Sacrosanctum Concilium

Neithan · #1 Dec 4, '05, 4:02 pm

For those who attend the old Latin rite of 1962: do you think this Missal was absolutely perfect and should never be subject to any kind of reform? In other words, are you in complete disagreement with the Vatican II constitution on the Liturgy?

Groups such as Adoremus believe that the Novus Ordo Mass of 1970 radically altered the liturgy, far beyond the intentions of the Second Vatican Council, which were quite sound in themselves, and kept organically to the already on-going process of reform since Pope Pius X.

Do Traditionalists want to revert completely back to the 1962 Missal and keep it exactly the same forever, or are they open to re-examining the pre-Vatican II Latin rite in light of Sacrosanctum Concilium and reforming it without the radical extra-conciliar changes that we now have in the Novus Ordo? I suppose this position could be described as Moderate, in between Reactionary and Progressive, the latter of which I think is damaging, and the former I can't judge because I have not yet attended a Traditional Mass, but an absolute halt to any organic development of our liturgy does not seem like a healthy solution either.

totustuusmaria · #2 Dec 4, '05, 5:14 pm

Hi Neithan. Let me tell you my opinion, if I may be so bold.

The Council fathers clearly didn't have any clue about how radical the changes were going to be to the missal. With that said, it is clear that they wanted changes to the prayers themselves and not just to the rubrics. They may have been right or wrong in that desire. It isn't protected by the Holy Spirit for council fathers to desire something. In any case, they permitted new rites to be drawn up, but gave few guidelines for them doing this.

Was the old rite perfect? Yes, in a sense; no, in a sense. It was perfect in that it contained no heresy, expressed the intention of the Church in making the sacrifice, and effected the intention as a reality. There was no division in the prayers themselves between what the Church intended and what actually happened. When I look at the old Mass, I see every prayer that is there as there for a reason, and it makes me wonder full of awe.

The council fathers, however, didn't seem to completely feel this way. In the few directives they did give for the revising of the mass, they asked that the prayers be simplified, that needless repitions be eliminated (e.g. the Kyrie and the Domine non sum dignus) and that elimates that had come to be repeated uselessly be eliminated (eg the tripple repition of the confiteor). Now, the problem with Sacrosactum Concilium is that it was terribly ambiguous about how one should interpret its directives, and it left the implimentation of them in the hands of a commission which it in no way oversaw, chose, or, really had any part in.

Sacrosactum Concilium can be viewed completley in the light of tradition, or it can be viewed by a radical philosophy such as the one held by Bugnini. It is possible that it was intentionally ambiguous. In any case, the "needless repitions" can be argued to not cover the kyrie or the domine non sum dignus in the way one takes "needless" and the "without much benefit" can be taken to not include the confiteor for the same reason. On the other hand, Bugnini took it to the opposite extreme. He eliminated almost all references to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, and eliminated almost all the lists of Saints under the pretense that those were "needless repitions" and things which had come to be repeated with little or no benefit.

There are certainly so-called "conservative" parts to the document, but the problem with the document is not what it prohibits, but what it doesn't prohibit. For example it says that changes should not be made unless they are truly necessary and should in some way flow organically from what had come before. Conservatives thought by this they had safeguarded the treasury of the Mass, but liberals merely had to say: "Look, it had half of the same words, it flows organically!" or "if we go back to the 4th century, there's some evidence that they did it like this..."

Sacrosanctum Concilium is a very nice sounding document, but it is difficult to prove from the text itself that it either has or has not been implemented.

In general Traditionalists are weary about attempts to reform the 1962 Missal, they argue that it already was a reform and that with every reform they are slowly having the liturgy of St. Pius V taken away from them. With that said, I support certain "reforms." I believe that certain Saints should be added to the Calander, and I'm even open to the possibility of expanding the lectionary to include a greater ourpouring of the scriptures. However, I think that it would be disasterous to reform the Tridentine mass right now. I think that instead of officially reforming it, they should provide "indults" or permissions to certain groups who want to enact these changes. If the changes catch on, they will become organically part of the Missal, if they do not, people won't have such a bad taste in their mouth.

The key is organic. Bottom to top (with permission) instead of top to bottom.

Neithan · #3 Dec 4, '05, 5:41 pm

Thanks for your enlightening input!

I laughed where you wrote "It is possible that it was intentionally ambiguous." I think that's a good way to sum up the Second Vatican Council: 'it is possible that it was intentionally ambiguous...'

Maybe I shouldn't be laughing though, given the less-than-ideal results of this ambigiousness.

I agree with your conclusion, that it is probably better now to liberalise the 1962 Missal and give prudent permission for organic developments. I think it is the Novus Ordo that we should focus on more earnestly (it is afterall the standard), and try to resuscitate the traditional reverence which it has lost, and somehow reign in the rampant abuses that it incessantly spawns. I pray that Pope Benedict XVI will enact some reforms. I've heard great things about his Spirit of the Liturgy.
Anyway, I'm really looking forward to my first Traditional Pontifical High Mass, when I get the chance, so I can experience firsthand what all the fuss is about!

