Rorate Caeli

40 years of Missale Romanum and the new Roman Rite - II:
a Requiem, by Paul VI


On the First Sunday of Advent (November 30), 1969, the New Missal entered into force officially (it would take a few years before it was to be completely phased in worldwide).

In his words in the General Audience which immediately preceded that date, Pope Paul VI was clear:
We may notice that pious persons will be the ones most disturbed, because, having their respectable way of listening to Mass, they will feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others.
...
Not Latin, but the spoken language, will be the main language of the Mass. To those who know the beauty, the power, the expressive sacrality of Latin, its replacement by the vulgar language is a great sacrifice: we lose the discourse of the Christian centuries, we become almost intruders and desecrators [intrusi e profani] in the literary space of sacred expression, and we will thus lose a great portion of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual fact that is the Gregorian Chant. We will thus have, indeed, reason for being sad, and almost for feeling lost: with what will we replace this angelic language? It is a sacrifice of inestimable price.

Naturally, elsewhere he mentioned why it was a "necessary" sacrifice, an innovation that was in strict obedience to the Council...

Thank you, dear Lord and most gracious Lady, for Pope Benedict XVI and Summorum Pontificum (after Humanae Vitae, naming Fr. Joseph Ratzinger Archbishop of Munich will one day be seen as one of the most influential and decisive acts of the Montinian pontificate).

114 comments:

Anonymous said...

Requiescat in pace, NOM!

Anonymous said...

Oh my! A day that will live in infamy (pardon me, all of you new rite lovers).

I can still remember as if it were yesterday singing "Sympathy For The Devil" as the Introit song at my first guitar Mass.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

I still recall listening in the pews to a homely by a religious explaining on the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of the NOM, the reasons why he still could not adopt it. There were references to Cardinal Ottaviani, Archbishop Lefebvre and others.

I then could not have imagined the change of orientation in the central leadership of the Church.

The motu proprio and even more so the lifting of the excommunications would have been deemed pure folly at the time. Just a few years ago.

Ad Multos Annos Holy Father!

Paul Haley said...

"We may notice that pious persons will be the ones mostly disturbed, because, having their respectable way of listening to Mass, they will feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others. [SIC]...Not Latin, but the spoken language, will more be the main language of the Mass. To those who know the beauty, the power, the expressive sacrality of Latin, its replacement by the vulgar language is a great sacrifice: we lose the discourse of the Christian centuries, we become almost intruders and desecrators [intrusi e profani] in the literary space of sacred expression, and we will thus lose a great portion of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual fact that is the Gregorian Chant. We will thus have, indeed, reason for being sad, and almost for feeling lost: with what will we replace this angelic language? It is a sacrifice of inestimable price."

The act of imposing the new mass is almost suicidal considering the foregoing passage attributed to Pope Paul VI. Why engage in self-destruction? It is almost unthinkable that a reigning Pontiff would do such a thing? Just think of the untold damage this imposition has caused our Holy Church and in such perilous times as well? I cannot but believe it was the smoke of Satan which caused such an abominable event to occur.

Anonymous said...

In one address he seems to acknowledge we are going to lose Latin and in another he talks about maintaining it and how it may one day flourish again. Like so much in this Pontificate, ambiguous and contradictory. Funny how just a few years before the opening of the Council, that a Council was not really even needed, thus the pastoral nature, and how the Church was pretty healthy and strong. What a mess they made.

Ryan Ellis said...

Looking back on this with some distance, it seems that Pope Paul VI of happy memory thought of himself as performing a sacred duty.

He believed that the Council was speaking with the voice of the Holy Spirit. Thus, what it wanted carried the highest weight. We all know that this is questionable, considering the "pastoral" vs. "ecumenical" question.

His best advisers were telling him that the NOM was the full implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. We all know that to be totally bogus.

But I would beg all of us to have some charity for the man. He did us great harm, but there was no ill intention behind it. He honestly thought he was doing the will of the Holy Spirit. Would that we all lived with such a motivation.

Even now, the actual will of the Lord is gently plucking away the weeds, and writing straight with crooked lines. Let us be confident in the final victory, do our jobs in the vineyard every day, and regard those gardeners who did not do well with the charity we might hope out of others.

Rich said...

Angelus Press just released the reprint of Pope Paul's New Mass by Michael Davies. I can't wait to order it.

Anonymous said...

I think it is unfair of you not to publish Paul VI's justification for what he allowed. I hate what he did. But I want to hear him say why he did it. Give us the rest of his text, or the crucial part of his justification.

Anonymous said...

Saint Charles Seminary in Philadelphia is celebrating a High Mass in the Traditional rite of Mass on the 30th of November. Now thats divine justice.
FrWC

Richard Friend said...

"In one address he seems to acknowledge we are going to lose Latin and in another he talks about maintaining it and how it may one day flourish again. Like so much in this Pontificate, ambiguous and contradictory."

My sentiments, precisely. It seems as if there are two people speaking in behalf of Paul VI.

It must be noted, hoewever, that the decline of Latin in the liturgy began several years before 1969. Masses where substantial portions were said in unapproved vernacular translations began spreading as early as 1964, and like Communion in the hand and altar girls, this practice came to be legitimized by Paul VI's inaction and eventual adoption as the language of the New Mass. Paul VI's failure to act decisively in this crucial moment not only led to the dismantling of the Classical Roman Rite, it also emboldened dissenting priests and bishops to snub official declarations from Rome and alter the Mass as they saw fit. This is still happenning today, although perhaps not as brazen because of Benedict. This is a continuing tragedy.

sacerdosinaeternum said...

Wow! How "prophetic" of the Pope himself. Thanks be to Pope Benedict XVI and the great progress we've made in just the last five years! This weekend- 40 years after Pope Paul lamented the loss of Latin and Gregorian Chant, we will have the Gregorian Propers chanted, most likely the first time it's been done in those 40 years and in our church (built in 1969)!

Anonymous said...

I attended Mass tonight in Dallas.

The priest asked people who "put on liturgy" at the parish(lectors, EMs, ushers) to approach the altar for a blessing.

Perhaps 50 people (about 10 percent of the immediate congregation; and that's just from ONE Mass) gathered about the altar.

The remainder of the congregation was asked to extend their right hands to help deliver the blessings.

Following some banter, the priest asked the congregation to applaud the folks who "put on liturgy" for the parish.

The priest glowed that when was growing up (during the TLM years), that it was "easy" (he meant that negatively) to "put on liturgy."

Today, he said, thanks to the liturgical reform, it takes dozens of people just to "put on one Mass."

The liturgical reform is a tremendous success as it has brought the entire congregation into the Mass and has generated specific liturgical roles for hundreds of people at the parish, according to the priest.

1. The "blessing" in question devolved quickly into joking and banter.

2. The focus of the Mass shifted immediately to mankind.

3. It was stunning to me to have watched the aged congregation tonight react with glee to the proceedings.

How sad it was that the priest and the majority of the people tonight at that Mass had, during their collective lifetime, gone from the TLM to banal nonsense.

4. The liturgical sensibilities of the Dallas priest and his congregation — people who had grown up with the TLM — has been destroyed by 40 years' of Novus Ordoism.

5. In case anybody has missed the following: The post-Vatican II liturgical reform is a disaster.

There simply isn't any doubt about that.

We have gone from the TLM to banter and absurd blessings at Mass for "people who put on liturgy."

Nearly 10 percent of the people at just ONE Mass "put on liturgy"...are you kidding me?

One Dallas parish boasts that they have at least "200 EMs."

For 80 to 85 percent of Catholics, the Church has become meaningless to them as they have dropped out of the Mass.

For a good portion of the people who bother to assist at Novus Ordo Masses, it's clear that the Mass has become their personal playground.

The Mass is about them...about invading the Sanctuary each week as they are transformed into stars of the show.

After all, they "put on liturgy."

Tim

Jean said...

"...it seems that Pope Paul VI of happy memory thought of himself as performing a sacred duty."

Interestingly, it is usually only possible to discern the voice of the Paraclete in retrospect. If what you say is true about his perception of Sacred Duty concerning something as precious as the liturgical worship of the church and the Sacrifice of the Mass, that Paul VI thought he could speak with that voice in the performance of a "sacred duty" that he knew beforehand would cause spiritual upheaval and disaffection, doesn't speak very well at best for his powers of interpretation. At the worst, it condemns his judgement of sacred things. Disaffection, disruption, loss of vocation, diaspora, apostasy, these are the fruits of some spirit, but not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit never condemns His faithful nor the Church to spiritual antagonism from within. And yet by his own words, he knew it would happen. Draw your own conclusions.

Paul VI's cowardice, I believe, cost the church at least one vocation. It also utterly ruined my experience of my own Church for the first twenty-six years of my life. It is by the Grace of God, I believe, that my spiritual tenacity, knowledge of history, literary abilities, and aesthetics allowed me to construct the church within my own mind which I knew existed beyond the measures of my ocular vision, but which I never thought I would live to see.

Every day, I thank God that I live in the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. Every day the church seems to become more and more itself once again. As for Paul VI, I forgive him; but it's not up to me to absolve him.

Anonymous said...

I always get a kick out of conservative Catholics, particularly certain "reform of the reform" priest-bloggers, who insist that Rome did not envision the radical liturgical reform and Novus Ordo Mass that have shaken the Latin Church during the past 40 years.

As Pope Paul VI's address made clear in 1969:

Attention each Latin Catholic: Brace yourself, as a radical liturgical innovation is headed to your parish.

You will find yourself shaken as shocking liturgical innovations will disturb you liturgical well-being.

Question: Why would a (spiritual) father do that to his (spiritual) children?

In prelude to Pope John Paul II's Jubilee Year "apologies", Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) approved the document "Memory and reconciliation: The church and faults of the past" (December 1999).

That document acknowledged that the Pope's program of seemingly endless apologies had the following effect:

"Nevertheless, some of the faithful are disconcerted and their loyalty to the Church seems shaken."

The determination among Churchmen to shake and disturb pious Catholics seems big in the post-Vatican II Church.

Tim

Father B said...

What a train wreck.

May the Lord forgive and have mercy on Pope Paul VI and all from those days whose hearts and and intentions are known only to God. May Christ bless and preserve His Vicar on earth, Pope Benedict XVI, now gloriously reigning. May the Holy Spirit continue to boldly and decisively work through him ad multos annos.

Anonymous said...

"His best advisers were telling him that the NOM was the full implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium."

Pope John Paul II (and the Latin Church bishops) reiterated that teaching throughout his Papal reign.

Doesn't that remain the teaching of The Holy See and our bishops, at least on paper?

