Rorate Caeli

URGENT
The "Reform of the Reform" is in motion

In today's edition of Italian daily Il Giornale, religious journalist Andrea Tornielli brings the news that several "propositiones" approved by the plenary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (reserved session held on March 12, 2009) regarding several reforms of the new Mass of Paul VI. Full translation below:


ROME The document was delivered to the hands of Benedict XVI in the morning of last April 4 by Spanish Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. It is the result of a reserved vote, which took place on March 12, in the course of a "plenary" session of the dicastery responsible for the liturgy, and it represents the first concrete step towards that "reform of the reform" often desired by Pope Ratzinger. The Cardinals and Bishops members of the Congregation voted almost unanimously in favor of a greater sacrality of the rite, of the recovery of the sense of eucharistic worship, of the recovery of the Latin language in the celebration, and of the remaking of the introductory parts of the Missal in order to put a stop to abuses, wild experimentations, and inappropriate creativity. They have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirm that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, and indult which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host [sic] also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact. The "Liturgy Minister" of Pope Ratzinger, Cañizares, is also having studies made on the possibility to recover the orientation towards the Orient of the celebrant, at least at the moment of the eucharistic consecration, as it happened in practice before the reform, when both the faithful and the priest faced towards the Cross and the priest therefore turned his back to the assembly.

Those who know Cardinal Cañizares, nicknamed "the small Ratzinger" before his removal to Rome, know that he is disposed to move forward decisively with the project, beginning in fact from what was established by the Second Vatican Council in the liturgical constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, which was, in reality, exceeded by the post-Conciliar reform which came into forceat the end of the Sixties. The porporato, interviewed by monthly 30Days in recent months, had declared regarding this: "At times change was for the mere sake of changing from a past perceived as negative and outdated. Sometimes the reform was regarded as a break and not as an organic development of Tradition."

For this reason, the "propositiones" voted by the Cardinals and Bishops at the March plenary foresee a return to the sense of sacredness and to adoration, but also a recovery of the celebrations in Latin in the dioceses, at least in the main solemnities, as well as the publication of bilingual Missals - a request made at his time by Paul VI - with the Latin text first.

The proposals of the Congregation, which Cañizares delivered to the Pope, obtaining his approval, are perfectly in line with the idea often expressed by Joseph Ratzinger when he was still a Cardinal, as it is made clear his unpublished words on the liturgy, revealed in advanced by Il Giornale yesterday, and which will be published in the book Davanti al Protagonista (Cantagalli [publisher]), presented beforehand at a congress in Rimini. With a significant nota bene: for the accomplishment of the "reform of the reform", many years will be necessary. The Pope is convinced that hasty steps, as well as to simply drop directives from above, serve no good, with the risk that they may later remain a dead letter. The style of Ratzinger is that of comparison and, above all, of example. As the fact that, for more than a year, whoever approaches the Pope for Communion, have had to kneel down on the kneeler especially placed by the cerimonieri.

RORATE note: The Pope needed, for practical purposes, this first bureaucratic step by the Congregation for Divine Worship. His decisions on this matter will come in the next few months and years. May God grant him many more fruitful years of work as Successor of Peter.

164 comments:

Peter said...

It seems that they're trying to invent a newer, hybrid rite. Novior Ordo Missae?

Anonymous said...

Sadly, we are not hearing of any concrete changes to be imposed.

I can see why H.H. wants to avoid dissension over changes to the New Mass. But a way forward would be simply to enrich the New Missal with some traditionalist options--options. Later, and in stages, some of these options could become standard or even mandatory.

Concretely, I'd like to see the entire traditional Offertory restored at least as an option. If there are three peniential rites (labelled A, B, C), why not Offertory A and Offertory B? So much was lost by removing the mediæval Roman Offertory.

I'd also like to see Penitential Rite A altered so that the Indulgentiam is restored and the Confiteor altered again to bring back at least a collective reference to the angels and saints and a reference to our Lady in its first half. Those priests who don't want this could simply use Rites B or C.

Similarly, the treble alternating Kyrie could be restored. Again, this would have no effect on those using Rites B or C.

More controversial would be any attempt to restore the traditional Consecration Formula. But this could be done for Eucharistic Prayer #1 (the Roman Canon) at least as an option, since the Pope has now declared that its use in the T.L.M. is that of the same Rite (I don't share his view on this but that's beside the point).

I'd also restore the Placeat Tibi at least as an option because it expresses univocally the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice.

Let's see some action! On the other side, the worse the N.O. remains, the better it is for us!

P.K.T.P.

Richard Friend said...

"There is, it is true, and indult which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host [sic] also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact."

By "extraordinary," I hope not as extraordinary as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are in the U.S.

The problem with the Novus Ordo is the myriad of options given to the celebrant and the faithful in how they want to celebrate/assist in the Mass. Unless these options and indults are removed, the Novus Ordo will remain open to abuse and experimentation.

These preliminary steps by the CDW to undertake a reform of the reform are good but long overdue. The salvation of souls is at stake. These reforms should be carried out quickly, like within a year.

beng said...

How are you going to make priest facing liturgical east when modern church architecture doesn't even put that into consideration.

There are many churches built stretching north-south instead of east-west.

Gideon Ertner said...

"Novior Ordo Missae" LOL!

It depends on the hermeneutics. If we view the rite laid out in the 1970 (and more recently the 2002) missal as contiguous with those of the missals of 1962, 1956, 1884 etc., despite of all the deformations, then the coming version is merely a new editio typica of the Missale Romanum, revised to make it conform closer to earlier editions.

This will be similar to the case with the 1970 edition, which was purported by some to be a revision which made the liturgy conform closer to a hypothetical earlier version of itself. Only we know beyond doubt today that it's not true, and so we must try to repair the damage, gradually or otherwise.

This of course raises the question why the 1962 rite should stay in use, if it is merely an earlier editio typica which is not qualitatively different from later ones. But if we accept the premise that the newer editions introduced elements that were undesirable, then we must revise the liturgy so that it in time will once again clearly conform to the organically developed liturgy of the Middle Ages and up to the 17th century, and ensure that authentic liturgical development can proceed according to sound norms. And in that case the 1962 rite serves as a valuable reference point. (We should bear in mind, of course, that 1962 is not a magic number; the missal of that year itself contains minor elements which seem like arbitrary discontinuities with tradition, and introduces other elements which seem better-founded.)

"In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture."

Anonymous said...

Like the NOM has proven to be an non-starter as well the "reform of the reform" is foredoomed to fail.

David Werling said...

The last thing the Church needs now is more options. In my comments regarding the Bartolucci interview:

Msgr. Bartolucci seems to agree. His wise caution in regards to the "reform of the reform" is a breath of fresh air. It has always been the suspicion of many traditional Catholics that the "reform of the reform" was just more of the same modernism that brought us the novus ordo in the first place. This isn't to say that the "reform of the reform" is a bad thing, properly understood and utalized. As a means to ease Catholics toward an eventual return to the Immortal Mass, the "reform of the reform" is doing a great service to the Church. However, if it is merely more "improvements", there is a very real danger of repeating the mistake of 1970 by increasing confusion. The "reform of the reform" then becomes nothing more than just one more option out of many. In such a relativistic world, no liturgical "style" is wrong, but then no liturgy is the right one, either.

http://arsorandi.blogspot.com/2009/08/bartoluccis-bombshell-interview.html

Gideon Ertner said...

To those who don't like 'hybrid' rites: I fully understand, and I think it would be extremely unwise to make changes to the 1962 books at this point, and at least until we have developed a proper understanding of what constitutes authentic liturgical development.

But consider that perhaps - just perhaps - there are some few elements of the 1970 rite which represent authentic developments. Such as the chanting of the Epistle towards the faithful (which is done in the Byzantine Rite), the Pax of the faithful (retained in the Eastern liturgies, albeit in a much more dignified form than that usually seen in Western Rite parishes today), and the chanting of the Per Ipsum at the end of the Canon. Perhaps not even the dreaded Prayers of the Faithful are that much off in principle; they have a precedent in the Gallican liturgies and work well in the form of set litanies in the Eastern liturgies as well as in the Roman Good Friday liturgy.

I don't know. I'm just wondering what would have happened if these things had been introduced in, say, 1734 instead of at a time of profound religious and societal collapse.

Anonymous said...

God is good!

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why the Pope is being so timid about a restoration as described in this piece.

Obviously, most of the NOvus Ordo of 1969 has been a total failure, and the allowances for Communion in the Hand and standing has not only lessened Catholic Faith, but made us appear more like the Protestants, in particular the Lutherans.

Likewise the "facing the people" altars. They should be discarded, and the old traditional altars "ad orientam" used again, as the sole manner for celebrating Mass.

The meeting of these Cardinals and Bishops was a good first step, but the Pope needs to be harder, and more forceful. The "protestantized" reforms of Paul VI and the Novus Ordo were imposed in one bombshell. We had no choices or time, or options.

It should be likewise with a return to Catholic traditions. If the liberals and dissidents don't like it, they can leave.

What's the old saying.... "the door is always open" !

TJ said...

The style of Ratzinger is that...above all, of example.
That statement is proof that HH does not wish a return to the TLM, or else he would set an example by celebrating it in public.

quirinus said...

some of the above comments confirm that there is only one thing worse than modernist bishops: radical pseudo-"traditionalists" who have completely embraced the modernist hermeneutic of rupture (if only to reject what came after the alleged rupture), and the subversive, uncatholic idea that things can be changed overnight and ope legis, as if the Church was a jacobine committee during the french Revolution, or a communist party planning everything centrally with no connection with reality and consequences inevitably worse than the evils one intended to fix.

There is nothing the Holy Father can do that will satisfy them. If only all these energies were used to HELP the Holy Father instead of joining those spitting on him.

Quietus said...

I.

"That statement is proof that HH does not wish a return to the TLM, or else he would set an example by celebrating it in public."

I am much more optimistic. As soon as the three year experimentation period of Summorum Pontificum is over, I suppose we could see a TLM with the Holy Father. Maybe 1st Advent 2010?

II.

About the options: Yes, I would like to see the traditional parts having a place in the newer rite as well; but not as adding to the number of options. Some options already are so vague and empty in meaning that there is no reason to bring the old rite prayers to be compared with them -- who knows maybe someone then thinks that the old and new versions or options would essentially be the same (which is not always the case, cf. the offertory prayers).

III.

Anyway, the news from the Congregation makes me really happy!

James said...

Oh Quirinus! You Catholic! You are so bound into a Church that is incarnate rather than an imaginary church which has no more dimensions than a child's dream.

Respect!

How can others not love Pope Benedict? How worn out does one have to be in order to miss his goodness?

Cheers Quirinus for saying so succinctly what needed to be said.

Anonymous said...

quirinus,

Novus Ordo is a rupture, pretending that's not is of no use.

Why should we pay attention to an invented rite if we have a genuine one?

It was imposed just like Central Committees imposed their inventions on their subjects, so let the Central Committee revoke its decree. It will be posthumous success of the forces of evil otherwise, even a partial one.

The Church is not a democracy, we can't help Holy Father in any other way than praying, because the shepherds, not the sheep, are in charge of the Church.

Don't forget that.

The diabolic temptation for the laity to instruct the clergy and shape the Church as they imagine her is indeed great among the trads.

Anonymous said...

Dear P.K.T.P.,

As an admirer of your posts (for the most part!), allow me to disagree with your statement:

"On the other side, the worse the N.O. remains, the better it is for us!"

I used to think this, but no longer do.

As 95% + of Catholics attend the Novus Ordo, Novus Ordo Catholics will continue to "rule the roost" and set the tone for the Faith in general. The more their lot is improved, the more the Church is improved, the more we are improved.

Additionally, the leap from a more solemn Novus Ordo to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is shorter. Thus, an improved Novus Ordo would serve to condition Novus Ordo Catholics to better receive the Latin Mass.

Lastly, my sense is that when it comes to the sacred, a taste merely whets the appetite. A Novus Ordo in which greater solemnity exists will, I think, call into question those parts of the Novus Ordo in which solemnity does not exist. Pressures will mount, I imagine (and hope!) for less silliness, and even greater solemnity, throughout the Novus Ordo Mass.

But, dare I say, the Novus Ordo can only be made so solemn - it simply suffers from too many defects.

And when this point of "maximum solemnity" is reached, jumping to the Latin Mass will, I think, become the inevitable end result for a great many Catholics.

In short, the "reform of the reform" could very well trigger and/or release a desire for sacredness and solemnity among the laity to a most unexpected degree.

Yours,
+DR

Woody Jones said...

With respect to the parallel Latin/Vernacular missals, the Daily Roman Missal (from Midwest Theological Forum et al.) is set up this way already, of course.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

You can't reform something that is erroneous from its very foundation. You can increase the sacrality all you want, but the fact remains that the very text of the Novus Ordo Missae is "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as defined at the Council of Trent". There is only one solution regarding the Novus Ordo - it must be abolished completely.

Jordanes said...

This is very good news. The liturgical reform was messed up so badly that changes like these are desperately necessary. Hopefully the traditional rite won't be tampered with too much, though. It's the Pauline Missal that has the problems, not the Johannine Missal.

