« Spam, again | Main | Survey says... »
April 17, 2006
Tridentine Rumor Watch
Some of you will recall that there was a hot rumor last week that something was going to be released on Holy Thursday regarding the Tridentine liturgy. Obviously that didn't happen. Since then, various blogs have recalibrated and are thinking through things. What follows is a summary of links. Most agree that something is up, and the bloggers opining are laying out their evidence with great clarity.
But before the links...what is it we are talking about, you ask? This is not exactly my area, and I welcome correction in the comments, and I apologize ahead of time for any misstatements, but here goes.
We are not talking about some decision of Pope Benedict "allowing" the use of Latin in the "Novus Ordo" Mass. That was never, ever "disallowed" in the first place, and we can say with a fair amount of confidence that the majority of Council Fathers never intended or anticipated the wholesale abandonment of Latin we saw after 1965.
(There is, of course, no shortage of accounts of the liturgical changes right before and after Vatican II. I usually don't recommend Wikipedia, but to be honest this entry is not too bad of an introduction to the chronology of changes, and it seemes to be objective)
We are also not talking about a replacement of the Novus Ordo liturgy with either the 1962 or 1965 missals.
What seems to be afoot is a decision to allow more widespread use of the Tridentine liturgy (again, there are many different ways to refer to this - I'm sure someone will quibble with my useage, but there it is). The Tridentine liturgy may be used today, but only by an "indult" issued by Pope John Paul II in 1984. Text here.
Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups, grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:
a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.
b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.
c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.
d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.
As I understand it, the sticking points for many are a)the necessary approval of the diocesan bishop and b)the sense that the 1962 missal is "illegal" in a way, since it requires special permission to be used. (Permission which is granted not only by many bishops, but also for religious orders like the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King)
What many are hoping for and, even further, predicting, is that what Benedict is planning is to make clear that the 1962 Mass was never actually abrogated, and therefore, any priest who wishes to may celebrate it - no episcopal permission necessary.
Am I okay so far?
This is a complicated issue, with many objections waiting to be made. Some suggest there does not seem to be a demand for this liturgy, so why bother? Others cite the more serious objection that this is not simply a Mass issue - that for many, the Tridentine liturgy is just one element of a bigger picture, a picture in which one can find any number of attached views - from the rejection of the Second Vatican Council, most frequently the Declaration on Religious Freedom to near-Sedevacantists (I say "near" because a real Sedevacantists would not care what the Pope does. But an awful lot of the more rabid Traditionalist conversation seems pretty Sedevacantist to me. In all of the post-JPII commentary, the secular media never once picked up how this supposedly "conservative" Pope was absolutely despised by the really Far Right of the Roman Catholic Church. No, that's not sedevacantist - to despise the Pope. But sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.) .
The wariness of bishops to permit the Tridentine liturgy is undoubtedly tied, in part, to fears of appearing to give approval to these views, as well as questions about unity, diversity and so on - from all sides. Just as much wariness is due to the influence of professional liturgists, as well as the question of "Who wants this? Who's going to say Mass?"
This is just a small taste of the discussion. It's not even one forkful.
So why do people think that Benedict might "do something?" Because of his previous writings, that's why. If anyone has a link to a page that gathers the high points of Benedict's thinking on the liturgy in one place, please post. Perhaps there's something at the Ratzinger Fan Club.
In short, it is very clear that Benedict believes that the intended reforms of the Second Vatican Council were botched and did great harm to the Church. It was not "organic" development" we saw - and anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge knows that the liturgy has, indeed developed over the centuries, with elements added and dropped and various rites celebrated in the West beside the Roman Rite - but rather a liturgy designed by a committee. There are rumors - none of them substantiated at all to my knowledge - that Benedict celebrates the Tridentine liturgy when he says Mass in private. There is no sense that Benedict wants to turn back the clock completely and throw out the Novus Ordo, but he does want to restore what was lost, and part of the way to do that is - it is thought - permit for greater celebration of the Tridentine liturgy.
