www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Traditional Liturgy to be freed?

The point is that there are certainly people who want the "Tridentine" Liturgy, and who deeply resent having been deprived of it. If the Church is true to herself, she is obligated to reach out to these people with love, not to tell them from On High that they are hopelessly out of date.

Will the Tridentine Liturgy survive? Heavens, I don't know, nor am I a fortune-teller or anyone else able to predict the future. But I suspect that it will, because history shows that such cultural survivals often prove remarkably strong.

By the way, conservative seminaries are the ones that are full of seminarians - the places where no one learns anything about the Tridentine Liturgy, or learns Latin, or learns Gregorian Chant, or learns much of anything, are not drawing in very many students.

But it boils down to this - if the wish to have this Liturgy is from God, then it will survive.

Incognitus

I know that here in Australia the fiddle backs have been used to bury priests in as away of getting rid of them. The rest would be in museums as only the best and oldest were kept. personally I never liked them and there were other styles that were mover covering in use at the time is was the norm. One of the Latin Mass Chaplains I know was ordained wearing a full Paenula style of chasuble.

ICXC
NIKA

Fine, and well said, Incognitus! I have no problem with the Tridentine Liturgy being widely available. I just don't think that it's going to be done by giving individual priests the right to their own Rite. I think it'll be promulgated through the bishops, as is the usual manner of promulgation in our beloved and extremely hierarchical Church.

Theophan and Others,

You make good points. Most priests will not use their right to celebrate the TLM. However, the permission itself is what is important and is what is representative of a changing from the mindset of thinking that the TLM should be so heavily restricted.

That said, there are some priests who will, indeed, use their new right to celebrate the TLM, though they will, of course, be in the minority. There are places online to purchase traditional vestments, natrually. Apparently one is allowed to use burses and altar veils in the Novus Ordo, too, anyway.

In fact, there is a very traditional priest at a very traditional parish close to me, about 30 minutes, that would certainly use this right if it were granted. Right now, all he celebrates is the NO. So it would have an affect on me, and if I wanted to go to the TLM (which I would), I wouldn't have to go 30 minutes past this church to the SSPX or 45 to an hour past this church to the FSSP*.

Logos Teen

*When I'm home away from college, the FSSP is the closest. But not here in Athens.

This is my last comment on this topic, after all it's a Eastern Forum...but the current liturgical practice of the Latin/Roman Rite originated in 1969 and was not part of VAT II, nor a organic growth from the previous liturgical practice...study the documents of VAT II and read the comments and books regarding the liturgy by then Cardinal Ratzinger and others closely associated with him...

I'm played out on this one...

james

Jakub, don't go yet... that was such a good post. You are absolutely right - the Pauline Mass was not a product of Vatican II. In fact
Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for "pride of place" of Latin and Gregorian chant. It seems the innovators forgot what the Council said.

A few gems from that constitution:
It seems in their haste to innovate they actually ignored the Council.
FDD

There is plenty of room for the Pian liturgy to exist alongside the Pauline liturgy.

There are several things that persist really need to be corrected.

I express sympathy for those who wish for the Pian Liturgy and have no access or limited or restricted access.

That being said, i am glad for the Pauline Liturgy. I am glad the permenate diaconate was re-instated in the Roman rite.


Diak,
You are correct, the use of Gregorian Chant, Sacred Polyphony, Ancient Sacred hymns should be utilized...in that order. If ANY modern compositions are to be used, they should be done so when people know them and only then as after the aforementioned.

People want the tridentine liturgy and resent being deprived of it...people want women priests in a lot of the west as well as married priests and a lot of other things which they will not get and feel deprived of because they won't. And the reason is because the Church is not a democracy; in much of the liberalised west far more people would want the latter than the former. Pastoral sensitivity is one thing, but repealing decisions of ecumenical councils based on personal desire is something else. Statements like the above quoted give the impression that this is a matter of peronal choice in liturgy, which is just the problem with the liberal majority in many dioceses. Personal preference or emotionalism is not a theological argument; it is a subjective opinion.

