Theological Dissent

[EtienneGilson]

It was not the intention of Vatican II, or of the popes who implemented it, to create a situation in which two forms of the Roman rite would exist side by side. The liturgical reform of the council was intended as a true reform, addressing genuine problems of the old liturgy for the good of the church as a whole. Now, with the stroke of a pen, Pope Benedict has made that reform optional. Individual priests may use the preconciliar rites at will, and groups of the faithful who ask for celebrations according to the preconciliar norms may not be refused them...

Indeed, the traditionalists Benedict wants to conciliate do not simply reject the Mass of Paul VI-they reject the conciliar theology it embodies. The Society of St. Pius X published a defense of their position in 2001, The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, which showed that their opposition to the liturgical reforms of the council is profoundly theological. They argue, for example, that the idea of the paschal mystery is out of keeping with the true meaning of the Mass. The paschal mystery has been consistently proposed in council documents, papal pronouncements, and all the official teachings of the church since the council as the key to the whole liturgical reform. One would have to look hard to find a concept more universally accepted since the council, yet the traditionalists reject it. In their view, the Mass is only about the expiation of sin. The Resurrection has nothing to do with it. Their glad welcome of the pope’s motu proprio should give every Catholic pause.

In addition to the council’s emphasis on the paschal mystery, other core values of the council are called into question by the pope’s move to reestablish the Tridentine rites. The council emphasized the role of Scripture in the life of the church, and this value was richly reflected in the liturgical reform. The old lectionary had a one-year cycle of readings. Almost all of the Gospel passages were taken from St. Matthew. There were no Old Testament readings on Sunday. The sacraments and many of the weekdays had no readings assigned to them at all. When the council fathers decreed that the Catholic faithful should have richer fare at the table of God’s Word, they were making a pastoral move of immense consequence. The three-year lectionary cycle was an outgrowth of the renaissance in Catholic Scripture scholarship in the mid-twentieth century and repeated papal urgings to dwell on the sacred texts with an avid mind and an open heart. According to the USCCB Web site, the so-called Extraordinary Form of the Missale Romanum (1962) includes 1 percent of the Old Testament and 17 percent of the New Testament, whereas the Ordinary Form (what most Catholics use now) includes 14 percent of the Old Testament, and 71 percent of the New Testament. Benedict XVI’s motu proprio implies that none of this, in the end, is essential or even very important. Those who celebrate according to Tridentine rites may use the new lectionary or not, as they choose. The biblical-liturgical synthesis of Vatican II is now optional.

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/ar...d_article=1977

[EtienneGilson]

While many outsiders have rightly expressed concern over the expansion of the use of the Tridentine Mass (1962 missal) and the defenders have essentially pleaded the right of religious freedom, a growing number of theologians and historians are expressing serious reservations about the possibility to the cleaving of the Roman Rite.

The Tridentine liturgy, as an expression of the theology of the Church, has failed to accurately reflect many of the core principles of Catholicism, especially since the Second Vatican Council's renewal.

A few areas of concern, long prior to even the renewal of the liturgy, were the role of clerical garb, the use of latin, the single cycle readings and the essential isolation of the Mass from the people. Theodor Klauser called for such a renewal in the 1950s and Josef Jungmann's liturgical work placed him alongside Rahner rather than Ratzinger. In fact, very few liturgical scholars (a very vocal minority) believe that the Tridentine Mass is even tenable theologically or that it is anything pragmatically effective in the missionary life of the church. The article mentions a few of the scholars pushing for the MP.

Enjoy the article.

[Holy Roller]

Originally Posted by EtienneGilson

The Tridentine liturgy, as an expression of the theology of the Church, has failed to accurately reflect many of the core principles of Catholicism, especially since the Second Vatican Council's renewal.

It all sounds to me like an intellectual approach to Protestantism. Every Catholic who is old enough to know better, knows in his heart of hearts, that Latin is our sacred language and that English was the language of Henry the Eight. It seems to me that these so called intellectuals have everything mixed together and are wolfs dressed in sheep clothing. But of course, that is only my opinion.

When ever I read something that is not part of the traditional Catholic Church I can’t help but to think of (Galatians 1:8-9) “But though we, or an angle from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Then the apostle Paul repeats it a second time, “As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

With those two verses in mind, I’m pretty sure that the present Pope of the Catholic Church is theologically correct, and is preaching the original gospel that Paul preached to the Galatians.


Richard

[ComradeAndrei]

Commonweal is the most heretical of "mainstream" "Catholic" magazines. Is it any surprise that they want to lambast Summorum Pontificum?

Furthermore, I don't get this obsession with having a "richer fare at the table of God’s Word". I have my own Bible out of which I can read any or all of the passages I want or the whole thing cover to cover. I don't think we are "Bible deprived" by the TLM-the whole Mass is very Biblical and the readings seem to be those which are most salient and memorable anyway.