There is also the practical issue of the SSPX, and the question of mending that breech, but in my completely uninformed opinion, I am not sure that weighs as heavily as the more general questions. Perhaps they are equivalent. I'm not sure.
So, with that in mind, here are the pertinent links. These are the blog sites that I'm aware of (not exhaustive) that are not at all schismatic, that accept the authority of Pope Benedict, but are deeply interested in the restoration of the Tridentine liturgy. These are the places that you should keep on your bookmarks over the next few weeks if and when "something" should happen.
The New Liturgical Movement blog, run mostly by Shawn Tribe, it seems, collects a lot of information and does some analysis, for example here, in whiich he sorts out how this all might look in the future.
Rorate Caeli seems to have its own sources and here, by laying out a chronology of events of the past year, takes issue with John Allen's statement in last week's "Word From Rome" that all of this discussion over the past week was nothing more than blogosphere speculation
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf is in Rome and has informed opinions.
The Vaticanisti (linked over on the left - and there are more who are Italian speaking and writing, but I don't have them linked) have been fairly silent on this - Allen's only comment was last week and Magister hasn't said a word - and liturgy is something he's interested in. Rocco had one cryptic post. But keep an eye on them.
If and when something happens, expect exploding heads and high drama from all quarters. But in the midst of it, ask the hysterics a simple question. If this is okay:
(Both images from the infamous LA Religious Congress liturgies)
Why not this?
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834351a4753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tridentine Rumor Watch:
» Pian Rite/Tridentine Mass from Vatican Watcher
Amy over at Open Book discusses the various thoughts on the subject as the deadline of last Holy Thursday came and went without a rumored announcement on the subject of a liberalization of the policy regarding the Mass of St. Pius V. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 18, 2006 11:39:24 AM
Comments
About the Tridentine Missal having been abrogated, I think that's well established. From Pope Paul VI's consistory allocution of May 24th, 1976:
"We must attach to this refusal to respect the liturgical norms laid down a special grievousness in that it introduces division where Christ's love has gathered us together in unity, namely, into the liturgy and the eucharistic sacrifice. For our part, in the name of tradition, we beseech all of our children to celebrate the rites of the restored liturgy with dignity and fervent devotion. Use of the old Ordo Missae is in no way left to the choice of priests or people. The Instruction of 14 June 1971 provided the celebration of Mass according to the former rite would be permitted, by faculty from the Ordinary, only for aged or sick priests offering the sacrifice without a congregation. The new Ordo Missae was promulgated in place of the old after careful deliberation and to carry out the directives of Vatican Council II. For a like reason, our predecessor St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, commanded the use of the Roman Missal revised by his authority."
In all his public writings on the Liturgy, I don't believe Joseph Ratzinger ever hinted at a "right" to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Curious, if he does indeed believe it exists.
Anyway, he can recognize the abrogation of the Tridentine Missal and still extend the indult. If Pope Paul VI could change the policy, why not Benedict?
Posted by: Jason at Apr 18, 2006 12:21:35 AM
Ok, someone please inform me. Was there a lack of males so that they had to have female altar servers?
Posted by: Perry Robinson at Apr 18, 2006 12:23:10 AM
So why do people think that Benedict might "do something?" Because of his previous writings, that's why.
It is important to remember, however, that Benedict the Pope does not have the intellectual freedom that Ratzinger the theologian had. Cardinal Ratzinger had the luxury of exploring and wondering and testing and prodding, as is the job of a theologian. He could give opinions. Pope Benedict, with the office of the magisterium does not have that luxury. Not everything that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote can necessarily be transferred to Pope Benedict.
Posted by: Bender at Apr 18, 2006 12:56:50 AM
Dear Amy: thank you for the 'if this is ok, why not this?' bit. Because that is really what the issue is all about in a nutshell, plain and simple.
