Rorate Caeli

The 'updated' 1962 Missal: Coming soon?

Universae Ecclesiae, citing Benedict XVI's letter to the bishops on the occasion of the publication of Summorum Pontificum, mentioned that "New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently." However, UE didn't mention that a commission to effect this was already established last year.

From Sandro Magister's latest article on Chiesa:

VATICAN CITY, September 19, 2011 – "The activity of the Holy See" is a hefty volume that gives a year-by-year account of the actions of the pope and the Roman curia. It is an "unofficial publication," as specified on the frontispiece, but in spite of this it contains not a little information, sometimes rather unusual, that cannot be found in other Vatican sources.

To verify this it is enough to leaf through the latest edition, on the activities of 2010, which has just been printed by Libreria Editrice Vaticana (1343 pp., 80.00 euro).

In it we learn, for example:

- that last year the disciplinary office of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith opened 643 procedures, 82 percent of which concern "delicta graviora" (which include the sexual abuse of minors by clergy), 8 percent "offenses against the faith," 3 percent "cases of apparitions," and 7 percent other matters of various kinds.

- that during the same period, the congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments dealt with several hundred cases regarding requests for papal dispensations in order to remarry after a marriage "ratified but not consummated." A dispensation that was granted in 301 cases, and withheld in 2.

- that the congregation for the evangelization of peoples gave, through the pontifical society for the propagation of the faith (whose charitable fund, however, has been "significantly" reduced because of the economic recession), more than 85 million dollars in assistance to dioceses in mission territory. More than 30 million was distributed through the pontifical society of St. Peter the Apostle. And more than 19 million through the pontifical society of missionary childhood.

- that the Roman Rota, whose jurisprudence is a model for all the ecclesiastical tribunals in the world, during the judicial year of 2010 issued 175 definitive verdicts on the nullity of marriage, the majority of them (93 versus 82) in favor of nullity.

- that the pontifical council for legislative texts, at the direction of the pope, set up four study groups in view of a possible revision of parts of the code of canon law, on questions of penal law, procedural law, marriage and family law, and the relationships between the code of the Latin Church and that of the Eastern Churches.

- that a joint commission was set up, with experts of the commission "Ecclesia Dei" and of the congregation for divine worship, for the "updating" of the commemorations of the saints and the "possible insertion of new prefaces" into the preconciliar Roman missal of 1962, to which Benedict XVI gave full citizenship in 2007.

- that the office of papal charities, in response to almost seven thousand letters from individuals and families requesting help, provided "with discretion" and "on a day-by-day basis," in the name of the pope, a sum "close to one million euro." A sum entirely covered by the contributions received for parchments with apostolic blessings requested by the faithful: 115,500 parchments issued directly by the office of papal charities, and 112,00 distributed through almost eighty partner organizations.

79 comments:

  1. As Scooby Doo might say 'Ruh, Roh'

    ReplyDelete
  2. Liturgical commissions have perpetrated more damage over the last 500 years than Martin Luther ever did. (A committees of experts will almost always make a mess of things in general.) I fear we are seeing a trend to impose a hybrid rite and an expanded lectionary. Why can't we let things settle down before hastily and arbitarily tinkering with the liturgy yet again? This is the result of an impious managerial mentality. Leave it alone!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well if they merely refer to the insertion of new feasts, I suppose that's not a problem. But "traditionally" the word "updating" in Vatican-liturgy-reform-speak has referred to the fact that something is insufficiently contemporary about the missal. As we all know, some saints are just legendary, some biographies are fantastical (we all know miraculous events are extremely rare), accounts of tears that were never wept, and sufferings that were never endured, and so forth; all such stuff should be removed, as it is offensive to modern, scientifically sophisticated ears...

    I hope that's not what they're talking about here.

    --Zak

    ReplyDelete
  4. How long until we have quarterly missalettes at the Traditional Mass to encorporate all of the coming changes?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let us not be doom and gloom here - the addition of new saints and new prefaces is normal organic development and need not be a case of Buginini tinkeritis. Benedict XV added the preface of St. Joseph. Pius XI the prefaces were added: Sacred Heart, Corpus Christi, Pius XII the new propers of the Assumption. If the traditional rubrics are followed, there is no need for worry. Who does not want Padre Pio added? What about the Uganda martyrs, canonized by Paul VI in 1964? - the Latin propers exist, being mainly what they were as blesseds.

    As a practical matter, there will be some difficulties - we are dealing with two different systems for 1962 and 1970 (classes versus solemnities and memorials). Other,as to where to rank a saint -- On September 23, where do we put St. Linus, if St. Pio is put in on the same date?

    James Ignatius McAuley

    ReplyDelete
  6. NC,

    Two years ago I saw a clip on Youtube of Bishop Fellay at a conference saying he'd heard that a commission was already at work to "traditionalize" the Novus Ordo.

    Didn't see that lurking around in there, did you?

    I thought not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zak,

    They will start with small changes that are difficult to object to; and then, after Traditonalists become used to "change we can believe in", they will gradually move to the substantial changes. The goal is a hybrid of the true Mass and the Bugnini "mass".

    I fear that this Pope will do more harm to Tradition than John Paul "the great".

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Council of Tresnt states that venial sins are removed by receiving Holy Communion. The 1962 Missal removed the second confetior. Why do some traditional priests in communion with Rome still have the second confetior? surely they should obey the Holy See

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jon, this is Pascal's post, not New Catholic's.

    ReplyDelete
  10. They're setting it up nicely for the hybrid mass of the future, and they'll be able to slip the soon-to-be-Sainted JPII into the '62 eventually...the sspx will be celebrating JPII's feast day before they know it!