Jordanes said...

How are you going to make priest facing liturgical east when modern church architecture doesn't even put that into consideration. There are many churches built stretching north-south instead of east-west.

"Liturgical east" does not have to be geographical east, Beng. It means the priest leads the people as they all face the altar and crucifix, though originally it literally meant facing geographical east. The "Orient" to which the Mass is oriented is the coming Lord Jesus, the Sun of Righteousness, not the rising sun.

Anonymous said...

"A reform of the reform is not going to happen until long after we are all dead.
The Vatican2 crowd owns the real estate and they are bequeathing it to their "children."

This shows a real violation of valid judgement on a number of counts.

1). A "reform of the reform" is already happening. I looked at the website of the USCCB regarding the new "translations" of the "New Mass of Paul VI" in English. FAR SUPERIOR than the Protestant type garbage shoved on everyone in 1969-70 by the original ICEL translations crowd. These new prayers for the Mass, although NOT perfect, sound and read much more CATHOLIC than the old 1970 ICEL version. Some sound a good 30% like the old Tridentine prayers. Which is better than the 1969-70 translations, which were a total rupture and sounded Protestant.
Indeed, the old ICEL version was readilly accepted and applauded by Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians. No wonder....the translations were much more in the spirit of Protestantism, and brought us closer to them. They loved it!! Just as they dislike the new CATHOLIC translations. They're already whining that it has destroyed 40 years of ecumenical liturgical "progress" and made us further apart.
One good thing is that the "for the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours now and forever" part recited by the laity since 1969 at the end of the "Lord's Prayer" is gone. That was a blatant Protestant insertion.

More and more parishes are turning to the "Benedictine" revolution regarding returning their Catholic altars to a more traditinal appearance, and more priests (young usually), are opting both to say Mass "ad orientam", and in the Tridentine Rite.
BIshop Slattery in Tulsa, Oklahoma decreed a return to "ad orientam" in his diocese. There will be more.

As for the Vatican II crowd owning the real estate you must mean the priests and nuns. But most of it is closed and up for sale!!!
There are only 14,867 religious Order priests left in the USA (30,000 before Vatican II), and nearly all their seminaries are closed and sold. As for nuns, well, let's face it. The "Vatican II" radical crowd of layclothes liberal nuns average age is over 70! Most of these Orders have not had a novice in 20 years. They have no "children" to pass anything on to. Dozens of Motherhouses, convents, and institutions have been in the past and are still going up for sale.
They don't have much to pass on to anyone, and since liberal Orders of layclothes nuns have no vocations, they have no new generation of dissidents to pass on their property!

No, we'll see a restoration of many things in the Church within the next 10-20 years. Some people might be older than they'd like by then, but the "Vatican II" crowd that wrecked the Church will have passed from the scene.
Deo Gratias.

Anonymous said...

Long live Pope Benedict XVI!

Antonio said...

W O N D E R F U L news!!!!

Jordanes said...

Anonymous 22 August, 2009 15:26, while I agree in general with your appraisal, there is a mistake in your comment here:

One good thing is that the "for the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours now and forever" part recited by the laity since 1969 at the end of the "Lord's Prayer" is gone. That was a blatant Protestant insertion.

Well, it was "redolent" of Protestantism, but was justified because the Didache prayers include that formula or something very close to it. It was, in any case, one of the less objectionable of the numerous unnecessary innovations in the Roman Missal.

Be that as it may, however, it is not true that the doxology "Quia tuum est regnum, et potestas, et gloria in saecula" is gone. As the USCCB website shows, it remains in the Pauline Missal, and the first-ever Vatican-approved English translation of the Pauline Missal (for the current "translation" isn't a translation at all, but a loose paraphrase) translates the Latin as:

"For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours now and for ever."

No change from the current (mis)translation of the Pauline Missal.

Ryan said...

While I think this is great news,I dont think it makes too much sense to make major changes in the Novus Ordo because it will give the impression that the mass never stops changing.The New english translation will be confusing enough to many people.I think the best thing would be for the Holy Father to end communion in the hand once and for all.Encourage priests to us Euch prayer 1.Mandate that the canon be offered ad orientem.Encourage the use of more latin and more chant in the OF.And make it clear that offering the Pax to the people is an option of the priest.But I agree with other commenters that we are already seeing improvements in many places.Sadly not in Staten Island NY yet lol.

Jean said...

"The style of Ratzinger is that...above all, of example.

That statement is proof that HH does not wish a return to the TLM, or else he would set an example by celebrating it in public.

I think you're very wrong. What neither we, not he, want to do is set the WRONG example, by establishing a precedent of the Pope celebrating the wrong form of the Extraordinary form. If he's going to do it, it should be The Papal Mass, but that requires a capable and willing curia which doesn't exist as yet. If he lives - PLEASE LORD! - to create the cardinals of the next consistory, there's a VERY good chance - IMHO - that that will happen sooner than later. If the Pope were to celebrate as any other bishop at this point, that would be the end of Pontifical High Mass as we know it, because the bishops will look for something easier and proportionately down the liturgical ladder. Patience. Patience. Patience.

Jean said...

Incidentally, as I am wont to say, I thank heaven every single day that I live in the pontificate of Benedict XVI. I see things happening in the church that I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. Time is healing many wounds. In this world there will always be a struggle between the sacred and the secular. But within the church, tradition will win the war of attrition.

God save Pope Benedict XVI. Our Lady of Victories, intercede for him!

Prof. Basto said...

So, if the Congregation approved something in March, if it was presented to the pope in April, and if the pope has approved it, does it mean that the CDWDS will issue a DOCUMENT in the near future detailing the changes to the Missal of Paul VI?

Paul Haley said...

A silk purse from a sow's ear....lipstick on a pig? Sound familiar? Look, I understand the Holy Father's attempt at Synthesis but I suggest it isn't going to work.

The TLM has been described as the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven by Fr. Faber. As such, it should be left alone in stark contrast to the banal product that is the NO.

Let the two liturgies stand alone and the one that is clearly superior will win out in the end. Why do I say this? Because the Person to whom these liturgies are directed, God the Father in Heaven, will make the choice His Own.

Anonymous said...

The Vatican2 "changes" happened overnight. Why should a "reform" take YEARS?

I agree wholeheartedly!

They need to reap what they've sown. Divine justice for the damage they have done to our Church and our lives.

Jean said...

Oh, one other thing: taking note of the date of April 4 last as when the document was presented to the Holy Father, it's enticing to think where the project stands four months later. Roll on, true reform!

Josh said...

"For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours now and forever" is an innovation in the Roman Rite, but it is not a Protestant invention. As Jordanes points out, it is present in the Didache, and it is present in both the Peshitta and all of the Syriac liturgies. That does not make it necessary to add it to the Roman Rite of course.

I hope that the new concrete changes, when they come, are not options - Heaven knows there are already plenty of those!

Anonymous said...

Beng: No problem! I can tell you weren't around in the sixties when they were faced with a similar problem - except it was the opposite. They did it then; they'll do it now.

Delphina

Jordanes said...

"The Vatican2 'changes' happened overnight. Why should a 'reform' take YEARS?" I agree wholeheartedly! They need to reap what they've sown. Divine justice for the damage they have done to our Church and our lives.

Doing unto others as they have done unto you is NOT divine justice, even if they deserve it or worse. Again, "two wrongs don't make a right." Even more, the botched liturgical reform was an injustice to the Catholic faithful whose faith was shaken or destroyed by the unprecedented overhaul of the Latin liturgy. Why should further injustices be done to the faithful, who are not the ones responsible for screwing up the liturgy during the 1960s and afterwards? Should the just be destroyed with the wicked? Should others be made to endure further needless liturgical upheaval just because a previous generation was unjustly made to suffer the same?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ertner gets things confused:

"This of course raises the question why the 1962 rite should stay in use, if it is merely an earlier editio typica which is not qualitatively different from later ones."

The 1970 Mass is called on its titlepage the "First Edition" of the Novus Ordo Missæ, and the 1975 and 2000 editions are called "Second Edition" and "Third Edition". So the 1962 edition and those of 1958, 1925, 1884, 1637, 1607, 1570, 1474, &c. are not editions of the SAME THING. That is why the Pope, in S.P., had to come up with the idea that the two Masses are different forms of one Rite. The other (correct) view is that they are two different Rites. But in either case, there is an admission that they are separate items in law with different rights appertaining to each.

Don't confuse this with the matter of the 'hermeneutic of conintuity' which, in this case, merely claims tha that the SPIRIT of the two forms or Rites should be the same.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ertner writes that we could make changes to follow Eastern churches:

"Such as the chanting of the Epistle towards the faithful (which is done in the Byzantine Rite),"

We must keep in mind that each regional/national Rite of the Church has its own integrity. It is not legitimate to borrow from others merely because they do something differently. Authentic development occurs within each natioanl Rite and must perfect some existing form or comport to other forms which have been HANDED DOWN within the Rite.

It is antiquarianism to import things from ancient sources if they have no history of continuous use in a rite. Piux XII condemned 'archæologism" in this respect, in Mediator Dei. It's called 'primitivism' when the ancient source comes from the apostolic age. What is crucial to a Rite is what has been handed down within its own tradition, not what is ancient. For example, Eastern Rites have the Offerotry at the beginning of Mass, before the Royal doors are opened. That is entirely foreign to Western Tradition.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

DR's response to me is entirely plausible. I salute him for it. He may be right. This is a matter of judgement, not strictly of logic: will a better N.O.M. keep people from going to the T.L.M., or will it encourage people to look for somethign even better than the N.O.M., bringing them to the T.L.M. Both outcomes are logically possible. Which of the two comports more to human nature here?

Again, DR might be right. But I tend to think that most human beings are lazy by nature and will always seek the easiest way of doing something. That's why most people drive cars constantly (whereas I walk almost always: long live walking! I'm a professional pedestrian.)

My feeling is that, if there is a devout and beautiful N.O.M. around the corner, with all the smells and bells and Communion in lingua, most people will not bother driving across town to the T.L.M. But if there is a horrid N.O.M. with potted plants and pink felt banners and light-coloured wood and pumpkins on the Altar for Hallowe'en, people will walk ten thousand mile to get away from it. So a bad N.O. will strengthen the T.L.M.

I'm making a judgement from my own experience. This June, our priest had to be away. Of the forty or fifty supporters of our T.L.M., four or five (including yours truly) went across town to the Ukrainian Byzantine Divine Liturgy--anything to avoid the N.O.M. but we went to a Litugy which is entirely foreign to most Latin Mass supporters. The other 35 or 40 people simply went to the N.O. in their local parishes. Now if you make the N.O.M. unambiguously Catholic, how many will even bother going to the T.L.M. in the first place?

Responses are welcome. I could be wrong on this. But keep in mind that the N.O.M. rules the roost and is everywhere. This is not at all like the contest between the T.L.M. and a Latin N.O. with all th smells and bells. We've won on that and Adoremus has failed.

P.K.T.P.

arisbe said...

"For Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the Glory, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and ever unto the age of ages" is the form used in the Eastern Churches in communion with the Holy See and by the separated Orthodox. Our Protestant teachers in the public schools used a form of this doxology (minus the Trinity) at the opening of the school day, making it a red flag for the Catholic kids, but that is no reason to resent its introduction, or reintroduction, to the Roman Rite.

Irenaeus of New York said...

Gideon Ertner,

I would also add the epiclesis to your list of authentic improvements.

Anonymous said...

I agree strongly with Jordanes's last post on two wrongs not making a right, etcetera (too bad he won't do the right thing on another matter). Look, what happened in 1964 (on 29th November in English-speaking lands) did immeasurable damage to the Church because an established worldview was replaced in one day. This caused a huge exodus and the breakdown of discipline and a disappearance of a Catholic ethos. We don't want to do the same thing. Benedict XVI's primary responsibility is to save souls, and you don't save them by causing a schism on the left. He is trying to lead the liberals gently by the hand into the Truth. Sure, it would be more fun to throw them out on their rock 'n roll stupid posteriors, but that is not the right thing to do.

A faster pace is needed but not to reform the N.O.M. It is needed to quicken the rate of implementing S.P. so as to assure more of our Masses and to remove episcopal obstruction to the Pope's m.p.

Regarding my call for more options in the N.O.M. to introduce tradition to it, this need not mean an OVERALL increase in options. At the same time, the Pope is indicating that he plans to abolish many of the present options, especially those which allow for so much experimentation and ad libidum innovations.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. wrote:

"It should be likewise with a return to Catholic traditions. If the liberals and dissidents don't like it, they can leave."

Again, as Jordanes rightly remarks, this is not a Christian attitude. We need to find ways of turning liberals into traditionalists, not to kick them hard and encourage them to become all-out pagans.

Unfortunately, some of them will leave in any event because they are not all Catholic in the first place. Some are only there to destroy the Church from within. But there are others among them who mean well but have no sensus catholicus. Reforming NewMass in the right way can inculcate that and lead them towards tradition.

