Rorate Caeli

John Lamont on Liturgical Pluralism and the TLM

The following paper was especially written for Rorate Caeli.

Liturgical Pluralism and the Traditional Latin Mass 
John Lamont 

The international federation Una Voce has recently released its sixth position paper, 'Liturgical Pluralism and the Extraordinary Form'. The paper makes assertions and raises issues that call for further discussion.

 Several commenters, including myself, have been hard on this paper, so it should be acknowledged at the outset that it provides a conclusive answer to one objection that has indeed been commonly made against the practice of the traditional Roman rite (abbreviated henceforth as TLM). This objection is that unity among Catholics demands that they share the same form of worship, and hence that it is wrong to allow use of two forms of worship, the TLM as well as the Novus Ordo. The idea that it is the TLM rather than the NO that should be abandoned is taken for granted by this argument, which concludes that only the Novus Ordo should be permitted. The paper shows that the existence of legitimate liturgical pluralism within the Catholic Church means that the first premise of this objection is false – it is not the case that Catholics must all have the same form of worship – and hence it shows that this objection has no value. 

The trouble with the paper is that it does not limit itself to the useful service of providing a purely negative, dialectical refutation of this objection. It goes further; it attempts to argue for a positive thesis, which is that the use of the TLM in the Church can be justified as an instance of legitimate liturgical pluralism. 

It asks: 'the question to be addressed by this paper is whether the existence in the Latin Rite of an extra, ‘extraordinary’, ‘Form’ of the Roman Rite is problematic, and therefore something to be overcome if possible, in the short or long term, perhaps by the creation of a single, amalgamated, Form of the Roman Rite.' It gives an affirmative answer to this question on the basis of an appeal to 'the value of pluralism'.

One can discern a good intention behind this positive answer. It is to fend off the possibility of an attempt at creating a hybrid between the TLM and the NO, which would be presented as the real fruit of the liturgical 'reform' called for by the Second Vatican Council, and then used to replace the 1962 missal currently in use by traditionalists. (The word 'reform' is in scare quotes here because the Latin word actually used by the Council is not 'reformare', but 'instaurare', which means to restore rather than to reform; the English word 'reform' is an interpolation of the English translators of the conciliar text.) The plan of imposing such a hybrid as the sole liturgy of the Latin church is unrealistic, but the plan of replacing the 1962 missal with a hybrid (perhaps closely modelled on the 1965 missal), while leaving the Novus Ordo in place, is a real one that is promoted in some liturgical circles. 

Such a hybrid would be a disaster, so the intention of fending it off is indeed a good one. But I want to argue that the appeal to liturgical pluralism is not the way to go about it. 

The first step in this argument is to clarify the nature of the liturgical pluralism that is to be discussed. One understanding of liturgical pluralism is an abstract one, that simply claims that the number of legitimate forms of Catholic rite is more than one, without identifying any particular forms as being legitimate ones. This abstract sense is the only sense needed to rebut the objection that only one form of Catholic worship should exist. It is legitimate to use in in the negative, dialectical argument mentioned above. 

The other understanding of liturgical pluralism as applied to the Roman rite is a particular one, that claims that both the TLM and the Novus Ordo, while different, are legitimate forms of the Roman rite. It is this particular understanding that is used by the paper to argue for its positive claim. The trouble with this understanding of liturgical pluralism is that if both the TLM and the Novus Ordo are legitimate forms of the Roman rite, it follows that the Novus Ordo on its own is a legitimate form of the Roman rite, and that both the TLM and the Novus Ordo are a 'response of faith to different conditions', and represent 'a treasury of theological and spiritual insights which complement each other'. 

This position is untenable. As I remarked in an earlier comment on the paper, the Novus Ordo was devised on purpose to replace the TLM, because the theological content and general structure of the old mass were judged to be wrong and in need of abolition. Robert Mickens points this out: 

'The old Mass mirrored a vertical hierarchy of truths, a strict discipline, legalism, conformism, and marked separation of clerics from the laity; the New Mass highlighted a dialogical dimension between priest and people, the active participation of the laity, and the possibility of adaptation (although this was often exaggerated early on). The argument was that the Tridentine Rite was not just a different way of celebrating the Mass, but that it was undergirded with a theology and understanding of the Church that was inconsistent with the Second Vatican Council. This was one of the reasons why the vast majority of members and consulters at the Congregation of Divine Worship, of which Archbishop Bugnini was secretary, believed any concession to traditionalists on the old Mass would be harmful to the liturgical reform and the pastoral efforts of the bishops to apply it.' (1)

Whether or not Mickens is right about the TLM being incompatible with the Second Vatican Council, he is certainly right about its being incompatible with the ecclesiology that undergirds the Novus Ordo, and is right about the designers of the Novus Ordo having introduced this incompatibility on purpose, because they disagreed with the ecclesiology behind the TLM. This is only one way in which the Novus Ordo is at odds with the TLM; the importance of the notion of sacrifice in the TLM, and its deliberate and virtually complete exclusion from the Novus Ordo, is another. The liturgist Fr. Joseph Grayland explains the fundamental reason for the differences between the two: 

In the Christian tradition, liturgical rites express the church’s understanding of the ‘how’ of salvation as this is mediated through the ministry, mission and worship of the church. As ecclesial rites, the 1962 missal and the 1970 missal show the believer who can and cannot be saved and it is at this fundamental point that they part company, to such an extent that their difference becomes irreconcilable. These two missals ritualise totally diverse understandings of salvation, damnation and the Church’s role as mediator of salvation. (2)

He points out the implications of accepting both the TLM and the Novus Ordo as legitimate rites: 

In responding to this development, Summorum Pontificum opens up real vistas of possibility in most seminaries, where any request by seminarians to be instructed in the sacramental rituals of the 1962 missal (as well as the 1970 missal) will have to be considered legitimate. The future direction of seminarians’ formation must include a serious debate over the use of two liturgical calendars, two forms of the liturgy of the hours and two forms of confession/ reconciliation-penance. In order to effectively minister as priests of ‘a twofold use of the same Roman rite’ seminarians will require formation in two theologies of church, priesthood, (lay) ministry and salvation.  

 … To view the reinstatement of the 1962 missal as just a liturgical change, offering another equally valid option for ‘saying Mass’ indicates, at least to me, a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and role of liturgical worship in the life of the Christian Church. Those who will have no problem with this development will do so, because their understanding of worship is essentially ritualistic, not ecclesiological, and not liturgical. What is rejected and reinstated here are not two forms of religious ritual but two entirely distinct, and in my opinion, two irreconcilable theologies of how the Church mediates salvation sacramentally and pastorally. This development cannot be reduced to a crass competition between liturgical traditions or equally valid ritual gestures, as if the significant issue lay at that level. What is at stake here is the Church’s self-understanding of her role in the work of God’s salvation and how that role is mediated theologically through the Church’s liturgical worship.  