N

Ned,

Well, the SSPX would agree with you. They resent the FSSP and Indult TLM's and those who attend them because they see them as having only an emotional attachment to the TLM, preferring the Mass aesthetically. (I disagree).

The SSPX want the TLM because they believe the New one is theologically deficient/Protestantized, not because they think the TLM is "pretty," or whathaveyou.

To All,

Regarding the dicasterial meeting earlier today with His Holiness and the dicastery heads, Vatican Radio is apparently reporting that the Pope will "very quickly" re-convene a dicastery meeting and will promulgate a motu propio "liberalizing" the Pian Rite. More stuff should come out as the day goes on, what would imagine.

Logos Teen

Friends,

First of all let us dispel the notion that the NO is Protestantized. Yes, six Protestant ministers were part of consultors on the NO. Because they were Protestants does not mean they are not good Liturgists (witness Taize) or incapable of offering insight despite their different beliefs (witness Paul Bradshaw). Second, I have been to many Protestant services and never have I witnessed there the Liturgical foolishness I have witnessed at some NO Massess. Third go read some Evangelical writings on the Roman Mass. They will clearly tell you that despite some minor changes the NO is still rife with the "errors" of sacrifice, purgatory, intercession of the Saints, etc. They certainly do not consider it Protestantized or acceptable despite claims of the SSPX, SSPV, or anyone else. If the NO Mass is bad it because it is served badly not because it is Protestantized.

Second the NO and the Tridentine Mass are not different Massess as anyone who owns a copy of both in Latin can testify. The Latin for 90% of the Mass is identical. Yes, gone are later accretions like the second Confetior, or the prayers that were originally the priest's private prayers: Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel. The only major changes are the additonal Eucharistic Prayers and the new Offertory Prayers. Signs of the Cross over the gifts are reduced is the only major rubrical change. A priest is free to face East if he chooses. Incense is presrcibed in the same places if used.

Both Masses follow the same basic order

Introit
Sign of the Cross
Confiteor
Kyrie
Gloria
Opening Prayer
Epistle
Psalm
Alleluia
Gospel
Creed
Offertory
Offertory Prayer
Preface
Sanctus
Canon
Our Father
Pax
Agnes Dei
Communion
Prayer after Communion
Dismissal


The Tridentine Mass places the Introit before the Kyrie and the Pax after the Agnus Dei. The NO places the Epistle after the Psalm and an OT reading before the Psalm. I think most people would look at these changes as minor.

The changes that I think are major are the attitudes of many celebrating the NO. Lack of reverence, a seeming want to erase the distinction bewteen clergy and laity, bad music, ugly architecture, banal or incorrect translations, failure to follow the text and rubrics. The NO has nothing to with this. The same could be done to the Tridentine. People need to be upset with ICEL, the USCCB, and the liturgists who ignore Rome's directive or actively encourage the above or passively do so by not correting abuses they know are occuring.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

No one is suggesting here (and only someone who is an SSPXer or an SSPX sympathiser really would) that the NO Mass espouses Protestant theology.

As you have shown more than adequately above, it does not and cannot.

What the NO HAS done is adopted a "Protestantized liturgical rite" or a rite that tends toward the liturgical traditions of Protestantism.

And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. It is a fact that the Latin Churches are often in countries where the Reformation has historically made great inroads.

In a sense, Vatican II was an opportunity for the Catholic Church to listen to the most "catholic" criticisms of the Reformers. In other ways, Vatican II observed the ways of the Cyrillo-Methodian heritage of the Eastern Church (i.e. Communion in Both Kinds, liturgical services in the language of the people etc.) and saw that many of these traditions can actually answer the critique of the Reformers.

Additionally, Vatican II faced the challenges of the modern world - and it is here that the liturgical aftermath of the Council may have fallen down - or it may not have.

