Old Mass/New Mass

Fr. Z at WDTPRS made a post here asking for readers, especially those of the younger generation, to email him with brief thoughts on the old mass/new mass question. The responses are there, and in part 2 and part 3. My response was made and posted. All of the responses taken together make an interesting reflection on the question, and as I have continued thinking about it, I'd like to make a more substantial discussion of the topic than was afforded there.

First, I must lay out what I mean by the "old mass/new mass question." Overall, I'd like to discuss my preferences, how I arrived at them, and also the role the Extraordinary Form (EF) has played in my spiritual life at different points.

As I have said before, I didn't much care about the Faith, nor attendance at Church through my freshman year of college. When I returned to the Church as a sophomore, I had only moderate religious formation, and very little understanding of liturgical history. Luckily, though, I had friends who were also willing to learn, and as a group, we grew in the Faith. A close friend of mine had heard that there was a place in the Archdiocese (of Chicago) that had a special indult to celebrate the "Latin Mass" (as we called it). We decided to take in the Mass, and see what it was all about. I looked at some online missal and saw a general structure I recognized, and I figured that since I had been going to Mass all my life, a little Latin wouldn't deter me from knowing what was going on.

We were late, got a little lost on the way, and walked in during the Kyrie. I recognized that; it was one of the last things I recognized. Because we were late, I didn't notice the mass guides in the back of the Church when we came in. The experience was something wholly other. I was lost the whole time, and just did my best to pay attention to the bells. Come communion time, they used a communion rail. I had never received my Lord and Savior directly on my tongue in my life, let alone while kneeling. I think I knew not to say "Amen," but that was about all I knew. Moved by the sacredness of this mode of receiving, from that point on I only received on the tongue.

Reflecting on that Mass later, and attending the EF mass a number of times again, I was moved by the realization that this Mass was one and the same mass that my parents grew up with, and my grandparents had for much of their lives, and my great-grandparents, and back and back and back. I was also struck by the sanctity that the priests and servers showed toward the celebration of the Mass, something I had not seen anywhere else I had been. I also attended Mass at the same parish in the Ordinary Form (OF) in Latin.

Now, with my initial experiences of Mass in Latin laid out, I'd like to go on to discuss my preferences. In short, for the most part, and all things being equal, I'd prefer to go to an OF mass over an EF mass. Part of this is definitely familiarity; I think if I had only known the EF mass and then had limited exposure to the OF mass, I'd at least be leery of it. But, there is more than that. I like hearing what the priest is saying, and having responses given by the congregation rather than by the servers.

I don't attend the EF mass very often, despite having two nearby places to attend every Sunday. I used to go more often when I was in Chicago. I would go when I felt like I needed "an infusion of sanctity" or tradition, or just wanted to attend a liturgy which was done carefully. Today, the parish I attend does not do things "perfectly" (to my liking, at least), but things aren't off the wall either. I would probably more regularly attend if the EF mass was offered as one of the regular liturgies by my parish.

I haven't yet touched on the language issue. On this point I am still torn. I would like to see much greater use of the Latin language, but to what extent I am not sure. Of course, I think that things like the readings of the Mass ought be in the vernacular, but I'm not sure which parts of the ordinary ought be in the vernacular languages, and which others in Latin. I don't accept the premise that people won't be able to relate to or understand prayers in Latin, or whatever the usual complaint is. How many people even pay attention to the words of the Confiteor or the Credo when they hear it in English? Would it be any worse if the prayers were in Latin? The thing I like about keeping large parts of the ordinary in Latin is the uniformity and universality of worship among the Roman (Latin) Rite Catholics.

Finally, I will take a quick detour to discuss the reform I wish had taken place after the council. The mass I would like to see is essentially the EF mass, but with the points I've mentioned above, that is audible prayers by the priest (at least some of those prayers ought be audible), and responses given by the people. Throw in the additionally extended lectionary, and we've got a renewed liturgy which is clearly in continuity with Tradition. This, I think, having read things like Sacrocanctum Concilium, is what the council foresaw.