 As a Church, we are left with the reality that Catholics may now view the divergent theologies of salvation and sacramental-liturgical mediation as simply additional choices available to them as ritual-consumers. As long as they suspend their understanding of liturgy as being more than just ritual then worshipping according to one rite or the other will not constitute a choice by the worshipper for one understanding of salvation and sacramental-liturgical mediation over the other. This would then be, as Mark Francis observes, to ‘have succumbed to…relativism’ and to have created the ultimate expression of ‘the ‘Catholic cafeteria’’ (Mark Francis, ‘Beyond Language’, The Tablet, London 14 July 2007, p. 6). (3)

Fr. Grayland thinks that the theology of the Novus Ordo is correct and the theology of the TLM is wrong, but his analysis of how and why the two are incompatible is entirely correct. The incompatibility of the two rituals is well known to both traditionalists and non-traditionalists, and beyond reasoned dispute. And clearly the existence of two liturgies that have not only different but incompatible presuppositions and approaches, presuppositions and approaches that are incompatible on purpose because one liturgy was judged to be wrongheaded by the designers of the other liturgy, cannot be an example of legitimate liturgical pluralism. At least one of them must be wrong. 

The paper might be defended on this count by its being pointed out that nowhere does it explicitly state that legitimate liturgical pluralism includes the Novus Ordo; it only claims that such pluralism applies to the TLM. But unless this legitimate pluralism is understood to include the Novus Ordo, at whom is the paper aimed? A response to this objection that appeals to legitimate pluralism must have in mind more than one legitimate form of the Latin rite. If there is not more than one, there is no pluralism to appeal to. But the different forms of the Latin rite that are in question here cannot be the traditional forms that existed alongside the Roman liturgy. No-one is objecting to the traditional Roman rite being accepted as a legitimate form of worship among other traditional forms of the Latin rite, such as the Mozarabic or Ambrosian rites; such an objection would be totally absurd to everyone. So the legitimate liturgical pluralism that is being defended can only be understood as the existence of both the TLM and the Novus Ordo as legitimate forms of the Latin rite. And that is untenable for the reasons given. 

Of course a defence of the TLM that involves rejecting the Novus Ordo will attract great hostility from ecclesiastical authority and make life difficult for traditionalists. But Una Voce has encountered such difficulties before and survived. Michael Davies, the most important English-speaking critic of the Novus Ordo, served as the president of Una Voce for years without disaster ensuing. Leo Darroch's obituary of Michael Davies in Mass of Ages states; 'Perhaps [Davies'] most telling intervention [as president of the International Federation Una Voce] was in 2000 when he informed the [Ecclesia Dei] commission that moves to adapt the Missal of 1962 to include changes introduced in the 1960s would be rejected in their entirety by the traditional movement worldwide. The proposed moves were dropped.' (4)

Davies' example indicates that firmness is the right course to take with respect to attempts to hybridise the 1962 missal. But this firmness needs to be backed up by arguments, as it was by Davies, and the most important argument is precisely based on rejection of the Novus Ordo. Traditionalists have to argue that the Novus Ordo is based on bad principles, and hence that any moves to make the TLM more like the Novus Ordo are themselves bad and must be rejected. If this argument is not made, and the Novus Ordo is accepted as an example of legitimate liturgical pluralism, then there cannot be anything wrong with the Novus Ordo in itself, and there thus cannot be anything intrinsically objectionable about changes to the TLM that bring it closer to the Novus Ordo. The paper's positive argument from liturgical pluralism thus completely undermines its purpose of resisting such hybridisation. It could be objected that such changes would diminish the extent of legitimate liturgical pluralism, but as long as the hybrid was noticeably different from the Novus Ordo – which seems to be the intent of proposed hybrids - this argument would be extremely weak. The differences between the hybrid and the Novus Ordo would mean that liturgical pluralism had been preserved in the Latin rite. On this question the International Federation Una Voce needs to return to the correct stance of Michael Davies.


(1) The Tablet, 18 June 2005.

(2) Fr. Joseph Grayland, 'The Tridentine Mass again: Can the Church celebrate in two rites?', Compass: A Review of Topical Theology 41/3 (Spring 2007).

(3) Grayland (2007).



Malta said...

"...perhaps by the creation of a single, amalgamated, Form of the Roman Rite.'

God, let it not be so!

What a stupid idea!

Let's do this, then, let's meld a double-wide trailer to an ancient Cathedral!

That's synonymous with trying to graft a fabricated liturgy with the liturgy which is "the most beautiful thing, this side of heaven."

When will this liberal idiots ever give up!!?

Sheldon Cooperson said...

Congratulations on a well-reasoned response to the FIUV Position Paper. My only query is this: Whoever is reached by our arguments, the ones we need to reach are the Church Authorities. Nobody can deny that they have a unique role to play in the future of every liturgical form within the Church. I agree with Mr. Lamont but I can see the value of the FIUV Position as a tactical position. Mr. Lamont has the benefit of a favourable audience. FIUV has no such comfort when it addresses the authorities in Rome and throughout the Church. As Mr. Lamont says there is a real threat of a hybrid rite that replaces the 1962 forms but leaves the NO forms intact. Any tenable position that fends that off has to be valuable.

Carl said...

This is an excellent paper and I agree entirely with its thesis, that the traditional Mass must be integrally maintained. Indeed, I advocate rolling back the Holy Week changes and the 1955 simplification of the rubrics, not because I reject their validity or legitimacy, but because they were not organic developments of the traditional rite. 1962 is a useful year for promoting ecclesial unity, but it is liturgically arbitrary. See Alcuin Reid's book on the organic development of the liturgy for an excellent criticism of the Pian reforms.

I disagree, however, that it is "unrealistic" to replace the 2000 Missal with a hybrid 1965-type liturgy. That is the entire point of the "reform of the reform" movement, which has grown and continues to grow in strength.

I am also suspicious of the claim in this paper that divergent uses NECESSARILY imply divergent theologies. On the one hand, early liturgists (e.g. Casel, Herwegen, Wasseling, Baumstark, Michel) advocated radical theologies of the liturgy without advocating reform. On the other hand, a growing minority of bishops, priests and laity maintain a traditional theological outlook despite being immersed in the new rite.

Joseph Shaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph Shaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph Shaw said...

I would like to thank John Lamont very much for this measured and interesting post. The stimulation of debate on these topics is one of the purposes of the Position Papers, particularly where there is disagreement among supporters of the TLM, and to that extent the PP on Pluralism has been successful.

I would like to make a small number of points in reply.