By the way, in his book on the liturgical reform, Monsignor Bugnini revealed that following the 1967 Synod of Bishops, the Novus Ordo experiment was in trouble among the majority of bishops.

Monsignor Bugnini declared that a small group of priests meet with Pope Paul VI to discuss the Novus Ordo.

Pope Paul VI was advised to plow ahead with the liturgical revolution.

By the way, within the influential group of Churchmen who met with Pope Paul VI was one Father Weakland...yep, the future Archbishop of Milwaukee.

I have always found Archbishop Weakland's role in helping to foist the Novus Ordo upon the Faithful very telling indeed.

Tim

Anonymous said...

"Requiescat in pace, NOM!"

Not even close (unfortunately), according to Pope Benedict XVI.

"The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.

"Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."

Tim

Catholic with Attitude said...

From that extract, the late Holy Father hardly sold the idea of the New Mass, did he? But God is looking after his Church, and Benedict is gloriously reigning and mending any damage that has been done.

New Catholic said...

"I think it is unfair of you not to publish Paul VI's justification for what he allowed."

Hey, it isn't "unfair", it is lack of time and stamina for a thorough translation of the entire text. Follow the link and use Google Translate to have a general idea of everything he said.

Man, the gratitude we get from some here...

NC

Moretben said...

When will Catholics acknowledge that the ground-plan for the NOM was fully laid out by the early 1950's under the patronage and encouragement of Pius XII? - that the hapless Paul was simply the one left holding the parcel of a twenty-year project when the music stopped? Even now, when comprehensive and respectable scholarship has exposed this with unimpeachable clarity, something approaching willful denial persists among Traditionalists.

If the legal fiction of "one rite, two forms" is aimed principally at protecting reputations, why is there no detectable willingness to understand which reputations are involved? A kind of desperate dualism is at work, which bodes very ill for any kind of permanent renewal.

andyjourn said...

Well said, New Catholic.

Rorate Caeli is one of the best sources of information for news relating to Catholic tradition.

We much appreciate all the efforts that are made by the various contributors, and please keep this up, as in this world of the Internet, that kind of accessible information is empowering.

Anonymous said...

He did us great harm, but there was no ill intention behind it. He honestly thought he was doing the will of the Holy Spirit.

Most heretics had good intentions. But good for whom?

Anonymous said...

This a sad day to remember.
40 long years of heart break of lunacy. one with the world. man is great. everyone goes to heaven. no need to convert to the true church. what church ! all churches have some truth. while they told us nothing has change. we must not offened our non catholic friends so we will not use latin anymore. o the world is good. we are the world. everyone loves us. we are so tolerant of others- who really wish we go away.now I could go on and on ,I stay away from the n.o. and only attend the real mass.

Anonymous said...

Tim,

Little known is this prophetic little ditty, courtesy of Giovanni "John Fogerty" Montini, also in the fall of 1969.

Can't say he didn't warn us...

I see a bad Mass a-rising.
I see trouble on the way.
I see earth quakes and lightnin'.
I see bad times today.

Don't go 'round tonight
It's bound and take your life,
There's a bad Mass on the rise.

I hear hurricanes a-blowing,
I know the end is coming soon.
I fear rivers over flowing.
I hear the voice of rage and ruin.

Don't go 'round tonight
It's bound and take your life,
There's a bad Mass on the rise.

Hope you got your things together.
Hope you are quite prepared to die.
Look's like we're in for nasty weather.
One eye is taken for an eye.

Don't go 'round tonight
It's bound and take your life,
There's a bad Mass on the rise.

Belloc

Paul Haley said...

On the comment of why Pope Paul VI did what he did, what does it matter? The results are clear for anyone to see - 40 years of desolation in the throes of Novo Ordoism. Balloon masses, teen masses, clown masses, communion in the hand, liturgical(?)dancing, unacceptable attire not only in the pews but on the altar, non-ordained ministers passing out communion, secular music, hugging and kissing in church, laughing and joke-telling - the list is almost endless. I will not judge Pope Paul VI but I will judge his actions which, I submit, were a disaster for Holy Mother Church. Thank God, Pope Benedict XVI seems intent on eliminating most of the abuses.

dcs said...

EWTN has the whole address in translation:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

Anonymous said...

This was not mandated by the Council. The vast majority did not expect this. I recently met a religious who told how he knew from the mouth of Weakland and Bugnini how Paul VI trusted Weakland who as Abbot General of the Benedictines at St Anselmo reassured Paul VI to promulgate this 1970 Missal. Weakland a close friend of Bugnini was trusted by Paul VI.
Paul VI clearly grasped what he was doing. What a huge mistake and I think as Pope Benedict writes went beyond the mandate of the papacy in that it should hand on not mutilate sacred tradition. Change if it is good occurs naturally. It does not need men like Weakland, Bugnini and Paul VI whom we pity.

New Catholic said...

Thank you, DCS.

Anonymous said...

I am intersted in Moretben's comment about Pius XII. Can someone comment on the clerics and theologians around the world in the early 20th century who may have planted the seeds for such radical dissent in the church? Did Pius not censor some radicals who then came to be accepted within the church a few years later? It would be very benefical if a formal time could be constructed (perhaphs even starting with the infamous Masons)
and elaborated on these blogs. I'm sure a number of readers could contribute facts to create a comprehensive time line focused on the destruction of the liturgy and what lead up to it. It can be difficult to sort the facts and legend. Please give it some thought.

Moretben said...

Anon - your "Freemasons" reference is, I'm afraid, more "deperate dualism" than reality.

The fact is that the vast majority of those responsible for the Roman Church's liturgical dégringolade, were neither freemasons nor Modernists, but straight-down-the-middle, loyal ultramontanist Roman Catholics who, nourished on a scholastic alienation of liturgy from sacrament and an attenuated understanding of Sacred Tradition, coupled with the conviction that the Holy Spirit would underwrite each and any enterprise of the Holy See, felt at liberty to reconstruct the rites according to their own perceptions of "pastoral expediency". The project was instigated and presided over by Pope Pacelli, whose cautions and reservations in Mediator Dei were quickly overcome, leaving only the infamous falsifications of Paragraph 49 as the one abiding principle.

Anonymous said...

Why, Oh Lord?

How many of those most pious ones would end up being ostracized, ridiculed and more over the coming years? How many could not bear the travesty forced upon them and so either stopped attending Mass or went into 'schism'?

Restore to us, O Lord, the beautiful liturgy of the ages.

Prof. Basto said...

To anon. 16:58

AMEN!

Anonymous said...

Jean writes, "Paul VI's cowardice, I believe, cost the church at least one vocation...."

Make that two. I would be dead in my sins if it wasn't for the voice in the wilderness and the Third Order of St. Francis. I have reclaimed a sensus fidei.

Thank God for Mother Mariana of Quito. Equador who became a victim soul so that there could be faithful Catholics in the 20 th century.

A couple bloggers comment that a true sensus Catholic is returning. Amen.

Dominic said...

"Can someone comment on the clerics and theologians around the world in the early 20th century who may have planted the seeds for such radical dissent in the church? Did Pius not censor some radicals who then came to be accepted within the church a few years later? It would be very benefical if a formal time could be constructed ..." -Anonymous 15:55

This had been brewing for decades like a simmering cauldron. Read Pope St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi and that of Leo on the Masons. Also see the bite-size booklet by John Vennari "The Permanant Instruction of the Alta Vendita". Pope John XXIII was absolutely the weakest man that could have stepped in, both with regard to the Fatima secret he was supposed to publish (and didn't) and the brewing liturgical and doctrinal storms. The man may have been saintly, indeed humble, but not a man to reign over Christ's Church.

For the record, I chanted the Advent Prose in Latin during Mass at my TAC parish... Thank the Holy Father for Anglicanorum Coetibus...

Anonymous said...

Brethern,

On the occasion of 40 Years of Missale Romanum and the new Roman Rite (sic), his excellency Bishop Fred Henry has cancelled all Tridentine Latin Masses in the Diocese of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Please pray for Catholics in Calgary, Alberta.

Anonymous said...

Paul Haley writes: Thank God, Pope Benedict XVI seems intent on eliminating most of the abuses." The NOM is, itself, an abuse. I would not be surprised if some hybridization were not in the works. Remember, the Devil HATES the True Mass and will use every tactic to get rid of it. Be on your guard!

Adam said...

"Pope John XXIII was absolutely the weakest man that could have stepped in . . ."

You know, I think Paul VI was much weaker that his predecessor. I cannot imagine "Good Pope John" approving the liturgical reform of Paul VI, nor endorsing the massive change of traditional praxis that Paul VI presided over.

Timothy Mulligan said...

Well, here are some Tridentine Masses that Bishop Fred Henry of Alberta won't be cancelling: http://www.sspx.ca/Alberta/ImmaculateHeart.htm

Thank God for the SSPX.

Paul Haley said...

Anonymous (29 November, 2009 21:56) said...

Paul Haley writes: Thank God, Pope Benedict XVI seems intent on eliminating most of the abuses." The NOM is, itself, an abuse. I would not be surprised if some hybridization were not in the works. Remember, the Devil HATES the True Mass and will use every tactic to get rid of it. Be on your guard!

That's why I said "most of the abuses". In order for him to do away with the NOM itself he would have to convince himself, or be convinced by others, that the NOM is, in fact, an abuse. Frankly, I don't see that happening without Divine intervention.

Jordanes said...

On the occasion of 40 Years of Missale Romanum and the new Roman Rite (sic), his excellency Bishop Fred Henry has cancelled all Tridentine Latin Masses in the Diocese of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Bishop Henry is probably not ignorant of the fact that he does not have the authority to cancel even one traditional Mass, let alone all of them. He will be reminded of that fact when the faithful this hireling is abusing petition to the Holy See.

John L said...

Interesting and depressing about Bishop Henry. He usually gets a good press among faithful Catholics for speaking out about life issues and the evils of the gay movement. Any idea what motivates his opposition to the old mass?

On Paul VI:

- the idea that the Novus Ordo was foisted on him by manipulative underlings is I believe false; he was closely involved in Bugnini's work and approved of it. 'If only Stalin knew!'

- clearly his main motivation for abolishing the old liturgy and imposing the novus ordo was megalomania; the belief that by his personal new mass he would win over Protestants, the alienated working class, and the modern world generally.

- it is rather dismaying to see preserved the attitude that because Paul VI was Pope, he must have been wise and good. Acknowledgement of the possibility of Popes who were bad Popes and bad men (as Paul VI clearly was) seems confined to references to the Borgia pope; we must however recognise that this is a possibility at all times.

Anonymous said...

"Looking back on this with some distance, it seems that Pope Paul VI of happy memory thought of himself as performing a sacred duty.

