of the pope’s motu proprio should give every Catholic pause.
In addition to the council’s emphasis on the paschal mystery, other core values of the council are called into question by the pope’s move to reestablish the Tridentine rites. The council emphasized the role of Scripture in the life of the church, and this value was richly reflected in the liturgical reform. The old lectionary had a one-year cycle of readings. Almost all of the Gospel passages were taken from St. Matthew. There were no Old Testament readings on Sunday. The sacraments and many of the weekdays had no readings assigned to them at all. When the council fathers decreed that the Catholic faithful should have richer fare at the table of God’s Word, they were making a pastoral move of immense consequence. The three-year lectionary cycle was an outgrowth of the renaissance in Catholic Scripture scholarship in the mid-twentieth century and repeated papal urgings to dwell on the sacred texts with an avid mind and an open heart. According to the USCCB Web site, the so-called Extraordinary Form of the Missale Romanum (1962) includes 1 percent of the Old Testament and 17 percent of the New Testament, whereas the Ordinary Form (what most Catholics use now) includes 14 percent of the Old Testament, and 71 percent of the New Testament. Benedict XVI’s motu proprio implies that none of this, in the end, is essential or even very important. Those who celebrate according to Tridentine rites may use the new lectionary or not, as they choose. The biblical-liturgical synthesis of Vatican II is now optional.
Before the council, women were forbidden to serve in liturgical ministries. They were kept outside the sanctuary-a very old taboo perceived by many today as sexist and out of keeping with our sense of the dignity of the baptized. This prohibition was ended after Vatican II. The third directive on the right implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Liturgicae instaurationes, 1970), admitted women to various liturgical ministries which are exercised in the sanctuary-such as that of reader or musician. They now also serve in the sanctuary as extraordinary ministers of Communion, and as altar servers.
They may not do so in the Tridentine rites. Thus, each additional celebration according to Tridentine rites increases the number of occasions when women are kept out of the sanctuary. An outdated and harmful exclusion that was done away with for good reason is being encouraged.
It is hard to credit the pope’s claim that his edict is intended for the benefit of the faithful. How can it be “for the benefit of the faithful” to return to a ritual of baptism in which the parents of infants say nothing? In the spirit of ecumenism, the liturgy that came out of Vatican II eliminated the abjuration of heresy and schism that non-Catholics made before being admitted to Catholic communion. How can we justify reviving such practices today? There was no catechumenate in the Tridentine church, despite a crying need around the world for this liturgical structure of evangelization and formation. How can we deprive adult converts of the catechumenate-which canon law now requires them to have? The reform of the liturgy was not a mere matter of aesthetic preferences, of “contemporary relevance” versus “timeless mystery,” of Latin versus the vernacular. The reformed liturgy embodies the values of the council in innumerable ways.
Given the series of concessions that have already been made to Catholic traditionalists, and the radical views and program of those to whom this pope has given his approval and endorsement in the past, it is difficult to believe that with Summorum pontificum a definitive compromise has been reached and the matter will end there. A more plausible understanding of the present moment is that it marks another step toward a goal that the vast majority of Catholics would not countenance if it were openly acknowledged-namely, the gradual dismantling of the liturgical reform in its entirety.
Could such a plan ever succeed? That remains to be seen. I believe that the Second Vatican Council and its reforms were the work of the Spirit. Yet these reforms were also the work of human hands, and in this respect they are vulnerable. We do ourselves no favors by pretending otherwise.
She's apparently not a moonbat, at least in style -- but I note that all things she recounts with trepidation and dire foreboding leave me with a song in my heart! Funny about that, hmm?
Oh, and if anyone has a clue about "the series of concessions that have already been made to Catholic traditionalists," please ping me -- I must have missed them!
ITS reforms? No, Ms. Ferrone, ITS reforms were never properly carried out....these things you mention are more properly YOUR reforms.
The liturgical reform of the council was intended as a true reform, addressing genuine problems of the old liturgy for the good of the church as a whole. Now, with the stroke of a pen, Pope Benedict has made that reform optional.
LOL..notice how this assumption so casually enters her argument, namely that what came out in the wake of Vatican II is what the Council Fathers wanted.