    ReplyDelete
  11. - that a joint commission was set up, with experts of the commission "Ecclesia Dei" and of the congregation for divine worship, for the "updating" of the commemorations of the saints and the "possible insertion of new prefaces" into the preconciliar Roman missal of 1962, to which Benedict XVI gave full citizenship in 2007.

    Well, that is a blatant misstatement. Pope Benedict XVI did not "grant" full citizenship to the mass in 2007. In fact, Summorum Pontificum did not grant anything to the mass; it definitively stated that the mass had never been DEPRIVED of its citizenship in the first place. This is an important distinction.

    ReplyDelete
  12. \\Liturgical commissions have perpetrated more damage over the last 500 years than Martin Luther ever did. (A committees of experts will almost always make a mess of things in general.)\\

    The Missal promulgated by Pope St. Pius V was compiled and edited by a specially appointed liturgical commission. Did you know that?

    I believe that the Tridentine Mass has always allowed votive masses of any saint in the Roman Martyrology on the days votives are allowed. Why should this not include newly canonized saints?

    Most holy Theotokos, save us.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is nothing wrong with adding new Prefaces (especially as long as they are ad lib). However, some of the Prefaces of the 1969 Missale Romanum very much shorten the references to the heavenly court at the end, and I believe that also for new Prefaces the old conclusions should be used.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I hope and pray that:
    a) there will be no new Prefaces inserted into the traditional Missal.
    b) that if they are inserted, they will remain optional, so that we might still always continue to use the current ones in the 1962 Missal if we prefer.

    My personal opinion is that now is not the time to begin mucking around with the Traditional Mass. The Missal of ages is a mighty weapon in the arsenal of the Church Militant, and nothing should be allowed to weaken its force.
    Nevertheless, truly organic development would demonstrate that the Traditional Mass has finally been accepted by today's Rome as a going concern in the Church's life. And it would be good to have Padre Pio and other champions accommodated in the Calendar, while keeping that calendar's integrity (respecting current saints' days, Ember Days, octaves, etc.) . But the Collects for recent saints would have to be in the spirit of the traditional Missal, and not the wishy- washy spirit of the Paul VI Missal. We should wait until the arrival of a new Age of Faith before we start such any such undertaking. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
    A. Priest

    ReplyDelete
  15. Is this any surprise? The new generation of Traditionalists seem to have (conveniently) forgotten the 1962 missal is only two steps away from that of 1970 i.e. the changes of 1965 and 1967.

    With current developments was there ever more reason to return to the rights of immemorial custom and the missal of St. Pius V?

    ReplyDelete
  16. You know, I think it should be noted which Mass is being seen as the "point of departure" for the way forward. Yes, there is risk in everything with human hands involved but let's trust the Holy Spirit which has always moved us in the right direction regardless of which way man is steering.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ladies and Gentlemen,
    This is -- or can be -- very good news. The Missal has always been updated with new feasts, and new prefaces are an enrichment, not an impoverishment. There can be nothing better in the long run than allowing slow, organic updates to the usus antiquior missal: they make it a PRESENT REALITY, not a historical museum curiosity.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is the perfect time to "muck-up" the New Mass – especially if the SSPX signs on the dotted line. There will be such confusion no one will even notice.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Any man in his sixties, or older, (heck, even younger) can be forgiven for reacting with skepticism and/or trepidation upon hearing about "updating" this and "new prefaces," that because our Prelates have, routinely, given us good reasons to fear any changes.

    The desire to update, change, create new this and new that is ceaseless.

    Stop Already.

    Those who have held the power and the authority to authorise and demand change have proven to have been complete failures in every single area of ecclesiastical life; from Mass, to Sacraments, to Prayers, to religious life to ecumenism, to catechesis, to, well, the list is as exhaustingly long to limn as it is depressingly exhausting to contemplate.

    The old secular axiom, when it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change, would be a useful axiom when it comes to the 1962 Roman Missal.

    ReplyDelete
  20. ProfKwasniewski,

    I liked the way you put it!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Tinkering strikes again!

    New saints - fine. New prefaces - maybe.

    If anything's going to be updated though, please could we have our Holy Week, Pentecost Vigil and Assumption back?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Professor K:

    The Missal of 62 already encapsulates the eternal reality. It is always, therefore, the PRESENT REALITY.

    Given the track record of the liturgical engineers who have constructed countless new prayers for the past 40 years, I am rather surprised that you receive this news with such quietude.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Spartacus,

    I agree with your post completely. Over the decades, and with good reason, I have come to despise change. Rarely have I seen change for the better; mostly I have witnessed change for change sake.

    Delphina

    ReplyDelete
  24. \\I hope and pray that:
    a) there will be no new Prefaces inserted into the traditional Missal.\\

    As someone else has already pointed out, there was a time when the Preface of the Sacred Heart, St. Joseph, and others were new.

    **If anything's going to be updated though, please could we have our Holy Week, Pentecost Vigil and Assumption back?**

    Do you mean the Holy Week rites and Assumption Mass and Office that were in place BEFORE they were all changed by Pius XII or AFTER they were changed by him?

    Most holy Theotokos, save us!

    ReplyDelete
  25. That's all very well, ProfKwasniewski, except that those responsible for liturgical 'updating' in the Church have demonstrated for a very long time either that they have absolutely no concept of the 'slow, organic' approach that you so praise or, worse still, that they categorically reject such a concept.

    As an aside, there are many areas of life in today's world where that which is considered ' a historical museum curiosity' is far, far preferable to the 'PRESENT REALITY'; to take one example, the traditional view of marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This is great news! It firmly brings the Ancient Use out of the museum and frees it from the amber without damage to its essence.

