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.
The way I see the situation...anything that can improve the current liturgical situation is good. A new liturgical movement already exists, despite Ratzinger calling for one.
The liturgical battle, as I see it, has currently two fronts:
1. The TLM, of which you and I are part. This must be allowed complete freedom to grow, and grow it will.
2. The tolerance of the NO. If we were to outlaw the NO tomorrow, we would only make the same rash mistake that the innovators did 40 years ago. I say we slowly reform it in the way Ratzinger has called for. Restoring the traditional Offertory and mandating the sole use of the Roman Canon would essentially do this, such that the core texts of both rites would be the same. This change would also have the least affect on the people, since these are texts only recited by the priest.
I very much agree with your point about genuine liturgical reform extending beyond the Mass to other liturgical events. Many people don't realize that certain things they think of as being "since forever" - such as the (traditional) Easter vigil - had actually fallen into disuse until they were revived by the liturgical movement in the 1940s and 50s.
Interestingly, where traditional processions and other "para-liturgical" practices are being revived, you can see a surge in church attendance and piety - Madrid comes to mind, where over the years, I have watched the piety of the people grow as the Archibishop has encouraged the revival of the these things.
I don't advocate the outlaw of the NO. I don't think it would be necessary if the right of every priest to say the TLM without needing a bishop's approval was recognized. I think the NO would eventually self destruct on its own.
The 12 minute Masses were a particular feature of big urban churches, especially downtown churches where people would come for speedy Masses at noontime. They were sloppily said but they "counted." Another thing that was clearly an abuse was that many people skipped the Mass altogether - they would come flying down the aisle just in time to drop down in front of the altar rail and take Communion, and then they would fly right out again.
I agree...I have seen a situation where an Indult TLM started up. Originally, it had about 20 attendees all made up of ex-SSPX people. In about a year, this Mass became full (about 200), and about half of the people there came over from the NO (being celebrated in the same church).
One of the things that always amazes me is how everybody, even people as powerful as Cdl. Ratzinger, has to pay lip-service to VatII, even though its effects were clearly disastrous and there is so much about it that must be undone that this will probably be the task of the Church for the next hundred years.
Not only was there probably a plot before VatII to use it as an opening through which to shove radical changes and completely deform the Church, there is still somehow a reluctance or fear of naming the problem and perhaps drawing some kind of retribution from people who must still be very influential in the heirarchy.
Also, I think people who are trying to find the "real" (and supposedly good) VatII behind the actual disastrous one are motivated by a desire to protect or defend the motives of some of the people who were involved, such as Paul VI (and in all fairness, I don't think he wanted or intended to destroy the Church, but was simply weak and confused).
It's significant that R. was at Regensburg, which was home to the major liturgical music reforms which began in the late 1800's.
Those reforms were more oriented toward 'housecleaning' than toward revolution--sort of the difference between defragging your C drive and re-installing Windows.
Although the document on the liturgy was "clean" on the surface, and R approved it, it was the implementation, run by Bugger Bugnini, which was the problem.
R became aware of the disastrous wording of the DOL just a little late, after Bugnini & Co had loosed the hounds of Hell.
A splendid image!
I honestly believe Ratzinger would reform the NO in the way I described.
As far as translations go, we would have two issues:
1. To the extent Latin is reintroduced into everyday NO Masses, the need for official translations varies. I would hope that the Liturgy of the Eucharist would always have to be said in Latin again.
2. Where translations are required (e.g. Readings), they should decide on an English edition of the Bible which pre-dates 1970 to supply those texts. For non-scriptural texts, I think the reformed ICEL under Vatican watch will suffice.
Your take comports with mine.
R. has some exceptionally good stuff on the topic of Sacred Music which places him FIRMLY in the Traditionalist camp on the liturgy/worship question.
Not surprising--his brother was Kappelmeister at the Cathedral of Cologne.
What you recall is a book called "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber," by a pseudonym priest, Fr. Xavier Rynne (sp?)
Ah, yes, Bugnini. I had forgotten about him...
IF a priest has his own personal indult from the Vatican, which is still valid, the priest does not need permission.
But there aren't many of those permissions floating around...
Pinging someone who actually knows.
A good translation of EVERYTING--orations, readings, and the Ordinary--not to mention restoration of the "forgotten" texts such as the Introit, Offertory, and Communion versicles--would be a start.
IF a priest has his own personal indult from the Vatican, which is still valid, the priest does not need permission
Even so, those priests are likely forbidden to offer the TLM in public. Hence, their personal indult is usually relegated to private Masses.
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.