Motu Proprio Reflections

The Holy Father, some days ago issued a much anticipated Motu Proprio entitled Summorum Pontificum. An official English version has not yet been issued, and so I will be referring to the version located in the Catholic Culture Library. I find it interesting that the letter accompanying the Motu Proprio (of which there is an official English version) was just as long as the Motu Proprio itself.

The Pope first lays out the history of the liturgy, from Gregory the Great to Pius V, to the present. Then we get to the legal parts.

The Paul VI (1970) mass is the normal Rite and order of mass to be used. The use of the 1962 edition of the Missal is, however, allowed as an "extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Church".

Masses without people can be celebrated using either Missal. Community celebrations within religious communities (orders or whatnot) can habitually celebrate the 1962 liturgy if their superiors allow it. The exception here, which I don't really understand is that such permissions don't extend to the Triduum for masses without the people. I find that odd.

"Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

§ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.

§ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.

That article is the one that does the real action. In other words, if there is a group who really wants daily mass (or a Sunday mass) in a parish using the 1962 missal, and a priest who is qualified to say such a mass, they can have it. The bishop is given power here to make sure people follow the rules and don't go off the deep end, or create a rift. I find section 2 interesting; that there can be one such celebration on Sundays is interesting. I don't think this will affect parishes who already celebrate more than one old mass, because they will have special permission from their bishop.

And so, Motu Proprio.

The news coverage is interesting. I'm not sure why liberals are outraged (as the media reports) because they will probably never see a Tridentine mass, and won't have to if they don't want to. Jews, apparently are outraged, and the Anti-Defamation League has even issued a statement. There is one prayer for the Jews on Good Friday, in which the conversion of the Jews is prayed for. The Church prays for everyone's conversion, even (or especially) Catholics. Jews are God's chosen people (still) and play a special role in salvation history. We love the Jews, and want only the best for them, I don't see how this is offensive, nevermind that it is only once a year.

The letter from the Pope has a lot of good insight in it as well.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

I am even a little guilty of this, though I did discuss what aspects of a plan I would not like, not that I'm opposed to the Motu Proprio.

This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

Then, after discussing the love many had for the liturgy, the truth comes out about this:

Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Greater truth hasn't been told in a while. Not following liturgical norms really harms people and really causes them ill feelings. My own grandmother left our home parish (her parish of probably 60 years running) because of this reason (the priest refusing to ring the bells at the consecration was the straw that broke the camel's back).

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

Ha! This apparently is the complaint of the so-called liberals I saw on the news. They neither know Latin nor are well formed liturgically, and therefore will not even have a claim to request a 1962 mass.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

I wonder if the Dominican Rite, or the other particular missals of the Latin rite will be brought back some time. I think I would like to experience them as well.

I think that the traditionalists will be happy, and I think now the Bishops will have the job of making sure the faithful can get these masses if they want them, and likewise making sure that people stay faithful and don't become traditionalists. The liberals won't notice any difference, neither will the Jews.

-JG

Motu Proprio Imminent

The President of Ecclesia Dei has come out saying that the Motu Proprio regarding the Tridentine Rite of Mass will be issued sooner rather than later. (Article)

Although he did not offer a specific date for the announcement, Cardinal Castrillon said that a long-awaited papal document, a motu proprio encouraging greater use of the traditional Latin liturgy, will be released in the near future.

"The Holy Father wants to preserve the immense spiritual, cultural, and aesthetic treasures tied to the old liturgy," the cardinal said. He said that the Tridentine rite-- which, he emphasized, has never been abolished-- will be used alongside the post-conciliar liturgy.

The Traditionalist Catholics rejoice. I, however, am hoping for a document that everyone can dislike. Something that the traditionalists don't think went far enough, and something that might irk, just a little, the French Bishops (as an example).

The good money is on Pentecost.

-JG

My Contribution to the Motu Proprio debate

There has been a lot of talk and rumor recently in the news and on blogs about a supposed upcoming Motu Proprio from Benedict XVI regarding the use of the Tridentine Rite of Mass. So called "Traditional(ist) Catholics" will be praising its coming, and indeed have been anticipating it for a long time.