1. Much of the post proceeds on the basis that the paper 'claims that both the TLM and the Novus Ordo, while different, are legitimate forms of the Roman rite.' But Dr Lamont concedes later 'The paper might be defended on this count by its being pointed out that nowhere does it explicitly state that legitimate liturgical pluralism includes the Novus Ordo'. So this part of the argument, between that stipulation and the later concession, doesn't apply to the paper.

2. Instead, Dr Lamont asks ‘But unless this legitimate pluralism is understood to include the Novus Ordo, at whom is the paper aimed?’ The answer is simple enough. Without committing itself on the place of the NO in relation to the Roman Rite, the paper is aimed at those who take for granted that the NO is a legitimate form of the Roman Rite, and who might think that an amalgamated Rite would be a good idea. Yes, it is possible to oppose this by arguing that the NO is not legitimate, but it must be conceded by all that that would be an extraordinarily difficult thing of which to convince them. Instead, the argument might be understood as follows: IF you think the NO is legitimate, then you STILL have no reason for thinking that the TLM, as a variant of the Roman Rite (as you think it to be), is illegitimate.

3. Robert Mickens, whose views I know a little, and, as far as I can see, Fr Graylands, are extremist liberals. Their rejection of the TLM as a legitimate expression of the Church’s lex orandi is utterly absurd. Dr Lamont I’m sure agrees. But their adherence to such childish and incoherent positions undermines their authority on any liturgical question, and I’m surprised to see them quoted here. They hate the TLM for the very reason given by Pope Benedict, in a quotation given in the paper: because they hate the theology which goes with it, a theology which has precisely not been rejected by the Church. We all know that Bugnini wished to avoid giving explicit expression to much of this theology, but the interpretation of the Novus Ordo, as with the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, by the likes of Mickens, involves a definite degree of wishful thinking. I don’t see them as authorities on the incompatibility of the two Missals.

4. Dr Lamont thinks FIUV should attack the NO, and do so directly. He cites Michael Davis as a precedent. But the example he gives is of Davis’ defence of the 1962 Missal, precisely what FIUV is undertaking in these papers, not a frontal assault on the NO. The readers of Davis’ books know well that Davis was cautious in his criticisms of the NO, by marked contrast with his criticisms of liturgical abuses. The force of an argument should not be confused with the strength of language in which it is couched. FIUV has taken the decision, in the papers, to leave the question of the value, and the possible future development, of the NO to one side, because as Dr Lamont says this would raise a hornets’ nest, and also because it really is not our immediate concern: our concern, like Davis’, is to protect the 1962 Missal, to ensure it continues to have a place in the Church, to help it spread. These are the necessary conditions, here and now, for any future reassessment of the liturgical reform which might lead to the kind of total victory which Dr Lamont desires.


Joseph Shaw said...

Continued from above.

5. This does not mean that criticisms of the NO are not being made. Many, in fact, are implicit in any discussion of the merits of the TLM. Others are being made by theologians more qualified than I, in scholarly books which are published year by year. FIUV is not leaving this aspect of things neglected. We have chosen a specific task for which, I believe, it is possible for us to gather up the necessary expertise, and which has a special degree of urgency. That is the task of defending the integrity of the 1962 Missal against largely well-meaning but possibly bumbling proposals for incremental reform.

Henry said...

A well-argued paper. But I wonder whether it's not concerned largely with an unlikely possibility--that the TLM will be changed to make it more like the Novus Ordo. So far as is evident from his own practice and writings, our Holy Father's is concerned with reforming the Novus Ordo to make it more like the TLM. Why would anyone object to this? Considering the reality that for the foreseeable future the Novus Ordo--however it evolves with the TLM as a reference point--will continue to be the Mass of the preponderant majority of Catholics. If the TLM is preserved as an intact rite, and eventually (perhaps in a century or so) there results by reform of the NO an essentially unity of rites--with the reformed NO being a vernacular version of the TLM--should one devoted to the TLM have an objection to this rectification of the current dismal situation, in which for so many the NO hardly resembles the TLM (or true worship) at all. One might emotionally wish this could happen, but surely no one can sensibly expect that it will.

Matt said...

Thank you, Malta. Totally agree with you. This was just one more diatribe of a liberal/mondernist who wants to deface the Church's Tradition and rewrite Her history. It's always a liberal who contorts his logic to prove the letter Y should come after the O. The idea that it is the TLM rather than the NO that should be abandoned is such evidence. I wonder about people who think a made-up Mass is so endearing rather than the Mass of The Ages which the martyrs died for and the saints became so by way of the same Mass.


CJ said...

The arrogance of these people is frightening. They obviously believe that the Holy Ghost creates what is imperfect and therefore needs their help in correcting it. Or maybe they don't believe He guides and teaches The Church at all? They have after all re-written the Catechism to suit themselves and their errors. And like the Prots have taken it upon themselves to re-write even Sacred Scripture with their New American Bible.

Picard said...

Excellent points! Thanks Rorate and John L.!

But on the long run then there should and must be - according to the right principles and remarks here - again only ONE Roman Rite.

And the NOM must cease, of course - because it reflects the non-Catholic theology, while the TLM refelcts the Catholic one.

But then, of course it could be the 1965-Missal. According to many well-educated traditionalists and liturgists (f.e. Prof. Georg May) - and I can only consent to it - the 1965 Missal was no rupture and still an organic development of the TLM.

So, yes, if the NOM would be replaced, then I would be (and must be, I think!) willing to accept some "hybrid-Mass" if it would be the 1965 Missal or a Missal that is perhaps much closer to the 1962-Missal.

And as also many educated trads and liturgists, I would say it should be the pre-pian Holy Week (and perhaps some other pre-pian elements), because the pian "reform" was a liturgical rupture and not an organic development - whilst the 1965-ordo was not that ruptural and can be seen still as an organic development of the TLM.

Well, at least I am in agreement with the author:
1. It is not normal to have two Roman Rites (one younger, the other older)
2. The two Rites or "forms", "uses" represent a different theology - one Catholic, the other modernistical
3. Therefore the NOM must cease.

But then, that is my point here, perhaps the one and only Roman right, that can not be the NOM, will perhaps be the 1965 or some "hybrid-Rite", that is very close to the 1962 - or as I hope - to the 1954-Missal. That would be no problem (well, perhaps in some small details, but grosso modo - speaking).

Hugh said...

Once again, closet liberal modernism desperately suggests a combined latin/vernacular Mass in order to fossilise once and for all Sacred Tradition in the liturgy.
Those of us who recognise this idea for what it deviously represents can only protest and resist - absolutely not!

Fr. Cipolla said...