Posted by: Colleen at Apr 18, 2006 1:38:00 AM
Jason:
Yes, Cardinal Ratzinger did indicate several times that he thought that Mass according to the old books has never been forbidden. For example, in the Raymond Arroyo EWTN interview in 2003: "The other [the question of the wider use of the Tridentine liturgy] is a different problem. I think generally, the old liturgy was never prohibited." He and all traditionalists do obviously understand that it was against the will of Pope Paul VI, as expressed in the allocution you cite. But allocutions don't themselves have canonical force.
The canonicial argument usually used to establish the continued legality of the old form of the Roman Mass goes something like this (this is an amateur's rough approximation)--
The New Mass is so substantial a change of the rubrics and texts as to amount to a complete abrogation of the traditional Roman Rite. Under the principles of canon law, in order to abolish a right based on an immemorial custom, there must be an explicit and overt legal act first recognizing and then abolishing that right. Such an abolition cannot be effected merely by revision and the statement that the pre-revision forms are now replaced, that's simply not explicit enough. This is because the original customary right does not simply stem from papal authority. St. Pius V didn't create it. It stems from the force of unbroken custom in the Church.
Think about it this way: What would it take for the Pope to suppress the Byzantine rite in the Church? A heck of a lot, wouldn't you say? He has the right to do it, but anything other than the most solemn formulation and declaration that he was exercising that authority would be insufficient to effect such an extreme outcome.
One might reply that the Pope is the head of the Latin Church and thus has a more immediate and ordinary authority over it's liturgy than he does over those of the East. But even as head of the Latin Church, the Pope has no such rights over the Roman Liturgy. He is only the custodian of the traditional liturgy. The Melkite Patriarch has no right to abolish the Melkite rite, nor does any synod of the Melkites. Such a legal act in either East or West, abolishing a traditional rite of the Church, would be absolutely unprecedented because it is virtually unthinkable.
In essence: There was an attempt to forbid the old liturgy which still appears on the books as a proscription. But the attempt to effect such an egregious change was canonically insufficient, so the right remains. This right is in tension with the principle of obedience to the Pope and Bishops. This tension has created a liturgical crisis and a way must be found for the two principles to be brought into harmony again in the Church.
*****
To show how Cardinal Ratzinger viewed the importance of the continued vitality of the old liturgy, here is an excerpt from his most recent interview book, God and the World:
"For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of the liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS IN HISTORY; IN DOING THIS WE ARE DESPISING AND PROSCRIBING THE CHURCH'S WHOLE PAST. HOW CAN ONE TRUST HER PRESENT IF THINGS ARE THAT WAY? I must say quite openly, that I don't understand why so many of my episcopal brethren have to a great extent submitted to this rule of intolerance, which for no apparent reason is opposed to making the necessary inner reconciliations within the Church. (My capitalization for emphasis)"
-God and the World, 2000, p416.
I think one can tell from this excerpt the strength of the Popes feelings on this matter. I don't think he regards it merely as a Ratzinger "opinion" to be submitted to curial or episcopal vote, but rather a matter of fundamental justice which pertains to the very structure of the Church and its worship. The continuing manifest injustice brings the message and life of the Church into disrepute among the Faithful and creates the impression that the life of the Church is "up for grabs" and at the mercy of any impulse of tyrranical abuse of authority that comes along the pike.
Consider those words again:
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS IN HISTORY. (Count three and let it sink in.)
IN DOING THIS WE ARE DESPISING AND PROSCRIBING THE CHURCH'S WHOLE PAST. (Count three and let it sink in again.)
HOW CAN ONE TRUST HER PRESENT IF THINGS ARE THAT WAY? (One--two--three... Exhale...)
Now do you see why people think something is up with the old Mass and Pope Benedict?
Posted by: Jeff at Apr 18, 2006 2:55:39 AM
Another illustration to make the principle of the argument that the old liturgy is not abolished clear:
Could the Pope abolish the Rosary? Could he forbid Catholics to say the Rosary on pain of mortal sin?
Clearly, he could.