Having said all this, I must say that the Pope does appear to be moving a bit too slowly. A fourth edn. of the N.O. might include some of the traditional options I've mentioned and remove some of the revolutionary catylists now present. Such a new animal might be introduced in, say, 2011. Keep in mind that it would then take at least another two years to translate the changes.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes: Re your 17:32 reply, it's hardly the same. You weren't there. You didn't live through it.

I do think that this will be harder to do because "obedience" is not ingrained in present day Catholics. Also, the dissenters have been around for a long time and are quite organized and have had decades of using, successfully, Alinsky techniques. There will be a battle; but this time they won't win.

dcs said...

The Vatican2 "changes" happened overnight. Why should a "reform" take YEARS?

Well, in the first place because it is a mistake to make too many changes too quickly, and in the second place because it is easier to tear something down than it is to build it up.

Anonymous said...

Just a mention of the reform of the reform makes you try to pick some elements and create newer Mass. It's purely Novus Ordo spirit. There are no "legitimate developments" in the new Mass, because it's an invention, a literary creation (like a drama, like a scenario of a TV show) of certain men, whose names we all know, not a result of the Holy Spirit living in the Church.

All this reminds me of ...partially self-induced and partially propaganda-induced stupefied thinking about how the Cold War was a waste of time and money, how the world needed a convergence of the two systems (a “peaceful coexistence”), how the West should work with “liberal reformers” in Moscow instead of approaching the country aggressively.

In the end the Immaculate Heart will triumph. Have faith, don't invent a newer liturgy. It's false path, just like placating the Soviet Union and nourishing it by loans was.

Jordanes said...

I agree strongly with Jordanes's last post on two wrongs not making a right, etcetera (too bad he won't do the right thing on another matter).

I'm happy you agree, Mr Perkins.

The right thing was done on that other matter, which is not the topic of this discussion.

Jordanes: Re your 17:32 reply, it's hardly the same. You weren't there. You didn't live through it.

Whether or not I was there is entirely irrelevant, and no it's not the exactly the same, just the same thing in principle. If it's wrong to take a wrecking ball to the liturgy, if for no other reason because of the deleterious effect it has on souls, it's wrong to take a wrecking ball to the Pauline liturgy too. Let the repairs and reforms be done carefully, painstakingly, not in haste and not out of vengeance.

Anonymous said...


"It should be likewise with a return to Catholic traditions. If the liberals and dissidents don't like it, they can leave."

Again, as Jordanes rightly remarks, this is not a Christian attitude.


Why don't you sympathize with their victims rather than the liberals? Did Our Lord show unchristian attitude when He said "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." ?

Nonsense. Lack of charity towards people who have no other option than the new, or (in the future) newer Mass, that's unchristian. Charity urges us to bring them the true Mass. That's charity, not depriving people what they need for the sake of not making liberals whine.

Anonymous said...

Arisbe:

It would be an innovation to the Roman Rite to add that embolism. One does not patch onto one Rite something that it legitimate in another. We could also remove the corpus from the Cross on the grounds that the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics don't have it. But that would be wrong. Let each Rite be integral with its own traditions. Nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

R.I.P. NO
The New Mass must end.
Why reform a defect when the Church already has the real thing?

LeonG said...

I could not agree more with Brother Anthony's comment. This is a deeply flawed rite with profoundly un-Catholic traits as far as liturgical tradition are concerned. Tinkering with it will do little if anything to rectify 40 years of immense damage inflicted on The Church through its protestant roots. It has also created a church with an incurable addiction for change and novelty as all empirical evidence attests.

Anonymous said...

The sooner the better, It is ironic though that we are moving towards the 1962 Missal little by little...Wouldn't it just be better to celebrate that Missal with a provision for parts in the vernacular for the NO crowd..Just do away with the Pauline Missal..The defects are inherent to that Missal and we are going along a path to the former Missal anyway..Seems more sensible and would probably satisfy most of the NO group..I am sure they desire the return to a more faithful Catholic expression at Mass..Pauline Missal = Options and endless tinkering. They go hand in hand and this is the inherent defect, the perception of this Missal and what you can do with it..That will not go away, they are forever linked..

LeonG said...

"...the SPIRIT of the two forms or Rites should be the same."

Objectively speaking, they are not.

Anonymous said...

"Our Protestant teachers in the public schools used a form of this doxology (minus the Trinity) at the opening of the school day, making it a red flag for the Catholic kids, but that is no reason to resent its introduction, or reintroduction, to the Roman Rite."


Yes it is. Maybe not Protestant at the roots, but it was/is Protestant in practice/tradition and has no place in a Roman Catholic Mass. It, and the "Sign of Peace", should be removed from any reform of the Paul VI Mass.

Anonymous said...

Just replace the Novus Ordo with the ExtraOrdinary rite in the vernacular, all the prayers and rubrics are in place.

Alexander said...

This is good.

Once the NO looks more like a TLM there will be little reason to even use it.

At that point why would anyone use a Mass with inferior prayers and ritual? Makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

The last Anon., in his rebuke to me, forgets that most of those going to the N.O.M. actually prefer it to the T.L.M. That may be hard to believe but it is true. They have been formed in the anti-Christian culture of the last forty years and they are devotees of the New World Order, even if they don't see it like that. It is a bit paternalistic, therefore, to tell them that we have decided to spank them for their own good and force them into TrueMass. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

The Pope realises that a contemporary spirit of error suffuses our entire culture. It is not as simple as telling people to smarten up and go back to Latin. There is one end here but a diversity of means. H.H. believes that the right way is to lead these people gently by the hand towards tradition. Fomenting a revolt by trying to wrench them into the T.L.M. would be counterproductive. In the 1960s, millions left for good, many others came back only after a time. Do we want millions more to leave?

No, I would prefer to see the Holy Father take measures to make our Mass more readily available while, at the same time, reforming NewMass gradually. Eventually, there will be no need for the broken toy and the dusty toy in perfect condition can be restored universally. In the meantime, steps need to be taken to ensure that bishops cannot block S.P. I've got you on my mind, Msgr. Jordan of Reims; I'm thinking of you, Bishop Pepe of Las Vegas.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Quote "Just replace the Novus Ordo with the ExtraOrdinary rite in the vernacular, all the prayers and rubrics are in place."

That's to easy!.:)

Peter Kim said...

I expect it will be the renovation of NOM, while TLM remains intact.

Off the topic: Here is a great link to writings, audios and videos of Fr. Chad Ripperger. He is a FSSP priest and a professor of Dogmatic and Moral Theology and Philosophy at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska.

http://www.sensustraditionis.org/multimedia.html

arisbe said...

Whether the doxology was an innovation I do not know. Such Easternisms were common in the West before Trent, but I haven't a clue about this one. To be overly concerned about it is to strain at a gnat while swallowing the camel. Taking it out would do nothing whatever to restore the spirit of the Mass.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't this, in the end, come back to appointments of new bishops? If only orthodox bishops were appointed from here on out, in only a few years the balance would be tipped and the right things could be done with much more speed and much less resistance. As always, I do not understand why we get some good ones and other weak ones even now. For example, if Bishop Vasa from Oregon replaced Troutperson or Mahony, it would make a big difference quickly. We're not going anywhere fast without better appointments.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a great step forward, but yet again who knows how long it will take and if it will take off at all.

Matt

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Comments, no matter how good or brilliant, that contain ad hominem attacks against a particular Pope (calling him an "imbecile" or "idiot", for instance) will not be approved for posting.

quirinus said...

Anonymous said:

Novus Ordo is a rupture, pretending that's not is of no use.

Why should we pay attention to an invented rite if we have a genuine one?


I am not pretending anything. I have been fighting for our Holy Mass of ages all my life and paid my share of tears and humiliations for that. I don't need to be told what NO is. However, that's the rite two generations grew up with, and it isn't even the actual rite the Church promulgated, but its "creative adaptation" by a bunch of ideologues. If Catholics will begin to see at least a rite that is more faithful to the rubrics, and Magisterium, both people AND CLERGY will be educated to a Catholic understanding of liturgy. Together with the seemingly unstoppable growth of TLMs and good young seminarians, that will lead to a return of normalcy. Once they realize what Liturgy is all about, they will want to go for the real thing. But it has to be presented to them as the gift from God it is, not shoved down their throats as it was done to us.

It was imposed just like Central Committees imposed their inventions on their subjects, so let the Central Committee revoke its decree. It will be posthumous success of the forces of evil otherwise, even a partial one.

So you accept the modernist idea of governance of the Church and the demands of CHARITY for the salvation of souls be damned? Like a bunch of soviet ideologues they should ignore human nature and just dictate with no formation, no education? Aut quomodo credent ei, quem non audierunt? Quomodo autem audient sine praedicante? And then who would follow? Where are the troops for this swift coup d'etat? The modernist tyranny is good to destroy and discourage, not to build and convert. It takes TIME to raise a child, it takes TIME to convert a nation, it takes TIME to correct and edify men, and once it's done you're still at risk of seeing it all crumble back down, because we're children of Adam. If you do it the wrong way, there will be no solid foundation to your grandiose project, and you'll end up needing death and destruction precisley like every revolutionary attempt based on gnostic premises about human nature. Rad-trads have swallowed this mentality completely IMHO. We're here to help Christ save souls, not to score points and enjoy headlines the following morning.

The Church is not a democracy, we can't help Holy Father in any other way than praying, because the shepherds, not the sheep, are in charge of the Church.

Don't forget that.

The diabolic temptation for the laity to instruct the clergy and shape the Church as they imagine her is indeed great among the trads


You're missing a couple of crucial points, and that's what probably generated the non-sequitur of this last assertion of yours in the light of what you said before.

a) the Church is not a democracy -thank God! - but it isn't a tyranny either. Besides it has no police to enforce its decrees. Basing all action on enforcement is not going to work, especially in 2009.

b) this whole idea that the sheep can only pray and shut up is not tradtional at all, but a Jannsenist deviation towards clericalism which modernists love once their are in charge (none more tyrannical than a modernist bishop or parish priest, or theologian or rector you name it)

c) last but not least, piscis a capite foetet. And where did the poisoning of the life of the Church start if not among the clergy, theologians, liturgists, bishops? We let who, Mahony reform the reform? Besides I am not instructing anyone, the POPE is. And how do you stop the disaster if not with new generations of young guns who will one day be the new priests, the new bishops, theologians, rectors and so forth? But it takes TIME, and granted it takes solid families someone has to form. It also take some faith in Divine Providence, the firm conviction that this is not just a human endeavour, an earthly struggle, but that Christ is still in charge and they will not prevail.

Anonymous said...

I see in the reform of the reform not just a necessary return to the sacred but the renewal of secular culture as well. The reformed liturgy will be the guide to reestablishing secular society where Christian humanism might once again show the way to a better future for humanity.

Anonymous said...

"The Vatican2 "changes" happened overnight. Why should a "reform" take YEARS?"

Because to fall from 100units to 50units is a decrease of 50%, but to increase from 50units to 100units is an increase of 100%...

All of us want this to happen quickly. All of us are impatient. But it is the Holy Father who has the responsibility and judgement for this, not us.

Let us work in our own way to improve things, but, when it comes to the Holy Father, let us instead pray for him, for his wise decision making and that he may have the guidance of Our Lady, his patron saint, his angel guardian and, above all, Our Lord, whose Vicar on Earth, he is.

DU

dcs said...

I'm not sure I understand why we would want our beloved traditional Mass translated into the vernacular. Would it be better than the existing vernacular Mass? Yes, but it would open up a whole other can of worms.

LeonG said...

Indeed, argue objectively using real evidence: there is plenty of it available. Insults are subjective, based on personal ignorance and inappropriate. This betrays a lack of necessary maturity.

Anonymous said...

What will the Vatican do about dioceses like Richmond, Virginia that know how to find loopholes to continue the practice of deviant liturgies. They're still pouring the Precious Blood to other multiple vessels during Mass regularly. They're still ignoring the fact that mostly EMHCs are "purifying" vessels after Mass. They're still hiding Tabernacles from the laity. They're still harassing the few people that still genuflect. They're still making children and RCIA graduates take Holy Communion in the hand. The reform of the reform will never be accepted in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia; no matter what rosey image they would like to paint for Church officials. The people who live in this diocese know what's really going on.

Anonymous said...

The last post by Quirinus was well argued. He deserves congratulations for it. When I began in all of this, I felt little antipathy to those who were attached to the New Mass. I just wanted to restore the Traditional Latin Mass. Unfortunately, I've wandered a bit from that correct & healthy attitude. We need to think more in positive terms. Don't worry about the long-term future of the N.O.M. If it is a bad thing--and I think it is--God will take care of it. Our task is to preserve and cherish and foster than whcih is good.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Goings said...

"It is antiquarianism to import things from ancient sources if they have no history of continuous use in a rite. Pius XII condemned 'archæologism" in this respect, in Mediator Dei."

In which case wouldn't it make much more sense to reject the 1962 missal in favor of an earlier edition, prior to the Holy Week changes promulgated under Pius XII?

Anonymous said...

I know there is much consternation among we Traditionalists over this issue.

However, I am of the mindset that this will help tremendously.