[Conciliar]

Responding to the three paragraphs quoted in order:

1) If the "intention of Vatican II, and the popes who implemented it" was as clearly such as the writer wishes, one would have to wonder why no Roman Pontif since VII has seen fit to abbrogate the TLM. As hard as it is for some liberals to accept, Pope Benedict XVI is one of the popes implementing the Council.

The Council doesn't call for it the TLM's abbrogation, nor does the Council in any way prohibit two forms. What it does call for, like the continued use of Latin, is curiously missing from the ordinary form. Somehow I think that suites thsi writer just fine,

2) One would think that the only people desiring the currently valid and centuries old TLM are schismatics.That's nonsense. The Holy Father's letter of explanation mentions as motivation for the MP those faithful who have been troubled by some of the problems experienced in the ordinary form.

3) If the writer is so concerned about the Scripture readings, why not lobby for a revision within the TLM? Reason? It's a smoke screen for the real source of his angst. Nothing says that the three year cylce won't be adopted into the TLM missal. In fact, I recently read that such was mentioned by someone at the Vatican in a Zenit story. Can't recall who it was... The MP itself mentions the readings in the vernacular as it is.

And besides, wouldn't this writer assume that an interested Catholic can delve into Scripture outside of Mass? Sorry. I'm not buying into the idea that liberals are losing sleep over people not getting fed enough Scripture in the TLM.

I think the bottom line for the Commonweal crowd is that reform as they have long envisioned it is dying before their eyes. What is that sort of reform? Entire books written by heartbroken liberal Catholics - like The Rule of Benedict XVI, by David Gibson - which I recently read, doesn't really define "renewal" even as its prospects are mourned. As best I can tell, reform in their eyes centers around a democratic Church rather than a sacramentally configured hierarchical Church.

Enough sour grapes from the left. The ordinary form of the Mass isn't going away. Dry your eyes and blow your nose and sit up straight. It just might even get better.

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by Conciliar

Responding to the three paragraphs quoted in order:

1) If the "intention of Vatican II, and the popes who implemented it" was as clearly such as the writer wishes, one would have to wonder why no Roman Pontif since VII has seen fit to abbrogate the TLM. As hard as it is for some liberals to accept, Pope Benedict XVI is one of the popes implementing the Council.

I would agree, clearly every Pope since Vatican II has seen fit to allow the use of the 1962 Missal, even to the extent of it's extensive use in Britian and Brazil.

So clearly, if the writer somehow deduced that it was the various Pope's intent not to allow the continued use of the 1962 Missal, she is clearly mistaken.

[CatholicNick]

Originally Posted by Brendan

I would agree, clearly every Pope since Vatican II has seen fit to allow the use of the 1962 Missal, even to the extent of it's extensive use in Britian and Brazil.

So clearly, if the writer somehow deduced that it was the various Pope's intent not to allow the continued use of the 1962 Missal, she is clearly mistaken.

I have to correct you on this, there never has been extensive use of the Old Mass in Britain since the promulgation of the New Mass.

Although it is increasing today.

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by CatholicNick

I have to correct you on this, there never has been extensive use of the Old Mass in Britain since the promulgation of the New Mass.

Although it is increasing today.

Nick,

Following the promulgation of the 1970 Missal, the bishops of England and Wales (led by Cardinal Heenan) requested, and recieved, permission to continue the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal.

It was that to which I was referring to.


This permission, by the very Pope who promulgated the 1970 Missal, shows that the writer of the article was in error. Pope Paul VI clearly permitted the celebration of Mass using both Missals throughout his entire pontificate.

[Catholig]

Originally Posted by EtienneGilson

While many outsiders have rightly expressed concern over the expansion of the use of the Tridentine Mass (1962 missal) and the defenders have essentially pleaded the right of religious freedom, a growing number of theologians and historians are expressing serious reservations about the possibility to the cleaving of the Roman Rite.

The Tridentine liturgy, as an expression of the theology of the Church, has failed to accurately reflect many of the core principles of Catholicism, especially since the Second Vatican Council's renewal.

Have the "core principles of Catholicism" changed since the "Second Vatican Council's renewal"? I don't think so - but if you want to give an example or two we could discuss this.

Originally Posted by EtienneGilson

A few areas of concern, long prior to even the renewal of the liturgy, were the role of clerical garb, the use of latin, the single cycle readings and the essential isolation of the Mass from the people. Theodor Klauser called for such a renewal in the 1950s and Josef Jungmann's liturgical work placed him alongside Rahner rather than Ratzinger. In fact, very few liturgical scholars (a very vocal minority) believe that the Tridentine Mass is even tenable theologically or that it is anything pragmatically effective in the missionary life of the church. The article mentions a few of the scholars pushing for the MP.