But suppose the Pope said: "We are now revising the Rosary. There will be no more beads, but the Faithful will place their hands on their knees instead while seated on the ground. Then they will repeat the following formula ten times: Jesus, Jesus, you are true; Mary, Mary, we love you. They will meditate on the Beauty of Creation as they will. Oh, and the new Rosary completely displaces the old." Would that do the trick? Would the right of the Faithful to do the old fashioned bead-gabble be gone?
Now, the parallel is inexact; the Rosary is not an official act of the Church's worship. And I exaggerate for effect; I myself love the New Mass when properly celebrated. But you see the point? To do something like abolishing the ROSARY, for crying out loud, and forcing all Catholics to recite what is essentially another prayer, the Pope would have to be mighty forceful and explicit about what he was doing. See?
Now which has the greater sanction of Tradition? The Rosary? Or the Liturgy of the Mass? Which would be a greater injustice? To forbid the traditional Rosary? Or to forbid the traditional liturgical forms of the Mass?
Posted by: Jeff at Apr 18, 2006 3:24:57 AM
The quotation from God and the World says it all. It encapsulates liberal authoritarianism's most alarming feature : its propensity to reinvent the rules overnight with a minimum of explanation. How uneasily the clergy must have looked on - most of them, at least - while what was prescribed a fortnight previously became suddenly and solemnly proscribed.
Posted by: Christopher Pearson at Apr 18, 2006 4:51:57 AM
Christopher
Actually, it was clergy who by and large seemed to welcome the reforms, as best I can remember. Most clergy were not ideologues of reform, though, but habituated to doing the minimum necessary to effectuate rules, old or new.
I am not persuaded that the reformed missal is "essentially" a new prayer, so I am not persuaded by that line of argument. The habit of traditionalists to overargue their point (a tendency not unique to them, of course) is one reason they have been largely ignored by most folks in the pews, for whom this particular discussion is rather irrelevant.
Posted by: Liam at Apr 18, 2006 5:08:14 AM
it is also important that the proscription against the form of the liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted
Sounds like then-Cardinal Ratzinger did indeed believe that there was such a "proscription," even though he thought it unwise, and, therefore, that, in a sense - but not a "legal" one - there was still a "right" to use the old Missal.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Apr 18, 2006 5:23:17 AM
Liam,
It seems to me that whether you think the old and new rites are fundamentally different prayers is, with respect, beside the point. What matters, as Cardinal Ratzinger said, is that those with an allegiance to the old were "treated like lepers" in what he called "a hermaneutics of disruption or non-continuity". That is to say, there was a lot of Orwellian "4 legs good, 2 legs bad" barracking for the Novus Ordo from people who should have known better, the whole point of which was to celebrate the difference and assumed superiority of the new rite.
As to the view of the ordinary person in the pew, I think you'll find that it's as true of American Catholicism as my own native Australian version...there are a variety of tribes, some of which barely speak to on another, and all generalisations tend to be hazardous. In Australia, as the Pope noted just before WYD, the Church is in uniquely dire disarray. Our mass attendances are in freefall comparable with those in France. Like the French,just about the only signs of youth and life are among Charismatic Catholics, Opus Dei, the Neo-Cats and the Latin Mass communities.A look at last week's published survey of French Catholics suggests that the Latin Mass will be the dominant element in France within 20 years because of the proportion of its numbers who are under 35 and starting large families.
American Catholicism is plainly much more robust. But think of all the blogs which take a dim view of Card. Mahony, Bishops Trautman and Gumbleton,for example, and the people crying out for restrained, dignified liturgies and complaining about the woeful preaching they have to put up with and the philistinism of parochial music. They're not all Lefebvists or Trads-in-the-making by any means, but they suggest that even in America there are significant pockets of real dissatisfaction and that the time is ripe for the 'reform-of-the-reform' liturgical project the Pope has long argued for.