    ReplyDelete
  27. //Any man in his sixties, or older, (heck, even younger) can be forgiven for reacting with skepticism and/or trepidation upon hearing about "updating" this and "new prefaces," that because our Prelates have, routinely, given us good reasons to fear any changes.\\

    It'll be worth it if we find our time in Purgatory has been waived as a result!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Instead of the Commissions doing this he should have turned the matter over to the Traditional Monastic Communities to do this.

    ReplyDelete
  29. RC posted a few months back that the NO prelates thought it best not to tincker with the True and Holy Mass of All Ages, aka TLM, at this time, while the SP experiment is happening. I forget who was quoted. I hope and pray they don't mess with it.

    JR

    ReplyDelete
  30. could someone please tell me the logic of having a second confiteor

    ReplyDelete
  31. Updating! Ancora una volta l'aggiornamento! Ancora una volta l'annottamento della Chiesa!

    The 1962 Missale Romanum was the threshold of the novus ordo seclorum. Let the pope restore the usus antiquior ante annos quinquagesimos. Let the Rites of Holy Week be restored. Let the ancient Good Friday prayer be restored. If any concession is to be made to l'aggiornamento, let the name of St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, remain in the Canon.

    This is the beginning of the novus ordinization of the Tridentine Mass. The bastardization of the ancient liturgical patrimony. Can we trust this pope to stop it? Not by dint of his expressed opinion on the subject. He foresees, even decrees, a cross-pollination of the rites, or a soi-disant "mutual enrichment". Nay, rather an empoverishment and protestantization of the True Mass.

    FSSPX, cavete lupum Romanum. Archbishop Levebvre must be wringing his hands in sorrow and despair. The Bugnini botch will out though all the earth o'erwhelm it.

    Stulti inruunt quo angeli incedere metuunt.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Previous post was mine. Someone else was signed in.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't think the problem is inserting new Saints and prefaces; the problem is TIMING. Not now, not in this era. Maybe in a hundred years after the Church is restored and some sense of piety and fear of God has returned to the Church. I think we need a sense of stability right now - not incessant change.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Can I posit a compromise here? There are two legitimate points being made:

    1. We should not alter the 1962 missal any further because it still is asserting that it is a permanent and equal form of the Roman Rite.

    2. We should alter the 1962 missal in the same manner as happened routinely from Trent to 1962, which will show that this form of the Roman Rite is a perfectly normal and routine part of today's Church, not simply a museum piece in amber.

    Both of these are legitimate. So here is how to have both:

    1. Ecclesia Dei proclaims that there shall be no changes whatsoever to the 1962 Missal (beyond those already made) until a reasonable period after the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum (I suggest 10 years).

    2. Ecclesia Dei consults experts publicly and with much input as to which saints are to be added as third class feasts to the Proper of Saints. The matter of prefaces is to be studied in greater depth by experts during this time, but the deadline is not as firm as that of additional saints.

    Any issues there?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I have no problem in principle with updating the calendar propers of the 62 Missal in include recent saints. And additional Prefaces will only enrich the missal.

    However, I am troubled by the joint commission consisting of only experts from Ecclesia Dei and the CDW. The Tridentine liturgy was a living liturgy outside the official structures of the Church from 1970 until 1988. Even in the time after 1988 the liturgy has remained the domain of those in some form of impaired communion with Rome, more so than with those in full communion.

    Should not any joint commission also include representatives from the SSPX and other irregular traditionalist communities willing to cooperate in such a commission?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Archbishop Lefebvre was quite happy about removing the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.

    Again...could someone please explain the logic of the second confiteor?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Fr. Sanchez makes a good point. "It might bring the Ancient use out of the museum and frees it from the amber". From Father's keyboard to God's email.

    ReplyDelete
  38. To anonymous regarding second Confiteor. There is no "disobedience" in this. The Second (or rather Third) Confiteor was removed as mandatory, but remained a legitimate option. A good Holy Communion cleanses from venial sin, but it does not do so in any "magic" sense. You still have to be sorry for your sins and purpose to amend your life, just as in the Sacrament of Penance. So why not a Second Confiteor? Then you remind yourself once more that you are a sinful, unworthy creature, about to bring the Most High, the God-Man, into your soul.

    The better prepared you are, the better your Holy Communion will be. Since we, according to some schools of spirituality, should start preparing for Holy Communion the evening before receiving, it would seem strange to "stop" preparing moments before, am I wrong?

    In the Sacred Heart of Jesus,
    David

    ReplyDelete
  39. Reply to Anonymous at 01:14
    "Instead of the Commissions doing this he should have turned the matter over to the Traditional Monastic Communities to do this."

    This sounds like a very reasonable suggestion, but would actually be very dangerous. It would essentially mean that Le Barroux achieved its ambition to have a modernised Missal of its own design imposed on the traditional world. The monks of Le Barroux have been petitioning the Ecclesia Dei Commission and the CDW for the last few years to impose substantial changes on the traditional Missal that very few other traditional communities would find acceptable. One monk there, in particular, seems convinced that he has a divinely given mission to champion the practice of con-celebration in the Traditional Mass. God save us from that

    ReplyDelete
  40. I agree with Shane and Jon in this regard. Look out. This is a very dangerous move. The Holy Father does not have full control of his Magisterium. This can't be news to most of us.

    If merely updating the Ordo to include those who have been raised to the Altar since 1962, fine, but as others have said above, these Curial committees, in my opinion, are nothing but contagions of liberal bacteria who want nothing more than to infect the Church with their nonsense, and now the Tridentine Missal is squarely in their barrel. Jack that Missal and all references to Sacred Tradition with a theological construct behind it in our worship suddenly vanishes. Job done. Game over.