Uhmmm...what is the concern regarding the "role of clerical garb", and the "use of latin"? I really can't see a problem with either - I mean what is wrong with a priest looking like a priest and a priest using Latin in the Liturgy as it was done for over thousand years?

As for the single cycle readings - I admit I find it strange but I don't see how it is theologically damaging.

And as for the "isolation of the Mass from the people" - I went to one today and I don't think that is true. I mean I got along well enough with my missal and the people around me seemed to as well.

In any case - I really would appreciate it if you would elaborate and tell us (me) how "scholars" can find the Tridentine Mass untenable?

Enjoy the article.

Catholig

[EtienneGilson]

People here have mentioned a number of points I will try to deal with in order.

Firstly, the use of Latin. Latin is not the problem as at one time it was the vernacular language of the masses (pun intended). However, as Klauser noted, the original Roman rite was performed in Greek and only much later adopted Latin as the normative language. Klauser noted with some irony that it took the Roman church a few hundred years to change the liturgy from Greek to Latin, yet it took while he wrote in the 1950s Latin had ceased to be the vernacular 1000 years prior (or had never been the vernacular).

In addition to the use of Latin is the fact that the Novus Ordo can be performed in Latin. If the populace truly loved latin and demanded the language be implemented in the liturgy, that would be one thing. But the MP is not about Latin, it is about an antiquated liturgy reflecting an erroneous Medieval theological development, the concept of the private Mass.

Another point is Scripture. Without a doubt the Novus Ordo Mass exposes the populace to a wider breadth of Scripture; however, the idea of a cyclical change to the TLM is interesting. I doubt that the arch-conservatives would be satisfied with a TLM which has had the reading modified, just like so many are not satisfied with a TLM which has had prayers modified.

An interested Catholic not only should delve into Scripture outside of the Mass, but he or she should for the betterment of their soul. However, the very purpose of the Mass demands that this aspect be not neglected, as it was (numbers do not lie, only 1% of the OT, 17% of the NT in the TLM).

As to the theological justification, if we look back to the early liturgy, and the scholars at VII did just this, they noted that the liturgy as it had developed had abandoned several core principles, one which included the reading of scripture (see Jusitn Martyr), the pascal mystery and the communal reenactment of the Last Supper (the agape meal). VII attempted to reintroduce balance into the mass by noting that Christ is present in many forms during the Mass, and uniquely present in the Eucharist. This balanced perspective is not present in the TLM (I suppose the "L" in TLM is redundant).

Aside, the vestments. Klauser notes that the priests in the 1950s were not permited to wear even the Gothic chasuble but were required to wear the heavier Roman (Baroque) chasuble which resembled a bullet proof vest. The irony here is that the conservatives of the day demanded that the liturgy be identical everywhere, even in missionary territory where such vestments were nearly suicide. Today it is the conservatives begging for the right to perform the liturgy according to their own norms and taste without regard for the universality of a rite.

As to the comments degrading Commonweal; one should only note that Crisis is closing which Commonweal is maintain its readership. The illusion of the "white-haired" Catholic liberal might seem appealing, but the truth doesn't seem to support such notions.

[Holy Roller]

Originally Posted by EtienneGilson

People here have mentioned a number of points I will try to deal with in order.

Thanks, that was a good write-up, and I enjoyed reading every word. According to my research, Divini cultus was the where the church blew it, so I don’t go back farther than 1928. In my opinion, that is where Satan stuck his finger into the pie. If Divini cultus was still in effect today, the spirituality of the Gregorian chant would pull millions back into the Church. Not that I don’t appreciate Bible study, it’s that the Gregorian Chant is a channel for the anointing of God to flow through. With all the stress of our modern civilization people need a direct channel to God for meditation.

This is one of the quotes I base my theory on:

“Pope Pius XI in his apostolic constitution, Divini cultus, wrote in 1928, that the restoration of Gregorian chant for the use of the people would provide the means whereby "the faithful may participate in divine worship more actively." Such participation was to be achieved both by singing and by an appreciation of the beauty of the liturgy which stirs the heart of the worshiper, who thereby enters into the sacred mysteries.”


Richard

[EtienneGilson]

Originally Posted by Holy Roller

According to my research, Divini cultus was the where the church blew it, so I don’t go back farther than 1928. In my opinion, that is where Satan stuck his finger into the pie. If Divini cultus was still in effect today, the spirituality of the Gregorian chant would pull millions back into the Church.

Perhaps this is a little aside, but I am curious why you think that. Unfortunately (or rather fortunately for me) I am currently at Laval (I am a resident of BC) and I do not have my library accessable to me. But this is an interesting discussion which cuts to the heart of the matter given that the liturgy is the theological expression of the Church and music is such an integral aspect of this expression.