Posted by: Christopher Pearson at Apr 18, 2006 6:05:29 AM
A practical question: it's one thing if the congregation doesn't understand Latin, but it's another if the celebrant doesn't understand Latin. Who's going to say these Masses? I'll attend, but not if some celebrant is up there reading from a phoneticized text. I think this is a real issue.
Posted by: Jim at Apr 18, 2006 6:56:09 AM
Jim:
The younger seminarians choose to learn Latin now. A few dioceses and communities still require it. It won't be that much of a problem.
Posted by: Dave Pawlak at Apr 18, 2006 7:04:04 AM
Dave:
There aren't enough seminarians now, Latin speaking or not, to take care of our future Church.
Posted by: Jim at Apr 18, 2006 7:16:59 AM
Yes, this is about what happens in l.a.
Posted by: Plato the Lesser at Apr 18, 2006 7:17:41 AM
Both photos illustrate just how bizarre things can get in the Catholic Church. I'm not sure what either has to do with worship.
Posted by: Dan Crawford at Apr 18, 2006 7:22:45 AM
I have been reading the Cambridge Modern History volume on the Reformation lately. From the time of Luther posting his 95 Theses in 1517 to the closing of the Council of Trent in 1563 the Church was in a state of chaos that reminds me of our time. I am more and more drawn to the conclusion that Vatican II was the beginning of a process and not the end of one. The reforms of Vatican II are not necessarily permanent and I think some of the fiercest opponents of a Universal Indult recognize this. The direction that the Church will take in the future on so many questions is still completely up in the air.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Apr 18, 2006 7:47:21 AM
Really, is this universal indult going to help the faithful or continue to drive an even deeper wedge between Catholic?
The Novos Ordo mass can be celebrated with just as much solemnity as the Tridentine mass.
Also, we are just one rite! We should celebrate the same mass everywhere (I am a proponent of increased use of Latin).
Posted by: Nels at Apr 18, 2006 7:57:37 AM
my feeling is that if one just reads the Pope's writings on the liturgy, it is very clear how he sees the liturgy. especially his Spirit of the Liturgy, he again shows how he embraces the council's reform in the tradition of Guardini, Bouyer etc.
It would seem that the way the blogger world went with this universal indult rumor during holy week, they may be totally misreading the Pope's teaching on liturgy. it would have been totally inconsistent for the Pope to do something like that during holy week. all it would have done is create a big storm of misunderstanding during the holiest time of the year. the blogging world is putting agenda over true reform and are as far off the reservation as the left in these things.
more informed commentators (as opposed to more tabloid bloggers) point out that there was just a synod on the Eucharist and soon the Pope will issue a follow up document....then we will get his direction on this issue for the universal church.
the currrent discussion at the Vatican all seem to reflect his concern over the schism with the tradtionalist groups and to find a way to gather them back into the fold (which he said was one of the most important roles of the pope when he talked about his pallium).
last weeks bloogers frenzy with the indult rumor suggests they do not really understand the pope's love of liturgy nor his style of living his petrine ministry.
Posted by: patrick at Apr 18, 2006 8:08:48 AM
Yes, I am with Nels, one can even see a clown tridentine mass down the road. My issue with this is the creation in the average catholics mind of "two rites" one for the latin fans, one for the rest. Now if those latin fans didn't seem to be almost uniformly white middle and upper middle class liberal arts grads, it might be different. But the attendances at the two rites would differ dramatically by socio-economic-intellectual class (I see this at the local indult parish here).
This will do nothing but help speed the schism. We need one effective rite, not two, or three. We need to be brought together as a church, especially at a time like now, not fractured.
This is all just my humble opinion, so flame away.
Posted by: tk at Apr 18, 2006 8:14:46 AM
Another issue, not often considered, is the ecumenical factor with the Orthodox Churches. They don't trust us, partly due to the messing with the Liturgy, by the Catholics. The universal approval of the use of the Missal of 1962 would help these concerns and be a step toward unity. If no unity with the Orthodox, with whom will we ever have unity?