    Oddly nothing beyond merely updating the language was anything attempted with the Novus Ordo missal. If the Holy Father was serious about "reform of the reform," a lot more would already have been done to it. I can't envision any more changes in the near future and more money spent by Catholics to buy yet another edition of the missal.

    As I had stated elsewhere on Rorate, one just has to look at how quickly and definitively the Holy Father changed the Good Friday intercessory prayer for the Jews when the Tridentine Missal was freed up again. How interesting there were no committees, no endless Curial meetings, no world-wide Episcopal consultations and voting spanning decades... it was just changed. Why then such agony when it comes to changing anything about the Novus Ordo?

    Prayerfully,

    Matt

    ReplyDelete
  41. I very much agree that no substantial changes should be made to the Missal in next 10-15 years. We (the older of us) experienced so many changes that it is simply time to wait, get the people used to the Ancient Rite, and start thinking (thinking, not implementing) about some possible changes (restoration of the OBLIGATORY second Confiteor - maybe, restoration of the old Holy Week rites - probably, at least partially, extention of the lectionary for weekdays - very probably).

    But I see no obstacles whatsoever to adding new saints and maybe even some prefaces right now. I agree that it would show that the Ancient Rite is the living reality of the Church. It would also be sort of interesting, if the New Mass was celebrated according to the 2002 Missal (Editio typica tertia) and the Ancient Rite - according to the 2012 Missal. Pretty disappointing for all kinds of modernists.

    But I also agree that even if the canonical situation of the FSSPX was not to be regulated yet, an INFORMAL agreement should be made with them on all the changes, so they are able submit to Peter and celebrate the Rite the whole Church does.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Things like updating the Traditional Missal bring in to focus why we should have a Traditional Roman Rite for all the Traditional Roman Catholics.

    As for the second Confiteor:

    The first Confiteor occurs in the Mass of the Catechumens. There are some occasions in abbreviated masses where it is not said. This part of the Mass is not obligatory. It makes more sense to have the Confiteor and absolution in the Mass of the Faithful which is required to meet our Sunday and Holy Day obligation. It is not wrong to include it. Rest assured the Traditional Orders sanctioned by Rome would not do it if it was. None the less it grates on the rigorists within those sanctioned groups who are out of touch with the goodness of having it.

    A.M. LaPietra

    ReplyDelete
  43. NB I was talking about the traditional Holy Week etc, not Proto-vus Ordo 1.0 from 1955 and all the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The problem with the number of prefaces is not the number itself, but a possibility for the priest to choose a preface. Rubricarum instructum (1960) leaves no choice of the preface. The prefaces are imposed. The Sunday preface is the one of the Holy Trinity. The only major feasts (1st class) with the common preface are Corpus christi, st. Michael and All Saints (as far as I can compute it from the rubrics). How many times have you heard a preface of the Holy Trinity in the Novus ordo mass on a Sunday?
    Considering new saints (or old local saints!), the Missal of 1962 gives the Common of the saints. When there is more than one mass in the Common, the celebrant may choose any of them (Rubricarum instructum 305b). Now, the patron of my diocese is a confessor king (St. Ladislaus I of Hungary, Laszlo I, Ladislav I). He is not listed in the missal, thus the priest can choose any of the two masses. Now, we could try to look in older books (from the 1930s) in order to find his propers. But what if that old propers are in some way contradictory to the missal of 1962. Kings Henry II of Germany, Louis IX of France, Stephen I of Hungary and Duke Casimir of Poland, inserted in the 1962 Missal, have prayers different from those in the Common. What if some old books list very old and traditional prayers that are different from those in the Common? What prayers should we use then? I would like that commision to reduce any possibility of choice and prescribe an exact mass and exact prayers for each saint from the Roman Martyrology.
    M.

    ReplyDelete
  45. If we're going to have reform, let's have Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve, Cardinal Ottaviani, and Fr. Gommar DePauw added to the Mass.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The current hierarchy has failed in its stewardship of the Church and has thus proven itself unworthy of trust. May its members at least have the prudence to keep their soiled hands off of the 1962 missal, letting themselves die off, and leaving the purification to subsequent generations who weren't complicit in the destruction. But of course such prudence can't be expected of such a corrupt lot.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Presently the Traditional Latin Mass must be celebrated strictly according to the rubrics pertaining to it.There can, therefore, be no reception of communion under both kinds and given onto the hand, only males may serve at the altar, and the use of extraordinary ministers is forbidden.

    Should the Traditional Mass be gradually and substantially subject to changes, would this protection still be in place? Certainly, if the Latin Rite as a whole was to be hybridised, then presumably the common abuses of the Novus Ordo would have to be generally accepted.

    Benedict XVI has muddied the waters by asserting that there are two forms of the same Latin rite. Much as I should love it, I do not think he will give us any sort of Traditional structure, because this would be an admission that the Traditional rite is a separate one from the Novus ordo and I do not think he would be willing to backtrack on this.

    It would not surprise me were any reconciliation with the SSPX fairly short term if dramatic changes to the liturgy are planned.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous 7:22,

    "One monk there, in particular, seems convinced that he has a divinely given mission to champion the practice of con-celebration in the Traditional Mass."

    Fascinating (and disturbing) bit of arcana. Can I ask your source? Should make interesting reading.

    ReplyDelete
  49. As always, many good comments and, as always, a few fatuous ones. I'll respond quickly to several of the latter, if I may.