He believed that the Council was speaking with the voice of the Holy Spirit. Thus, what it wanted carried the highest weight. We all know that this is questionable, considering the "pastoral" vs. "ecumenical" question"

I pasted this from a contributor.

I remember reading not long ago...perhaps on this site that the reason for the Novus Ordo of Paul VI was 100% entirely to appease Protestants. Paul VI wanted a revised Mass which looked more like a Protestant service in order to erase Protestant objections to the Catholic Mass, and thus hopefully to facilitate Protestants re-entering the Catholic Church.
It didn't happen. Instead it destroyed the Catholic Church almost entirely...just what the Protestants hoped form the time of the Reformation onward.

I live 5 minutes from St. Charles Seminary in Overbrook, Pa. (not Philadelphia). It's in the Philadelphia Archdiocese though.
Too bad I will be at work, or I might wish to attend if it is open to the faithful.

I used to work part-time at the seminary while in college (1990's), and was appalled at the laxity of seminary life, and the banal, boring, and very Protestnt looking liturgies (even if they were done respectfully). The music was nearly always contemporary Christian (Protestant), with a Latin hymn maybe once every other week. I worked there 2 1/2 years part time, and there were a lot of resignations from the student body, and very few entrants (maybe 15-25 a year, compared to 80-100 from the 1920's thru the early 1960's). The liturgical attitude was basically "make-it-up-as-we-go-along"...just like a Pope John Paul II Papal Mass in Rome or anywhere.

Thanks be to God that times have changed for the better with Pope Benedict XVI and the return of the Tridentine Latin Mass. A High Mass at the seminary in the Tridentine Rite would have been unthinkable 6 years ago! And 20 years ago, anyone who had a traditionalist leaning would be thrown out the door!!

There are about 140 seminarians there (only about 44 for Philadelphia, the rest for 10-15 various Eastern seaboard dioceses and about 5 religious Orders. The Mercedarian friars are a very great traditional Order and presence in Philadelphia, and have I think 4 seminarians at St. Charles. I see them often on City Line Ave., walking from their residence to St. Charles Seminary in their white habits.

I think this return to Catholic tradition at St. Charles will gradually help enrollment rise from it's lowpoint now, of about 142 (44 total for Philadelphia is the lowest since BEFORE the US Civil War (1861-1865)!!!)

When you look at the enrollments for Philadelphia alone before Vatican II (on average 350-550+ seminarians all thru the 1920's thru the early 1960's) and then for today (44), a rational and sane and objective person would conclude that a tragic mistake was taken in 1965, and on November 30th, 1969 with the introduction of the Novus Ordo!!

Anonymous said...

" it is rather dismaying to see preserved the attitude that because Paul VI was Pope, he must have been wise and good. Acknowledgement of the possibility of Popes who were bad Popes and bad men (as Paul VI clearly was) seems confined to references to the Borgia pope; we must however recognise that this is a possibility at all times."

Absolutely true. Paul VI might very well have been both a bad man, and a bad Pope.

John Paul II on the other hand was a good man, but a bad Pope (priority wise at least).

M.A. said...

"Jean writes, 'Paul VI's cowardice, I believe, cost the church at least one vocation....'

Make that two."

Lord knows how many such cases exist! I had a friend who was a seminarian in the 60's when things started falling apart. He left the seminary after having received minor orders. Then for many years after, he entertained the thought of re-entering when the Church had regained her mooring. He never married, and he would go through a daily dry Mass, always anticipating that someday, he could still be a priest. By the time traditional sacerdotal institutions were erected - Fraternity, ICKSP, etc, he was too old to be accepted. My good friend is now dead. Perhaps he died of a broken heart.

May he rest in peace.

dcs said...

The other thing about St. Charles seminary before the Council ... they could afford to be more choosy with their entrants and more of them made it to ordination. Fr. Daniel Kehoe, who is the oldest diocesan priest in Philadelphia (ordained in 1939), related that he entered the seminary as one of 60 men and was ordained as one of 48. I very much doubt that 80% of seminarians make it to ordination in this day and age.

Anonymous said...

"Saint Charles Seminary in Philadelphia is celebrating a High Mass in the Traditional rite of Mass on the 30th of November. Now thats divine justice.
FrWC"

We have the traditional rite of Mass 365 days a year... Of course, I'm happy you folks are finding your way out of the morass.

Anonymous said...

"Jean writes, 'Paul VI's cowardice, I believe, cost the church at least one vocation....'

Make that two."

MAKE IT THREE!

Anonymous said...

Ryan: "His best advisers were telling him that the NOM was the full implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. We all know that to be totally bogus."

Indeed. Though in crafting a brand new mass, Paul VI ironically saved the Traditional form.

If, as Vatican II called for, the TLM was slowly watered-down (keeping this in Latin and changing that, etc.) it might not have been saved, in tact, by groups such as SSPX.

LeonG said...

Thank you, Dear Lord, that such great good and holy Roman Catholics such as Fr Gomar de Pauw; Archbishops Lefebvre and Castro Meyer, among others, had the courage of their convictions to resist the deceitful modernist onslaught of liberalism with its liturgical abominations and resultant desolation.

We thank you, O Lord, that they preferred the inestimable love of Sacred Tradition and authoritative interpretation of Holy Scriptpures instead of currying populist favour and mistakenly abandoning the customary norms, values and mores Roman Catholicism for the mess of potage that is ephemeral post-conciliar neo-modernism.

Anonymous said...

I was not aware of how acutely Pope Paul VI understood the extent of his destruction of our Catholic heritage would be. GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL. I would feel a little better for him if he had said "voices" made him do it, like some maniacal father who slaughters his own family. What a sad joke that anyone would ever consider him for canonization.

wheat4paradise said...

Tim, your description of that horrid Dallas Mass makes me pray all the more that the NOM will be ABOLISHED. Enough of the "reform of the reform". I'm tired of hearing about it. It's a joke. The evil work that was initiated by Paul VI (and, yes, it was EVIL, irrespective of his good intentions) must finally be stopped in its tracks and reversed. Lord Jesus, help us.

Anonymous said...

This quote of Paul VI reveals the the great hipocrisy of this Pope, trying to assuage the feelings of the faithful that loved the Tridentine Mass, the only Mass that ever was. He said this while knowing very intently that the purpose of the liturgical reform was TO DESTROY THE ROMAN MISSAL, as per Bugnini's intent. I find it hard to express requiescat in pace for him, because of the immense dammage that he did to the Catholic Faith by the approval of the Sacrosantum Concilium and othe documents of Vatican II. May God have mercy on his soul.
Charles

Anonymous said...

An e-mail received:

Please pray for Fr. Christopher Blust, FSSP and the Latin Mass community at St. Anthony's Parish in Calgary, Alberta. Bishop Fred Henry has forbidden Communion by mouth in his diocese as a precaution against the H1N1 virus. When Fr. Blust refused to comply, the bishop suspended the Latin Mass indefinitely.

Daniel said...

Moretben is, of course, spot on in reminding folks that it was Pius XII that laid the groundwork, not only for the execrable New Mass, but for the Vatican 2 project as a whole. I don't deny the good things he did as Pope but there was plenty of bad both doctrinally and liturgically(and of course I'm not including those ludicrous and unhistorical assertions that he remained "silent" during the Nazi business).

Tampering with the Mass began sooner than many realize.

In fact, as soon as St Pius X died in the early years of the century the liturgical modernists were already spilling their drops of arsenic into the Mass, starting off with that silly "dialog Mass" which was really the precursor to the Novus Ordo.

And it goes back earlier still. This undermining, if you want to use that word, really began in the early eighteenth century and has been going on steadily since. I cannot imagine Our Lady of LaSalette being as upset as she was at the state of the Church then (the mid-1800s) if everything was all going rosy and wonderful in the Church.

And, sad to say, the tampering still continues, as Benedict XVI's shocking change to the traditional Good Friday prayers illustrates. That instant, unseemly caving-in by Benedict to impudent and loud-mouthed pressure groups bodes very ill for the future of the ancient rite.

So, let's give "credit" for this unspeakable mess where it is due. Paul VI was indeed a villain, but then he wasn't the first one, either.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,

I must react to your charges against the much calumniated Pius XII as a pontiff who would lead the way to the modernism of today. Please stop!

The truth is quite the opposite. He did all he could to hold back the wave of the new theology, barring several of the later to become infamous new theologians from spreading their errors.

Regarding the development of the liturgy and the more active participation of the faithful, it constitutes an improvement. Indeed it is adopted all over Catholic tradition of today (Ecclesia Dei as well as FSSPX). And behold, they have all remained true to the Church.

I don't if you have the opportunity of assisting regularly to the latin mass or how long you have been a Catholic, but the active participation of the faithful by knowing the prayers and chants and how to respond at mass is part of a heritage that is valuable and has to be transmitted to keep the Catholic faith and culture. Just go to any place where the latin mass is offered and you will se for yourself how the congregation knows how to respond at mass.

The Church and her liturgy does not constitute some sort of a museum but a living entity, it evolves through the ages. Some things are added, changed or dropped. The Church is pastoral, leading souls to Heaven.

May I suggest you read some of the works of Archbishop Lefebvre on healthy liturgical reform.

Yours sincerely,
John

Dan K said...

Rich said...
"Angelus Press just released the reprint of Pope Paul's New Mass by Michael Davies. I can't wait to order it."

Dear Rich,
But first you must read the first book of that three part series by the late Michael Davies. It's called "Cranmer's Godly Order." Out of all the books I've read over the last few years, it was the best. It gives the historical foundations for the Protestant reformation. Davies uses as a reference the main reformers' own correspondance and writings to show irrefutably that they were not just "good natured but sincerely wrong" chaps who wanted to change the Church for the better against supposed "abuses", but that they truly, and with full knowledge hated the Church and wanted to try to destroy Her by destroying the Sacred Liturgy. The changes that they wrote about making in the 16th century just happen to correspond precisely to what we have as the Novus Ordo today. Amazing!

In Christ,
Dan

Anonymous said...

It’s been reported that satanists for years used a corruption of the Traditional Latin Mass for their black masses, and it’s also been frequently claimed that a black Mass was performed in the Vatican in the early 60’s. Now if a black Mass was said in Latin using a corruption of the Tridentine Rite, does that mean I have to regard the ’62 Missal as inherently evil because it can be abused, too? One has to distinguish between accidents (abuses) versus substance (the rite itself).