Posted by: Daniel Kidd at Apr 18, 2006 8:45:51 AM
Christopher
Actually, my point precisely agrees with the condemnation of "a hermaneutics of disruption or non-continuity" -- a hermaneutics that has been both championed by the liturgical radicals and by traditionalists. When one argues that the preconciliar and postconciliar liturgies are "essentially" different, that is precisely the point the condemnation addresses. Hence, why I am not persuaded by it. Thank you for helping me make my point.
Posted by: Liam at Apr 18, 2006 8:47:13 AM
tk,
It is immensely condescending to assume that poor, uneducated non-whites are incapable of appreciating the good, the true and the beautiful. This certainly was not the case prior to the imposition of the new liturgy, which, of course, was the brain-child of wealthy, well-educated whites and was crafted precisely to cater to their own thoelogical, philosophical and esthetic enthusiasms.
Posted by: B.G. Gruff at Apr 18, 2006 8:48:01 AM
Patrick,
The analysis at the Rorate Caeli site and its critique of the John Allen piece seemed pretty astute to me. The folks at Rorate Caeli don't seem to "misunderstand" the Pope at all. They also don't seem to be in much of a "frenzy."
Posted by: B.G. Gruff at Apr 18, 2006 9:00:52 AM
Liam,
As for you comment about most clergy welcoming the reforms, I don't believe that the response of St. Josemaria Escriva (or Padre Pio, who died just as the reforms were starting in earnest) was all that uncommon among the clergy. However, clergy without the clout of St. Josemaria were treated brutally and their anguish was ignored.
Posted by: B.G. Gruff at Apr 18, 2006 9:12:20 AM
There have *always* been more than one western rite of the Mass, so the idea that we can only have one rite is not historical. Second I would say that currently we have as many rites within the Novus Ordo as we do priests celebrating. You have the youth Mass, the folk Mass, the organ Mass, etc. However, I know of only a handful of diocesan New Masses in the United States that would resemble the Masses celebrated by the Pope. Most average men in the pew would be unable to tell the difference between the Pope's New Mass and the traditional rite, so if they watch the news and are not scandalized by the Pope I doubt they will be scandalized by the Traditional Mass. Everyone talks about how solemn and reverent the New Mass can be yet where are these New Masses taking place in the US? I will tell you they are not taking place near me.
Finally, the problem goes well beyond the liturgy as has been pointed out. I attend the traditional liturgy in Pittsburgh (indult). When I go there are always confessions before Mass, and during Mass (which JPII said was fine if needed) and at least 40 people confess. The sermons are always an attempt by the priest to encourage people in their spiritual life by using the writings of the Saints, Fathers, and spiritual masters of Catholicism. In this blog during pro-life Sunday Masses the comments were full of how finally their priest was preaching the gospel because he gave a pro-life sermon. I was struck by what a desert they must be living in. Our priest never preaches exclusively on abortion (except tangentially) because not killing your babies is not the Gospel. Not killing your baby is part of natural revelation. My point is that many in the US seem to think this is as good as they get, and yet the preaching is not even specifically Catholic. Now let me close with a recent incident that I think demonstrates this. Holy Thursday I called the local parish (in the most "catholic"' town in America according to some) because I did not know if I would make it to Good Friday Mass in Pittsburgh and I wanted my family to have a chance to go to confession before Easter. So I call, and the priest tells me that there are *no* confession times scheduled during holy week! So I call the local Catholic University (one of the most orthodox in the country). They usually have confession three times a week. However, during holy week they only had confessions once on Tuesday. Now I am worried, because there is only one priest at the indult, and he will probably be busy preparing for the Good Friday services. I get there and there is not only one priest hearing confessions but two. So the indult rounded up 5 priests for Good Friday services (three to offer the liturgy) and two more to hear confessions. I just do not know how I could live my spiritual life if I was forced to count on the local diocesan parishes. I guess I would join one of the new movements (Opus Dei, Legionnaires, etc.) Perhaps I am universalizes my experiences but where I live it is bad.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Apr 18, 2006 9:17:08 AM