    Jack: the St Pius V Missal was not a committee-formed product as you seem to be implying. It was not a "reform" in the sense in which we now understand the term. Pius merely codified legitimate ancient uses in an attempt to put an end to some elements of liturgical anarchy that were creeping in at the time. He did not create a new Mass; he did away with innovations that were not ancient.

    Also, Jack, if I may respond to this brick you threw through the window:

    "Do you mean the Holy Week rites and Assumption Mass and Office that were in place BEFORE they were all changed by Pius XII or AFTER they were changed by him?"

    My quick response to your question would be: "yes". I am not one of those who found every action of that Pope to be prudentially perfect. Nor am I overly troubled, as some are, by the inclusion of the Second Confetior or, for that matter, even celebrating earlier versions of the Ancient Mass (on my European travels I see nearly always a pre-1962 version being used). Nor am I all that crazy about the simplified 1962 Missal (but I'm living with it). I just think that right now there are more urgent things to worry about.

    "Spartacus" explained well why we should be somewhat concerned by this meddling being contemplated. I cannot say it better. Others have made important points about the timing of this move. I would add that there is clearly no need to be hasty about fiddling with the ancient rite. What's the hurry? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This aspect of haste is what troubles me. It is as troubling as the Holy Father's lamentable caving in to noisy pressure groups and changing the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews in the Holy Week prayers - changes which I happily ignore.

    Some think these changes would bring it out of the "museum". I would remind those who think thus to recall that it is, after all, in museums where things of value are kept.

    There is genuine cause for concern here so vigilance would seem to be the order of the day.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "As I had stated elsewhere on Rorate, one just has to look at how quickly and definitively the Holy Father changed the Good Friday intercessory prayer for the Jews when the Tridentine Missal was freed up again. How interesting there were no committees, no endless Curial meetings, no world-wide Episcopal consultations and voting spanning decades... it was just changed. Why then such agony when it comes to changing anything about the Novus Ordo?"

    His Holiness declared the following as to why he had overthrown the Traditional Good Friday Prayer for Jews:

    "A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy.

    "In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jews, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament."

    I take it that Novus Ordo prayers do not "wound" anybody.

    I take it that only the Church's ancient Roman Liturgy serves to "wound" certain folks.

    Sad. Very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  51. \\Jack: the St Pius V Missal was not a committee-formed product as you seem to be implying. ..\\

    As a matter of fact, Pope St. Pius V DID appoint a post-conciliar commission, following the request of the Council of Trent, to codify to Missale Romanum.

    It's dishonest to act like he didn't.

    \\Also, Jack, if I may respond to this brick you threw through the window:

    "Do you mean the Holy Week rites and Assumption Mass and Office that were in place BEFORE they were all changed by Pius XII or AFTER they were changed by him?"\\

    I was not throwing a brick. I was seeking information.

    What specifically do you object to in the Holy Week rites and Mass and Office for the Assumption promulgated by Pius XII? Be specific, please.

    Most holy Theotokos, save us.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anon. wrote:

    "b) that if they are inserted, they will remain optional, so that we might still always continue to use the current ones in the 1962 Missal if we prefer."

    Unfortunately, what is optional today is mandatory tomrrow. It's called 'baby steps' and it's how Bugnini the Barbarian changed the immemorial Mass. The first changes of 1950-51, changes in the times for the Holy Week liturgies, were purely optional. But, by 1958, they were mandatory!

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I recommend a simple response to any prefaces that arise from the Bugnini Missal: while the priest says them in Latin, simply read the traditional preface for the day in the vernacular. Works for me.

    As for Good Friday, the Byzantine Office for that day is particularly splendid.

    What happened in the 1960s was a revolution; it was part of the social hippie Marxist revolution of that time. This is why the New Mass is Protestant and Freemasonic in spirit, particularly in regard to univocal expressions of the Eternal Sacrifice. What is new in NewMass was concocted in committee and, as Benedict XVI himself has said, is a "banal, on-the-spot product". Organic growth is not the adoption of forms concocted in cmte. to change the spirit of the Mass. So the prefaces of New Mass should not be welcome.

    The aftermath of a revolution is the very worst time for tinkering. What is needed is 50 yaers of no change in the Mass of the Ages. The Roman Mass of 1474 was almost identical to the Missal of 1925. No change was made after 1789 or 1848. The instinct of Holy Church is to resist revolution, not to accommodate it.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Speaking of change: My grandmother who was a convert to the Faith wept with sorrow when St. Joseph was added to the Canon. She understood that the Canon should never be altered in any way shape or form. To her it was a sign of more "changes" to come. And of course, the rest is now history. May my grandmother, a strong defender of the Faith, rest in peace.

    ReplyDelete
  55. ...And additional Prefaces will only enrich the missal....

    Not that additional Prefaces would be a bad thing, in fact I would probably be in favor of such a move, but wasn't the missal "unenriched" after Trent? There must have been a good reason.

    That said, I wouldn't touch anything the current Vatican puts in front of me as they still haven't repudiated the insanity of the last fifty years!

    ReplyDelete
  56. With respect to Anonymous on the 20 September, 2011 21:49

    "In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jews, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament."

    That's kind of an ironic statement given the fact that most of that prayer was written by St Paul and is in large part taken directly from the New Testament. If anyone knew what the Old and New Testament were about, surely St. Paul did. To accuse this prayer of not expressing the relationship between the Old and New Testament in a positive way is tantamount to accusing St Paul and the New Testament itself of not expressing this relationship in a positive way. Not all truths are pleasant but the scriptures say what they say. Either they are the word of GOD or they are not, and if they are truly the word of God then why are people ashamed of what God had his Apostles write? To be ashamed of the Good Friday prayer, sounds to me like people are ashamed of what the New Testament says because of the current politically correct environment.