I agree that Dr. Lamont's paper is a good response to the Una Voce's paper situating the NO and TLM in liturgical pluralism. Those of us who celebrate both forms of the Roman rite have no doubt that they are expressing a different theology of what the Mass is. The first time I celebrated the TLM was a real moment of revelation for me as a priest. I remember thinking that I finally understood what I was ordained to do. Alcuin Reid speaks about "the elephant in the room". This elephant is precisely the fundamental problems with the NO itself, in that it is obvious to all of us that it is not continuous with the TLM. It is literally a New Thing. That this is not widely known is due to ignorance of the part of most of our clergy and laity. They simply do not know, and the task of education on this important matter appears to be like one of the labors of Hercules. Caution and prudence are necessary, yes. But the time is coming when the fact of the discontinuity between the two forms, backed by careful scholarship, must be clearly pointed out.

Picard said...

Joseph Shaw (# 3.):

No, the position of Mickens and Greylands is not "childish" and "incoherent" or full of "wishfull thinking".

In contrary, it is more coherent than the remarks of many conservatives that - just as re Vat.II - are not willing to admit the obviouse: that there are two different, incompatible theological concepts here. And that one of them is clearly ruptural and each one of it has his external expression: the TLM and the NOM.

Sorry, but the Emporer is naked, even if we do not like to admit it!

And no, Dr. Lamont would not agree - and does not, if you read what he wrote! - that the rejection of Mickens or Graylands is "utterly absurd"

Didn´t you read his text? - He for contrary holds that they are very consequent, coherent (and perhaps more candid than some conservatives):

The NOM and the TLM express different, incompatible theologies - of which only one is Catholic!

Woody said...

So, in so many words, the Council, and the N.O. that followed, really was a rupture, indeed, the Revolution, of which H.E. Card. Suenens spoke?

(BTW, I have to confess that my head explodes to have learned of Cardinal Suenens' great affection for and support of, the Servant of God, King Baudoin, not something a revolutionay would usually do, I think).

Joseph Shaw said...

Apologies - for 'Davis' please read 'Davies' (as in Michael Davies) in my comments above!

Vincent Crowe said...

It's no secret that some people in Rome and many people outside Rome have been speaking of a 'hybrid rite' for several years. We all agree that it's a bad thing. The problem is that the sheer force of numbers (and power) will be for a mixed rite to replace the TLM (by itself or to replace both). We all agree that we don't want that. The Shaw paper is one attempt to head this off. The Lamont paper makes a lot of sense but I'd like to know how effective it will be in heading off this new threat to the TLM. We all agree that something has to be done but who is doing it?

David L Alexander said...

"I disagree, however, that it is "unrealistic" to replace the 2000 Missal with a hybrid 1965-type liturgy. That is the entire point of the "reform of the reform" movement, which has grown and continues to grow in strength."

The term "reform of the reform" originated with Josef Cardinal Ratzinger himself (now Pope Benedict XVI), in reference to an emphasis on what the Council Fathers specifically called for, in the matter of liturgical reform (presumedly as opposed to the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI which resulted). To my knowledge, whether as Cardinal or as Pope, he himself has never referred to a "hybrid" of the two forms of the Roman RIte. Since I continue to hear this a lot, I want to know, could someone pul-EEEEEZE show me where he ever has?


Peter said...

The novus ordo Missal is a terribly impoverished version, compared with the spiritual richness of the old Roman Missal.
No matter what feat of mental gymnastics one indulges in, it really is not credible that the latter can gain anything from the former.

The possibility of a hybrid Missal in the foreseeable future was always remote, if only because of the schism it would indoubtedly cause not only with SSPX, but also with many if not most adherents of the old Roman Missal.

Now, Anglicanorum coetibus has made this possibility even more remote. Once Rome has granted its recognitio to the Ordinariate's proposed liturgical books, there will be not two but three legitimate uses in the Roman rite.

Already, with the approval of the Holy See, there are now three calendars within the Roman rite : the old Roman calendar, the novus ordo calendar and the Ordinariate calendar. So, we now have the legitimate option of celebrating (i)Sundays after Pentecost, (ii) Sundays in ordinary time (iii) Sundays in Trinity. This is scarcely convergence !

For some years there has been talk of a convergence of the calendars. If this means the novus ordo calendar is to be more closely conformed to the old Roman calendar, well and good, and the new Ordinariate calendar points the way.

But a hybrid calendar ? Most unlikely ! And a hybrid Missal ? Even more unlikely !

Summorum Pontificum and Anglicanorum coetibushave established the principle of liturgical pluralism, even if this was not their primary purpose.

I do not see how this principle, once conceded (as it has been), can henceforth be denied.

es, this is a well argued paper, but the scenario it envisages is so unlikely that I have to conclude FIUV in this case is pursuing a chimera.

Plunkett said...

Picard, Can't believe that you're attacking Joseph Shaw for failing to attack the OF with one side of your mouth and rejecting Bugnini's OHS but advocating 1965 (loss of Psalm 42, last Gospel and vernacularisation) with the other side of your mouth. Here's where it begins folks. '65 today, '67 tomorrow, '69 the day after. Hold on to your missals and prepare for the catacombs again. Is this what the SSPX General House is about to embrace?

stcatherineofsiena said...

I don't think we can deny the fact the NO Mass has different theology since we know how it changed the Faith much to the beliefs of protestantism. whether is invalid or not, I can't judged that. I do say this, that the Catholic Faith has been destroyed almost to nothing today. It is no secret that the holy father has shown concerns about it. The proud refuses to humble themselves and admit their errors in changing the Mass, instead they continuously to insist in their errors in trying to produce something else. Protetants are good at this. They continue with their reformation to this day, the more they change the worst they get. That is something to ponder upon. There is no denial that a mindset of protesters within has set in and we must not bow down to them. They are a plaque within the Church being used by the enemy of God to destroy her.

Ronni Lane said...

Peter says FIUV is chasing a chimera. That'll come to news to Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke for one. RC brought us his words less than 6 months ago.

"In time, Cardinal Burke expects the Western Church's ancient and modern forms of Mass to be combined in one normative rite, a move he suggests the Pope also favors.

""It seems to me that is what he has in mind is that this mutual enrichment would seem to naturally produce a new form of the Roman rite – the 'reform of the reform,' if we may – all of which I would welcome and look forward to its advent.""

Who are the improvident virgins in this one? Be sober and watch! At least FIUV is trimming its lamps!

Ronni Lane said...

I remember the FIUV General Assembly about 10 years ago with Cardinal Stickler. He said something very simple, that you don't attack someone who you will be asking favours from. He was talking pre-Summorum Pontificum when it was still a 'favour' that we were seeking but the psychology is sound. If you're making a good point you don't throw in polemics for fun. At least you don't throw in polemics if you want to get your point across.

FIUV is making the point that the TLM has its own value and should be preserved. Its obvious that FIUV is trying to save the TLM from being 'renewed' by the modernists. Why would they insult the modernists when it is trying to save the TLM from the modernists?