It’s one thing to condemn liturgical abuses (and rightly so), but to reject the Novus Ordo Missae itself as either an invalid rite or an evil, sacrilegious rite is another matter entirely. To do so would incur the condemnation of the Council of Trent. Canon 7 of Trent on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass states: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 954)

Remember, too, that sacrileges and blasphemies were present during the first Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord’s Precious Body and Blood on Calvary. There were people mocking Our Lord, and Romans gambling at the foot of His cross. Yet the presence of those sacrileges and blasphemies in no way undermined or invalidated the perfect sacrifice from Christ to the Father for the atonement of sins. Despite those blasphemous atrocities, it was still an infinitely honorable offering to God from His Divine Son, and it was possible to attend it in good conscience, as did the Blessed Mother and her companions. The truth that I’m trying to explain was also stated by the Church at Trent at the end of Chapter 1 of “The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass” where it was infallibly declared that the Mass “ . . . indeed, is that ‘clean oblation’ which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or malice on the part of those who offer it.” (Denz. 939).

Louis E. said...

Wasn't an entire book (Goodbye Good Men by Michael S. Rose) written about the priestly vocations lost when the Catholic Church became a NOM-man's land?

LeonG said...

Any form of Mass can be abused by satanists: let us not be overly naive there. However, the NO rite can be abused by anyone, in any place and at any time and still pose as a "Catholic Mass" even when it has behaviours which flagrantly disobey the rubrics, include illicitness and, more scandalously,invalidating practices in form, matter and intention. This is where it has been inestimably destructive.

OB said...

Well said (or rather written) Moretben and Daniel.

It is incredible how blinded to what was really happening in the 1940s and 1950s some people can be. Try reading the accounts of the Liturgical Congresses of Maria-Laach, St. Odile and Lugano held in the early 1950s found in liturgical periodicals such as 'Worship' rather than mythologising Pius XII's reign.


Archdale King in his famous work 'The Liturgy of the Roman Church' describes the plans for reform deliberated at Lugano, and put into place by 1969, as "revolutionary" (p.36). What someone writing close to the time could describe as "revolutionary" now becomes "organic" in a desperate attempt to ignore history and produce a 'makeover' on Pius XII.

Anonymous said...

Everybody trying to insult Pius XII by alleging his consent to abuses and false theology that stood behind the Novus Ordo should read his encyclical "Mediator Dei".

Anonymous said...

"The truth is quite the opposite. He did all he could to hold back the wave of the new theology"

not necessarily. For years he had done little more than nothing. "Humani generis" (1950!) was promulgated when the seriousness of (neo)modernism could not be ignored any more.

M.A. said...

"Regarding the development of the liturgy and the more active participation of the faithful, it constitutes an improvement...

"I don't if you have the opportunity of assisting regularly to the latin mass or how long you have been a Catholic, but the active participation of the faithful by knowing the prayers and chants and how to respond at mass is part of a heritage that is valuable and has to be transmitted to keep the Catholic faith and culture."

Lord preserve me from such Masses! I've been a Catholic all my life, and I have attended the Tridentine Mass regularly for at least the last 15 years. The one peaceful haven where I assisted for most of those years was at a Mass where the priest did not want "dialogue" Bless him!!

I only suffer the N.O type "dialogue" Tridentine Masses when traveling and there is nothing else.

And it is ridiculous to think that a "dialogue" Mass will insure the transmission of Catholic life and culture.

Moretben said...

OB

Quite. You can see this desperate dualism (or cognitive dissonance) at work in Anonymous John's "please stop!" post above. Paradoxically, this one-eyed obsession with referring everything inimical or misconceived to the category of "Modernism", to the absolute exclusion of any other possible aetiology, is the most serious weakness of the dominant strand of Catholic Traditionalism. "Pius XII was not a Modernist, therefore Pius XII cannot be in any way responsible, whatever the historical record appears to tell us". Or, as the brain surgeon in The Lady Vanishes puts it, "My theory is good - it's the facts that are misleading".

Well, it's perfectly true that Pius XII was not a Modernist, nor a Freemason nor an afficianado of the "new theology". The historical record of his active patronage of the Novus Ordo project, in all its salient particulars, is clear and incontrovertible nevertheless. So how ought one to deal with it? Wrap ourselves tighter in the anti-Modernist comfort-blanket, stick our fingers in our ears and go la-la-la? Or confront the awful possibility that something other than Modernism, Satanism, Freemasonry - something much closer to home - might be deeply implicated in the destruction of the Roman rite, whatever rank growths happened to thrive subsequently in the rubble? - that Modernism is perhaps the Gnat, not the Camel?

Toooooo scary altogether, that...

Moretben said...

Anonymous 12:24

I suggest you take your own advice. The only part of Mediator Dei that matters at all is the "time bomb" of Para 49 - in relation to which the devices famously identified in Sacrosanctum Concilium are mere aftershocks. Pacelli willingly shelved everything else subsequent to the congresses of the early 50's (at one of which, inter alia, Card. Ottaviani cheerfully celebrated versus populo), electing to back the party of "experts" in favour of radical "reform" in the interests of whatever was deemed pastorally expedient. The historically false principle asserted in #49 provided the basis for the entire project, fully laid out by the mid-50's. These are the facts. Please familiarise yourself with the relevant history. It's firmly in the public domain.

One of the most depressing and intellectually corrupt features of modern discourse is the ubiquitous attempt to silence uncomfortable information or anything that might be construed as criticism by claiming to be "insulted" or "offended". Evidently it isn't just lefties and Moslems who're hep to the trick.

LeonG said...

Thwe liturgical hijackers began their stealth tactics after the death of Pope St Pius X.

OB said...

Moretben absolutely spot-on!

The two disasters in Mediator Dei were the reversal of the dictum Lex orandi, lex credendi and reserving to the pope the right to make changes to the liturgy.

Changes he, and his successors certainly made changes a plenty - something we have been paying a bitter price for ever since.

Jordanes said...

Thwe liturgical hijackers began their stealth tactics after the death of Pope St Pius X.

The modern liturgical movement dates to the riegn of Pope St. Pius X, who ordered a major revision of the Breviary and encouraged the active participation of the faithful in the Mass through learning and joining in the singing of the traditional chants.

The two disasters in Mediator Dei were the reversal of the dictum Lex orandi, lex credendi

Truth is not a disaster, but the mode and manner in which truth is delivered can be disastrous. The Church does pray what She believes, and the Church does believe what She prays.

and reserving to the pope the right to make changes to the liturgy.

Who else besides the Roman Pontiff do you believe should have the right to originate and establish changes in the Roman Rite?

Is it liturgical abuse and ill-advised changes in the liturgy to which you object, or it is that you object to any and all changes in the liturgy?

OB said...

Jordanes,

As the great Aidan Kavanagh eloquently stated, far better than I could, so I quote:

"To reverse the maxim [Lex orandi, lex credendi], subordinating the standard of worship to the standard of belief, makes a shambles of the dialectic of revelation. It was a Presence, not faith, which drew Moses to the burning bush, and what happened there was a revelation, not a seminar. It was a Presence, not faith, which drew the disciples to Jesus, and what happened then was not an educational program but his revelation of himself to them as the long-promised Anointed One, the redeeming, because reconciling Messiah-Christos. Their lives, like that of Moses, were changed radically by that encounter with a Presence that upended all their ordinary expectations. Their descendents in faith have been adjusting to that change ever since, drawn into the assembly by that same Presence, finding there always the troublesome upset of change in their lives of faith to which they must adjust still. Here is where their lives are regulary being constituted and reconstituted under grace. Which is why lex supplicandi legem statuat credenidi.

There is no doubt that the law of belief does indeed shape and influence the law of worship. But the maxim does not say this, nor does it need to. It only says that the latter constitutes or founds the former. To reverse this is to cancel out the maxim in its original formulation. The law of belief does not constitute the law of worship." Kavanagh, A., 'On Liturgical Theology', Pueblo, 1984, p.92 emphasis as in original.

Who else besides the Roman Pontiff do you believe should have the right to originate and establish changes in the Roman Rite?

So you welcome all the changes Jordanes? Who wanted the changes? Did the bishops? Did the vast majority of parish priests? Did the vast majority of laity want them?

A small group of 'experts' with the support and encouragement of the pope wanted changes based on a rationalistic and jurdidical model. Until such time as the liturgy is regarded as the patrimony of all those worshipping in that particular rite the situation is pretty hopeless.

A good case of 'la-la-la' I think.

Br. Christopher said...

It is convenient that the English version of this article banalized Paul VI's obedience to the Council as if he did not feel but constrained to follow it. However, in regards to obedience to the Council, Paul VI is clear: "It [obedience to the council] becomes obedience to the bishops who interpret it and who execute its prescriptions; and this prime motive is not simply canonical, that is relative to an exterior precept; it is connected to the charism of liturgical action, ie to the power and efficacy of ecclesial prayer, the which has in the bishop its most authoritative voice, and so also in the priests in whose ministry they cowork, and like him act 'in persona Cristi' (cfr. S. IGN., Ad Eph., IV): it is the will of Christ, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit, that calls the Church to this change. " ("[D]iviene obbedienza ai Vescovi che ne interpretano e ne eseguiscono le prescrizioni; e questo primo motivo non è semplicemente canonico, cioè relativo ad un precetto esteriore; esso si collega al carisma dell’azione liturgica, cioè alla potestà e all’efficacia della preghiera ecclesiale, la quale ha nel Vescovo la sua voce più autorevole, e quindi nei Sacerdoti, che ne coadiuvano il ministero, e che come lui agiscono «in persona Christi» (cfr. S. IGN., Ad Eph., IV): è la volontà di Cristo, è il soffio dello Spirito Santo, che chiama la Chiesa a questa mutazione.")

Also odd is that Paul VI's explanation of why it is important to sacrifice the all Latin mass is not translated. He says, "The answer appears banal and prosaic; but it is valid because it is human, because it is apostolic. The intelligence of prayer is worth more than the silky and old clothes in which it is normally dressed. The participation of the faithful, of this modern people saturated with precise language, intelligible, translatable in its profane conversation. If the divine Latin were to keep segregated from us childhood, youth, the world of work and of affairs, if it were an opaque diaphragm instead of a transparent crystal, would we, fishers of souls, be making a prudent calculation by reserving to us the exclusive dominion of the praying and religious conversation? What did St. Paul say? One finds in the 14th chapter of First Letter to the Corinthians: "in the assmebly I would rather speak five words according to my intelligence, so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in virtue of the gift of tongues (v 19)." ("La risposta pare banale e prosaica; ma è valida; perché umana, perché apostolica. Vale di più l’intelligenza della preghiera, che non le vesti seriche e vetuste di cui essa s’è regalmente vestita; vale di più la partecipazione del popolo, di questo popolo moderno saturo di parola chiara, intelligibile, traducibile nella sua conversazione profana. Se il divo latino tenesse da noi segregata l’infanzia, la gioventù, il mondo del lavoro e degli affari, se fosse un diaframma opaco, invece che un cristallo trasparente, noi, pescatori di anime, faremmo buon calcolo a conservargli l’esclusivo dominio della conversazione orante e religiosa? Che cosa diceva San Paolo? Si legga il capo XIV della prima lettera ai Corinti: «Nell’assemblea preferisco dire cinque parole secondo la mia intelligenza per istruire anche gli altri, che non diecimila in virtù del dono delle lingue» (19 ecc.))