I should begin by stating that I am a Medievalist by study and by passion and Gregorian Chant is a phenomenal flowering of the Medieval Spirit. I have a profound personal appreciation of Gregorian chant, but not to the exclusion of, say, Verdi, Schubert or Faure (his requiem is amongst the best). That said, I take issue with many of the assumptions about Gregorian chant. Allow me to quote from the arch-conservative Una Voce:

But history confronts us with the fact that periods of religious fervor have been periods in which Chant flourished, and that periods of falling off in religious fervor have been accompanied by the decline of Chant.

http://www.unavoce.org/chantbar.htm

Nothing could possibly be further from the truth! The great revival of chant followed the missionary , theological and philosophical revival and Thomistic revival of the 19th century, not vice versa. It was the 1871 Medicean discovery that renewed interest in the chant. The idea that a return to the chant will precipitate a religious revival is simply putting the cart before the horse.

But another problem with this idolization of the chant is the belief that, as again Una Voce has erroneous accerted, the chant dates back to the era of Gregory the Great:

The belief originating in the ninth century that St. Gregory the Great (pope, 590-604) was directly responsible for chant composition was questioned in 1890 and is no longer seriously considered.

http://www.liturgica.com/html/litWLMusDev7.jsp?hostname

Most scholars put the origins of Gregorian chant (a combination of Gallic and Roman Chant) around 750 a.d., making it a late addition to the liturgy.

In all truth, musical scholars are not too certain that the late 19th century revival of Gregorian Chant is even an accurate rendering of the Medieval Chant given the nature of the musical texts.

It is through the lense of such modern scholarship that we must evaluate the statements by Pope Pius and Pope Benedict in favour of Gregorian chant. Prior to our better understanding of the origins of the chant and the history surrounding it, they were arguing from an erroneous historical position.

[sparc]

You mean the Church has been teaching an erroneous theological development for centuries that had fed and nourished a lot of Saints we admire today? You gotta be kidding me.

[ComradeAndrei]

Originally Posted by EtienneGilson

In addition to the use of Latin is the fact that the Novus Ordo can be performed in Latin. If the populace truly loved latin and demanded the language be implemented in the liturgy, that would be one thing. But the MP is not about Latin, it is about an antiquated liturgy reflecting an erroneous Medieval theological development, the concept of the private Mass.

So, the Church labored under an "erroneous Medieval theological development" for all these years and yet look at all the Saints and the faith that the old Mass encouraged.

An interested Catholic not only should delve into Scripture outside of the Mass, but he or she should for the betterment of their soul. However, the very purpose of the Mass demands that this aspect be not neglected, as it was (numbers do not lie, only 1% of the OT, 17% of the NT in the TLM).

What is the "very purpose" of the Mass that demands that we up the use of Scripture in the readings? I really don't see the problem here.

Aside, the vestments. Klauser notes that the priests in the 1950s were not permited to wear even the Gothic chasuble but were required to wear the heavier Roman (Baroque) chasuble which resembled a bullet proof vest.

Where does anyone say that Gothic vestments were not allowed? Furthermore, not all Roman vestments are so terribly heavy-in fact, if made with the same material, they are lighter than a Gothic chausible.

The irony here is that the conservatives of the day demanded that the liturgy be identical everywhere, even in missionary territory where such vestments were nearly suicide. Today it is the conservatives begging for the right to perform the liturgy according to their own norms and taste without regard for the universality of a rite.

I've seen Roman chausibles made for military chaplains and pictures of ones for missionaries that were extremely light. I suppose that is why priests in missionary lands need only wear a "children of the world" stole and shorts.

As to the comments degrading Commonweal; one should only note that Crisis is closing which Commonweal is maintain its readership. The illusion of the "white-haired" Catholic liberal might seem appealing, but the truth doesn't seem to support such notions.

Crisis is not closing, it is changing its format. That said, Crisis has not been around that long while Commonweal has been around since the 1920's. Any rag that has the right cash flow can stay afloat and besides, someone has to cater to affluent liberals.

[Huiou Theou]

ComradeAndrei,

What is the "very purpose" of the Mass that demands that we up the use of Scripture in the readings? I really don't see the problem here.

The purpose of the mass (or mission by meaning) is to reconcile man to God (atonement), bring the pity of God upon us (propitiation), feed us with real food: (My flesh is food indeed -- my food is every WORD that falls from the mouth of God.), etc.
Deute 8:3, Matt 4:4, Lk 4:4 etc.

The Vatican council made it clear that the amount of scripture being "fed" to the masses was insufficient, and that the church was not in error -- but the documents indicate that the Church found itself lacking in either charity or was negligent by NOT bringing more of it into the liturgy.