The left (Catholic and -- apparently -- secular) are up in arms. Look at how seriously Commonweal is taking it -- a four-part series! I'm a little surprised by all the stir -- especially with too many of the bishops apparently prepared to deny the importance -- or existence of the motu proprio, and some seem to want to fight it. I figure every mention in the press, positive or negative, is good for our side -- as a poster on one Catholic blog asked, "Do the bishops really think that nowadays, with the internet and all, we won't know anything if they don't bring it up?"
Benedict XVI has a real talent for stirring things up! :)
Yes — there seems to be a lot of intellectual dishonesty and verbal sleight of hand in this article.
This whole thing reminds me of a passage from Frank Zappa’s Autobiography which I read in my heathen days.
(Note that I cleaned this up a bit for content because Zappa was a rather foul man. This IS a Latin Mass thread! :)
“One of the good things that happened in the sixties was that at least some music of an unusual or experimental nature got recorded and released. So, who were those wise, incredibly creative executives that made this Golden Era Possible? Hip young guys with Perrier breath? No - they were old cigar chomper guys who listened to tapes and said, “I dunno. Who knows what the heck it is? G’head - put it out there! Who knows? I dunno.”
We were better off with that attitude than we are now. The ‘bright young men’ are far more conservative - and more dangerous than the old guys ever were.
So how did The New Guy get in there? Some got in because their Dad was one of the Old Guys. Some of them actually worked their way in - the guy with the cigar said one day: “Sherman, look, I took a chance - it went out there - next thing I know, we sold a few million units. I still don’t know what the heck this crap is, but we gotta do some more. I tell you, Sherm - I need some advice! Why don’t we get one of those hippies in here?”
So they hire the hippie - not to do anything ‘big’, just carry the coffee; bring the mail; stand around and look happening. So one day the old guy says: “Sherman, listen - I think we can trust him; he looks like he’s ‘happening’. We’ll make him an A&R man - let HIM talk to these stupid fruitcakes with the tambourine ‘n’ incense. He understands this crap! - he’s got the same hair.”
From there, he’s moving up and up; next thing you know, he’s got HIS feet on the desk and he’s saying, “Get rid of Sherman, Ms. Maxwell - and - oh, that ‘new group’? We can’t take a chance on them... it’s just not what the kids really want - I know - I got the same hair.”
Things will not improve until these @#$%!’s move back to Mister Roger’s Neighborhood.
Is there really any difference between hippie music industry people and hippie liturgists? :)
Except the bit about the selling a few million units...nobody EVER was buying what the hippie liturgists were selling.
LOL...uh...
Thanks for the post! I always like to expand my horizons - and Frank Zappa was never on my “must read” list. This is really very funny — and I’m glad I read it! :)
“which will contain four responses”
Prediction: 3 negative, 1 neutral.
What a bizarre complaint.
LOL..it IS funny! I can’t recommend anyone read him though...he turned into one of those individuals who used his Catholic upbringing as a target for his sarcastic humor.
He was really quite over-the-top obscene in his music, although apparently not in his personal life, for whatever that’s worth.
Seriously! God willing, we'll have a child baptized traditionally in a few months, and I think it will be to the benefit of WE faithful to have him/her be given the free gift of eternal life, instead of yammering whatever cheesy ICEL verse they thrust in front of our noses.
Once again, the logical disconnect.
On the one hand, the motu proprio is catering to a "small" group. OK, let's say that it is. If so, then why on the other hand, is this step is sooo dangerous for the Church? If the Tridentine lovers are a "small but vocal group", the Novus Ordo should be in no danger, right?
Furthermore, the Novus Ordo has not been supplanted as the ordinary rite of the Church. So why the outcry from some of its followers? Their access to their preferred rite is completely unhindered, as far as I can tell. So they're in a far better position than the followers of the traditional rite were 40 years ago when it vanished practically overnight.
What are these people afraid of?
I’ve had two christened according to the 1962 Baptismal so far, and I remain completely unupset that attention was at no point focused on me.
Actually, they're in a far better position than TLM afficionados are today -- if they're so unfortunate as to live a diocese like Boston -- to choose a random example! ;-)
As to what they're afraid of -- loss of status, power? The continuation of the Church as Catholic? When I taught Sunday School a number of years ago, a couple of ex-nuns involved were determined that the little girls should wear pastel dresses for First Communion -- and they were really indignant that the mothers had the effrontery to oppose them and hold out for the traditional white dress and veil (which, thanks be to God, I still see around during May). These people don't like to be crossed!