FIUV is doing a great service to the TLM by proclaiming its position and making a stand. Those who can't support their stand should be making their own stand for the TLM and not trying to undermine the stand that FIUV is taking.

Anil Wang said...

I think it's best to outline the spectrum of all opinions of the NO and TLM since without this spectrum we're just arguing over vague ideas.

(1) NO is here to stay, TLM must die and anyone who practices it must be excommunicated.
(2) TLM is good. NO is good. Only the elderly care and fringe groups about TLM so why bother with it?
(3) TLM is good. NO is good. Why can't we all just get along?
(4) TLM is the true mass. NO was desired by Bugnini with Cranmer-like guile into tricking Catholics into accepting heresy via some of the options. It is possible to get rid of the invalid options and make the NO the equivalent of a low mass of the TLM.
(5) TLM is the true mass. NO was desired by Bugnini with Cranmer-like guile into tricking Catholics but there is enough value in it to keep by making a hybrid TLM mass based off the of TLM and leaving the NO alone.
(6) TLM is the true mass. NO was desired by Bugnini with Cranmer-like guile into tricking Catholics but there is enough value in it to keep by making a hybrid TLM between both TLM and NO and kill of both NO and TLM.
(7) TLM is the true mass. NO was desired by Bugnini with Cranmer-like guile into tricking Catholics but killing NO would be as damaging as VII (since it would cause all NO innovations to flood into TLM), so making a hybrid NO mass based off the of TLM makes sense and leave the TLM alone.
(8) TLM is the true mass. NO was desired by Bugnini with Cranmer-like guile into tricking Catholics but there is enough value in it to keep by making a hybrid NO mass based off the of TLM and leaving the TLM alone.
(9) NO is pure heresy and must be banned and anyone who practices it must be excommunicated. Long live the TLM!

Here's my analysis on who holds each opinion
(1) This opinion was held by the Spirit of Vatican II crowd. This group is dying hand have been discredited.
(2) This view is held by the average lay person that doesn't know any better.
(3) This view is also held by the average lay person doesn't know any better.
(4) This view is common among Conservative Catholics.
(5) Does anyone actually hold this view?
(6) Does anyone actually hold this view?
(7) This view is common among Conservative Catholics including the Pope, along with moderate Traditionalists.
(8) This view is common among Conservative Catholics including the Pope, along with moderate Traditionalists.
(9) This is the position of hard-line Traditionalists.

So while the response to the article is well reasoned, I think it spends way to much time entertaining positions (5) and (6) which I don't think anyone actually hold.

IMO, as positions (4) and (7) and (8) gain momentum, opinions (2) and (3) will disappear. As (4) and (7) and (8) solidify, the objections of (9) will disappear. The key question is, not what will happen to the TLM but whether the NO will survive. I strongly suspect that if Anglican Use parishes become more common, they might be the first choice among Conservatives. And if fanatical secularism forces cultural Catholics to either get out or commit more strongly to their faith, there simply will not be a point in improving the NO, since Anglican Use already provides many of the positive elements of NO. The only real wrinkle in Anglican Use taking over is the 3 year lectionary cycle of the NO.

VCrowe said...

I can't believe how many comments are so blasé about the campaign to unify the "two forms" of the Roman Rite. I hate to give Picard the satisfaction of linking him with Cardinal Burke but its clear that there are heads out there thinking of what Anil Wank calls (5) and (6). Thinking and working for it. WAKE UP RORATE CAELI! One battle won doesn't mean the war is over. Thank God that Joseph Shaw has raised the banner again. Looks like it will be a lonely march. Lefebvre has been replace by Fellay but at least Davies has been replaced by Shaw.

David L Alexander said...

Anil Wang:

I don't know if I agree with all of your analysis, but it certainly is one of the more original treatments of the subject in this forum.

Phineas Redux said...

I think Dr. Lamont's response is sound but you have to give credit to Dr. Shaw for standing up to be heard in defence of the Traditional Liturgy. If his Paper has a flaw it is one of omission but I can appreciate that the Paper is about Plurality Pro Traditional Liturgy not Restrictiveness Anti Modern Liturgy. I can also appreciate that Restrictiveness Anti Modern Liturgy won't be entertained in Modern Rome. That is why I respect Dr. Shaw's stand.

Jack O'Malley said...

If liturgical pluralism is seen to embrace the novus ordure and its alleged "enrichment" of the True Mass, then the difficulties alluded to by Bishop Fellay are indeed very disturbing.

Already there is talk of the addition of prefaces and calendar changes. Why not a three year cycle? Why not a new "eucharistic prayer" or two or three? In Latin, of course. Why not eliminate that old superfluous Last Gospel? Again.

If such mutations are foisted upon the current traditional societies such as the FSSP and ICRSP and IBP, societies unsheltered by a protective canonical structure, by an unrepentant quasi-protestantised Rome, will a reconciled FSSPX be able to resist the pressure? Will there be three "forms" of the Roman Rite? NO, hybrid and True? Or four if you count the kiko-service.

And all this will happen while the throngs of novus ordinarians continue to receive in their unwashed hands, while standing, from a liturgical lady, in front of an unrailed mess board.

Caveamus. Oremus assidue.

VCrowe said...

To Jack O'Malley, it's a good tactic to take a concept (pluralism) that the Novus Ordinarians take for granted to confound their attacks upon the TLM. The Shaw paper isnt calling for plurality of "hybrids" or novelties (like the NO Mass) but for the true pluralism that the Church has always blessed... until the post-Vatican II establishment tried to suppress the TLM. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that never before had the Church tried to suppress a legitimate liturgical form. It is the Bugnini mono-liturgical dictatorship that the Shaw paper challenges, a mono-liturgical dictatorship that lusts to amalgamate the (newly? restored?) TLM with the NO Mass. It is this dictatorship that we must oppose to the face. That is what the Shaw paper does. That's why I think it deserves our active support.

Carl said...

Anil Wang - I'd like to add a tenth opinion, which is my own, but I suspect not only my own.

10) TLM is excellent and should be restored to its 1948 pre-reform state. NO is an aberration, which diverged from the legitimate reform envisioned by St. Pius X, Pius XII, some excellent reformers (e.g. Romano Guardini, Pius Parsch, Cardinal Schuster, Bernard Cappelle, Cardinal Antonelli) and the vast majority of the fathers of the Second Vatican Council.

The 2000 Missal should be reformed along the lines of the 1965 Missal, restoring the prayers at the foot of the altar, the chant propers, the offertory, the Canon, and most especially the communion rite.

There is a legitimate complimentarity between a Gregorian liturgical spirituality of "adoration" and a Pian liturgical spirituality of "participation." A hybrid missal would do injustice to both.