Chatter163 · #4 Dec 5, '05, 5:45 am

I hope to respond at greater length this evening, but as one who attends a Tridentine parish, I can say that this question is worded somewhat combatively. No one I know would ever use words such as "absolutely perfect," nor do they believe that any missal is perfect. The questions's attempt to imply that anyone who favors the 1962 missal might be "in complete disagreement with the Vatican II [C]onstitution on the [Sacred] Liturgy" also lends itself to immediate polarization.

And while Adoremus does indeed promote a "reform of the reform," some of the , I think that it is stretching it a bit to say that they believe that the new Order of Mass in 1970 "radically altered the liturgy." They do not use such language themselves.

There is a wide variety of views on the 1962 missal among those who attend the indult Mass.

muledog · #5 Dec 5, '05, 12:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neithan

Groups such as Adoremus believe that the Novus Ordo Mass of 1970 radically altered the liturgy, far beyond the intentions of the Second Vatican Council, which were quite sound in themselves, and kept organically to the already on-going process of reform since Pope Pius X.

Pope Benedict XVI, as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated the following while commenting on Msgr. Klaus Gamber's book The Modern Rite:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Card. Ratzinger

"After the Council ... in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet ... opposed this falsification, and, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy."

mosher · #6 Dec 5, '05, 12:45 pm

Traditionalists that find themselves within the Chruch would never be opposed to changes in the liturgy (Tridentine) as it had been modified by many popes over the years for various reasons most notably the changes made by Pius XII and Pius X. The major objections is not what is said in SC because the Council seemed to recognize a need for modifications in the liturgy to fit the needs of the faithful as it had done in the past. The argument is really that there should have never been a need for a New Order of mass. If the innovators who wrote the Novus Ordo had worked within the constraints of SC then I don't think that we would see the same problems because there would have been a true organic outgrowth as opposed to the novilty that we see. However the problem does not stop there. One of the larger problems is the implimentation which cannot be changed because it is a matter of history. Changes were being made without any direction and for this primary reason I think we find the wide liturgical problems that we have today. Very orthodox groups (not traditionalist) such as Adoremus I think are helping to repair the errors of the past and help the work that is to be done by Rome concerning the liturgy.

Eileen T · #7 Dec 5, '05, 1:16 pm

Can anyone tell me why six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the NO Mass?

I am not questioning the validity of the NO Mass but I have to admit this has caused me a bit of unease since I first found out about it a few years ago.

I have seen the NO Mass celebrated with reverence and have had many moments where I have felt overcome with God's presence. I have also seen it celebrated almost casually. Maybe this was also what happened with the Tridentine Mass when it was the norm.

I would like to see Mass having a mixture of Latin and the vernacular.

Neithan · #8 Dec 5, '05, 2:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chatter163

No one I know would ever use words such as "absolutely perfect," nor do they believe that any missal is perfect

Good to know! I agree.

Quote:

The questions's attempt to imply that anyone who favors the 1962 missal might be "in complete disagreement with the Vatican II [C]onstitution on the [Sacred] Liturgy" also lends itself to immediate polarization.

Of course I'm not implying that everyone who favours the old rite is anti-Vatican II. I'm just gauging the general sentiment.

Quote:

I think that it is stretching it a bit to say that they believe that the new Order of Mass in 1970 "radically altered the liturgy." They do not use such language themselves.

You're right, I'm exaggerating. They are much more careful with their criticism, and are mindful not to outright condemn the Novus Ordo. It is a legitimate Mass. It's clear that they are in agreement with the assessment that the new Mass is not organic, however, which is what the Council called for. I don't really think the Vatican II Fathers intended to spur a huge liturgical revolution, but were commenting on and encouraging the already ongoing reform at the time.

I'm curious though; what about the 1965 Ordo Missae? What's 'wrong' with this one? If traditionalists reject this Missal which I personally think is a good example of organic development it's hard to see that they can in any way agree with the Vatican II Constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eileen T

Can anyone tell me why six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the NO Mass?

I've never heard anything like that....

totustuusmaria · #9 Dec 5, '05, 6:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eileen T

Can anyone tell me why six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the NO Mass?