There are a hard core of 1970 Rite enthusiasts and a hard core of 1962 Rite enthusiasts.
The vast majority of Catholics do not have either a horror of the 1962 Rite or a deep love for the 1970 Rite, but lean to the 1970 Rite mostly because it is what they know.
The 1962 hard core are probably outbreeding the 1970 hard core by 3 to 1.
Demographically, in 20 years, the 1962 hard core will be much more numerous, younger and more influential than the 1970 hard core - especially because more and more vocations will be drawn from their ranks.
What the Pope has done is to remove the existing artificial barriers to the growth of the 1962 faction.
The Tridentine Rite was supposed to be dead and buried yet here it is "resurrected", so to speak. The Pharisees are enraged! Their plans have not turned out as expected. Yes, they still rule but when an enemy makes a return from the dead, it sets the nerves on edge.
The liturgical reform of the council was intended as a true reform, addressing genuine problems of the old liturgy for the good of the church as a whole. Now, with the stroke of a pen, Pope Benedict has made that reform optional.(Emphasis supplied.)
Previews of coming attractions? I hope not!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Spooky Summorum Pontificum memo from Bp. of Steubenville to priests
CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 3:13 pm
I received this from a priest in the Diocese of Steubenville where His Excellency Most Reverend Robert Daniel Conlon is Bishop. It is a memo to “priests resident in the Diocese of Steubenville” dated 20 July 2007.
His Excellency Bishop Conlon had already issued a statement on 13 July in the Steubenville Register.
I very much would like to see a copy of this 20 July memo, perhaps even by fax, if a priest in the diocese couple contact me by e-mail.
Here is the text of the memo from the Bishop to the priests as sent to me. My emphases.
“I would like to take some initial steps to respond to Pope Benedict’s Moto Proprio [sic], Summorum Pontificum concerning the celebration of Mass and other rites in the form prior to the Second Vatican Council.
Here in the Diocese of Steubenville we will take a positive attitude to the Moto Proprio [sic]. On the other hand, we will adhere closely to its terms (many of which require clarification, and to other existing norms regulating the liturgy.
There will be no public celebration of the pre-Vatican II rites until I am assured that they can be celebrated well and in accord with Summorum Pontificum’s terms. Any pastor who anticipates public celebration should contact our diocesan worship office prior to making any commitment to the faithful.
I advise all priests to read the English translation of the Moto Proprio [sic] that is posted on the USCCB website.
Any priest in the Diocese of Steubenville who anticipates celebrating Mass privately according to the 1962 Missal should complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to me by August 10. If, at a later date, a priest anticipates beginning the private celebration of Mass this way, I would appreciate his letting me know.”
[The questions on the questionnaire are as follows:]
Name of priest who expects to celebrate Mass privately according to the 1962 Missal after September 14, 2007
How often to you expect to do this?
Where do you expect to do this?
Do you anticipate inviting lay faithful to join you? Who?
First, I am amazed a memorandum announcing strict adherence to norms and them recommends a close reading of the document, has “Moto” twice instead of Motu.
Second, I very much hope that strict adherence to the terms of the document also reflects strict adherence to all terms of the Church’s legislation on the liturgy (including documents such as Sacrosanctum Concilium and Redemptionis Sacramentum) and rubrics of of the Novus Ordo. There cannot be a double standard for the older form and the newer form. If anything, were a double standard acceptable, you would expect the newer form to be held to the higher standard, since all priests a) know it well, and b) it is the ordinary form.
Third, I do not believe that the provisions of Summorum Pontificum require a pastor even to consult the local bishop for public Masses, much less obtain permission. It is true that the priest must be idoneus. The diocesan bishop could have a say in that. However, idoeneus indicts minimum preparedness only. The priest’s freedom regarding private Masses, all things being equal, is pretty much ironclad. One wonders about the purpose of the questionaire.
That final question… “Who?”
Hmmmm.
This doesn’t strike me as very positive in attitude. Perhaps more information will be forthcoming.
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.