Though most such reflections on the liturgy start with the Vatican II Council, I will step back a bit to the Council of Trent. At the time of Pope Pius V, there were many different liturgical traditions which had come down through time and were being practiced in Europe. On top of that, the Reformation was in full force, and some of the protestant ideas had crept into the Liturgy. The solution was to eliminate Rites that were less than 200 years old, and the Promulgation of a Roman Rite in 1570. The various other rites mostly disappeared, with the exception of the Rites of religious orders, and a couple other rites (notably Ambrosian).

This leads us to the Vatican II Council. We are primarily concerned with Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This was a document I read after having experienced the Tridentine mass a few times, to understand what had happened in those days. It was interesting, and I will note what I think. The Council saw the need for some sort of Liturgical reform, because there were plenty of problems in the way the Mass was being practiced. Yet, the reform they envisioned (at least according to the text) seems to the casual observer to be different than the reforms that took place.

This leads to one of the most compelling arguments against the Mass of Paul VI, namely that it was a drastic and dramatic change in the Liturgical practice of the Church. The Church doesn't change in revolutions, or based on the whim of the times, so clearly this argument cannot be true, but yet the evidence supports this position.

stated they weren't in formal schism. For my money, if you don't accept the teachings of the These ideas were too much for a number of groups, which came to a head with groups like the Society of Saint Pius X, who passed into schism with the Church in or around 1988. People can argue all they want about this, in fact, my friend made sure to inform me that Cardinal Arinze stated they weren't in formal schism. For my money, if you don't accept the teachings of the Magesterium, the Councils, the Pope, and even go so far to set up your own ecclesial tribunals, you may as well be in schism, formal or not. And so, the SSPX celebrates Mass illegitimately with the Tridentine Rite.

Queue up the Indult offered by Pope (soon to be Saint) John Paul II. In a final act to prevent the schismatic group from breaking away, he extended the offer that priests could celebrate the Tridentine Rite of Mass with permission from the local Bishop. Since the SSPX was already set on disrespecting the Hierarchy of the Church, and so submitting to a Bishop would not be acceptable.

So, where does this leave us all? There are schismatics who celebrate the Mass illegitimately, there are groups who celebrate this Rite legitimately, in some Diocese, and the widespread use is the Mass of Paul VI.

Where, then, does this Motu Proprio fit in? What has happened since the Indult was offered by John Paul II is that some Bishops refuse to give permission to their priests to say the Mass in the old Rite. Therefore, there has been rumblings for a couple years at least that there would be a Universal Indult offered, essentially allowing any priest who wants to celebrate the Tridentine Rite of Mass.

Now comes the part of this posting that makes people disagree with me. I oppose this measure.

I fully support the use and extension of the Tridentine Mass, because of its historical/traditional value. As a young(er) Catholic, to experience Mass the way my parents did when they were children, and their parents, and theirs, back and back and back until before the family was Christian, is an experience that is incredibly moving. The Latin Canon, handed down nearly unchanged from Gregory the Great, is actually quite beautiful, and I still enjoy hearing it (in English or Latin).

I also firmly believe in the role of Bishops in our Church. The bishops are the shepherds of their particular flocks. The priests in a Diocese are helpers of the Bishop, and they celebrate the sacraments with the permission and in unity with their Bishop. This is why I cannot support a universal indult, as it is envisioned by certain Traditionalists. I believe it would be bad to introduce another area of strife between Priests and their Bishops. The old Indult is too young to be discarded, first issued in 1984, it is barely a blip on Church history. For now, I don't see too much of a problem with keeping the power of Bishops, and disallowing Tridentine Mass in Diocese where the Bishop feels that is the correct course of action. At the very least those Bishops must eventually die or reach retirement age, and be replaced.

I do, however, see some direct harm in a Universal Indult. Such a decree will only serve to embolden groups such as the SSPX, who are at schism. The Pope clearly stated that adherents to the group were subject to an excommunication, but if the Indult is offered, the group will have more power to argue that they are not in schism to their members. This could be harmful to the faithful, participating in Masses that are sacrilege because they think that these masses were legitimized by the Indult. Technically, it gives SSPX no reason to exist, but they will, as they tend to deny much that the Church has taught since the Vatican II Council.