My advice: stop fighting over which form of the Roman Rite is better or more pretty and simply pray well. And watch out for spiritual pride! It is a great enemy to the soul and causes division within the body of Christ.

LeonG said...

Pope St Pius X did not have a completely new liturgy in the already anathematised vernacular in his mind. It is one thing to reorganise the liturgical calendar and some of the logistics therein implied and to reorganise in some reasonable measure the Psalter but to create a new Mass which is effectively a new rite, however one presents it semantically, is a totally different phenomenon. One can state categorically, this was not the saintly holy father's intention. Stretch the fertile imagination as far as you like - he never intended that.

Where active participation in the Holy Mass is concerned, Padre Pio interpreted perfectly the ideas of this holy pope where the sacred liturgy was concerned. The interior disposition of the participant needed to be activated and an interior spirit more disposed to actively following The Holy Mass. Thus, like St John and The Blessed Virgin Mother we ought to accompany Christ at the foot of the cross.

The modernists, whom Pope St Pius X knew about intimately well, as his encyclicals attest, exploited his openings on the proposed restoration to achieve their liturgical goals the bitter fruits of which we witness today with scandalised eyes. Pope St Pius X had no thought of radically undoing what previous popes had already achieved liturgically.

Jordanes said...

It was a Presence, not faith, which drew the disciples to Jesus, and what happened then was not an educational program but his revelation of himself to them as the long-promised Anointed One, the redeeming, because reconciling Messiah-Christos.

Kavanaugh was mistaken to present this is as "either" a Presence "or" faith, since the Presence to Whom they were drawn is none other than the substance and embodiment of the faith. In addition, if the disciples did not have faith in the Messianic promises, they would not have been ready to follow Jesus when He showed Himself to them. Many others who met Jesus knew little or nothing of the promises, and yet Jesus commended them for their faith.

To reverse this is to cancel out the maxim in its original formulation. The law of belief does not constitute the law of worship.

Kavanaugh is mistaken. Worship of God must be in spirit and in truth, and thus certainly may not conflict with or contradict the law of belief. The faith is handed on through the liturgy, which is one of the chief sources to which the Church refers in expounding and teaching the faith. But the faith also informs and forms the liturgy. There is no doubt, for example, that the traditional Prefaces to the Canon were not composed prior to the fourth century, when the Church defined the dogmas of the Incarnation and Trinity.

So you welcome all the changes Jordanes? Who wanted the changes? Did the bishops? Did the vast majority of parish priests? Did the vast majority of laity want them?

None of your questions answer my question: Who else besides the Roman Pontiff do you believe should have the right to originate and establish changes in the Roman Rite? After all, you have objected to the Church restricting that right to the Roman Pontiff. Do you have some person or persons in mind who should enjoy that right along with or instead of the Holy Father? If you really think the Pope's supreme jurisdiction is so disastrous for the liturgy, you must have some alternative arrangement in mind. Do you?

Jordanes said...

It should be obvious to all that St. Pius X never envisioned nor could have envisioned, nor would he have approved, the unprecedented botch-up liturgical reform of the 1960s.

My point, however, was to remind us that the movement to reform the liturgy was not a post-Pius X thing. Indeed, I understand that his Breviary reforms were somewhat controversial.

Some commenters here have said that we have to blame Pius XII as well for the Pauline liturgical mess. Others said that the problems can be traced to right after the reign of St. Pius X. But the birth of the modern liturgical movement is more properly placed in the saint's reign. If what Pius XII did led to what Paul VI did (and yes, it did), by the same token what St. Pius X did led to what Pius XII did.

We can extend it further -- what St. Pius X did originated ultimately in what St. Pius V did with the Missal and Breviary . . . and so on, and so on.

Moretben said...

Jordanes

It is you, not Kavanagh, who are erecting a false dichotomy. Seeing precedes believing. Sacred Tradition is nothing other than the Church's "realisation" of Sacred Scripture - it is not something disincarnate, something separate from scripture, something capable of being boiled down to a number of transmissible propositions.

The twin motor of the liturgical disaster was ultramontanism and the scholastic mentality whereby sacrament is alienated from liturgy in the perennial impulse to boil down everything to its "essence".

(And BTW "prettiness" or lack of same is no part of the question).

Moretben said...

Jordanes
The Liturgical Movement was indeed born "in the saint's reign". But it quickly bifurcated into those who understood and respected the nature of organic development, and those whose attenuated understanding of Sacred Tradition led them to embrace the possibility of a radical reconstruction, underwritten by Peter. These two factions confronted one another in the congresses of the early fifties. The latter succeeded in gaining the confidence of Authority, and the former threw in the towel. That's what happened. End of story.

Pius XII instigated something different in kind from the (albeit ill-conceived) "reform" of Pius X - epitomised in the promulgation of an "unsingable psalter".

OB said...

Jordanes,

So you think Kavanagh was wrong? Fair enough, that is your opininion and you are entitled to your view.

I happen to think Kavanagh was absolutely right and you are wrong.

As to who should change the liturgy then my view would be, if anyone, it should be the bishop. However, changing liturgy, in a conscious sense, is a very modern, and, it must be said, Western concept.

Certainly history has shown that reserving change to the pope has been an unmitigated disaster. What good have any of the papal changes brought? In what way is fruit of centralisation and Ultramontanism beneficial to anyone? Is the liturgy now better than when there was Sarum, York, Braga, Lyon not to mention the variant liturgies of the parish churches of Rome etc?

Moretben said...

the unprecedented botch-up liturgical reform of the 1960s.

Let's take just one example of this: the egregious prex fidelium: the entire "Liturgical Movement" had persuaded itself by the time of Mediator Dei, that the orphaned Oremus at the beginning of the Offertory indicated a lost litany of supplication, cognate with the Byzantine Litany of Peace. A "restoration" was proposed. The "Organic" party (let's call them "Traditionalists)proposed something in a solemn liturgical register (like the Byzantine litany), perhaps ordinarily chanted by a Deacon, "bidding" the faithful (in accordance with his traditional role)and eliciting a solemn response. The "refomers" saw this implementation as a wasted opportunity to extend the principle of "active participation" (as they conceived it). They wanted something altogether more democratic, more immediate, more flexible - not something in a solemn liturgical register. They won the argument. They won it in the mid-fifties, not the 1960's. Theirs was the model accepted, adopted and commissioned by Authority even before Montini was appointed to the See of St Ambrose!

okie said...

Look, the Liturgy has suffered many a great thing, many things it did not need to suffer, and suffer on the watch of many otherwise great men, even Saints. But the impotency of the former Catholic world does not simply stem from the Mass...Europe herself did a good job destroying her own soul. So if you want me to say that the last 150 years of liturigcal craziness was worth it for the sake of Vatican I's supreme jurisdiction, I will gladly say yes. The church has survived litrugical abuse before (was it Pius the VII who gave us the horrible "Cicero-esque" latin of the breviaries hymns?), just as it has now survived yet another absolutist onslaught. I look to the East, which I greatly admire, and think many of their problems stem from the fact that they are mired in the machinations (and have been in most cases) of absolutism, if not to a particular vision of government, then to a sort of "ethnicized" version of it, which is terrible and dagnerous to the faith in the East. Perhaps one can say the East and the West chose two different solutions to the problems, and both are facing the consequences of the gamble they took. Who knows. But I will have to go with St. Thomas and the pastristic sources he touted, that where there is one faith, there must be one ruler, and even though there may be proper distinction and diversity, when it comes to matter of Ecclesiastical law (and what is more important than the law of the cult?), there must be someone who is the first and final arbiter of the law, even if the matter in which He legislates does not originate in Him...fine if you want to point out that liturgy does not proceed from the Pope ex nihilo, and I think you can even lodge this as a legitimate complaint at some of the Popes we are speaking of, but someone must be the final keeper of liturgical law, and it must be the Holy Father.
(I know, Thomas is an evil Scholastic thinker in some peoples eyes...by the way, your "scholastic alienation of sacrament and liturgy" is an Orthodox invention...fine if you think the textbooks were overly beholden to the taxonomy of theological distinction, but Scholastics from Anselm to Thomas or even Garrigou-LeGrange are hardly susceptible to this yarn)

okie said...

The world is a vale of tears, and thus is a messy place. For everyone who finds it easy to spit on ultramontanism (and by proxy, Vatican I) seems to forget the frying pan of Gallicanism and Absolutism the Church was currently boiling in at the time, and has had a steady fight with in some form or another through much of the last 1000 years (as good Pope St. Gregory VII). The fight against the Gallican Breviaries and Masses indeed had political theological ramifications in mind: if the Bishops of the various French Dioceses could do whatever they wanted to do with lectionaries, breviaries, and masses, it was clear that they saw this as hand and hand with the Church being a national Church first and foremost. To weed out a hotbed of Gallican political absolutism and rampant Janesenism in the lower clergy, Bl. Pius IX saw the importance to declare what had already been ellucidated by Pope St. Gregory IX but not formally codified in a council at Vatican I. Contemporary commentators get hung up on Infallability, but it was Universal Jurisdiction which was the most important declaration of Vatican I. After 200 straight years of the Pope, the Vatican, and the various Churches suffering varying degrees of house arrest to Emperors, Madmen, and absolutist Monarchs, without even considering the element of the Holy Ghost guiding Her, the Church had every prudent reason to declare what had at one point been declared, but had been attacked for over 500 years (the Supreme Power of the Pope, that is, as Shepard of the Church). In this regard, the fruits of ultramontanism and Vatican I are vindicated...the Church has survived the Reign of State absolutism, and lives to see as the old Throne and Altar usurpers killed off their countries in two vicious world wars, and now lives to figure out what to do in the wake of their emaciated corpses. If the Church would have went with the Gallicans, it would have went the way of France.

okie said...

Let me just say that I do agree with you that the problems of the liturgy indeed go back to when you say they do, I just don't agree with ultramontanism as the villan of your drama. I know for a fact that ultramontanism was a spring board for some of these bad moves, but I do not believe that means ultramontanism wasn't necessary. It was simply wrong to interpret "Universal Jurisdiction" to mean "do whatever you want." But authority is always prone to abuse...its just the nature of the game this side of the beatific vision...