Peter - Obviously (to me it's obvious anyway), the general structure and feasts of the old calendar should be restored and new feasts and memorials (e.g. divine mercy Sunday, Padre Pio, etc) should be inserted into the old framework. Non-Lenten Friday abstinence likewise should be restored. This is all well and good for the Pian reform Missal (novus ordo). In this regard, the 2000 Missal made small but important progress over the 1975 Missal.

But other aspects of liturgical discipline pose greater difficulties on multiple levels: Ember days, rogation days, the pre-1955 octaves, midnight fast, evening Masses, Saturday vigil. I tend to think there is room for legitimate diversity on some of these matters which relate more precisely to the difference between Gregorian and Pian liturgical spiritualities. The 1948-1970 half-measures do not seem very promising to me.

For the Pian Missal, I'd like to see the Saturday vigil placed later (i.e. never before sunset) and required to follow a restored vespers or ideally compline service. For the Gregorian Missal, I'd like to see midnight fasts, the old octaves, and the abolition of evening Masses.

A Sinner said...

I think talk of hybrids are interesting.

Modifying the TLM to bring it closer to the NO seems pointless. If the whole point is to give traditionalists what they want, then what should be allowed is something that is in the greatest possible contrast to the NO, something pre-1950 probably.

Even if one believes in "complementary" relationship between the NO and the makes no sense to have "complementary diversity" which then tries to move one of the two "poles" of that dialectic closer to the other. If what you're looking for is complementarity, then logically you'd want each kept as "extreme" as possible in its own way so that the complementing could actually take place. You complement Spanish with Chinese! You don't complement it with Portuguese or Italian, because they're already so similar.

On the other hand, for those of us who thing the NO is not that great (to put it nicely)...I COULD see supporting a hybridization in the "other direction." Namely, allow trads a pre-1950 type thing, but then gradually replace the Novus Ordo with more of a 1965 type thing.

If those two were then amalgamated to a sort of compromise between THOSE two poles, then I might be willing to accept that for the sake of a single rite.

However, I'm not sure how important a single rite is or even two. Jeffrey Tucker, I believe, has been pushing for allowing individual priests or churches to use any liturgical book approved after Trent. Whether it's pre-Urban, pre-Pius-X, pre-Pius-XII, etc. I say why not!

NIANTIC said...

For my humble two cents.....The Traditional Mass is the Mass of the Ages and has carried the Church, her Saints and Laity for centuries. This Mass is from God and not from men.
The NewMass is a travesty based upon a false theology and rammed down our throats. We have seen the fruits and they are rotten.
So what to do? Simple. Keep the Mass of the Ages given to us by God. What has happened after Vll should definately not influence or force the Church to start tinkering with hybrids or what have you. Do not allow a wrong to force us to try and play around with the most sacred Liturgy. Keep the Traditional Mass. God help us!

NIANTIC said...

Why would we, traditional catholics, who condemn what Paul Vl and Bugnini et all did, want to do the very same? Namely to appoint a committee and tell them to come up with a new (now hybrid) Mass. It does not matter what the, perhaps good, intentions are. What we would be saying is that we know better than God, that the Traditional Mass of the Ages has run its course, and now we, men of today's enlightened minds, will decide upon something different to be put in place. In other words; God better be pleased with us creatures because we have decided the time has come to do away with the Holy and will give Him some hybrid creation instead. That would be a grave responsibility we would place upon ourselves with eternal repercussions. Don't you all think? Pax et bonum.

Picard said...

Plunkett, VCrowe, Anil Wang, Carl (et alii):

I hold indeed (6) as goal for the long run - but in the current circumstances it should perhaps be (7)- or (8) - and (8) is very close to the position (10) added by Carl.

So Carl, yes, I agree, you have a point. (But it is like Anil Wangs (8)).

So for me it is sure:
The NOM as it is now must cease.
Here I tend to (9): Even if not heretical, it has tendencies to heresy and has an uncatholic spirit and theology (as explained in the article) so is to be avoided as sinfull.

But a re-reformed NOM -- or better: a truely reformed TLM would not be sinful.
We should not forget that we are not "conservatives" or "traditionalists" in the caricaturistical sense that we reject all reforms and minor changes. That is not Catholic! And also not a good, sound conservativism or traditionalism!

[to be continued...]

Carl said...

The twentieth century liturgical reform was going along swimmingly until Paul VI botched it. The 1965 Missal was implemented effortlessly and with no real resistance. It wasn't until after the 1970 Missal was promulgated that the traditionalist movement really found its oats. Even then, we're really only talking about a very small handful of bishops (Lefebvre, Thuc, Mayer) who took concrete, sustainable action to resist the change.

Had Paul VI done what the Second Vatican Council said, would Archbishop Lefebvre had founded that seminary? Would there have ever been an indult? Would the 7/7/07 emancipation have ever taken place? Would the traditional Mass not have been lost? It seems very possible to me that the traditional Mass was very nearly lost and forgotten as it is. Had Paul VI left well enough alone after 1965, I don't think any of us would have any access to the traditional Mass today.

Perhaps in the end we will all sing "felix culpa."

Picard said...


So Plunkett:
It is not inconsistent (on my part) to reject the NOM (as it is) wholeheratedly but not to reject the 1965 Missal or a Missal that is even much closer to the 1962-Missal.

Because it is a question of faith:

The NOM (as now) is clearly a rupture and clearly a rupture also theologically: it reflects an anti-Catholic, modernist (as Anil Wang put it: Bugnini-Cranmer-like guile ) theology, inconsistent and incompatible of course with the TLM.
That is the point the article makes and I consent, and also persons like Alcuin Reid and others (as Card. Ranjith, Bf. Schneider, ...) seem to consent or begin to consent.

But the 1965-Missal is not clearly ruptural and against the faith.

At least it is (considered the ordinary) less clear ruptural than the pian Holy Week reforms.

It is much clearer that the 1955 pian reforms are ruptural than the 1965 Missal.

But most of the Trads (except the sedevacantists) do not reject the 1955 reforms. And should I bet, you, Plunkett, yourselfe went to the pian-reforemd Holy Week this year? - If so why accusing me of not rejecting a Missal (1965) that is not as clear ruptural than the 1955 "reforms"?

So VCrowe (and Anil) - and Plunkett:
Archbf. Lefebvre said he would rather celebrate the TLM in vernacular than the NOM in Latin.

And that is the right approach and the fight:

The NOM is evil.

but not every reform is evil - there can be true reforms and wrong, evil ones. We have to make distinctions.

So no, I like the last Gospel, the prayers at the foot of the Altar and Latin.

But if the only reform would be the cancellation/abolition of the Last Gosple and that you could use more vernacular - then this is not a clear rupture and not a clear heretical tendency.

And if you allow a gift-procession it is also a true reform and not modernistical. Or perhaps a reverent form of the sign of peace.
That´s all legitimate.