    Do we want to change the New Testament to fit with our current politically correct environment? If yes, then perhaps it is we of today who are not realizing the precise relationship between the Old and the New Testament.

    ReplyDelete
  57. To accuse this prayer of not expressing the relationship between the Old and New Testament in a positive way is tantamount to accusing St Paul and the New Testament itself of not expressing this relationship in a positive way.

    Pope Benedict XVI's new prayer for the conversion of the Jews is made up of the words of St. Paul.

    St. Paul and the New Testament express the relationship between the Old and New Testaments in both positive and negative ways. The ancient, traditional prayer for the conversion of the Jews places emphasis on their faithlessness, their spiritual blindness, and the darkness that enslaves them. The pope has said that in light of the painful, unhappy history of interaction between Jews and Christians, and the persecution of Jews that culminated in the Holocaust, he thinks it is better to pray for Jewish conversion using biblical expressions that are not so evocative of that painful history. I fully understand that and have no objections to the new prayer per se. What does concern me, though, is that shrinking from the difficult or the negative expressions of Holy Scripture would leave us with a shrunken faith. There is a time and a place for everything under the sun: a time to say, "I pray that you grow in holiness that you may attain eternal joys in heaven," and a time to say, "I pray that you may be freed from the sin that enslaves you that you may escape the torments of final damnation." If Good Friday isn't the time for the latter sort of prayer, when is it time for it?

    ReplyDelete
  58. According to the principle Lex Orandi Lex Credendi surely a prayer in the Roman Missal that was considered to be Catholic throughout past centuries must remain Catholic today? And this must surely go for the pre-Benedict XVI Good Friday Prayer for the Jews? So, although the Pope has specifically forbidden that prayer from being used in its place during the Good Friday Liturgy, there would be nothing in the Church's law that would prevent a priest or community using the old form of the prayer for the Jews publicly, as long as this is outside of its old place in the Good Friday Liturgy (eg. inserting it in the Sunday bidding prayers of Novus Ordo Masses throughout the year)?

    It seems to me that it would have been helpful (and honest) if the Holy Father had explained to the Church and the world that he was changing the Good Friday prayer for the Jews for reasons of political correctness. Or was there some Hegelian principle at work, whereby the Faith is considered to have evolved into something different, so that what was Catholic before has now ceased to be Catholic? Or is the principle Lex Orandi Lex Credendi now considered to be obsolete? Will someone please enlighten me??

    ReplyDelete
  59. "As a matter of fact, Pope St. Pius V DID appoint a post-conciliar commission, following the request of the Council of Trent, to codify to (sic) Missale Romanum."

    To codify is to make a code of something. What the Council of Trent commissioned was to give a code for the Misale Romanum, just as Dan says, so that to fix it definitely and avoid the various versions of the Roman Missal that circulated at the time.
    C.M.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Jack,

    "I would add that there is clearly no need to be hasty about fiddling with the ancient rite. What's the hurry? If it ain't broke, don't fix it..."

    What do you mean "hasty"? A majority of clerics and laity, who were formed in the Ancient Use themselves, some way back during the council of Trent no less, and of course during the 1950's, were talking about the need for some use of the vernacular to help the faithful better participate in the Sacred Liturgy. Preserving the whole rite in Latin, while allowing for the vernacular during the readings (which is already permitted) and for the propers, would be one way of fixing what is "broke," not with the liturgy itself, but with the contemporary inability to understand ancient languages. I'm thinking particularly of some people that I know who can't even read, but would be able to participate better if the propers were spoken in the vernacular; whereas the ordinary of the Mass is already hidden within their hearts.

    "Some think these changes would bring it out of the "museum". I would remind those who think thus to recall that it is, after all, in museums where things of value are kept."

    I agree. But, then again, things in a museum are no longer used by the living.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The Good Friday Intercessions for schismatics, heretics and pagans will be altered as said prayers are just as "negative" as the Traditional Good Friday prayer for Jews. The Traditional prayers in question "wound" non-Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I have attended two churches which Celebrate hybridised/Traditionalised Novus Ordo Masses. They also Celebrate the Old Mass.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The sheer arrogance of the proposal is distracting enough.

    At this time? After what has just transpired? It would be like Martin V checking out real estate in France.

    Secondarily, I fear finding out how bad the proposed changes themselves actually will be.

    ReplyDelete
  64. \\Not that additional Prefaces would be a bad thing, in fact I would probably be in favor of such a move, but wasn't the missal "unenriched" after Trent? There must have been a good reason.\\

    I don't understand what you mean here. By being "unenriched", do you refer to the Pauline Missal?

    As has already been pointed out, new prefaces and feasts were added--the feast of the Presentation of the Virgin on 21 November was restored--after the time of St. Pius V.

    Most holy Theotokos, save us.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous 07:15,

    Arrogance?

    If the Holy Father can adopt the Novus Ordo, why can't he modify the traditional Mass?

    The issue is not the Pope's authority to deal with such matters. He has the authority, and there's the end of it.

    The issue is the principles that govern the Pope's exercise of that authority.

    We all know the principles that govern the Holy Father's actions, and those of his immediate predecessors, in this as in everything else:

    Progessivism.

    Of course, there are many who won't admit this, even to themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Jack deceives this blog, whether deliberately or not. The cmte. formed by Pope St. Pius V was charged with the task of removing errors and accretions across the MS copies of the pre-print-age Missals. It corrected spelling and punctuarion and removed things that had been added without any permission. This is more like an editorial board; it was not a committee called upon to make substantial changes. And IT DID NOT. That's why the Ordinary of the Missal of 1474, the first one printed at Rome, is semantically identical to the Missals of 1570, 1604, 1634, 1884, 1925.