It will start the long process of restoring a sense of the sacred to the Mass.

As a sense of the Sacred is restored to the NO, and the banality is removed, the superiority of the EF will be more visible to all.

This will result in further evolution of the NO towards the EF, as well as a wider celebration of the EF.

It took us 40 years to get into such an awful mess. If we recognize that getting out of it will likely take 40 years, then we would view this as a significant accomplishment and a significant step forward.

Anonymous said...

quirinus,

I really appreciate your post. You say very well what I think and feel about this topic.

I feel strongly that we must commit ourselves to the reality that this will be a very long term reform. As I've said, it took 40 years to get here, it will take another 40 to fix things.

If we give ourselves 40 years, 80 years, 100 years, to achieve the goal, then incremental steps like the Holy Father's reform start to make much more sense.

Like the Israelites in the desert, the Lord may see fit that NONE of the wicked generation see the glorious restoration of Tradition across the world, even those that were faithful. But, in his infinite mercy, he has given us the refuge of the Porta Caeli, granting many access to the Mass of the Ages, in an ever widening fashion.

Vincent Uher said...

MANY YEARS to His Holiness !!!

I look forward to a Missal of Pope Benedict XVI. With many needs in balance, I can imagine the Holy Father providing the Church with a missal that is faithful to tradition as well as flexible for the Church in the many locales where the Church is outlawed or in danger.

God grant the Holy Father many years indeed!

David L Alexander said...

"That statement is proof that HH does not wish a return to the TLM, or else he would set an example by celebrating it in public."

Pope Benedict celebrated the TLM as Cardinal Ratzinger, and it is said that he celebrates it privately. However, it is quite another thing for him to celebrate a Papal Mass according to a form which requires functionaries unique to it, if there is no one left alive who knows how.

Meanwhile, reliable sources have told me, that it was all he could do, to have regular celebrations of the Ordinary Form of Mass in St Peter's, to change from Italian to Latin.

This is one thing he can't do alone.

Anonymous said...

It's not only the Mass. First the perverted theology must be abandoned and pure Catholic theology restored. The rest will fall into place naturally.

Dr. Herbert R. said...

"You can't reform something that is erroneous from its very foundation. You can increase the sacrality all you want, but the fact remains that the very text of the Novus Ordo Missae is "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as defined at the Council of Trent". There is only one solution regarding the Novus Ordo - it must be abolished completely."

This is too radical a concept. The Pope I would opine is on the idea that the 1970 missal is a continuation of the Old Missal. Thus his idea of hermeneutics of continuity. It was the rupture from the past which considered Vatican II as super dogma that created the false experimentation and deformation of the liturgy. Hence with the premise that the 1970 missal is a valid reform missal, all the deformation that followed because of false interpretations should be corrected in order to restore the original intentions of the Vatican II Fathers. I would opine that this is the idea of the Holy Father of which I also support and believe. This is the main reason why he declared that the 1962 missal is allowable for all priests precisely because he wants the Novus Ordo to rediscover its continuity with the past missal and re-establish the traditional norms and ways of saying mass. However, personally I do not follow the idea of others which says that the Novus Ordo is invalid. The Novus Ordo is a valid mass because the words and rites that would confect the sacrament is present in the rite. God bless our Pope and more success in his effort. Indeed he is a good man with the good intention for the good of the Church.

Chironomo said...

I agree with Dr. Herbert R's observations...

This is a BEGINNING of what will be a long labor of love on the part of those who are willing to devote their time and efforts to it. Those (above) who whine about "not seeing any changes yet"... perhaps not in your parish...yet. Time is a wonderful healer though, and things that I thought would never come to pass at my parish are now on the docket and ready to implement. We begin daily Eucharistic Adoration today...with plans by the NEW pastor to eventually have perpetual adoration. I emphasize NEW above because that is a key to what is happening. We have begun teaching the Priests the "sung Mass"... the dialogues and chants. We will begin using the Mass XVIII chants for the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei at Mass in October. One step at a time... one parish at a time. This is how change occurs. When there is a consensus towards change, then the "legislation" that so many call for will come...because that is when it will be able to have an effect. We are at a precarious time... now is not the time to lose our balance.

David L Alexander said...

"It's not only the Mass. First the perverted theology..."

After all, in two millennia, we never had a problem with "perverted theology." Then we decided to change the Mass, and just look what happened.

Anonymous said...

FYI: http://www.asca.it/news-VATICANO__NON_E__IN_PREPARAZIONE_NESSUNA__RIFORMA__DELLA_MESSA-854045-ORA-.html

LeonG said...

The crux of the matter is that a deformed "reform" is the focus of a reform. Now such an initial movement implied some type of improvement. However, its outcome was a catastrophe that one of its principal advocates called a "springtime" & a compass for our times. Strange phenomenological concept of direction, indeed. With the consequent and evident confusion, equivocation and devastation we are being informed that such a "reform" is being reformed. This is totally illogical and impracticable. It is impossible to improve what has proven to be an utter disaster for The Church.

Thus, we can detect the inconsistent hand of the modernist liberal who imagines that something better may be salvaged out of a thoroughly defective instrument. Its very inconsistencies may be objectively described by thousands of closed churches; hundreds of dying religious communities; rapidly disappearing religious orders; scores of closed seminaries; an un-Catholic vernacular and anthropocentric liturgical form called a "Roman Rite" which is replete with illicitness and even frequent invalidity coupling the foregoing with a church that has lost its Catholicus Sensus in obsessive ecumenical disorder and interreligious obfuscation.

Ladies and gentlemen, this post-conciliar state of chaos most aptly described by Fr Paul Marx OSB, cannot be reformed. It has to be abolished. It just is not Roman Catholic. The sooner this process is reversed the sooner The Church will be restored to all things in Our Lord Jesus Christ.

LeonG said...

The hybrid "mass" is the ultimate neo-modernist monster that is being mooted by the pluralistic liberal elements in the hierarchy. Ad orientam, communion on the knees but with all the trappings of the novus ordo service. This would be sen as the final coup against The Holy Mass in Latin - swallow the two forms one rite illusion and then the pack of cards will fall into place. Many still do not believe this because they do not want to but it is happening right now.

Dirk said...

All of it was a lie. The Vatican has already denied the upcomming reform. All hopes are gone....

Dan Hunter said...

"After all, in two millennia, we never had a problem with "perverted theology." Then we decided to change the Mass, and just look what happened."

Mr Alexander:

I could not agree with you more.
Wise statement indeed.

Anonymous said...

I don't quite buy the statement that a Papal Tridentine Mass can not be said because no one knows how anymore. I would venture to guess it is written down somewhere. And even if some of the elements are gone, perhaps it is time to revive the Tridentine in the Vatican according to the wishes of the Second Vatican Council...If organic growth has abolished the Papal court then a new pontifical can be drawn up to take that into consideration when celebrating according to the 1962 books..Certainly trumpets can again herald the Sylveri Symphony during the elevation, perhaps the tiara could be place on the Altar to symbolize the Papacy, two or three Palantine guards could be revived for the purpose of a Papal Mass, the flabellum to stand aside the Chair of Peter to show continuity with the past and yet make it distinctive enough from the NO to serve the intention of updating the 1962 Pontifical ceremonies within the existing possibilities. Sure it may take work but surely it will be needed and used someday. When the Vatican wants something done they can do it..I mean they wrote the entire NO rite within a few short years, certainly a Papal Mass can be done.

Jordanes said...

All of it was a lie. The Vatican has already denied the upcomming reform. All hopes are gone....

Really? When and where did the Vatican deny Tornielli's report?

Dirk said...

http://www.asca.it/news-VATICANO__NON_E__IN_PREPARAZIONE_NESSUNA__RIFORMA__DELLA_MESSA-854045-ORA-.html

Joe B said...

If I had intended to change anything about about a venerable old Catholic mass, out of humility before the testimony of so many saints, popes, and sainted popes, I would certainly have started by making the proponents of change clearly and specifically identify what was wrong with the TLM rather than the philosophy of what kinds can we make to simply 'build a better mass'.

Intellectual vacancy and spiritual banality - the gifts of liberal arrogance, showcased in the Novus Ordo. And they want us to rejoice at them doing it again?

Anonymous said...

LeonG writes:

" swallow the two forms one rite illusion and then the pack of cards will fall into place."

I agree that this writer has a valid point. I have insisted vehemently since 7.7.07 that this 'two forms of one Rite' assertion is a mistake in law. They are NOT two forms of one Rite; they are two separate and distinct Rites of Mass, owing to the degree of change involved.

So why did the Holy See insist on the 'two forms, one Rite' formula? I see two possibilities. They are not mutually exclusive, so it need not be 'one or the other'; it can be both.

The first one, without getting into the details on this blog, is that, arguably, it would be illicit to have two Rites proper to one see of one church sui juris. The symbolism problem is obvious: such a division in the lex ordandi suggests disunity, esp. in the see that is the Mater et Magistra for the Church Universal. Hence, if the New Mass is a New Rite of Mass, its introduction was arguably ultra vires, making it an illicit Rite. (Similarly, as I've recently argued here, its massive innovation may have the same effect: so we have two distinct reasons to find that it might be illicit).

The other reason is the one suggested by LeonG here. This might have been Perl up to his old tricks again, trying to create a 'Classical' Roman Rite. Once you assert in an ordinance that the two Masses are merely forms of one Rite, it suddenly becomes possible to 'merge' them, thereby destroying both.

Is this what they have in store for us? Perhaps but, if so, they can kiss goodbye their doctrinal talks with the S.S.P.X. The Society's refusal to accept a jurisdiction is arguably the only thing protecting all of us from being baby-stepped into a 'nice' N.O.M. Mr. McFarland would just love to be able to tell me, 'I told you so' on that! I'll give credit where credit is due (even if not all our moderators do that): he may be right. If so, I'll be the first to admit to an error.

I note, however, that the same risk is not entailed if the Society merely 'thanks' the Pope for recognising its faculties unilaterally. So this option remains good. Again, though, McFarland might agree with me here and retort, 'So why hasn't she? It is because she still hopes to sucker the Society into a jurisdiction and THEN baby-step all of us into a merged Rite'.

This is plausible but not necessarily true. Of course, God may have other plans. At any rate, I do think that the Society's intransigence is protecting those in the curia who would like to merge the Rites.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

LeonG writes:

"It is impossible to improve what has proven to be an utter disaster for The Church."

I'm not sure how this follows. If a reformed rite is altered so that it more closely resmebles the Traditional Rite, is this not an improvement in the former?

We can agree that our long-term goals include the compmlete abolition of the New Mass and yet still find that, in the near- and middle-term, given charity and practical considerations, it would be prudent to reform the reform in the direction of tradition. I don't see how this idea is flawed. Clearly, one can replace the N.O.M. instantly or one can reform it in stages prior to that restoration. The second course would prevent a revolt in the Church which might lose many souls.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

David Alexander thinks that 'Pope Benedict' (whoever that may be: it can only mean Benedict I) is not able to set a good example and offer the T.L.M.

I can't agree with that. If Cardinals Cañizares Llovera and Castrillón Hoyos were able to offer the T.L.M. in major basilicas at Rome (e.g. Santa Maria Maggiore), why can't Benedict XVI (ah, now we have the right one)?

I think that Benedict XVI can and will offer the T.L.M. at St. Peter Basilica or the Lateran. He's probably waiting for an approprate occasion, such as some sort of an agreement with the S.S.P.X or the creation of an apostolic administration for the rest of us. He may want to time this for maximum impact, for it is surely a bomb in all but name!

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Dirk, thanks for the link to the ASCA report. I don't know Italian, but using an online translator program I think I got the general gist of things. The ASCA report cites no sources for its assertions, claiming that "the Vatican" has said things without saying WHO at the Vatican supposedly said those things. There has been no public refutation of Tornielli's report from the Vatican. As far as I can tell, Tornielli has shared information he's heard from his anonymous Vatican sources, and then ASCA, having been scooped by Tornielli, went to its anonymous Vatican sources (or claimed to go to its anonymous sources?) to try to rebut Tornielli's scoop.

Who should we believe? Experience has shown that Tornielli's anonymous sources tend to be more reliable. There's no reason for despair. Be patient, and pray.

Jordanes said...

So why did the Holy See insist on the 'two forms, one Rite' formula? I see two possibilities.

There is another possibility. The Holy See unquestionably does not regard the reformed Roman Rite as illicit -- and only the Holy See has the competence to issue a verdict on that point. It thus follows that if the rites really were two separate rites juridically, a Roman Rite priest would need an indult to celebrate according to the traditional Roman Rite. Pope Benedict's intention, however, was to remove any real or apparent need for an indult. Two uses within one rite is the neatest juridical solution to that problem, like Alexander's sword through the Gordian knot.

'Pope Benedict' (whoever that may be: it can only mean Benedict I)

No, it can and in varying contexts does refer to any of the fifteen popes of that name. Use your preferred stylebook if you wish, but don't attempt to impose it on others.