Another dangerous aspect of the Indult could be a deeper division of the faithful. If this meant a greater access to Tridentine masses, this could mean that there would be a much greater division between the Traditionalists and the regular Catholics and the Modernists. Division is not Catholic, and this is a Catholic Church.

There are counterpoints. The Indult might help make Paul VI masses more reverent, possibly. There have always been different Rites available, even now there are Eastern Rites around. This could expand knowledge about Rites, and encourage learning about the Liturgy. Also, it does, in a way, help to restore more of a connection with Tradition. The thing is, this is something that can be achieved under the old Indult, at least in Diocese where the Bishop allows the old Rite.

And so I have said my piece, I must also say that I think a universal indult will be offered, by years' end. Cardinal Ratzinger had a lot to say about the Liturgical renewal, much that wasn't good. But, if you read Sacramentum Caritas, he definitely states that we cannot roll back liturgical reform, and I have to agree. To do so would be a setback to the Church, and would be just as bad and unprecedented as the reforms of Paul VI.

I shall point you to a few articles related to this idea.

First, an Article by Msgr. Richard J. Schuler refuting the notion that the mass of Paul VI was a revolution.

Contrary to what many may think and many may have hoped, the liturgical
reforms of the Second Vatican Council were not a revolution. Indeed, far
from being a sudden explosion of new ideas, the decrees of the council were
rather the keystone that crowned the developments of the previous sixty
years, beginning with the "motu proprio" of Pope St. Pius X, "Tra le
sollecitudini" of 1903. The events that preceded the "motu proprio"
stretched back into the nineteenth century being rooted in the romantic
movement, the revival of monasticism, the rediscovery of Gregorian chant
and the Caecilian reform of church music. 

Next, we have the Ottavini Intervention, a letter from Cardinal Ottavini to Pope Paul VI, underlining the problems with the mass he had just promulgated. This was an important document to me at one time, and even now, it is telling of the surprise of many on the newness of the new Rite. This is a well thought out criticism of the New Mass.

We have an article by Paul Likoudis entitled "Cardinal Ratzinger Blames Church Crisis on Liturgical Collapse", taking excerpts from the then Cardinal's autobiography.

Rather than being a force for unity in the Church, the new Mass has been the source of liturgical anarchy, dividing Catholics "into opposing party positions" and creating a situation in which the Church is "lacerating herself."

Formally imposed after a six-month period of "liturgical experimentation" in which anything —and everything—did go, the Roman Catholic Mass has never attained a universality, stability—or even an element of predictably—for most Catholics around the world; but instead has been a stimulus for never-ending innovations—from altar girls to dancing girls to women priests.

While the Missal of Paul VI "brought with it some authentic improvements and a real enrichment," the banning of the old Mass caused some "extremely serious damages for us," he wrote in La Mia Vita, released in mid-April in its Italian translation.

And finally, the article that was the straw that broke my back and mad me want to finally write this, from the Catholic News Service.

The move is aimed at ending a liturgical dispute which has simmered for more than 20 years. In the process, it could clarify how the pope intends to implement what he once described as a "liturgical reconciliation" in the modern church.

The pope will enunciate the new policy in a document to be released after more than a year of debate and discussion at the Vatican. The Roman Curia had mixed views on expanding the use of the Tridentine rite, and so did the world's cardinals and bishops -- all of which has lent a certain drama to the outcome.

I need not quote Sacramentum Caritas although one of the major themes through it is a devotion to liturgical reform, and an emphasis on following proper liturgical norms.

So, as I said, some document will be issued soon, and I believe it will be essentially a universal Indult, giving the power to priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without needing to seek permission from their Bishops. As I said, I worry that this will undermine the power of Bishops, and further divide the already fractured faithful. The Indult as it stands still needs time to show its fruits.

Peace, and everything good.
-JG