    To compare a proof-reader to a re-designer is either disingenuous or incompetent. The man who restores an old painting and brings out the old colours in it is not at al like the man with the wrecking ball who demolishes a cathedral land replaces it with the Taj Mahony.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  67. TIT FOR TAT TO SERVE TWO BRATS

    One poster wondered where the cmte. is that Bishop Fellay mentioned some time ago--the cmte. set up to fix the Novus Ordo. The answer is that you do not hear of it yet because it is still an unofficial 'worknig group' rather than an official committee--or at least that was the case as late as 2010.

    But the fact that the wreckovating ctme. for TrueMass is already formed does tell us something about this Pope's order of operations: he plans to change the Mass of the Ages first and only then make changes to the Mass of the New World Order.

    Why this order of operations? Well, the technique is as old as the hills: if you want to force a change on a majority, you justify this by changing a parallel thing cherished by the enemy of that majority. If mummy must slap Brat Number Two named Jimmy, she can ease his pain and limit his reaction by imposing some penalty on Brat Number One named Johnny. Both brats will now be unhappy but each has the consolation of knowing that the other has suffered. The result is peace with discontent. This may not be desirable in itself but it is better than whining and screeching and screaming and hollering; and it is better than open revolt. We don't want Jimmy to break all the windows in the house and tell his schoolmates that the tax department is taking action againt daddy for $200,000 that he tried to hide.

    So, Step Number One is to intrude some of the Prefaces of the noxious Novus Ordo into the ancient Mass. The Pope knows that intruding anything from the Bugnini Bungle into TrueMass--anything at all--will infuriate traditionalists. He also knows that altering the Good Friday Office at the open behest of the two chief rabbis of Palestine will enrage traditionalists. The thought that the ancient liturgy could ever be altered to suit infidels will cause red hot anger in traditioanlists.

    But that very anger will please and delight the liberals because the thing which gladdens liberals the most is to cause pain to raditionalists. Then, however, the other shoe will drop. Tit for tat. NewMass is about to undergo its fourth revision and the only substantial one to date. Boo-hoo!

    The problem is that this is not a game; this is the Mass. The liberals are not spoiled and petulant children: they are agents of the fiend from Hell, and they were not born or invited into the home: they stealed in during the night. They need not correction but expulsion. God did not strike the devil with a wooden spoon; rather, He hurled him down from Heaven to Hell. There can be no place in Holy Church error and evil. Error and Truth will not meet and kiss; Goodness and Sin will not come together and embrace.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "I fear we are seeing a trend to impose a hybrid rite..."

    That is the only solution to the unfortunate liturgical problem that Vatican II Era Popes created.

    1. Rome could return to their ancient Liturgy...but the Popes have made it clear that the Novus Ordo is here to stay.

    2. Rome could create a hybrid Rite...we're headed there.

    The two "forms" of the Roman Rite simply cannot stand together at parishes.

    We cannot have the absurdity of one group of TLM Catholics (Catholics who adhere to Holy Tradition)vs. Novus Ordo Catholics (who adhere to novelties).

    The only solution is to fuse each "form" into the one hybrid Rite that is will arrive one day at our parishes.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "The answer is that you do not hear of it yet because it is still an unofficial 'worknig group' rather than an official committee--or at least that was the case as late as 2010."

    Whether that unofficial committee is still around or not, its window of opportunity is long gone. The time to have introduced such changes was in 2007-2008, when there was still momentum from Summorum Pontificum (a momentum that Universae Ecclesiae has totally failed to revive) and Cardinal Arinze and Archbishop Ranjith were still in CDW. Arinze may have been less "traditional" than the highly overrated Canizares Llovera, but he was also more energetic and blunter in attacking liturgical abuses. As for Ranjith he was far better than his successor, who is totally silent on matters concerning liturgical tradition.

    Currently the Pope is too old (nearing 85) and the next papal election is already the object of speculation; the English-speaking world is faced with a new translation of the Novus Ordo Missal that will take years to "digest" and which is causing so much controversy; the TLM has been successfully stalled on the diocesan level and will stay blocked for the foreseeable future absent a reconciliation with the SSPX, and the liberals are becoming more open in their revolt against authority.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I trust our Holy Father. The more we get worked up here the less likely the SSPX will be to rejoin the Catholic Church. We do not know what Benedict XVI has in mind but he has a great track record with SP and UE.

    I suspect Benedict XVI wants to traditionalize the Novus Ordo, but that is just my opinion. We did attend a "Gregorian Mass" in Paris (St. Germain d'Auxerrois) and it was excellent for a Novus Ordo. So the movement to improve the Mass for the masses is already under way. In Rome NO masses are quite reverent as well. Reining in the runaway bishops is a very challenging task. Pray the Holy Father may have a very long life.

    ReplyDelete
  71. J.D.F. has some valid points but he overreaches himself.

    Just yesterday, the Pope took the opportunity to confer the pallium directly on Cardinal Scola. It is clear that H.H. has a certain successor in mind. However, in the past, papal favour for papabile usually backfired (although it did work for Montini).

    I agree that this Pope has moved too slowly on the reform of NewMass. But I am not convinced that it is too late. Leo XIII lived to be 93. So far, this Pope's health is holding up. He seems to take the view that he will keep on his agenda and trust in God to see how far he will have to implement it. Will this work? I don't know. Perhaps.