If Cardinals Cañizares Llovera and Castrillón Hoyos were able to offer the T.L.M. in major basilicas at Rome (e.g. Santa Maria Maggiore), why can't Benedict XVI

Cardinals are not popes. It's a great deal more work to prepare a Pontifical Mass for the Roman Bishop in the traditional rite than it is to prepare one for a Roman Cardinal. Not that that's necessarily the reason the Holy Father has yet to celebrate such a Mass as Pope.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"It thus follows that if the rites really were two separate rites juridically, a Roman Rite priest would need an indult to celebrate according to the traditional Roman Rite."

No, that doesn't follow: there could be a general permission. Consider the situation in Milan with the Ambrosian Rite.

"Use your preferred stylebook if you wish, but don't attempt to impose it on others."

No, you're wrong, and your comment reflects adherence to the error of linguistic descriptivism. It's a mattter of being correct in following traditional forms, which have a rhyme and a reason, believe it or not. Americans and even Canadians make the same mistake in miscalling the Queen 'Queen Elizabeth'. There's no such person. Until recently, it was the name of the Queen's mother, not the Queen, so they were referring to the wrong person then and to nobody at all now (unless it be Queen Elizabeth of Belgium). The forms preferred by ignorant journalists should not be followed by those who should know better. 'Pope Benedict' is too familiar: we are not his buddies but his subjects. For those who can't devote the extra keystrokes to write XVI, I suggest the correct shorter forms 'the Pope' or 'H.H.'.

"It's a great deal more work to prepare a Pontifical Mass for the Roman Bishop in the traditional rite than it is to prepare one for a Roman Cardinal."

Somehow, I don't think that this is what is holding back Benedict XVI, given his love for tradition in the Mass. Something tells me that he would just love to celebrate a pontifical High Mass. It's the same animus we've seen in his recent liturgical work, including his book on the subject. No, I'll stick with my view and we shall see if I'm right. I'm betting that he wishes to time this bombshell. It will be done on a momentous occasion. Now this, unlike my comments about correct form, is only an opinion. As for correct form, I suppose that you could call our Pope anything you want if this is approved by the anonymous author of some 'stylebook' you found in a garbage can.

P.K.T.P.

Tinchus said...

Jordanes, ASCA sites Ciro Benedettini as source. Below there is a very rough translation of the link provided by anonymous @ 13:45. Both my English and Italian need a lot of improvement but I think it would be helpful until english report of the situation is available.

The holy see is not discussing or elaborating any "reform" of the Mass or of the liturgical books of the Catholic Church. This has been affirmed this morning by the vatican’s press office (La Sala Stampa). "At this moment there aren't any institutional proposals for a modification of the liturgical books which are currently in use", said p. Ciro Benedettini (the vice-principal of the Sala Stampa) to the journalists, who has received information from the CDW, the vatican "ministry" for the liturgy.

Last Saturday, the newspaper 'Il Giornale' announced that Pope Benedict XVI had approved some lines prepared by the Congregazione, for a 'riforma' of the Mass of the Catholic Church since the second vatican council, which envisaged the return to the distribution of the Host directly in the mouth (and not in the hand), the publication of bilingual liturgical books, with the Latin text first, the restoration of the initial part of the mass and the use of Latin for the most solemn celebrations. These would had allegedly been dispositions towards a reciprocal enrichment between the tridentine and conciliar Mass, called by the pope himself in the letter which accompanies the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum which has liberalized the use of Latin mass.


I can only say that I am very sad to read this. I really hope Tornelli to be right and this report to be the Holy See trying to keep this "in pectore".

Anonymous said...

On Jordanes and Tornielli:

I have much less respect for Tornielli than Jordanes has, given his past predictions.

However, I agree with Tornielli on this. Why? For one thing, very little is asserted in this report. We are not given specifics. We are only told that the Pope is implementing a reform of the reform. Well, this information has come out over the past two years from differing sources. For example, Bishop Fellay said publicly and orally (it's on the Internet somewhere) that his sources were told that a group in the C.D.W. was proposing changes to the New Mass. He mentioned specifically a dropping of Eucharistic Prayers Nos. 2 and 4 and, I think, restoring of the old Offertory, at least as an option.

Keep in mind, though, that there is a difference between a proposal from some committee and what is finally approved by the C.D.W. and then beyond. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that this curia would dare to abolish Eucharistic Prayer No. 2. It is just too popular anmong priests and too cherished by liberal liturgists.

But I think that there is good reason to suppose that, by now, some of these proposals have been approved within the C.D.W. How much further they get is a separate question.

P.K.T.P.

M.A. said...

Reform is "acomin'. Bet on it.

One priest in my diocese has already mentioned that the priests of the diocese have been notified of some forthcoming changes to the "New Mass".

The "Vatican" is wrong, again.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, playing Ignatieff to Harper (i.e. pretending to be a teacher correcting a dummy) writes:

"The Holy See unquestionably does not regard the reformed Roman Rite as illicit -- and only the Holy See has the competence to issue a verdict on that point."

Well, I never suggested otherwise; on the contrary, I made that very point here on a previous posting. I've never suggested that anyone but a later pope could make such a finding at law. Nonetheless, this does not mean that we are forbidden from speculating on it.

P.K.T.P.

David L Alexander said...

"I don't quite buy the statement that a Papal Tridentine Mass can not be said because no one knows how anymore. I would venture to guess it is written down somewhere..."

As a master of ceremonies for a parish church, I can assure you that it is not enough to have something written down. And that's JUST a parish church. We're talking about a contingency that exists in only one place, that hasn't been done in a really, REALLY long time. I don't know if it's the reason why it hasn't been done, but it's probably a safe bet, given the above, don't you think?

Or don't you?

Brian said...

One problem with a slow a gradual approach to incrementally reforming the Novus Ordo is that new aberrations spring up in a day. Life Teen, for example, was suddenly implemented and instantly became an untouchable institution.

If the reform of the reform takes long enough, we'll be debating about what gradual changes we can introduce to the Hey Yo' Hip Hop Mass without causing anyone to loose their faith, yo.

David L Alexander said...

"David Alexander thinks that 'Pope Benedict' (whoever that may be: it can only mean Benedict I) is not able to set a good example..."

It's Benedict XVI, the one we have now. The others are dead.

"I can't agree with that. If Cardinals Cañizares Llovera and Castrillón Hoyos were able... why can't Benedict XVI (ah, now we have the right one)?"

Because none of them are the Pope. There'd be a difference, wouldn't there?

David L Alexander said...

PKTP:

I'm inclined to agree that he's waiting for the right occasion, but would consider my earlier contention as plausible nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

FYI (through google news search on "Ciro Benedettini"):

The deputy director of the Press Office of the Holy See, the Passionist Fr Ciro Benedettini, has intervened in the morning on some information that circulated the previous weekend in which he spoke of possible changes in the liturgy.

"At the moment there are no institutional proposals of a change of the liturgical books in use today," said Fr. Benedettini.

Teófilo de Jesús said...

Greetings all:

According to information presented on the Spanish side of Catholic News Agency - "ACIPrensa Digital," the Sala Stampa has denied that the reforms detailed by vaticanista Andre Tornielli are imminent in any way, shape or form. However, in true Italian fashion, Sala Stampa didn't issue a categorical denial.

The article in Spanish says that "to date, there are no institutional proposals in existence to modify the [liturgical] books currently in use." The Sala statement doesn't rule out the future, but that's arguing from their silence.

A muddled statement, to say the least.

-Theo

Teófilo de Jesús said...

Oops. I forgot to include the link to ACIPrensa Digital:

ACIPrensa Digital.

Eva Ulian said...

Pope John XXIII tried to open up the church. Was all his work in vain since now they are trying to close it up again?

Anonymous said...

Please mandate the return of the communion rails and the communion on the tongue. Then I will believe that real change is coming. Like Saint-Thomas, I need results...

http://www.catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

Deacon Tony said...

If we are not permitted to recieve the Host in our hands, how will we be given the Chalice. Will we be spoon fed the Precious Blood?

Iakovos said...

A reform of the reform as much as we know about what that could be, would beat the heck out of TL low Mass (meant to be said solo by monks down in the crypt) whereas in conducted in parish life one shows up and shuts up. The kids are right -- it's boring. At the parish level -- community level -- at least. Begin to say only full Gregorian Mass -- there's the beauty that will turn hearts to God.

Jordanes said...

Tinchus, thanks for the correction and for the rough translation. That's the problem of having to rely on the gibberish spewed out by online translator programs.

I think Teofilo de Jesus is right, though. The statement of Father Benedettini, "At the moment there are no institutional proposals of a change of the liturgical books in use today," does not necessarily contradict anything that Andrea Tornielli reported, since Father Benedettini does not say what an "institutional proposal" is, and it's not clear that the things Tornielli mentions would qualify as "institutional proposals." There have been earlier reports, however, that Pope Benedict has instructed figures in the CDW to look into various proposals of the kind mentioned in Tornielli's report. Something evidently is happening, even if it is still, as Tornielli indicated, at preliminary stages.

Mr. Perkins said: I have much less respect for Tornielli than Jordanes has, given his past predictions.

I only note that for the past few years he's had a pretty good track record. His sources seem to be good. I'm aware of times when his predictions didn't come true as early as he or others expected or hopes, but the predictions did eventually come true. Anyway on this point we agree that there is something substantial on which Tornielli's report is based.

Jordanes, playing Ignatieff to Harper (i.e. pretending to be a teacher correcting a dummy) writes:

Pray mind your manners, Mr. Perkins.

Well, I never suggested otherwise

As I also never suggested that you suggested or asserted otherwise.

Brian said: Life Teen, for example, was suddenly implemented and instantly became an untouchable institution.

Not that untouchable since the spiritual shipwreck of its founder . . . and even before that, my pastor didn't have any trouble kicking Life Teen out of our parish. He just replaced it with a parish-based Youth Mass knock-off, scheduled that at an inconvenient time, and let the innate laziness of pampered American adolescents do the rest. Within a couple months, the last vestiges of "Life Teen" were eliminated.

Sean said...

"One priest in my diocese has already mentioned that the priests of the diocese have been notified of some forthcoming changes to the "New Mass."

M.A., I think the priest in your diocese was referring to certain linguistic changes recently approved by the American bishops – not anything coming from Rome.

Jordanes said...

Eva Ulian said: Pope John XXIII tried to open up the church. Was all his work in vain since now they are trying to close it up again?

Whatever "open up the church" means, it doesn't follow that because a lot of things that Blessed John XXIII never envisioned or authorised are now being reconsidered, that means all his work was in vain. Nevertheless, it could well be the case that we'll find that most of his work was in vain. He wouldn't be the first pope of whom that could be said.

Deacon Tony said: If we are not permitted to recieve the Host in our hands, how will we be given the Chalice. Will we be spoon fed the Precious Blood?

The report doesn't say there is a proposal to revoke the indults permitting Communion in the hand, but there is no reason why the Church could not return to Communion on the tongue with reservation of the Chalice to the priest. There is, after all, no need for anyone but the priest to receive Communion under both kinds.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Perkins said: "It thus follows that if the rites really were two separate rites juridically, a Roman Rite priest would need an indult to celebrate according to the traditional Roman Rite." No, that doesn't follow: there could be a general permission. Consider the situation in Milan with the Ambrosian Rite.

Whether it is a general indult or one that must be obtained on a case by case basis, it would still require an indult for a Roman Rite priest to be biritual if the traditional rite of the Roman Church really is a separate rite from the reformed rite of the Roman Church. The juridical solution of two uses in one rite was the neatest way to affirm the rights of Latin Rite priests to celebrate the traditional liturgy without having to obtain special permission. At the same time, it reaffirmed the Church's historical and spiritual ties to the traditional liturgy, which is not to be a museum piece or the particular treasure of a small minority of Latin Catholics, but is the patrimony of the entire Latin Church.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Perkins, you have previously expatiated at great length on your reasons why you think your preferred style of writing and speaking is the only correct style of writing and speaking. Thanks for sharing, but as I said, you may use your preferred stylebook if you wish, but stop attempting to impose it on others. Your personal theories about language and style may be of interest to a few others here, but interjecting supercilious asides about "there's no such person as Pope Benedict" in the midst of your comments is simply annoying and detracts from your arguments. It's got nothing to do with the Faith (though I understand how natural it is that someone who is a traditionalist in liturgy and doctrine would also be a linguistic and stylistic traditionalist).

I agree, by the way, that there's no such person as "Queen Elizabeth," but on Jacobite grounds, not arbitrary stylistic grounds.

Jewells said...

You owe it to yourself to find the closest Latin Mass and go! I was shocked to find so many young people who were not even born before Vatican II.....and they love the Latin Mass. I havee to go back.....it was so stirring and other worldly.....heavenly.

arisbe said...