The change to the liturgy in the NO is not an infallible expression of the Church's Magisterium in the sense that it cannot be changed OR that the Tridentine liturgy has been somehow invalidated.

Where the Latin Church appears not to have changed is in its desire to impose liturgical uniformity - even as it allows for various cultural adaptations to exist in the NO Mass around the world.

This is where a lot of the confusion arises, one could argue, where people in various areas take it upon themselves to do "whatever" even breaking the rubrics as if they felt rubrics are no longer "hard and fast."

I'm not a liturgist and really have no interest in becoming one.

However, from a social perspective alone, one could see that there are a number of rather naive cultural assumptions being made in the reduction of rituals and other matters in the NO tradition that have not only not had the desired effect of "updating" anything, but have had, in a number of areas, a negative impact.

Incognitus' observation that the traditional seminaries are full is an important one. Why is this so? Perhaps because ritual, tradition and a clear understanding of both faith and morals without pandering to modern sensitivities is something that constitutes , for a number of Catholics, an attractive spiritual experience without wavering, with a connection to the great liturgical past of the Roman Church and the "other-worldliness" of a worship experience that totally and most satisfactorily expresses the "Mysterium Tremendum" of the Catholic religion.

Is this not why we have a number of Latin Catholics who wish to join the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches? How frequently did this occur, I wonder, in the days of the Tridentine Liturgy?

Anyway, just some thoughts. You are a great man, Father Deacon, and you witness to Christ so admirably.

I wish I could say the same about myself . . .

Alex

Alex,
I believe the model was the early church.
A RC priest, who was without a doubt, one of the wisest persons I've ever known, once gave a homily on the church through time. He illustrated this by drawing a circle in the middle of a screen and from this circle there was a long, winding line - sort of like concentric circles.
The inner circle represented what the early church believed. Sorry, but I don't know the council it stopped at. The priest stated that Vatican II was an attempt to move the church closer to this circle.
Of course, that would be impossible to do theologically. It must have been an attempt to worship in a manner more like the early church.
-Wolfgang

Alex,

My problem with that is that while it may be valid to describe the simplifications as an adoption of Protestant liturgical principle it is equally valid to see it as a de-Gallicanization with nothing to do with the Protestants at all.

Much of the removed ritual bemoaned by Traditionalists are actually Gallican imports. The Rites of most of the Latin Monastic and Mendicant Orders aren't actually independent Rites at all but uses of the Roman Rite and more primitive uses of the Roman Rite at that. If one looks at the Domincan Missal for example it is shocking to see how much it aligns with the NO. It is devoid of the Tridentine Gallican accretions that the NO also removed. The Orders for the most part retained older purer Roman forms while the cathedrals and parishes added this and that from the Gallican Rite it was supplanting.

But as for the rest of post I agree completely. Mixed signals were sent by VII. By imposing a new missal and encouraging enculturation at the same time they opened the door for nonsense, (i.e. any theme-Mass of your choice) to be passed of as enculturation. Bishop's Conferences which before had no real power were now given the task of picking translator's and liturgists and approving their decisions. And what kind of liturgical training or scholarship did they have? We are still trying to work through that.

As to the seminaries, I certainly believe that traditonalism, even in its NO form is attractive to many. However, I think their seminaries are full because there are so few of them, which concentrates the tradtionalists in a few seminaries. That is not to say that among the younger generation there is not a movement back to traditional practices their hippie generation parents rejected, there certainly is. I just wonder if the numbers are as strong as the Traditionalists would have us believe.

As to your witness of Christ, I think you do a fine job. Many years!

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Wolfgang,

In actual fact, that theory of how the liturgy developed (from simple to more elaborate and longer) has been disproved . . .

The early liturgies of the Christian Church were VERY long and not the short ones that resemble the NO Mass of today.