Anonymous said...

Tragically, I think this has far less to do with preferring one particular rite of Mass over another, rather then bizarrely using the '62 Missal as a badge of identification united with forces that oppose Vatican 2 -- a validly convoked ecumenical council of the Catholic Church.

I agree with Br. Christopher's post, above. Namely, there's a great deal of spritual pride amongst those who melodramatically proclaim that by attending Mass as per the '62 Missal that they're setting the "Altar of God" against the "Altar of Man" -- a not so subtle implication that the Novus Ordo Missae is "man worship" or other such outright falsehoods, lies, calumnies, and distortions. The only "altar of Man" I can see is the Charles Curran-like disobedience on the part of those who should know better. Indeed, resistance to the N.O.M. is more Protestant in character than versus populum worship and vernacular translations could ever be.

You can talmudically split hairs all you want about who started the liturgical reform (or when it started), versus populum vs. ad orientem worship, vernacular vs. Latin, yet at the end of the day Pope Benedict XVI was very clear -- the Novus Ordo Missae is the ordinary rite of Mass for the Church.

Restricting the Church's right to promulgate a new rite of Mass is really no different than the way the Pharisees attempted to restrict Our Lord.

Jordanes said...

So you think Kavanagh was wrong? Fair enough, that is your opininion and you are entitled to your view.

Not if I'm wrong am I entitled to my view . . .

As to who should change the liturgy then my view would be, if anyone, it should be the bishop.

We can say with great assurance that that is something the Church has never known. It is on the face of it gravely unfair and unjust to allow what amounts to a patriarch's suffragan to take it on himself to alter the rite of the patriarch's see without the patriarch's consent.

Certainly history has shown that reserving change to the pope has been an unmitigated disaster.

"Unmitigated disaster" or not, it necessarly, inevitably flows from the Catholic belief in the universal, immediate jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. If the Bishop of Rome doesn't have surpreme authority over the Roman Rite, practically speaking no one does (which is to say, everyone does).

What good have any of the papal changes brought?

Well, for some there has probably been a greater sense of truly participating in and understanding the liturgical action. It's evidently not true of most, though, and it came at far too great a price.

In what way is fruit of centralisation and Ultramontanism beneficial to anyone?

It has helped safeguard the particular churches from being dominated and meddled in the secular powers, and bolstered catholicity of rite and faith.

Is the liturgy now better than when there was Sarum, York, Braga, Lyon not to mention the variant liturgies of the parish churches of Rome etc?

No, it's not.

The implications of your question are notable, though. Your objections to the Roman Pontiff's supreme authority over the rite of his See really does seem to extend all the way back to St. Pius V's acts. That's an authentic traditionalism, to be sure.

Anonymous said...

Paul VI was a prophet, doctrinally AND liturgically.

Thanks to Paul VI, now more than ever the Church can lay claim to ordinary teaching regarding the principle of non-coercion (via Dignitatis Humanae) to protect Christians in majority Muslim countries.

The Novus Ordo Missae is a highly adaptable right that can facilitate different cultural influences. The West's decline has allowed the Faith to be heard elsewhere -- and in those 2nd- and 3rd-world lands, the Novus Ordo Missae assimilates local customs, in effect "baptizing" them.

The Church is a reality beyond any particular era, epoch, culture or race. The Popes know this. It's too bad so many in the pews don't.

Jordanes said...

It is you, not Kavanagh, who are erecting a false dichotomy.

What am I falsely dichotomising? It was precisely my point that the lex orandi and the lex credendi should not be, and really can't be, separated.

Seeing precedes believing. Sacred Tradition is nothing other than the Church's "realisation" of Sacred Scripture - it is not something disincarnate, something separate from scripture, something capable of being boiled down to a number of transmissible propositions.

True. Nor did I say anything contrary to that. Go back to my words, "the Presence to Whom they were drawn is none other than the substance and embodiment of the faith," and think for a bit about the implications for the essence and content of the Faith and Tradition.

The twin motor of the liturgical disaster was ultramontanism and the scholastic mentality whereby sacrament is alienated from liturgy in the perennial impulse to boil down everything to its "essence".

I'm skeptical that there is any such "scholastic" mentality. As for "ultramontanism," I've long found the old Catholic Encyclopedia's essay on that topic to shed a fascinating and what was for me a quite different light on things.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm

Anonymous said...

Could you please close the window, you are letting all the smoke in.

LeonG said...

No pope would have ever created a new liturgy until the modernists achieved getting their man on the papal throne fuelled by such inherently un-Catholic ideologies. Until then the main focus was to preserve the integrity of The Holy Mass in Latin and to propagate its use in the fullest sensus catholicus. Pope St Pius V did not create a new mass as many ignorantly believe. I have illustrated this elsewhere from well-informed studies made. Nowhere does Pope St Pius V set a precedent for any liturgical reform movement to do what it likes except for those with liberal modernist intentions. All popes accepted the need to preserve and propagate until we arrive at the subterfuges of the modernists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who ultimately take the concept of liturgical reform in a completely different direction. Neither saintly popes provided any justification for the protestantising and anthropomorphising of the Roman Catholic Holy Mass in latin. The seed for such was not sown by either pope. It is like trying to claim that Pope St Gregory the Great set a precedent for similar liturgical reform at any time in the future of The Church. Liturgical calendar and Psalter indeed and even local useages too have been adjusted and removed in the case of the latter but to radically alter the substance of The Holy Mass itself, certainly not.

OB said...

Jordanes

I note you have ignored my qualifying "if anyone". It was bishops who regulated liturgy in their dioceses, the bishop who controlled the orationes imperatae, the bishop who decided which festivals were to be observed with feriation etc etc. Radical liturgical changes weren't imposed by anyone until modern times and what bitter fruits they have borne.


Kavanagh's point is that liturgical theology is the primary theology and lex orandi comes first.

I maintain my point that the liturgy belongs to the entire Church and is not some secondary matter of discipline that can be changed at will by the Roman Pontiff. The fact popes of the modern era have treated it thus is lamentable. I think it was Michael Davies who commented that the pope had the legal right to demolish St. Peters and build a parking lot but lacked the moral right to do so.

What fruits has centralisation of liturgical control brought? Who knows what the Commission Pius X appointed would have accomplished had the pope lived longer? Pius X famously described the 'Tridentine' liturgy as "squalid" in Abhinc duos annos in 1913.

The status of radical plans in the 1950s is far more clear and the reaction of some traditionalists to the subject elegantly described by 'Moretben' as "cognitive dissonance".

Anonymous said...

isminThe Church can forgive sins, but it can't change the liturgy? If that notion doesn't resemble phariseeism I don't know what does.

It is a matter of fact that the four eucharistic prayers of the Novus Ordo Missae were used at one point or another in the history of the Church (that would be the whole Church, not just the Roman rite). None of the anaphoras of the NOM is Protestant in nature. If one suggests the Novus Ordo Missae is "protestant" one has just labeled the early Catholics in Antioch as "protestant" (since they used what was the basis for the second Eucharistic prayer).

I suppose The Last Supper is a Protestant painting because Christ faces the viewer.

And, LeonG, in the interest of charity, you are incorrect. As Dr. Geoffrey Hull demonstrates handily in "The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church," Pope St. Pius V did something that wasn't done in the history of the Church up until that time -- namely, suppressing rites of local origin and mandating one rite for use over the entire Latin church. (No one here claims he made a new rite). However, St. Pius V was well within his right to do so. Christ's commisson to Peter is all-encompassing -- Michael Davies' hairsplitting, historical omissions, and sacramental theology errors notwithstanding.

In the wide and vast history of the Catholic Church there is more than the Roman rite. In the East, for instance, it's held that transubstantiation occurs during the epiclesis (invoking the Holy Ghost over the unconsecrated elements), and not during the words of consecration (i.e., institution narrative). And this view is sacramentally valid as the Magisterium of the Church has demonstrated in its approval of the anaphora of Mari and Addai (a valid anaphora with no institution narrative). And no layman or Archbishop can second-guess the Church in this matter. It's not legal positivism to assert such, merely de fide acknowledgement of where authority lies.

If "Roma locuta, causa finita est" doesn't appeal to someone, there are numerous schismatic churches and Protestant communities that will appeal to one's inherently American "I can think for myself" mentality. Prisons are filled with people who thought "for themselves" -- it's more important to think correctly. That requires external instruction from one source of ultimate truth outside of which there is no salvation, and whose head, Peter, we must be in full communion with irrespective of our own personal difficulties, predilections, and preferences (in matters of discipline as well as dogma and doctrine -- regardless of whether they are pastoral or dogmatic).

Jordanes said...

I note you have ignored my qualifying "if anyone".

No, I didn't. I pointed out that it is wrong to allow individual bishops to introduce unauthorised changes in the rite of their metropolitan's see. The Church has never known such a thing. If bishops lack that authority, your "if anyone" means that no one, not even the Successor of St. Peter, has the authority to make any changes in the Roman Rite. That, of course, is absurd, not to mention contrary to the Catholic Faith. Thus, I will continue to maintain that the Church is not wrong to acknowledge the Roman Pontiff's supreme authority over the liturgy of his see.

Radical liturgical changes weren't imposed by anyone until modern times and what bitter fruits they have borne.

Your solution to that abuse seems to be to reject the use.

I maintain my point that the liturgy belongs to the entire Church and is not some secondary matter of discipline that can be changed at will by the Roman Pontiff.

You haven't made that point before. Anyway I don't believe the liturgy should be changed at will by the Pope, even though he does have the juridical (not the moral) authority to do so.

Granted the unprecedented reform of the 1960s was a collosal mistake and disaster, is any liturgical change originating from the Holy See acceptable to you?

Jordanes said...

It is a matter of fact that the four eucharistic prayers of the Novus Ordo Missae were used at one point or another in the history of the Church (that would be the whole Church, not just the Roman rite).

No, that is certainly not a matter of fact. They are mostly original compositions of the Consilium, based in part on early liturgical texts.

Jordanes said...

And this view is sacramentally valid as the Magisterium of the Church has demonstrated in its approval of the anaphora of Mari and Addai (a valid anaphora with no institution narrative). And no layman or Archbishop can second-guess the Church in this matter.