Thank you, Iakovos. What you young folks call the TLM is nothing like what I grew up with. I'm sorry, but even the NO was an improvement on that -- especially in places where the extreme was not the norm. I get the impression that things began to go bad in the 1940s, when sung Vespers were the rule in Cathedrals and common in many parishes. All that was gone in my day.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Alexander,

With all due respect No, I do not think so, if the Pope wishes it tomorrow they can revive the Papal Mass, regardless of the obstacles. I think it would only have to do with timing, nothing more if not done by now..Your suggestion would indicate that after Pope Benedict XVI the Church will never, ever see a Papal Mass according to the 1962 books because everyone who knows anything about it will be dead. In your parish I am sure there are many things you have to arrange yourself which of course would make the task all the more difficult, and I applaud you, ( I have seen many of your comments and often side with your thinking) however I think the Vatican has a few more staffers. The more people the more manageable. In the end I would like to hold onto my little dream that I may see a Papal Mass in my lifetime. And I am a Vat II Catholic who never dreamed I would see a Tridentine Mass, or have the opportuntiy to attend a regular one. Pope Benedict XVI can do what seems to many of us as impossible.

"Modifications to New Mass"

Why would the Vatican confirm that it is going to change something that is already assumed the norm in the NO Missal, ad orientem, Latin, Kneeling for Communion. That would be redundant. This may very well be Vatican double talk for "not changing the NO Mass, but enforcing it" as not to allow the liberals time to gather and sabotage..

The Writer about "Pope John XXIII"

As for the open windows thing, to get further inside his thoughts I suggest you read His Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia. Said Constitution is still binding on the Church. And please note he is said to have signed it on the Altar in St. Peter's to show his emphasis...I do not think when he wanted to open up the window he expected a bus parked outside it blowing exhaust fumes into the Church.

Francis Pimentel-Pinto said...

I studied Latin for years and I love Latin. Historically, however, Latin was for centuries the 'lingua franca' of a clerical world to which lay people only belonged as a sort of third order. In a church of the people, fully in the world, the liturgy ought to be intelligible, genuinely public and celebrated in the vernacular of the country.

David Werling said...

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16921

"The Press Office of the Holy See today denied reports in the Italian press that Pope Benedict is poised to make changes to enhance the sacredness of the liturgy. The statement added that there are currently no institutional proposals to alter the rites being used to celebrate the Mass."

Such is the the ups and downs of the novus ordo. It's been fun reading all the posts, though.

Anonymous said...

I agree, by the way, that there's no such person as "Queen Elizabeth," but on Jacobite grounds, not arbitrary stylistic grounds...

Good. Very, very good!

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"Whether it is a general indult or one that must be obtained on a case by case basis, it would still require an indult for a Roman Rite priest to be biritual if the traditional rite of the Roman Church really is a separate rite from the reformed rite of the Roman Church."

No, Jordanes is totally wrong here. He is confusing Rite in the liturgical sense and the loose 'Rite' meaning Ritual church or individual church or church sui juris. Were there two Rites universally proper to one ritual church, all the priests in that ritual church would have the right (ha!) to use both. The question, of course, remains whether or not that situation could exist in the first place.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"I agree, by the way, that there's no such person as "Queen Elizabeth," but on Jacobite grounds, not arbitrary stylistic grounds."

As a Jacobite myself (descended from a line of Scots Jacobites through a grandmother), I agree in principle although there is the matter of proper address. As a courtesy, we use the styles others claim for themselves except in extreme cases. Hence it is polite to address Lutheran bishops as such, even though they are no more bishops than are little boys in sailor suits.

The position of the Jacobite Society overseas is to support the Hanoverians as a practical measure, since not doing so would have worse effects. This is a corollary of the Catholic princiiple of proportionality, with which I assume Jordanes is familiar. So Elizabeth II is addressed as such (and never as 'Queen Elizabeth') on those grounds. She is Elizabeth II or the Queen or Her Majesty, just as the other fellow is Benedict XVI or Pope Benedict XVI or the Supreme Pontiff or His Holiness or the Holy Father or the Pope. With all those correct options, one would think that people would not need to insist on an incorrect one, especially one that, owing to its parallels, conveys and insulting sense of overfamiliarity.

On Jordanes's other remarks, I can only insist that linguistic descriptivism goes hand in hand with all the other things introduced by the same people (sc. liberals) and the same time (1960s) and for the same reasons, things such as rock noise, hippies, subjectivism, &c. Some of us here believe and insist that correct form depends on traditional usage as a general norm and truth itself is a quality which inheres in the object and not something which inhabits the eye of the beholder. Enough said.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"The juridical solution of two uses [sic] in one rite was the neatest way to affirm the rights of Latin Rite priests to celebrate the traditional liturgy without having to obtain special permission."

Use is the wrong term here; it refers to forms which are either proper to limited places or to special religious groups. You mean 'form', I think: that's the term used by His Holiness.

Your point is valid but that is not really important, is it? The question is not whether or not this was the most convenient way to proceed but whether the distinction drawn is correct in law, a subject in which the Holy Father is not infallible. So it remains to be seen. I have made it clear why I disagree with the claim made by the Pope (formulated, no doubt, by that Perl of low price) in S.P. What I have never claimed is that I have authority in such matters. But time will tell if this distinction holds up: I don't think it will.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To answer Deacon Tony:

I suppose the Precious Blood could be administered by passing the Chalice along the Communion line of kneeling communicants. Does anyone know how the Anglicans do it?

I believe that Armenian Catholic receive by intinction. So the priest presumably immerses a corner of the Host in the Precious Blood and then gives it on the tongue. Sounds like a good way to proceed if this is necessary.

Of course, the other way is simply to receive in one kind. After all, the whole Christ is present in both species.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I will be delighted to see the changes enumerated here and anything else that will return the Mass to the sacred, removing the opportunity for abuse. Most priests will not ever say the Extraordinary form of the Latin Right, so in Novus Ordo parishes it will be necessary to change the Mass, removing options and writing the rubrics in such a way as to absolutely specify a constant norm.

I did not discover the true beauty of the Extraordinary form of the Latin Rite until several years ago when I attended my diocese's Sunday indult Mass said by our FSSP Chaplain. I have since made it a point to go often. I truly love it and only hope for the sincere reverence of the Ordinary Form that the Extraordinary Form gets. Holy Ghost Catholic Church in Denver comes as close as any parish I've seen to date, sining the Ordinary Form in Latin on Sundays at 10:30AM. It was truly the experience of a lifetime! What a treat!

I hope and pray for these changes noted here! I pray that if this is true the Holy Father truly will effect these changes.

Michael said...

Should others be made to endure further needless liturgical upheaval just because a previous generation was unjustly made to suffer the same?

I reject the thought that restoring centuries of Catholic liturgical practice is "needless liturgical upheaval".

Holy Mass is a form of spiritual combat, one that is necessary in our time, as much as ever. This isn't fencing or some gentlemen's fox hunt where rules of so-called "civility" are applied from a long forgotten rule book, this is truly life and death -- the ETERNAL life and death of souls!

Robert Burke said...

I would also like to see the Confiteor modified to bring back references to Our Lady and the angels.

Here is my own personal preference:

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in thought, word, deed, and omission,
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever Virgin,
blessed Michael the Archangel,
blessed John the Baptist,
the holy apostles Peter and Paul,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.

M.A. said...

Sean, You could be right. On further thought, you probably are right.

Nonetheless, I still believe Tornielli's report.

Jordanes said...

Francis Pimentel-Pinto said: In a church of the people, fully in the world, the liturgy ought to be intelligible, genuinely public and celebrated in the vernacular of the country.

There's the problem, though -- the Catholic Church is not and can never be "a church of the people, fully in the world." If that's what vernacular liturgy is really all about, then it would have to be abolished outright for the good of souls.

Mr. Perkins said: He is confusing Rite in the liturgical sense and the loose 'Rite' meaning Ritual church or individual church or church sui juris.

No, I'm really not, Mr. Perkins. The two things are inextricably linked, but quite distinct.

Were there two Rites universally proper to one ritual church, all the priests in that ritual church would have the right (ha!) to use both. The question, of course, remains whether or not that situation could exist in the first place.

It exists in the Chaldean Church, though that's an imperfect analogy.

I agree in principle although there is the matter of proper address.

No one at Rorate Caeli is "addressing" the Holy Father. They only refer to him in their comments. So long as the reference is clear, accurate, and not insulting or derogatory, no objection can or should be raised against it.

With all those correct options, one would think that people would not need to insist on an incorrect one

No one has used any incorrect references to the Bishop of Rome, just ones that you don't like.

especially one that, owing to its parallels, conveys an insulting sense of overfamiliarity.

It may convey that sense to you, but it doesn't follow that it conveys that sense to other people, or that it should convey that sense to them.

On Jordanes's other remarks, I can only insist that linguistic descriptivism goes hand in hand with all the other things introduced by the same people (sc. liberals) and the same time (1960s) and for the same reasons, things such as rock noise, hippies, subjectivism, &c.

So these negative associations have spoiled "Pope Benedict" as a manner of referring to the Pope for you. Most people probably wouldn't make such associations, not in a million years. Further, it's not "linguistic descriptivism" to differ from you on a point of style. The "descriptivist" vs. "prescriptivist" debate has to do with a languages rules of grammar, not with arbitrary rules of style. There's simply nothing "descriptivist" about referring to Pope Benedict as Pope Benedict. It would be "descriptivist" to refer to him as Duh Poap Bennuhdigged 16 (hyperbole, I know -- even in descriptivism that would usually be seen as wrong).

Some of us here believe and insist that correct form depends on traditional usage as a general norm and truth itself is a quality which inheres in the object and not something which inhabits the eye of the beholder.

Somehow I doubt you're going to be posting comments here in the English of the Peterborough Chronicle . . . .

Enough said.

Way more than enough.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Perkins said: Use is the wrong term here; it refers to forms which are either proper to limited places or to special religious groups. You mean 'form', I think: that's the term used by His Holiness.

No, he uses both terms in Summorum Pontificum. Article 1 says, "sunt enim duo USUS unici ritus romani." You are welcome to argue that the Pope's legislation is incorrect on that point, but I'm not going to go there. I can't conceive of an absolute moral principle that could invalidate what the Pope has decreed.

Michael said: I reject the thought that restoring centuries of Catholic liturgical practice is "needless liturgical upheaval".

I wasn't referring to "restoring centuries of Catholc liturgical practice." I clearly was referring to doing it in haste, by papal fiat, without regard for the massive spiritual turmoil that such an action could not help but cause.

Jordanes said...

To the Anonymous who has posted the link to the CNA report. Thanks, but it has already been posted in the above comments. Their report is not entirely accurate, and the meaning and significance of the Vatican Press Office "denial" has also been discussed above.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

No, he uses both terms in Summorum Pontificum. Article 1 says, "sunt enim duo USUS unici ritus romani."

This is so typical of Jordanes. I was referring to standard usage IN ENGLISH, not in Latin. The official translator understood this, which is why he translated usus as 'usage' in that passage, and not as 'use'.

In ENGLISH usage, a liturgical USE is a form proper to a place or a relgiious group. Hence we have the Parisian Use, the Lyonnais Use, the Braga Use, the Sarum Use, the York Use; and there were also uses for some relgious groups, such as a Carmelite Use.

So Jordanes misUSED (all these uses!) the English term. In S.P., the Holy See usually translates usus as form, sometimes as usage, never as Use. Each language has its own proper usage, Jordanes.


P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

This is so typical of Jordanes.

Thanks. I aim to please.

I was referring to standard usage IN ENGLISH, not in Latin.

In this context, the English term is borrowed directly from the Latin.

The official translator understood this, which is why he translated usus as 'usage' in that passage, and not as 'use'.

No, it's not at all clear that the official translator understood that.

In ENGLISH usage, a liturgical USE is a form proper to a place or a relgiious group.

The only reason it is so in English usage is because "use" is a Latin borrowing.

Hence we have the Parisian Use, the Lyonnais Use, the Braga Use, the Sarum Use, the York Use; and there were also uses for some relgious groups, such as a Carmelite Use.

Yes, and now, thanks to the liturgical legislation of Peter, we have the Ordinary Use and the Extraordinary Use of the one Roman Rite (also called the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form).

So Jordanes misUSED (all these uses!) the English term. In S.P., the Holy See usually translates usus as form, sometimes as usage, never as Use. Each language has its own proper usage, Jordanes

It's only the Latin text of SP that counts, Mr. Perkins. English translations are only study guides for folks like me.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"I can't conceive of an absolute moral principle that could invalidate what the Pope has decreed."

I have supplied two reasons for doubting the Pope's judgement on this. Perhaps the more compelling of the two is simply that the differnces between the two Masses are so great that they can each be celebrated so that the average person would never guess that one was derived from the other--or almost.

The point here is that law must follow logic and life--and the law has always recognised this fact. Even though the New Mass does follow the template of the T.L.M., the differences are great in absolutely EVERY category known to liturgists, whether in additions, deletions, intrusions, re-orderings (there's one of these in the Communion; another in the change of order of Dismissal and Last Blessing), innovations, substitutions (e.g. the entire Offertory), and so forth.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that Bugnini had concocted a Eucharistic Liturgy so foreign to the Roman Tradition that the new Litugy (the Bugnini Mass) actually had more in common with the Byzantine Rite than with the Roman one. Would we have to say that this Bugnini Mass was a form of the Roman Rite just because it said so on its titlepage? If we did, in what sense would the Byzantine Rite then be separate from the Roman one? Only in the sense of historical development? But as regards the T.L.M. or as regards the Bugnini form?