For example, the Liturgy of St James of Jerusalem is quite long but it predates that of St Basil the Great, who shortened it later. St John Chrysostom shortened St Basil's Liturgy by shortening the prayers of the priest.

There is no doubt that the shortened liturgies came later.

The idea of the liturgy facing the people and not facing East . . . NO defenders sometimes make that quite ridiculous argument.

The NO was really an attempt to adapt the RC Church's liturgical culture to that of Protestantism as a way to get Protestantism to draw closer to it on that level.

The theology didn't change, of course. It was an "adaptation of rite."

Ned made an earlier argument about obedience - and obedience when it comes to liturgy, since liturgy is connected to the whole "lex credendi, lex orandi" issue, isn't the same as obedience in matters of faith and morals.

John Hardon, SJ once mentioned a case in northern Italy where a local bishop outlawed devotion to the Sacred Heart in his diocese.

There was a public uproar, so much so, that the bishop fled his diocese and reported the matter to Rome etc.

Rome investigated it and found the people innocent of any charges of ecclesial revolt or disloyalty.

They were defending a liturgical cult that was approved by the Church and that was that - the bishop was at fault.

When one compares the fruits of the Tridentine liturgy and institutions today (I don't mean the SSPX) and compares them with the NO, well, "by their fruits you will know them!"

As an Eastern Catholic, when I look at the Tridentine liturgical tradition, I feel right at home in it. I can't say the same for the NO Mass and I really feel like a stranger to it.

Perhaps that's just me. It is not my place to criticize the Latin Church, but it isn't as if this hasn't become a bad problem for the Latin Church - all reference to "obedience" notwithstanding.

Perhaps if Rome went back to its Tridentine heritage of the Mass of St Peter, it would appear as if "Rome made a mistake" and perhaps Rome is afraid of this.

But the NO may well have been the great liturgical experiment that failed.

And the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs certainly voiced their view to Rome "Don't do it!"

We meet the challenge of the modern world NOT by trying to adapt to it, its penchant for shortness in everything, and lack of colour, cosmopolitan sameness etc. - but by presenting the antithesis of modernity in our liturgical celebrations that should transport us above the mundane concerns of modernity and to . . . the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit!

Or so say I!

Alex

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

Thank you, Reverend Sir!

The only thing I would still maintain after reading your post above is that there was an "ecclesial" design on the NO to make it more palatable to Protestantism - however this came about.

And I do know former Protestants, including one Pentecostal, who did join the RC Church as a result of the NO reform.

But how can we know if the Protestant clergy that join the RC Church and become Catholic priests do so simply because of the NO liturgy? It could be, but I rather think it is because Protestantism today has become so liberal theologically and so bland liturgically that people set their sights elsewhere.

I have myself come into contact with FIVE now former Lutheran pastors who have become members of the OCA - Protestants also consider Orthodoxy and, in many other ways, Orthodoxy is more palatable to Protestants ecclesially than RCism. For one thing, Orthodoxy doesn't have the Pope!

That the Tridentine tradition added all kinds of "ritual stuff" - so did the Byzantine tradition.

Our Epitaphion tradition isn't older than about 3 centuries ago, as I understand. And those pesky Eastern monastics just love adding more psalms and prayers to the Offices - and then just TRY removing them - as Fr. Taft, the mild-mannered Jesuit liturgist wrote.

The point is that the Tridentine tradition emphasizes the "vertical" relationship to God - as does our liturgy.

It has a tremendous amount of the "mystical" and the "sense of sacred awe" that the simplified NO tradition just doesn't for the most part.

While watching the consecration of that Tridentine Cathedral on EWTN, they opened up the gorgeous triptych of the Immaculate Conception image - so slowly and reverently too! - that I felt overwhelmed and the awe overcame me.

After that, I felt a bit angry - what was wrong with all this that they felt they had to change it?

If I didn't see that EWTN program, Father Deacon, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you right now.

So you can blame it on Mother Angelica . . .

Alex