Sacramentally valid view or not, the highly questionable approval of the truncated Anaphora of Addai and Mari comes from a lesser level of authority. It is also based on dubious historical scholarship, and ignores the fact that when the Holy See learned that Chaldean Catholics were omitting the Institution Narrative, Rome ordered them to stop that serious liturgical abuse. Liturgical experts have indeed second-guessed that decision. Check the archives here.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

The anaphora of Hippolytus (i.e., the second Eucharistic prayer) is no innovation. It's usage in the Church is a matter of objective reality and history. In fact, it was modified so that it could facilitate the "sanctus" -- a modification that was made by the Concilium precisely to avoid the archaeologism that Pius XII condemned. The Ethiopian Church today still uses the Anaphora of Hippolytus only they refer to it as "The Anaphora of the Apostles." Ironically, the second Eucharistic prayer is the ancient Roman canon as documented by St. Hippolytus in The Apostolic Constitutions.

The fourth Eucharistic prayer was not an "original composition" (none of the Eucharistic prayers were) -- it was sourced heavily from West Syrian Byzantine anaphoras. Again, note the soure, Byzantine; as indicated previously, there's more out there than just the Tridentine Rite. And guess what? If the Pope wants to replace the current Western rite with an older Eastern one (the usage of which is irrefutable), he possesses that authority.

The first Eucahristic prayer is the Roman Canon.

The third Eucharistic prayer was compiled from the Mozarabic liturgies from Spain (of which there is a substantial record). However, it is fully in line with the teaching of Trent on the nature of the Eucharist and thus affirms the intent of Canon 6. It is a patchwork, if you will, but if you read Fr. Jungmann's "The Mass of the Roman Rite, Its Origins and Development" you will discover many changes to Roman rite over the years that are selectively ignored -- indeed, if you read Fr. Jungmann's study you won't be so quick to refer to the Tridentine Rite as "the Mass of all time."

Lies repeated often enough become reality and the charges leveled against the eucharistic prayers are without merit and objectively incorrect. Fr. Jungmann's scholarship dwarfs what Davies offers. Church scholarship did not begin with Angelus Press.

Jordanes said...

The anaphora of Hippolytus (i.e., the second Eucharistic prayer) is no innovation.

The second Eucharistic prayer is NOT the anaphora of St. Hippolytus. If you would actually look at the text of the anaphora and compare it to Eucharistic Prayer II, you will see that only one small passage of EP II is based on something found in the anaphora of St. Hippolytus. It's an untruth to say that the new composition EP II is the ancient liturgy of St. Hippolytus.

By the way, more recent scholarship questions whether St. Hippolytus' anaphora was ever actually used.

The Ethiopian Church today still uses the Anaphora of Hippolytus only they refer to it as "The Anaphora of the Apostles."

It's derived from and resembles the anaphora of St. Hippolytus, but no, it's not the prayer found in the Apostolic Tradition attributed to St. Hippolytus.

Ironically, the second Eucharistic prayer is the ancient Roman canon as documented by St. Hippolytus in The Apostolic Constitutions.

You're confused. The prayer or anaphora of St. Hippolytus is found in the Apostolic Tradition, not the Apostolic Constitutions. Nor is there any proof that the Eucharistic prayers attributed to St. Hippolytus were the ancient Roman Canon.

The fourth Eucharistic prayer was not an "original composition" (none of the Eucharistic prayers were)

You're dead wrong. All you have to do is compare them to their sources to see that they are original compositions that were only based (in some cases very loosely) on older liturgies.

it was sourced heavily from West Syrian Byzantine anaphoras.

That's another way of saying it is an original composition.

Again, note the soure, Byzantine; as indicated previously, there's more out there than just the Tridentine Rite.

True, but irrelevant. The other Rites do not freely borrow from the Roman Rite to craft new anaphorae. Why should the Roman Rite freely borrow from the other Rites?

And guess what? If the Pope wants to replace the current Western rite with an older Eastern one (the usage of which is irrefutable), he possesses that authority.

True, but I'm not disputing that.

That said, Pope Paul VI did not replace the Roman Rite with any older Eastern rites. He expanded the Roman Rite to include eucharistic prayers based on older Eastern rites but which never actually existed in history prior to the Consilium's composing them.

you won't be so quick to refer to the Tridentine Rite as "the Mass of all time."

I have never referred to the traditional Roman Rite, commonly called "Tridentine," as "the Mass of All Time." That's something you will hear from traditionalists, not from me.

Lies repeated often enough become reality

Well, no, they don't become "reality," but they get treated as reality -- just like the lie that the new Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite are ancient rather than novel compositions of the 20th centuries.

and the charges leveled against the eucharistic prayers are without merit and objectively incorrect.

Depends on which charges we're talking about.

Fr. Jungmann's scholarship dwarfs what Davies offers.

Somehow I doubt Father Jungmann and Michael Davies are in as great a conflict as you suggest.

Church scholarship did not begin with Angelus Press.

True, but irrelevant.

okie said...

"By the way, more recent scholarship questions whether St. Hippolytus' anaphora was ever actually used."

-Even more so, isn't recent scholarship of the opinion that most of the "work" of Hippolytus is in fact a later forgery?

Jordanes said...

Yes, that's my understanding, Okie. Many things were traditionally attributed to him in ancient times, but in a lot of those cases the attribution is dubious at best. As far as I know, the work against heresies was indeed written by St. Hippolytus, but there are serious problems with the text of the Apostolic Tradition. as explained in my copy of the university textbook "The Study of Liturgy."

LeonG said...

"And watch out for spiritual pride!"

Yes Brother Christopher, this is why we should not have vernacular Masses - they were effectively anathematised by Sacred liturgical tradition. This is why we ought to have women with heads covered and men and women dressed modestly in the church. This is why we need priests and not laity leading the Holy Mass with only what is consecrated touching what is consecrated. This is why we did not require a totally new ordo rite of Mass that was brazenly presented to us as the legal replacement for the customary Roman Rite which has brought about incalculable division and disruption to life in The Church no longer united by one missal and one rite as prescribed by Pope St Pius V. This is why we need a restoration of authentic Roman Catholic liturgical praxis and an end to virtual liturgical rebellion. Not anything at all will suffice for liturgy in the Roman Catholic Church: obedience to customary norms and values requires the humility you imply and an end to the pride you refer to.

Anonymous said...

Those who claim the corruption of the liturgy began under Pope Pius XII should remember that it was he who expelled the future Pope Paul VI from the Vatican in 1944 for disobeying his orders not to deal secretly with the Communists. If he had stayed in Milan, he would never have become Pope and we would never have had the NOM forced down our throats. Give him credit for that, please.

bill said...

Doesn't all the things that happened fit the prophecies of the bible? The church will be almost destroyed by the devil and then, well, the lord comes and claims it as his own.

John said...

Ah yes Anonymous: Montini exiled to the insignificant, minor primatial see of St. Ambrose.

Where would you have sent him as a promotion - the Antarctic or somewhere as important as that?

Jordanes said...

Doesn't all the things that happened fit the prophecies of the bible? The church will be almost destroyed by the devil and then, well, the lord comes and claims it as his own.

Yes . . . but the Church has been (or has seemed to be) almost destroyed by the Devil several times in her history. We should be aware that this could be the time leading into the Church's final purgation, and also remain aware that it might not be.

LeonG said...

Dr Hull does not demonstrate what you try to infer in my own description of events anonymous whoever.
If Dr Hull says no more than you imply then he misunderstands completely the essence & wider context of Pope St Pius V's actions in eradicating local useages. He quite rightly used the centralisesd authority of the papacy with regard to the liturgy, to do so which is the right of any pope: the principle of one missal - one church. However, it is not the right of the papacy to do what it likes with the substance of the liturgy itself. The liberals do not like this centralised authority because they prefer decentralised diocesan right of liturgical control. This facilitates their ability to do as they please with the liturgy. Pope St Pius V wanted to maintain unity of the church in the Holy Mass, as did Pope St Gregory I. Pope St Pius X was guided by these parameters in his own desire to see the liturgy being more actively celebrated by both clergy and laity. Moreover, Pope St Pius V did not set a precedent for wholesale protestantisation and anthropomorphisation of the Roman Catholic Mass.

We also, among other factors, have to bear in mind the politico-social context of the actions Pope St Pius V was taking at the time: those were certaimnly unprecedented and required a solid papal response.

As for liberal modernists, they sought any ambiguous or explicit indication from the papacy which could be construed to the contrary of centralised authority and direction: anathema to any individualist. It is this we may wish to render culpable Pope Pius XII but this would be to somehow implicate Pope St Pius X for having wished to restore all things in Christ. Ah! Those deceitful modernists have no shame when it comes to interpreting the slightest ambiguity in their own favour. We only have to study the post-conciliar church in the light of conciliar documents and subsequent papal encyclicals to understand the depths to which they will go.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous John said...

Ah yes Anonymous: Montini exiled to the insignificant, minor primatial see of St. Ambrose.

Personally. I prefer Antarctic, but that wouldn't have been very diplomatic, would it? As you know very well, he departed rather suddenly from a position of great trust for no apparent reason. You didn't deny that, I notice. Why, if not for betraying his long-time benefactor? If it was a promotion, as you want to believe, why then, at that particular time? And why didn't Pius give him a red hat to go with his new see?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous,

I do not think Montini was in any way punished by Pius XII. As a member of the curia who was lacking real pastoral experience Montini was given Milan for that reason.

According to several sources Montini was indeed offered the red hat in 1952 but declined it e.g. Giulio Nicolini, Il Cardinale Domenico Tardini, Messagero, Padua, 1980, p.153

Anonymous John

Anonymous said...

Leon G writes:

"Yes Brother Christopher, this is why we should not have vernacular Masses - they were effectively anathematised by Sacred liturgical tradition."

According to your way of thinking I suppose Our Lord should be excommunicated ex post facto for instituting the Mass at the Last Supper in Aramaic.

It is a matter of record that Pope Innocent IV allowed the legitimate use of the Slavonic vernacular in the Sacred Liturgy (Annuario D'Ecclesia, 1248). Popes Leo XIII and St. Pius X reiterated the allowance of the Slavonic vernacular Mass in the former's Decree Grande Munis (1880) and the latter's Decreta Authentica #4063 (dated 18 December, 1908).

The Holy Eucharist, offered in every Catholic Rite of the Mass (whether Eastern or Western) is simultaneously a sign and cause of unity (Denz. 875, 882), and the Vicar of Christ is the center of that unity (Denz. 1686, 1960). The Church infallibly defined at Vatican I that the faithful are to be united to the Roman Pontiff and to submit to his authority in doctrinal matters of not only faith and morals, but “also to be submissive to him in matters of liturgy and discipline.” (Denz. 1831)

In other words, to reject the Novus Ordo Missae -- and Pope Benedict XVI has declared it the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite -- is to regress to an Orthodox like position in which an autocephalous Chuch (in this case, the Church of the Ego, i.e, personal preference) bases its Catholic "Orthodoxy" on a particular liturgical tradition and not the Pope.