    One could just as easily argue, however, that it is too late for a reform of TrueMass. This will take more than the recommendation of a committee; it will also involve review after review in the curia. It might very well be decided that it is 'premature', esp. if reform of NewMass seems to be unlikely.

    Cañizares LLovera, however 'overrated' is at least a friend to the T.L.M., whereas Arinze was its mortal and determined enemy and made no secret of that fact. So your interpretation is risible. Levada, who has been a major thorn in our side, is said to be ready for an exit early in 2012 or earlier.

    Hope is still there. I do agree with J.D.F., however, that this Pope is running out of time. He acts sometimes as if he has forever to make these changes.

    P.K.T.P.

    P.S. Experts may be preparing for the next conclave but it is only God's plans that matter in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  72. J.D.F. is right that U.E. has not revitalised S.P. I keep a very close eye on the numbers and this is so. However, U.E. was only published in May and then, following immediately, were the dog days of summer. Little ever happens over the summer in the Church. I would say that it is much too early to say what effect U.E. will have. We need to give it at least one year from this month. So J.D.F. is jumping to wild conclusions on very little evidence.

    S.P.'s main success was seen over its first eleven months--just under one year.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Some Anon. wrote:

    "The only solution is to fuse each "form" into the one hybrid Rite that is will arrive one day at our parishes."

    That is a ludicrous assertion. It is a joke. Of course they can co-exist. They can and they do. They do so especially in France and the U.S.A. and in many other countries as well. The opposite is the truth: the NewMassers are coming to accept the fact that the T.L.M. is here to stay, even if only for a small minority. It is no longer very controversial because the Age of Aquarius is over.

    One does not fuse quality and error; it only makes for something less than that which is good.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Gratias:

    There would not be much opposition to a traditionalisation of the N.O. text. Most of the fuss is over externals and these can and are being changed by degrees. Most people would not even notice it if the traditional Offertory and Canon were restored by Benedict XVI. They would notice it, however, if the sickening pop tunes were replaced by Gregorian Chant and if the priest turned around and faced God instead of 'we the people'. The noticeable and controversial changes don't have to be made shortly and by this Pope: the seeds for their implementation have been planted and the shoots are growing (or, rather, the bubblegum culture of New Mass is receding). H.H. really only needs to cast out that repulsive Offertory and the nauseating new Eucarhistic Prayers.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  75. P.K.T.P:

    I dismissed Jack after he was nailed with his own words by a poster here some months ago. He said he was a devotee of some Jesuit liturgist who was exposed by the aforementioned poster as praising the New Rite Mass with many of its charming accouterments. Mr. Jack has been asked several times to explain himself and he's ignored the charge of flying under false colors here.

    Jack only feigns support for Catholic tradition. I have no idea why he continues to post here except that he takes some morose delight in stirring the cauldron.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Nathaniel: Whilst I do not agree with some of the, I would term them, 'misapprehensions' Jack has expressed concerning Pius V's missal - I think you are being more than a tad conspiracist, non?

    My impression is that Jack is (I think I am right here) a young man who is eager to learn and know about the traditional liturgy - but, in the process, like most of us, does not always get it right, objectively. Golly, that's not a crime, is it? He/we/all of us, including myself, might even learn something useful in this forum. And even if he is a 'fifth columnist' - LOL - all the better to hear other points of view; or do we just want to preach to the choir?

    Jack - here's my two bob's worth, mate: it is a furphy to assert that the post-Vatican II liturgical reform merely did what Trent did. The context of Trent was to counteract, in particular, the eucharistic heresies touted by Luther and co. Pius V thought it prudent, against the backdrop of all the reformation chaos, to encourage a certain liturgical uniformity by pruning some comparatively recent accretions from the liturgy (ie those usages less than 200 years old as at 1570)and affirming the usage of the latin rite as celebrated in Rome (and throughout most of Europe, courtesy of the Franciscans who had spread the Roman usage since the 13th century). So he edited out these comparative novelties (including many of the sequences then in use - some of which may have deemed to have been imprudent and/or insufficiently theologically rigorous during that period of disquiet and religious revolt). But that is a far cry from fabricating an entirely new missal as the Concilium did post 1965.

    As others have pointed out, Bugnini's restless tinkering with the liturgy had a trial run with the reform of the Holy Week ceremonies in 1955. You ask what is wrong with that reform. Well, for starters, it completely butchered the ancient Easter Vigil by reducing the prophecy readings from 12 to 3 readings and hence wrecking its integrity. The only thing he got right, perhaps, was the restoration of the ancient times for the services (eg: Holy Thursday Mass and the Easter Vigil were restored to the evening, rather than the morning etc).

    There is an entire set of articles on the 1955 reforms over at New Liturgical Movement from a year or so ago - easily findable if you search their index.

    Anyhow, Jack - those are my views, and I trust tey are not too wide of the mark (I'm sure I will be corrected if they are!). I wish you well in your quest for knowledge on this subject.

    Tony from Oz

    ReplyDelete
  77. Tony from Oz:

    You must be kidding. Jack is obviously from 'the other side'. "He's not one of us", as Sir Humphrey Appleby might say ini "Yes, Minister".

    But his comments also demonstrate a real ignorance of the Church and, in particular, of the traditionalist movement. He's only a gadfly and not a wasp or hornet, like Romanus.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Tony from Oz:

    Conspiracy? Where did you ever get that from what I said??!!

    I have no problem with Jack posting. But he consistently says things he knows will be incendiary -- and then runs.

    I think, given his Jesuit liturgist recommendation (which would be like recommending "Das Kapital" for bedtime reading to Ayn Rand) that he would at least explain himself.

    And if he's THAT young, my advice: ask more questions and throw fewer incendiaries.

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!