But the abolition of the offertory-prayers and the hand-Communion, f.e., are clearly ruptural and attacking the faith (and/or morals).

As just Bf. Schneider said:
the new offertory-prayers and hand-communion are claerly ruptural and wounds of the Mystical Body.

So some ideas of true reformers and Council-fathers were not (and some reforms were not) ruptural.

That is the point Carl has.

So if the "hybrid-Mass" would be essentially the TLM with minor changes or options (like the 1965-Missal) and that would abolish the NOM then you can not reject it - if you have a Catholic spirit.

So you see I am not a soft-liner.
(And not at all a speaks-men of the sspx-headquaters.)

I always wonderd that some trads/conservatives totaly reject any reform of the 1962 Missal but then participate in the NOM if they have no possibility to go to the TLM -

and critisize people like me that reject wholeheartedly the NOM and would never participate in it - for good reasons pointed out f.e. in this articel of Lane - but are open for real - small, organic - reforms of the TLM.

Carl said...

Picard - I have significant problems with (8), which advocates "leaving the TLM alone" rather than restoring it to its 1948 state. These are two different positions. And it advocates "making a hybrid NO mass" rather than reforming it along the lines of the 1965 Missal. The 1965 Missal was not a "hybrid." It was more-or-less what the liturgical reform was supposed to have been.

There are problems with it. The spoken-aloud vernacular canon and the increased presumption of a start-to-finish versus populum orientation, for example, are extremely questionable at best. Moreover, some of the later developments - the revised rite of scriptural readings, the bidding prayers, the offertory procession, introduction of new acclamations - are justifiable in the context of the Pian reform.

This isn't a "hybrid." The liturgical reform derailed and so the question is whether it's best to retrace to the point of derailment or to put it back on the tracks at the nearest point to where we find ourselves. The latter is not only more practically realistic, but philosophically preferable. The goal isn't to meet half way between the derailment and the wreckage ("hybrid"), but to fix the train and get it back on the tracks.

But even once the worst aspects are fixed (e.g. abolition of prayers at the foot of the altar and offertory prayers, ex nihilo anaphoras, communion standing/in the hand, complete practical abandonment of Latin, chant and of ad orientem orientation, de facto tolerance of the blank sheet liturgizing by local priests and parishes described by New Catholic), we still have a problem. Even once the organic principle is restored, we still have a problem.

The traditional Mass for all its "overgrown complexity" and "muteness" still has something to offer to anyone craving a deeper insertion into the mystical depths of divine latria. I am speaking of the rich spirituality that finds profound expression in Prosper Gueranger, Nicholas Gihr and Adrian Fortescue. You can't have one and the same liturgy be both what St. Pius X, Bl. Ildefonso Schuster, Pope Pius XII and Vatican II wanted and also the traditional, Roman Mass that developed between St. Damasus I, St. Gregory the Great, Alcuin of York and the Council of Trent. I think you can have both side by side, but splitting the difference seems to lack not only wisdom but also beauty.

John Lamont said...

Thanks to the commenters for their interesting discussion. I would just like to take up some of Dr. Shaw's points.

1. I am glad that he clarifies that the paper is not asserting that the Novus Ordo comes under its category of legitimate liturgical pluralism. I think however that some readers may be likely to understand it in that sense, so it seems to me worth while to point out that the Novus Ordo does not in fact fall under that category.

2. His characterisation of Robert Mickens and Fr. Joseph Grayland as 'extremist liberals' is somewhat misleading, since the term 'extremism' is usually understood to designate someone whose views are at the extreme of the spectrum of existing positions. But their views on the incompatibility of the TLM and the Novus Ordo, and the resulting desirability of totally suppressing the TLM, are quite characteristic of the mainstream of liturgical and episcopal thought since 1970. Mickens documents this in his reference to the views of the Congregation for Divine Worship, scarcely a fringe organisation.It can easily be shown that Paul VI shared this position. His acceptance of it was the reason for his (illegal) demands for the suppression of the TLM, with the exception of elderly priests unable to learn the Novus Ordo. A substantial fraction of the Catholic bishops who followed him in this suppression did so because they held this position. Certainly almost the entire French episcopate, for example, held this view.

In discussing whether or not Mickens and Grayland are extremists, we can distinguish two of their assertions. The first is the claim that the TLM and the Novus Ordo have different and incompatible theological contents. This claim does not at all deserve to be called 'extremist'; it is simply a recognition of the facts. As I pointed out in my paper, the Novus Ordo was designed on purpose to get rid of the theology of the TLM. Its designers said this publicly, and their whole extensively documented ideology and practice shows it to be the case. The fact that the Novus Ordo rejects this theology does not of course mean that the Church rejects this theology. The Novus Ordo is the product of a committee in the 1960s and its authority rests upon a single papal act, Paul VI's constitution Missale Romanum. Such a single papal act, containing as it does only a canonical directive and not making any infallible statements, cannot on its own determine the theology of the Church.

The second claim is the claim that the theology of the Novus Ordo is correct and the theology of the TLM is wrong. Of course I disagree with this claim, and it does indeed deserve to be called 'extremist' in the sense of being crazed and absurd. The idea that the main liturgy of the Catholic Church since at least the time of St. Gregory the Great could be fundamentally theologically deficient is obviously false. But it is not extremist in the sense of being confined to a small minority. As noted above, it was held by most of the leadership of the Church at one time, and is still widely accepted among the episcopate. This wide acceptance is precisely the reason why many if not most bishops try to place obstacles in the way of the celebration of the TLM.

John Lamont said...

The second claim is the claim that the theology of the Novus Ordo is correct and the theology of the TLM is wrong. Of course I disagree with this claim, and it does indeed deserve to be called 'extremist' in the sense of being crazed and absurd. The idea that the main liturgy of the Catholic Church since at least the time of St. Gregory the Great could be fundamentally theologically deficient is obviously false. But it is not extremist in the sense of being confined to a small minority. As noted above, it was held by most of the leadership of the Church at one time, and is still widely accepted among the episcopate. This wide acceptance is precisely the reason why many if not most bishops try to place obstacles in the way of the celebration of the TLM.

4. Dr. Shaw remarks that 'The readers of Davies’ books know well that Davies was cautious in his criticisms of the NO, by marked contrast with his criticisms of liturgical abuses.' "Measured and reasoned' would be a better term than 'cautious', perhaps. There is no doubt that Davies' works on the liturgy were attacks on the Novus Ordo itself, not on the easy target of further liturgical abuses that occurred in celebrations of the Novus Ordo. Readers could consult this article by Davies - - to confirm this statement.

Some explanation of what I meant by the 'correct stance of Michael Davies' might be helpful. This correct stance, when it comes to a proposed hybridising revision of the 1962 missal, has two components;

1) A firm refusal to use any such revision.

