Posted on 04/13/2005 9:30:29 PM PDT by Cato1
“I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy.” Extract from Cardinal Ratzinger's book Milestones: Published by Ignatius Press.
The second great event at the beginning of my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase of only half a year, of using the missal we had had until then.
I welcomed the fact that now we had a binding liturgical text after a period of experimentation that had often deformed the liturgy. But I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal.
The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal. But the historical truth of the matter is different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries.
Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a "Missal of Pius V", created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth. The new feature that came to the fore after the Council of Trent was of a different nature. The irruption of the Reformation had above all taken the concrete form of liturgical "reforms". It was not just a matter of there being a Catholic Church and a Protestant Church alongside one another. The split in the Church occurred almost imperceptibly and found its most visible and historically most decisive manifestation in the changes in the liturgy. These changes, in turn, took very different forms at the local level, so that here, too, one frequently could not ascertain the boundary between what was still Catholic and what was no longer Catholic.
Consequences could only be tragic.
In this confusing situation, which had become possible by the failure to produce unified liturgical legislation and by the existing liturgical pluralism inherited from the Middle Ages, the pope decided that now the Missale Romanum - the missal of the city of Rome - was to be introduced as reliably Catholic in every place that could not demonstrate its liturgy to be at least two hundred years old. Wherever the existing liturgy was that old, it could be preserved because its Catholic character would then be assured. In this case we cannot speak of the prohibition of a previous missal that had formerly been approved as valid. The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision. From this it also follows that we are not to recognise the scholars and the central authority alone as decision makers, but that in the end each and every "community" must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life.
The disintegration of the liturgy.
A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognises the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church. I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not He speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds - partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council.
ping
Interesting.
The Eastern rites think the Roman rite is strange that we destroyed our own tradition. In the history of all the rites, it's unprecedented.
The greatest danger today is precisely this. If this attitude prevails, Luther wins, and he doesn't deserve to.
Ping.
R. has written extensively on the problem, and his insight is accurate, pointed, and useful.
Interesting way of handling VatII. Much of the article seems to say precisely that it is a breach, but this is something that cannot be said openly. It would be a direct indictment of the powerful people who engineered VatII's "reforms" and kept them in place even though it was obvious that they were driving Catholics away from the Church in droves, and might even bring up questions of the validity of the Mass in certain places and times.
Ratzinger himeself was involved in the initial VatII liturgical "reforms," btw, but he seems to have realized very early that the direction the "reforms" were taking was seriously wrong, and since then has worked to restore things to their proper places.
In terms of the liturgy (and many other things), I think VatII was a serious breach, but for the sake of harmony and the future, we're going to have to simply pass over it as a "development," hopefully leading to another "development" in the near future where the Roman liturgy is restored in a more traditional form.
I had heard that he was involved, but I believe the movement for liturgical reform was underway at least by the 50s, before VatII. (Lucile Hasley mentions it in an essay from that time, and we were learning sung "responsorial psalms" in school by '58.) I expect different people for reform/"reform" worked and hoped for very different things. I would find it difficult to believe that Ratzinger was ever a contributor to the self-glorification that other posters have mentioned (which seems to be fading in recent years, though not enough).
The liturgical reform movement has actually been underway for quite some time, and there really (IMHO) was a need for a limited sort of reform, consisting mostly of making the priests actually celebrate the mass properly (instead of doing the 12 minute low mass "celebrated" in a buzzing whisper with the altar boys bobbing so fast they looked like ducks). Certainly, there were other things that could have been cleaned up, too, and I didn't object to things like the "dialogue mass," the people saying aloud the prayers normally said in response by the altar boys and those parts that had originally been meant for the entire congregation to say. And I also liked the priest's prayers being said audibly and intelligibly, because they are very beautiful and meaningful liturgical prayers.
But somehow the whole thing just escaped. There's a good article by Fr. Brian Harrison in this month's Latin Mass Magazine, discussing this very fact. Most bishops surveyed before the council either were not interested in liturgical changes, or were in favor of very limited ones (such as the above, which were stylistic and not changes to the essential liturgy). A very tiny percentage was in favor of radical changes - yet somehow, he points out, only three years later, this tiny group of "liturgical leftists" somehow got through a program for sweeping changes that were much more dramatic than anybody had expected. Once these changes were obediently accepted, they were followed a couple of years later by another round of changes (including the removal of altar rails, Communion in the hand, the Mass facing the people, etc.) undreamed of by even the earlier group of liturgical leftists.
I don't think Ratzinger was a contributor to this last phase, certainly, and obviously many people, no doubt including Ratzinger, who were involved in the first part of the "reforms" had any idea of the extent to which such "reforms" would be carried only a few years later.
Thankfully, for the most part, the TLM is celebrated today in an unhurried, participatory, and meaningful way. The 12 minute Low Mass is a relic of history. Much still has to be done in the way of getting more vocal participationl, especially at High Mass. Where priests take a keen interest in inspiring their congregants with liturgical richness, many many good things come about. Mater Ecclesiae in NJ is a case in point as to the workings of a devoted, liturgically minded pastor, and is an example of how the TLM was always and must continue to be celebrated and incorporated in the lives of the faithful. This was and is true liturgical reform as opposed to liturgical revision/reinvention.
He had me for a while, until I got to the last statement, which sent a shiver down my back.
Personally, the liturgical movement in place before V2 was accomplishing a lot of good. I also believe that the TLM, as it exists today, is the real fruit of what V2 called for (i.e. liturgical participation, singing in Latin, etc.)
If a new liturgical movement is needed, and I believe it is, it already exists in the various liturgically rich ceremonies being carried out in TLM churches. This goes beyond Sunday Mass. We're talking about daily Mass, sometimes High Weekday Masses, public and fully chanted Divine Offices such as Vespers and Tenebrae, 40 hours, all the outside of Mass ceremonies (e,g. Processions)of the liturgical year being observed in full splendor, etc.
I mentioned on another thread that I recall reading (30 years ago maybe?) that the leftists had their agenda all planned out and started pushing it through while those bishops without an agenda "were still finding their seats and brushing up their Latin."
BTW, where did people find those "12-minute" Masses? I was in high school when the changes started coming in, but went to a lot of pre-VII daily Masses in jr high; they usually lasted at least half an hour; a 25-minute Mass was considered speedy!
He makes a subtle, and easily missed, point in the article that this "tiny percentage" (all from northern European countries, notably Germany) showed up organised, and with a well developed agenda. It is, therefore, unsurprising that they prevailed. I suspect that they "Delphi'd" the Council.
Everything you say may be well and good, but the statement I quoted is frighteningly vague.
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.