Really, all this criticism of the Novus Ordo Missae smacks of phariseeism. Remarkably, if a liturgical change (and all liturgical changes or accretions are introduced or deleted by individuals) happens over a longer span of time, such change is referred to as "organic." Yet if it occurs rapidly, it's referred to as a "rupture" and incurs a great deal of hand-wringing.

I refer you to the 1859 book by Fr. J.M. Neale “The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom and the Church of Malabar.” Here are just a few of the Eastern anaphoras approved by The Church detailed by Fr. Neale (notice the use of "all" in these valid anaphoras):

The Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist: “This is the chalice of my blood of the new testament; take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the light of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins to all that believe in him for ever and ever.”

The Anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist: “This is my blood of the New Testament; take, drink ye all of it for the remission of sins of you and of all the true faithful, and for eternal life.”

In “Principles of Sacramental Theology” (Longman’s, 1956, pp. 414-417), Fr. Bernard Leeming (then Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Heythrop College) writes: “Principle 13: ‘An immediate institution by Christ of all the sacraments does not necessarily involve his specific determination of the matter and form of the rite of each sacrament.’” A page earlier Leeming writes: “Institution in a generic manner may be explained thus: Christ explained the meaning of the sacrament, but left power with the Apostles or the Church to determine the elements in which this meaning may be embodied. Thus in Confirmation Christ settled the giving of the grace of the Holy Ghost for adult status in the Church, but left it to the Church whether this might be expressed by an anointing or by an imposition of hands; in Orders, Christ settled the office and the grace to fulfill it, but left it to the Church to settle which particular rite would express the meaning of the grant of such power. In the latter case, had St. John in the East chosen an imposition of hands, and St. Peter in Rome chosen a tendering of the priestly vestments and chalice, the sacrament would have been exactly the same, just as Baptism is the same whether administered in Aramaic, Latin, or any other language, which may express the same meaning although differing in their material form.”

Anonymous said...

Anon 06:50, you're dead wrong. The Slavonic language was never vernacular.

Its origins go to the mission of St. Cyril and St. Methodius, where it was coined upon the basis of a Slavic dialect of a tiny Thessalian region in the vicinty of areas inhabited by the Greeks. It was full of neologisms and innovations created by the Saints.

By no means it was the language Slavs from the Balkans up to the White Sea used, even a few miles away from Thessalia (even today there are dozen of Balkan Slavs dialects of very varying intelligibility, extending on a relatively small area) the base language would be different, pretending that there was a significant uniformity in the language extending for such a large area in the pre-TV and pre-literacy epoch is just ridiculous.

The reason it was introduced was that the Slavs after many years of waging wars with the Byzantine Greeks developed a staunch hate towards them. Missionaries trying to enforce Greek language of worship would have been murdered immediately.

The Pope had given later the privilege for Roman pastoral reasons particularly in the Balkans, but its usage spread northwards somewhat. But when the northern Slavs were being evangelized by Rome, they had been using Latin from the very beginning.

Also, the claim that Latin was not used during the Last Supper so we should use vernacular is equally ridiculous.

Aramaic at that time was the language of the whole Church, there was no danger of change of the meaning of words in time, and the doctrine was not mature.

Furthermore the liturgy was primitive at that time, and during the usage of Latin it had reached its fullness. It's just like saying that you should go back to the roots and eat some food for infants though you're mature enough and can eat hamburgers.

Also you have false idea of what organic development is. It's not a matter of time only, it's a matter of the new customs being contrary to reason or not, as they reflect the faith which exists objectively. The Pope cannot invent a new liturgy when he likes, because he's not the Church personally, and liturgical expression is a prayer of some particular Church, and he does not invent the Faith it reflects. The Pope can only pass ("tradere", hence "tradition") what he had received, that's why changes were always minor and reasonable.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, when the Church of Rome switched from Greek to Latin it was not the vernacular Latin spoken by the common folk, but archaised Latin. Much less was it resembling the vulgar Latin of Roman provinces.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 10 December, 2009 11:59,

The expression is: "Where is Peter, there is The Church."

The expression is NOT: "Where the Mass is, there is The Church."

The Orthodox and other schismatic groups think that way, hence the Denzinger reference to the Vicar of Christ being the center of unity.

The Pope carries far more authority than you want to believe in your thesis. You can debate how prudent a particular action is, but he certainly possesses all power in Heaven and Earth to bind and to loose (a cursory reading of Canon Law will demonstrate this handily). To acknowledge the Pope can grant jurisdiction to forgive sins but not to alter the liturgy is, indeed, talmudic.

The point about Aramaic being used at the Last Supper is clear -- the language in which the Mass is said is not a dogmatic issue (or de fide) issue. It never was. It never will be.

Vernacular or not, the Popes allowed a language other than Latin. You can check the references I cited. They are a matter of fact. Moreover, the Church acknowledges the validity of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church (in which the Divine Liturgy is said in Greek).

It's telling that you ignored the valid Eastern anaphoras using "all" in the consecration formulas, and it's also telling that you ignored the rudimentary information found in a basic sacramental theology text about the power the Church has over sacramental matter and form. This is information those who are erroneously labeled as "novus ordo presbyters" have in first year seminary courses, but "traditionalists" (who are the only Catholics in the world, right?) don't know Sacramental Theology 101.

If you think the '62 Missal is the "magic bullet" that will stop sin and save the world, ask yourself why people still go to confession in the indult/FSSP/SSPX milieu. Didn't the usage of the '62 Missal automatically change their fallen natures?

Everyone wants reverence in worship, but the crisis in the Church is a much larger issue encompassing other factors and can't be reduced to merely the Novus Ordo Missae vs. '62 Missal.

Jordanes said...

Anonymous 10 December, 2009 17:01, it appears that the things you say in your comment are not pertinent to anything that Anonymous 10 December, 2009 11:59 said in his comment.

You are attempting to establish that liturgy in the vernacular is acceptable. Those who disagree have pointed out that the Church's liturgical traditions have never included vernacular liturgy prior to the 20th century (i.e. the liturgical Aramaic/Syriac, liturgical Greek, liturgical Latin, and liturgical Old Slavonic were and are not vernaculars or common tongues). Thus, arguing that Our Lord may have spoken Aramaic at the Last Supper (others think He may have spoken Hebrew) does nothing to support your contention that the Church's liturgical traditions allow for vernacular liturgy.

As for your quotes showing the use of the word "all" in the consecratory words over the Chalice, those quotes also fail to establish the propriety of vernacular liturgy. It seems that you're arguing against something that nobody has said in this discussion. That is, I suppose you mean to oppose the opinion of many traditionalists (an opinion that was not voiced in the preceding comments) that the theologically and verbally erroneous mistranslation of "pro multis" as "for all" invalidates the Eucharist. Now, that opinion is wrong: "for all" doesn't invalidate the Eucharist. Nevertheless it is an outrageous and presumptuous substitution that thankfully the Church finally has ordered to be corrected. As for the Eastern anaphoras, not a single one of them can be used to support "for all," because they specifically limit the efficacy of the Holy Sacrifice to "all the faithful," not to "all human beings." The Eastern anaphoras are not saying what the mistranslated Roman Rite says. Jesus said His Blood is shed "for many," and the Eastern anaphoras explain that the "many" Jesus means are "the faithful," not every single human being. Christ's Sacrifice is indeed "for all" humans, but is efficacious only "for many," i.e. for the faithful.

Anonymous said...

Council of Trent:

CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

Has this canon been revoked? When, if so?

Now we may wonder what does "or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only" mean... Does it refer to no Latin celebrations in the whole Church? Or to all parts of the Mass in the vulgar tongue?

This is the kind of problems you have to cope with when you use translations.

Anyway, does it mean that many of the reformers have incurred latae sententiae excommunication?

Jordanes said...

"the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only"

Does it refer to no Latin celebrations in the whole Church? Or to all parts of the Mass in the vulgar tongue?

It refers to the Protestant Reformers' insistence that the Mass in Latin be abolished. The Protestants wanted no more Latin liturgy.

Anyway, does it mean that many of the reformers have incurred latae sententiae excommunication?

If they say or believe that the Mass should be in the vernacular and never in Latin, then they fall under Trent's anathema. However, it appears the leaders of last century's liturgical reform never said Mass should never be in Latin or should "only" be in the vulgar tongue.

Anonymous said...

Despite being labeled a dogmatic Council, Trent contains decrees that are pastoral and disciplinary.

Binding something disciplinary, even employing language like "in perpetuity" or "forever forbidden" does not prevent a future pope from unbinding these same decrees. Popes have overturned and established new anathemas frequently throughout the history of the Church. That the Mass be said in just one language (Latin, for example) is not something part of the depositum fidei, nor is it found in any writings of the Fathers of the Church -- it simply was not revealed formally by God as dogma.

Popes cannot bind future Popes in matters of discipline, and all that is involved in liturgical rites belongs to the realm of discipline (even if that disciplinary law is elucidated within the context of a dogmatic council).

The decision to allow the use of vernacular languages and the texts of the translations to be employed had to be approved by at least a two-thirds majority of the relevant Bishops' Conferences, whose decisions had to be confirmed by the Holy See. Bishops' conferences around the world voted to expand the use of the vernacular, and subsequently requested confirmation from Rome. In response, after Vatican II, a series of documents from Rome granted general authorization for steadily greater proportions of the Mass to be said in the vernacular. Pope Paul VI had the right to grant these authorizations.

Jordanes said...

Popes have overturned and established new anathemas frequently throughout the history of the Church.

NAME ONE.

Certainly Trent's anathema upon anyone who would say the Mass must only be said in the vernacular has never been contradicted or rescinded by any pope (as if a pope had the authority to lift the anathema on a false doctrine).

That the Mass be said in just one language (Latin, for example) is not something part of the depositum fidei, nor is it found in any writings of the Fathers of the Church -- it simply was not revealed formally by God as dogma.

Red herring. Nobody here has advocated any such nonsense.

all that is involved in liturgical rites belongs to the realm of discipline

Wrong. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Pope Paul VI had the right to grant these authorizations.

Juridical right, sure. Moral right, not necessarily.

Anonymous said...

"Popes have overturned and established new anathemas frequently throughout the history of the Church.

NAME ONE."

I wonder what is the rank of certain canons which do not put anathema on anybody, but pronounce something that is not practiced, like Canon 20 of the First Council of Nicea. Have they been revoked? or were not binding from the beginning?

Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.

Jordanes said...

Since Canon 20 of Nicaea I is of a disciplinary rather than a dogmatic character, the Church has the authority to change it -- and that is what the Church did in later calling on the faithful to kneel at various times during the celebration of Mass.