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.
You certainly haven't forgotten Rembert the Weak, who was the Bernardin Boy delegated to ruin the liturgy in the USA and assist in creating ICEL, arguably as pernicious an organization as the USCC, if not more so...
I actually have a whole litany of ideas for the "Reform of the Reform" but that goes beyond the scope of this thread, and would take a lot of time to write out.
If anyone here is really interested in having this kind of discussion, ping me privately, and we can see where that goes from there.
Wish I had the time.
Fr. Harrison, Cdl George, R., and some others are all working on it. They are trustworthy...
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).
I don't necessarily think he was out to destroy the Church either, however the actions of the weak and confused in positions of power can do far more damage and are far more insidious than the actions of the outright enemies of the Church. The well meaning confused and the weak in the Church often the best tools and inadvertent allies of the enemy.
Have you read "Reform or Return" ? I forgot the author. It includes an appendix by Fr. Harrison. He has soem really good ideas.
I don't understand the reason for the elimination of the prayers at the foot of the altar and the last gospel. I mean, I don't know the stated reason for why they thought this would be good, I can only imagine sinister motives.
Well, hopefully he is serious about reform because it would be nice if those composing Catholic hymns would attempt to be faithful to Catholic Doctrine. One of the liturgical frustrations for me as a musician is the abysmal state hymnody. "Sing a New Church Into Being," is a current favorite in many Catholic churches and though I have never heard it sung during a Mass I was stunned by the title.
A few days ago I was told that it will be sung here in Detroit at the Cathedral as part of the Mass this coming Monday dedicated to the opening of the Conclave. Sounds like they are engaging in wishful thinking. I decided to look up the song and found to my horror that not only are the words goofy and probably heretical, but the melody used is from an old Protestant hymn I used to sing as a kid in the Methodist Church "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing." My favorite line in that old song was, "Here I raise mine Ebenezer" I thought, back then, that Ebenezer was a nifty word though I still have no clue as to its meaning. Does anyone around know what it means?
I must say that the Protestant text for this tune is much better than the new "Catholic" version even though it flirts with sola fide.
So, it would be nice to see some solid direction given by the Vatican in this regard.
Too God-centered? Not that I expect they put it that way . . .
A long time ago. Yes, he has some good ideas.
The OED does:
Ebenezer [from the Hebrew eben ha-ezer, stone of help]1. The name of the memorial stone set up by Samuel after the victory of Mizpeh. See I Sam. vii:12. Used appellatively in religious literature in fig[urative] phrases, alluding to the sentiment 'Hitherto hath the Lord helped us', associated with the origin of the name.
2. Occasionally (like Bethel, Zoar, Zion, etc.) adopted by Methodists, Baptists, Independents, etc., as the name of a particular chapel or meeting-house. Hence used disparagingly as a synonym for 'dissenting chapel'.
Now, that man did his homework. Wow!!! A true reform indeed. I would say it is still a TLM in essence, with the best additions the NO has to offer.
My only negative criticisms are threefold:
1. Nothing is in Latin (except headings), so we don't know if and to what extent Latin is mandated.
2. He uses "for all" in the Consecration. I also think the words "Mystery of Faith" be reinserted into the Consecration formula, and the "Benedictus" not be separated from the Sanctus.
3. The rubrics still allow too many options and variations by using phrases such as "if the priest desires, at his option". These options should be minimized so as to make the Mass uniform.
I wonder what his proposal is for the Propers and also for the Calendar.
"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."
Isn't this where we are at right now?
"I think the NO would eventually self destruct on its own."
Not sure. People really like it. Elements of it have been taken on board by Anglicans. Vicars and 'witches' face the congregation; sing the same songs; make the sign of peace. It has caught on as a user-friendly service as evidence of the churches "moving with the times".
Sure, but it doesn't foster vocations. Eventually there would be no priests left to say an NO mass.
"Sure, but it doesn't foster vocations. Eventually there would be no priests left to say an NO mass."
I know but it anticipates a greater role for laymen and women to fill the gap. Am sure this is already happening in some places.
When did the Easter Vigil service drop out? I actually had occasion to look into its use in the Middle Ages for a paper on the liturgical influence of the Easter Vigil service on Old English poetic descriptions of the Harrowing of Hell (a popular OE theme). So it was there then.
In this post, you are precisely correct.
I think the Church moving with the times is a bad thing. It's better that the times adjust themselves to the Church. That is a benefit of conversion. The closer the times model the Church, the more peaceful things will be. As Chesterton stated, the Church is the only thing that prevents you from being hostage to the age you are living in. I grew up with the Novus Ordo, It was only two years in use by the time I was in School. By third grade the teachers were having to deal with the constant complaints of the children because frankly, they hated it. It was boring. The priests were yelling at the students because they were unenthusiastically responding. So of course we were punished. No one absolutely no one in my experience has ever liked the sign of peace. It's unwise for health reasons first, and second, it's in a place in the Mass that totally disrupts the congregations attention on the Eucharist. The more you get into the nitty gritty, you realize that the Novus Ordo is substandard in any form. The prayers lack specificity when compared to the TLM, they don't adequately express the faith. There is ultimately no value in a rite written by a committee that lacks any roots in the Apostles. It's a Catholicized Protestant service. It belongs on the ash heap.
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.