Here's my best take: V II had two documents: unitatis reditegratio (on ecumenism), dignitatis humanae (on religious freedom), and Nostra Aetate (on the relation of the Church to non Christians). In addition there was a paraphraph in Lumen Gentium and a few in Gaudium et Spes which spoke of the Churches relations to those who are not in full communion. These documents brought about a radical effective shift in the ecumenical practices of the Catholic Church. There was suddenly an expectation that we could achieve reuinion--ut unum simus--that we may be one! The Observers at Vatican II were intended for this end (although Trent also had protestant observers) and the observers in the framing of the new liturgy were also for the advancement of ecumenism. Speculatively I can say that the observers helped in determining which elimates of the Mass most offended protestants and acted as the greatest barriers to unity. One of the 6 said after Eucharistic Prayer II was finished: "Finally! Protestants and Catholics can worship with the same words!" And, indeed, some lutherans and aglicans did adopt Eucharistic Prayer II. (note, this man has since become Catholic and changed his mind)

Here is what Bugnini said about it on March 19, 1956, in L'Osservatore Romano: "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants"

I think he was really serious about it too since he even removed such prayers as the Orate Fratres (Brother brothren that this sacrifice...) and the "By the Commingling" prayer. Some prayers later added back into it by Paul VI. Bugnini died alone in Iran a seeming exile; but he is a major contributor to all the prayer books we use today, and I believe his vision of ecumenism was one of the major reasons he did what he did. The 6 protestants were officially only observers, I don't even know if they gave suggestions, but I think they probably did.

Eileen T · #10 Dec 5, '05, 6:25 pm

Here is an article by a priest who was a former Anglican...http://www.catholicintl.com/epologet...s/new-rite.htm

The six Protestant ministers were Dr. George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Shepherd, Dr. Kunneth, Dr. Smith, and Brother Max Thurian.

In 1967, Mgr W. W. Baum (now Cardinal Baum), who was executive director of the American Catholic Bishop’s Commission on Ecumenical Affairs, admitted in the June 27, issue of The Detroit News:

"They (the six Protestant ministers) are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed."

There is also the Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Pope Paul VI commonly known as The Ottaviani Intervention. http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

Dr. Bombay · #11 Dec 5, '05, 6:26 pm

I'm more concerned with an accurate English translation of the current Mass than I am with a "reform" of the 1962 Missal. I doubt there's a big desire in the Traditionalist community to go down that road again. Been there, done that, don't want to go back.

In the meantime, maybe by the time Vatican IV convenes, we'll actually see the third draft, revised, of the new English translation.

Oremus.

Eileen T · #12 Dec 5, '05, 6:56 pm

The Mass offered, until the Novus Ordo took over, went back to the time of Pope St Gregory the Great.

An article on The Liturgy of the Mass at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm says:

"We may say safely that a modern Latin Catholic who could be carried back to Rome in the early seventh century would -- while missing some features to which he is accustomed -- find himself on the whole quite at home with the service he saw there."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Bombay

I'm more concerned with an accurate English translation of the current Mass than I am with a "reform" of the 1962 Missal. I doubt there's a big desire in the Traditionalist community to go down that road again. Been there, done that, don't want to go back.

If the NO Mass is flawed, and I am not saying it is, surely it would be better to fix whatever is wrong rather than ignore it?

Think of what happened after the English Reformation, where the Protestants changed things to such an extent that they no longer had valid Orders. Sometimes things need fixing, not plastering over.

That said, I am more than happy to leave such discernment to those who have been given the authority to look into it, and will accept their ruling. I am grateful, however, to have the option of attending a TLM.

totustuusmaria · #13 Dec 5, '05, 7:03 pm

Quote:

"After the Council ... in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet ... opposed this falsification, and, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy."

Maybe is the Novus Ordo was a fabricated banal on the spot product made in committee (and I'm not the competent authority to pronounce this), we should consider reforming it just to that it reflects an organic development more clearly.

Eileen T · #14 Dec 5, '05, 7:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by totustuusmaria

Maybe is the Novus Ordo was a fabricated banal on the spot product made in committee (and I'm not the competent authority to pronounce this), we should consider reforming it just to that it reflects an organic development more clearly.

oat soda · #15 Dec 6, '05, 7:46 am

Quote:

Speculatively I can say that the observers helped in determining which elimates of the Mass most offended protestants and acted as the greatest barriers to unity.

i think this was certainly part of it. but there also was the culmination of the liturgical movement which started in the 19th century. besides the ecumenical gestures adopted in the new mass, sacrosanctum concilium also mentions other reasons for reforming the liturgy

Quote:

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

so the council was to improve the church by adapting its teachings to modern times, bring unity to christianity, and to evangelize.

i think the changes in the mass are related not just to ecumenism, but also these reasons. i also think that it was writen as a result in such a way to give a wide interpretation and implementation based on the decisions of bishops and local bishop conferences. they felt that the liturgy must be adapted where necissary to the local culture.

i think where you find the disagreements now is two opposing veiws: the liturgy seen as "the work of the people for the people" or seen as the liturgy which is divinely inspired and apostolic in origin, who's mysteries we enter into to worship and not something simply seen as the product of the community where we are worshiping ourselfs.