2). A measured but firm statement of the principles behind such a refusal, which will make it clear that the refusal is not negotiable.

The main principle here is the incompatibility of the theology of the Novus Ordo with the tradition of the Church, and the consequent unacceptability of an alteration to the 1962 missal that moves it in any way closer to the Novus Ordo. If this principle is not stated, there are no principled grounds for resisting a hybrid liturgy, and such resistance has little prospect of success.

This stance worked in 2000, as Leo Darroch points out, when traditionalists were much weaker than they are now. There is no reason to expect it to fail at present.

New Catholic said...

Thank you, Dr. Lamont.

A family - parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins - is a good analogy to the legitimate liturgical pluralism that existed in the Church up to the advent of the New Mass and New Sacraments.

The "pluralism" of the Novus Ordo is of the order one finds not in a family, but in a zoo; from diocese to diocese, from parish to parish, from priest to priest, even within itself the Novus Ordo is "pluralist". None of this is to imply any objection to its validity and objective legality (once the abrogation of the historical Roman Rite itself is discarded, which was always the case, as recognized by His Holiness in Summorum Pontificum), but only its liturgical reality(ies).

The perennial Roman Rite is a tree, an organic living being, the Novus Ordo a blank sheet of paper, on which the celebrant (and the community) can write whatever they want; the only thing both have in common is cellulose. May the latter be kept far apart from the former.


Long-Skirts said...

New Catholic said:

"A family - parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins - is a good analogy to the legitimate liturgical pluralism that existed in the Church up to the advent of the New Mass and New Sacraments."


My cousins once
Had Irish smiles
Their laughter heard
For miles and miles.

My cousins once
Together prayed
A force of faith
Their family made.

My cousins once
So watched admired
Examples of
Joy so desired.

My cousins once
Seized the day
Pregnant with
Vocations, they.

But then my cousins
Met the doctors
Who should have been
Their holy proctors.

Instead their faith
They did abort
Those who should
Defend the Fort.

Each cousin's soul
An emerald beryl
Their souls sucked dry
Now dirty-sterile.

Vaunce Rumsey said...

Novus Ordo: horizontal human Assembly theology (Bouyer)
TLM: Vertical Theology of propitiary sacrifice

Picard said...


Again very good, sound points and analyses. I can consent at least to most of them, if not to all.

I agree I would also like to restore the TLM as prior to 1948.

And well, ok., perhaps we should not call the 1965-Missal a "hybrid" one. But that´s a quarrel about words for me. Because at least one of the ideas of a "reform or the reform" and a "hybrid-Mass" is exactly to end up with a 1965-Miassal or even a some closer one to the 1962 (or 1948) one!

I think that would be ok - and as you yourselfe admitted: the 1965-
Missal is essentially the TLM and no (clear) rupture.
That is exactly what I said - and also trad. theologians like George May

Remember, the then Card. Ratzinger wrote a letter to the German trad. Cath. University teacher Dr. H.-L. Barth (sspx-attendee), that he would wish that in the long run there would be again only one Roman Rite, based on the TLM, with minor changes and options - like in the 1965-Missal or in fact much closer to the TLM/1962 than the 1965 was!!

I still hold that in the long run perhaps that would be the best scenario.

But I am also sympathetic to what you suggested.

New Catholic said...

I hope most realize that this micromanagement of rites was what brought us to this mess in the first place. I hope most realize how utterly ridiculous it sounds, and breathtaking following the post-conciliar debacle. The traditional Roman Rite (or any traditional rite, of east or west) is not a game of building blocks, in which one can join different parts of different ages according to one's preference.

Enough! I understand the theory of those who do not like the 1960 rubrics quite deeply, but it was the official rubric setting for only 5 years (less than 3 for the Missal), and then again only after 2007, for all intents and purposes. Let us calm down the micromanagement, for crying out loud, and have at least some decades, or centuries, of peace and calm before travelling on that perilous road again.

Enough! This is worse than ridiculous, it is offensive. Have not we suffered enough? Leave our books alone!


Matt said...

I tire of the on-going debate regarding the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo. While the FIUV and all the other literature out there bolstering the goodness of the Tridentine Mass is very good, the whole arguemnt now, really is ideology and socio-culturualism on the part of the liberalistas. Anil's list somewhat sums this up.

Yes, They hate the TLM... because they hate the theology which goes with it, a theology which has precisely not been rejected by the Church.

Let's be informed about this. The Novus Ordo is a man-made Mass. It was tinkered together by that infamous cardinal along with actual Protestants invited to help him do so. Yes, the Novus Ordo is more Lutheran in its form and feel than it is Roman Catholic. This was even admitted to by said cardinal. Whether or not this cardinal was a Mason himself, along with his invites, only God knows for sure.

When the Novus Ordo was submitted to Paul VI, it's on record he didn't even look at it. He approved it outright... and the rest is history. We know the Novus Ordo is theologically and "rubrically" poor, distorted. It is. On the other hand, the Novus Ordo is legal. It's juridically valid and thus satisfies every Sacarament and grace needed for salvation. Unfortunately, because this Novu Ordo is so theologically bereft, it cannot communicate the correct theology needed to inform poor souls what the Holy Sacrifice is all about and, along with lousy catechesis consistent with the mindset of the Novus Ordo, ignorance is perpetuated. Lack of consistency (meaning not only from place to place but the lack of hermeneutic of continuity so important in communicating the Faith), lack of the sacred and lack of personal committment and responsibility to the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Faithful have left the Church. It is said the largest growing "denomination" is ex-Catholics.

Let's also drop any talk of a hybrid Mass. Any hybridizing of the Mass is only one more Novus Ordo, one more Mass tinkered together at the expense of Sacred Tradition and the Mass of The Ages and, again, the hermeneutic of continuity. This is one of the reasons why the SSPX is so necessary to be back in the Fold. It is not only their rightful place but also a means by which we can ensure consistent hermeneutics of continuity along with the true expression of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.


Hugh said...

Finally, it has to be stated, liberals always want enough freedom for themselves to hinder everyone else's liberty. The Holy Mass is a caharcteristic case in point.

Carl said...

Matt - I think you're referring to "Archbishop" Bugnini (he was never a cardinal). My understanding is that Paul VI nixed a proposed Anaphora, required all the anaphoras to have identical words of consecration, reinserted the Mysterium Fidei between the consecration and the new Memorial Acclamation and made a number of corrections and additions to the orations. I've never heard it claimed that he approved the liturgical changes without even looking at them. Can you recall where you came across that?

I definitely agree with your emphasis on the lack of the sacred. I think all the other problems you mention spiral out of the conscious compromise of sacrality not only in ritual but in language, architecture and music, all for the sake of a very busy sense of participation. Even the most orthodox theology and sound catechesis end up falling flat when followed up by liturgical mediocrity.