So a massive difference in content does make for a separate Rite. I suggest that the differences between the New Mass and the T.L.M., in terms of texts and rubrics and also customs, is so enormous that they are separate Rites in law, whether the Pope wants to see this or not. Verily, the New Mass can be celebrated so as to resemble a service of the United Church of Canada (or of Christ in the U.S.A.), which is a liberal Protestant sect.

Of course, how much of S.P. is the mind of Benedict XVI and how much is that of Perl or others remains unknown--but not relevant in law.

P.K.T.P.

Samuel Ferraro said...

This is the reason why the SSPX should enter into discussions in good faith and sincerity, but they must not compromise one inch. They are and remain the necessary plan B.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"It's only the Latin text of SP that counts, Mr. Perkins. English translations are only study guides for folks like me."

You are mixed up again, Jordanes. The point at issue was not which text carries the legal meaning. That would be the Latin one, obviously. The point was whether you had misused an ENGLISH term when writing in English. And you had. The fact that the etymology of that word is Latin is irrelevant. Words derived from a language need not and usually do not have the same fields of reference or connotation. I could supply countless examples to prove it.

"Yes, and now, thanks to the liturgical legislation of Peter, we have the Ordinary Use and the Extraordinary Use of the one Roman Rite (also called the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form)."

No, again, in ENGLISH usage, a Use is a local or a proper form. The term Use in English is restricted in place or by community, whereas the T.L.M. and the N.O.M. are for universal application.

O.E.D. #12. Ecclesiastical term: The distinctive ritual or liturgy, form of service or publilc worship that prevailed or obtained in a particular church, province, diocese, community, &c.

And, no, Jordanes, the English translator did not avoid translating usus to use by sheer accident. Morphologically, use would have been the more obvious choice. It was avoided because it carried the wrong meaning.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"It exists in the Chaldean Church, though that's an imperfect analogy."

Yes it is, since Eastern liturgies are connected to the calendar. No argument there.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

No one at Rorate Caeli is "addressing" the Holy Father. They only refer to him in their comments."

The term 'forms of address' refers to how someone is addressed and not only to whether or not one is doing so. It is not restricted by person in the grammatical sense.


"So long as the reference is clear, accurate, and not insulting or derogatory, no objection can or should be raised against it."


That's nonsense. What constitutes polite address is determined largely by ESTABLISHED USAGE; otherwise, people could concoct all sorts of addresses for the Holy Father which might be well intended but are offensive to others. That's why we do it. And for those of us who know something about estalished usage, 'Pope Benedict' definitely does convey an insulting overfamiliarity, much like calling a Dr. John Smith 'Dr. John' instead of 'Doctor Smith'. This is all coming from this nauseating mispractice of overusing first names as if to suggest that everyone is a 'bud'.





With all those correct options, one would think that people would not need to insist on an incorrect one

"No one has used any incorrect references to the Bishop of Rome, just ones that you don't like."

Again, Jordanes thinks like a subjectivist and a descriptivist. Correct usage is what is established by custom, not what is clear and uninsulting to Jordanes--or to Micky Mouse for that matter.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Robert Burke offers a version of the Confiteor. I've given this matter some thought in the past. I have a version here which fulfils the aims of the liberal reformers and yet also restores our Lady and the angels and saints to the first part. Here is my version:

I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, to all the angels and saints, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought and in word, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.

And I ask [beseech being beyond these fools] Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

The present N.O. Misereatur would follow, said by priest and people together as the new Confiteor is. But then, after an Amen, the absolutely crucial Indulgentiam would be restored.

In this version, I have tried to respect as much as possible the rhrythmic characteristics of the language. I scanned everything as I proceeded, making sure that the stresses fell in appropriate places. English is a quirky language and it's difficult to manage this well. I must admit that the current N.O. second part is done very well in terms of scansion. The I.C.E.L. actually did something right.

N.B.: I'm not suggesting this to replace the T.L.M. form. But it would be an improvement over the present N.O. form, which removes our Lady and the angels and saints from the first part, all to please Protestants. A fortiori, the Indulgentiam was obviously removed to please Protestants and needs restoration.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Michael writes:

"I reject the thought that restoring centuries of Catholic liturgical practice is "needless liturgical upheaval."


Micheal (I apologise for using your first name but you don't supply another), the suggestion made by some here is that we can restore the Traditional Rite of Mass without destroying the New Rite of Mass. We must keep in mind that many of those who refused to accept the New Rite simply left the Church in the 1960s and 1970s. Should we simply replace the New Mass with the Traditionl Latin Mass in a day, the result would be massive defections. This is not the best way to save souls, which is the highest law of the Church.

I have reason to believe that His Holiness is planning to do something more to restore the ancient and venerable Mass of St. Gregory the Great. I have argued elsewhere that there is warrant for this in Article 1 of S.P. This might be a decree that there be one T.L.M. every day or, at least, every Sunday in each diocese. Another possibility is the erection of a particular church for tradition; another; a declaration in favour of the S.S.P.X. But the last of these is doubtless not adequate, since this Mass of all time should not be controlled by any one group.

In the mean time, there is a good argument urged here by some people that reforming the reform will help to lead devotees of the New Mass in the right direction.

The fact that the Church treated traditionalist badly in 1964 (on that infamous day, 29th November in Anglophone countries) does not mean that we should seek revanche. I hope that we can be better than that.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Burke:

About your version: Why not restore the reference to our Lady to the first part of the Confiteor as well? Even though our Lady is less than Christ both in His divinity and His sacred humanity, we Catholics have every reason to confess our sins to she who was the Mother of her own Creator. I found it really really REALLY insulting that they removed our Lady from the first half of the Confiteor. If we can confess our sins to one another, we can certainly confess them to the the Holy Heart of Mary, as well as the angels and saints. Well, there are some saints I wouldn't care to address, such as Escriva.... But let's be nice.

P.K.T.P.

Brian said...

Jordanes,
I am encouraged that your parish discontinued Life Teen; but that is an isolated case. The movement sprung up quickly and is growing; so will the next fad. The tired, puppet, folk mass, banner, hippy generation will die off, but post-VC2 aberrations merely spring up in a new form.

A slow, incremental, correction of liturgical abuses will leave an entire generation of adolescents growing up with Life Teen / Charismatic Masses. Then the Church will need to introduce another round of slow restoration; while the next culturally relevant Mass form abruptly springs onto the scene.

I wonder what would happen if the Pope let every Bishop know that within two years, every single Catholic priest, including the Bishop, needs to be able to offer a Traditional Latin Mass and, within three years, needs to be doing so on a frequent basis, with very clear consequences for failing to do so.

quirinus said...

I speak Italian fairly well and I don't see what's so alarming in that classic Vatican Press Office-style attempt to comfort liberals. The Press Office, I agree, is a disgrace, but as usual, those among the allegedly "traditionalist" who are happy only when they are unhappy have totally bought into the straw-man argument set forth by the press. First they present what Tornielli wrote as if the Pope was about to abolish Paul VI's Missale Romanum tomorrow and order all post 1950 church-buildings be used as targets for artillery training and then what was actually said or what is actually being done is presented as a backpedalling from the original position or an outright repudiation of what journalists and liberals at learge fear the most.

The Pope has said a million times that we can't keep disorienting the faithful with a series of sudden and sweeping changes as was done with the disgraced pseudoreform the Council never intended to trigger.

He has said usque ad nauseam that only adquate formation of the clergy, catechesis for the faithtul, prayer, humility and good examples will bring about the desired renewal and restoration of Liturgical - and theological - normalcy in the Church.

The press also presented an ordinary CDW meeting aimed precisely at helping the Holy Father discern the best ways to forward his reform of the reform as the ususal vast right wing conspiracy: obscurantist cardinals vote and force the hand of a weak and aging Pope. Media outrage ensues and "the Vatican" is forced to "set the record straight". B as in B and S as in S. Yet many buy that, either out of liberal wishful thinking or rad-trad cupio dissolvi.

Look at the facts, people. He wasn't the Pope, now he is. There was no Summorum Pontificum, now it here to stay, and it's bearing fruit. Popes hadn't celebrated ad orientem in a while, in public, in the Sixtine Chapel for Heaven's sake, now the Pope is doing that. No one had moved altars back in place in the last 30 years, but he just did that in the Pauline Chapel, if you can realize what that means in many ways.

And who's brought back kneelers for communion during public Papal Masses? Who proclaimed once and for all that the Mass of Ages was NEVER abrogated? Yep, you guessed it, the German Shepherd. I could go on.

This man is doing precisely what he said he thought necessary and wise over the course of many years and in his agenda-setting speeches as Pontiff. But "devout Catholics" are who will sooner trust press agencies than the Successor of Peter and those stubborn facts that keep getting in the way of a good rant.

Is everyhing just fine then? No, of course not. We're in big, I mean BIG, trouble. But like the Apostles frightened by the storm, we should be able to hear that sweet and manly voice: Quid timidi estis, modicae fidei?

Man up, folks and don't freak out at every new headline, as you haven't seen nothing yet. In any event, Our Lord didn't shed His Precious Blood to let His Bride fall in the hands of NCR's board of editors! This Lady might stumble every now and then, but she won't fall!

LeonG said...

There is no possible chance that this papacy will enforce the Holy Mass in Latin on bishops or their dwindling numbers of presbyters.

The fact that the pope has appointed the anti-tradition Archbishop Nichols as the successor to the liberal modernist Cormack-Murphy reveals yet again just what this papacy stands for. Also, there are frequent reports of masses established under the Motu Propriu being removed by antipathetic bishops. This is not a traditionalist papacy which is obvious but a postconciliar one which has set very clear pluralistic goals. Everyone is welcome under the umbrella of the modern church, even the Neo-Catechumenal Way and the protestant-style charismatics provided they make superficial alterations to their liturgical forms (or are they rites?).

The Holy Mass in Latin has been given an opportunity but this does not effectively inhibit recalcitrant hierarchs from destroying the positive effects of the Summorum Pontificum. The opposition has the flavour of de facto schism but postconciliar papacies are adept at papering over the cracks. This spells another disaster in the making so there is little space for realistic optimism. Changing the protestant anthropocentric NO has absolutely no fruitful bearing on The Roman Catholic liturgy traditional Catholics are determined to protect. Instead it is a continual threat and should be treated as such. The hybridisation agenda is underway, long term.

Anonymous said...

"The meeting of these Cardinals and Bishops was a good first step, but the Pope needs to be harder, and more forceful. The "protestantized" reforms of Paul VI and the Novus Ordo were imposed in one bombshell. We had no choices or time, or options.
It should be likewise with a return to Catholic traditions. If the liberals and dissidents don't like it, they can leave."

One reason for the current crisis in the Mass is the priest facing the people has forced the issue, it is totally man-centered. This masonic based ritual is obvious, come down to man's level, which led to communion in the hand,in turn led to lessening in the belief in the Real Presence, which led to other changes. Lock,stock and barrel, let's just go back to the TLM, reform is another form of man centered liturgy. Reforming a masonic/protestant ritual would be another abuse in the process. So what if people leave, it is bound to happen and the pope cannot stop it this time.

Jordanes said...

The point at issue was not which text carries the legal meaning. That would be the Latin one, obviously. The point was whether you had misused an ENGLISH term when writing in English. And you had.

On the contrary, if liturgical legislation refers to a liturgical form with a term that has a precise meaning in the liturgy, then it follows that the form is properly classified under that term. I did not misuse the English term, just accepted what Summorum Pontificum says.

The fact that the etymology of that word is Latin is irrelevant. Words derived from a language need not and usually do not have the same fields of reference or connotation. I could supply countless examples to prove it.

I'm very, very, very well aware of that fact. But "use" in Catholic liturgy isn't merely genealogically derived from Latin, but is directly borrowed, and has "the same fields of reference or connotation." Just as "Mass" is directly borrowed from "missa" (but "massage" is not to "Mass" as "usage" is to "use").

No, again, in ENGLISH usage, a Use is a local or a proper form. The term Use in English is restricted in place or by community, whereas the T.L.M. and the N.O.M. are for universal application.

Perhaps it was so restricted, but it's not in SP.

O.E.D. #12. Ecclesiastical term: The distinctive ritual or liturgy, form of service or publilc worship that prevailed or obtained in a particular church, province, diocese, community, &c.

The OED does not tell us what Latin terms of liturgical law mean. It's an (The) English dictionary, not a manual of liturgical law.

And, no, Jordanes, the English translator did not avoid translating usus to use by sheer accident. Morphologically, use would have been the more obvious choice. It was avoided because it carried the wrong meaning.

Or because he didn't know the difference. There have been translation errors in Vatican texts before . . . and after all, the way the Holy See produces its documents is backwards now. The Latin is prepared later, based on an Italian or German or French original.

Jordanes said...

What constitutes polite address is determined largely by ESTABLISHED USAGE

Then you cannot object to people accurately referring to Pope Benedict as Pope Benedict. After all, that "form of address" has a superior pedigree as "established usage."

And for those of us who know something about estalished usage, 'Pope Benedict' definitely does convey an insulting overfamiliarity

We know it conveys that to you. It's doubtful it does to anyone else, and you're the only one here who regularly makes an issue of this nonissue.

Again, Jordanes thinks like a subjectivist and a descriptivist.

Yeah, whatever.

Correct usage is what is established by custom

It has long been customary to call the Bishops of Rome "Pope" and not always to include the numeral.

As I said, this isn't a matter of the Faith. Stop treating it as one.

David L Alexander said...

"[I]f the Pope wishes it tomorrow they can revive the Papal Mass, regardless of the obstacles. I think it would only have to do with timing, nothing more if not done by now. Your suggestion would indicate that after Pope Benedict XVI the Church will never, ever see a Papal Mass according to the 1962 books because everyone who knows anything about it will be dead."

I make no predictions as to what would happen after Pope Benedict XVI passes on. Nor do I suggest that "everyone who knows anything about it will be dead." I DO suggest that "everyone who knows anything about it" is ALREADY dead, or possibly that those who are alive and in a position to make the adjustment are being stubborn about it.

I can't be sure. I'm not convinced you can be either. "Oh, he can do anything he wants, and gosh darn it, right now!!!" How many of us know that about anybody?

(I have a feeling I'm going to find out. Always good to hear from you, Peter. Now get your own blog already....)

Anonymous said...

Although Tornielli might have some knowledge of these events, and it is hopeful, many of these comments which gossip, speculate, hope for these chanegs in the direction of the situation in Catholic liturgy are not helpful, but rather do the opposite.

They are not helpful because they cause people to hope, to be thankful for this Pope, to make wild statements which are not in the realm of possibility . . . at least for the present.

There is no reason to be hopeful about this report, nor any reason to be thankful for this Pope, because as of yesterday, the Vatican -- in the person of a Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Fr. Ciro Benedetti -- denied that the Pope is poised to implement any restructuring or improvement to the liturgy to make it more sacral, etc.

Though Tornielli's post may bear much truth and accuracy, these comments on this thread (and others of similar opinion on others) give rise to false hopes and expectations. It's very injurious to moral, and even to faith.

There is no real, concrete reason to be hopeful about this Pope, or his agenda regarding the liturgy or anything else. He has been in office nearly 5 years, and has shown himself to be very much in the same mindset of John Paul II.

Until such time that new directives restoring the Mass, or suppressing abuses, come from him (which is unlikely), it is a violation of valid judgment to make wild speculations or hopes regarding a news flash or article from a reporter or commentator . . . however legitimate his credentials and track record for accuracy is.

Jordanes said...

Anonymous, in comments above the report of the Vatican Press Office "denial" has already been reported and discussed. Be of good cheer -- there's no reason to despair, which is very injurious to morale and even to faith. Contrary to what you've said, there are several hopeful signs and good reasons to look to the near future with hope. Just be patient and trust God.

Jon said...

I liken the effort by Pope Benedict in reforming the reform to a plane in flight that has been heading in the wrong direction. And, I trust that the Pope understands that a radical alteration to the flight's course would disturb and alarm the majority of passegers. And, an abrupt turn could do serious damage to the body of the plane, to the point where it could break apart. The broad turn around might be confusing to some or counter productive to others, but, there is a logic to it.

The difference in the Church's ability to make changes to the liturgical form today compared to when the Novus Ordo was decreed is that the body of the Church is drastically different in it's makeup. In the 60s nearly 75% of Catholics attended Mass regularly compared to only 25% today. This fact showcases not only the failings of the reform, but, the danger in attempting a drastic return to form. The faithful simply wouldn't follow today as they did in the late 60s.

Jordanes said...

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=3863

David L Alexander said...

"I liken the effort by Pope Benedict in reforming the reform to a plane in flight that has been heading in the wrong direction...."

Really? I liken the effort to what happens after that episode in Star Trek where Captain Kirk is victim of a transporter malfunction and splits in two. You'll have to read my blog in the next month to find out what that means.

It'll be worth it. Really.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Alexander,

Your do not predict but imply. It is obvious that if you claim that the Papal Mass could not be celebrated now due to the death of all involved previously, then the conclusion is that it will not be after this Pontificate. Which in effect means, ever....

I am not Peter BTW, Mitch is what everyone else calls me.

Jordanes said...

Anonymous/Mitch, Mr. Alexander was addressing Mr. Peter Karl T. Perkins (P.K.T.P.).

Anonymous said...

Jordanes rambles on:

"On the contrary, if liturgical legislation refers to a liturgical form with a term that has a precise meaning in the liturgy, then it follows that the form is properly classified under that term. I did not misuse the English term, just accepted what Summorum Pontificum says."

No, look, the only legislation here is the Latin text. The official English translation has 'usage', not use. The term 'use' has an established meaning in English: it refers to a local variation or to one which is restricted to religious in a community. It is a restrictive term in English; it does not refer to liturgical forms which have universal application. Period.

That is why nobody (except Jordanes) is going around calling the old Mass the Extraordinary Use (E.U.); they are calling it, instead, the extraordinary form (E.F.). Nowhwere in the official English translation is usus translated to Use; it is translated to form and to usage, usually the former. Get it?

P.K.T.P

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, undaunted by facts, continues:

"Perhaps it was so restricted, but it's not in SP."

S.P. never uses the term Use for Latin usus. That's the point.



The OED does not tell us what Latin terms of liturgical law mean. It's an (The) English dictionary, not a manual of liturgical law.

Latin terms of liturgical law are not at issue. We are not referrring to Latin terms which carry legal implications. We are referring to correct English translations, and the O.E.D. covers all specialist usages of terms and is the most comprehensive source for this. What terms are used by canonists when they write in English is also not at issue here.

Again, in ENGLISH, a Use (typically with the capital letter) is a liturigical form restricted by place or by religious community: Carmelite Use, Dominican Use, Lyonnais Use, Braga Use, Sarum Use.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

David L Alexander said...

You know, Mitch, from here, you two look alike. I neither predicted nor implied. I suggested. Suggest. S-U-G-G-E-S-T. Suggest. Now, I'll use it in a sentence.

No, better not. This isn't my blog.

Anonymous said...

LeonG writes:

"The fact that the pope has appointed the anti-tradition Archbishop Nichols as the successor to the liberal modernist Cormack-Murphy reveals yet again just what this papacy stands for."


I would read Traditio's rants with a grain of salt if I were you. Nichols is a mild improvement over the last cardinal but he needs to assert to his leftist local curia that he is one of the boys. Hence the wrenching of the Altar from the east wall. I expected something like this. Many of these bishops regard their position as partly political. There are factions to be satisfied and peace requires compromise and taking some sort of via media.

In my Diocese, the Bishop very quietly supports our Latin Mass, being careful, however, not to be connected to it directly. He has a local curia dominated by outright Marxists from the days of Bishop Remi De Rogue, um, I mean, De Roo. De Roo had a way of attracting all manner of Trotskyites and Bolsheviks to his Diocese. But there is a shortage of priests and he feels that he mustn't alienate these committed communist revolutionaries. The trick is to phase them out slowly.


"Also, there are frequent reports of masses established under the Motu Propriu being removed by antipathetic bishops"


I'd question the adjective 'frequent' here. When one bad thing happens to a man and he hears that it has happened to one other man, suddenly, it becomes a worldwide campaign of abuse. I help keep the statistics for our Masses and am in direct contact with the priests who offer them and the laics who request them all over the U.S.A. and Canada. The assertion on this made recently on the Traditio site, like most of the assertions made there, is either a wild exaggeration or worse. There is no campaign afoot to shut down the m.p. Masses. That's just 'bull'.

What is really happening in the U.S.A.? The following:

1. There is a very slight increase in approved Traditional Latin Masses. This follows the huge increase in the eleven months following 7.7.07. Finally, after a short flatlining period, we are seeing some progress coming this autumn.

2. There is a sharp decline (which nobody is discussing) in the number of Latin New Masses. Even the number which has not been retained is greatly overstated by the Latin Liturgy Association.

3. There appears to be a decline (or, at least, no discernible growth) for independent Masses in the traditional Rite. S.S.P.X Masses are increasing in number slowly but surely, while independent priests such as the one behind the Traditio site, are disappearing. They have no seminary and no future. Some of them also have no valid orders. With independent celebrants, you just never know if they have the power to transubstantiate. That's why Traditio distracts people from this fact by alleging that the New Mass is invalid.

P.K.T.P.

David L Alexander said...

It is possible for the functionaries involved to learn the traditional Papal Mass. They might even be conducting rehearsals discreetly for all we know. But it hasn't been done for awhile, and it is likely that very few people currently alive have ever done it.

(Someone's gonna find a way to pick this apart, I just KNOW it.)

Anonymous said...

I applaud Brian's sound statements on papal policy regarding the reform of the reform. Again, given what's at stake and what the obstacles are, my view is that the best initial reform of NewMass is to add more traditional options to it, while restricting rubrics or lacunæ which have allowed wild experimentation over the years.

This Pope has no intention, I think, of outraging the liberals in the Church. he is trying to move eirenically. He wants to take them gently by the hand. If there were traditional *options* added, the most radical revolutionaries on the left could simply avoid those options and continue doing what they have been doing until they retire from public ministry, one by one. I'm guessing that, tired of their more shocking antics, they will settle for more banal expressions of 'togetherness'.

Some of the less radical reformers might try some of the traditional options. Some will find that they like some and dislike others. Some will reject all of them; some will prefer several of them.

The more conservative priests, as well as those who always seek to know which way the wind is blowing, will find that they can introduce most of the traditional options. After all, their congregations are worn out and are ready for something which is just better.

The overall result will be that more and more faithful actually experience something which has, at least, a Catholic flavour, for the N.O.M. as celebrated in many countries resembles a Puritan Communion Service with bad 1960s music.

While all this transpires, more and more T.L.M.s will appear. This will probably require additional papal action.

I am confident that the Pope is moving in the right direction. Some of us here feel that his policy is all wrong and that he should make a whip and drive the liberals out of the temple. But there is little any of us can do to convince him of that, even if that would be best. So let's just trust in our Lady to guide him.

As for the progress of the reforms, these sorts of things mostly take place behind closed doors, and I doubt if either Tornieli OR press offices have sure information about what stage any proposal is at.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

Jordanes said:

Anonymous, in comments above the report of the Vatican Press Office "denial" has already been reported and discussed. Be of good cheer -- there's no reason to despair, which is very injurious to morale and even to faith. Contrary to what you've said, there are several hopeful signs and good reasons to look to the near future with hope. Just be patient and trust God.

Thank you, Jordanes, that's very good advice. Sometimes I think we believe we are in charge when it's always God that's has us in the palm of His Hand.

Anonymous said...

What is correct?

Protestantism came to believe that everyone had an equal right to an opinion on religion. Every man became his own pope. The result was the fracturing and resulting weakening of Christian Order. Churches multiplied and the unity of faith was shattered. The Muslims love it!

In recent times, everyone thinks that he should have an opinon on every subject (save matters of nuclear physics, for example). Gone is the sense that immemorial custom determines standards of behaviour and that it is good not to have an opinion on a subject if you happen to be ignorant about it. As a result, every man is now his own king as well as his own pope, and society is dissolving. Indeed, there is a high rock near my residence. I can stand on it and make it my own private kingdom (where there is no tax department!).

At least in Moral Law, people simply don't have a right to have an opinion on a matter in which they are ignorant. If they want to have an opinion, they have a DUTY to discover the facts first. These include the facts about proper address.

Notice how the words duty and honour are not much heard these days. We have rights instead!

P.K.T.P.

Carmine said...

My Name is Chiara. This is my first time posting. I just wanted to share this with you. Recently, I had the opportunity to participate in a Latin Mass which is celebrated every Sunday in one of our local churches. I only have one word...WOW. I had forgotten what it was like. My comment, when my friend I came out of the nearly 2 hrs Mass, was "THAT was a celebration worthy of a King". I welcome this news of imminent changes with great joy.

Myself and my friends attend to a few Eucharistic Adoration during the week, and I am happy to see that many, though not yet all, cover their heads while in Adoration out of respect and love in the presence of our Lord of Whom I am so unworthy of, and for the Sacrifice He paid for all of us at Calvary.

God Bless you all.

David L Alexander said...

"Jordanes rambles on..."

...and someone with more than his share of the conversation writes something like the above, about a moderator from the venue of said conversation.

Hmmm... what do you suppose will happen next?

Jordanes said...

The term 'use' has an established meaning in English: it refers to a local variation or to one which is restricted to religious in a community. It is a restrictive term in English; it does not refer to liturgical forms which have universal application. Period.

And yet "usus" still is not an English word . . . .

That is why nobody (except Jordanes) is going around calling the old Mass the Extraordinary Use (E.U.); they are calling it, instead, the extraordinary form (E.F.).

Oh come on, Mr. Perkins. If I'm really as dumb as you like to think I am, would it make sense that I could have been the person to discover that Summorum Pontificum says refers not only to two "forms" and "expressions" of the Roman Rite, but also to two "uses"?

We are not referrring to Latin terms which carry legal implications.

Maybe you're not, but I am.