Papal liturgist endorses reform of the liturgy: How do you feel?

I wanted to start a thread concerning what this Papal liturgist endorses which is a reform of the liturgy and I found this piece in the article to be of relevance to this forum.

"Msgr. Marini stressed that the liturgy celebrated by the church should be marked by historical continuity."
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1000051.htm

I would suspect this to be a continuance of the Traditional Latin Mass through some manner and will grow from the highlights of the current liturgy.

Since the Holy Father recognized that the "old" form was flawed, how would a reformed Mass look?

Here is my citation for this.
"But he also remarked that the “old liturgy” was flawed. In particular, he notes that “the celebration of the old liturgy had slipped too much into the domain of the individual and the private, and that the communion between priests and faithful was insufficient” -- that people privately recited prayers from their prayer books during most of the Mass. He suggests that these factors probably accounted for the indifference of most Catholics when the old liturgical books disappeared: “People had never been in contact with the liturgy itself”. "
adoremus.org/0906BenedictXVI.html

What are your opinions on this matter?

I found this particularly significant.

“The liturgy cannot and must not be an opportunity for conflict between those who find good only in that which came before us, and those who, on the contrary, almost always find wrong in what came before,” he said.

Personally, I view the whole matter above my pay grade. I will totally support whatever comes.

The word “adoration” stuck out to me. In several churches that I’ve attended I found this to be extremely lacking. I think this is a good reason to be hopeful, but the article was too vague to be celebrating yet.

Here is another article on same & a bit more. I pray my diocese and especially my parish would take notice.:confused:

newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/01/clergy-conference-in-rome-address-of.html

Dear fish90,I wonder when I will be able to pray this prayer–“at last All Powerful Master you can let your servant go in peace,for my eyes have seen the salvation promises–etc.” I just wonder when the reform of the ligury will be in my parish?It must be over ten years since this was first started–it is the old story–if the devil cannot stop something then he will do the best to delay or stall it!! I accept the Novis Ordo Mass and the bad translations; but I hope to see the day when the reformed liturgy “comes to town”!
Rome was not built in a day!!

Well, that’s a little idealistic, isn’t it?

I thought it was the other way around. The Pope as Cardinal Ratzinger actually called the New Mass a “banal fabrication” or something to that effect.

[quote="Digitonomy, post:6, topic:182298"]
Well, that's a little idealistic, isn't it?

[/quote]

Let us hope that getting egos and personal agendas--especially those made out to be The Divine Will for Liturgy--out of the way is a realistic goal.

Even when the treatment is worse than the disease, that is not proof that the patient was never sick in the first place.

[quote="EasterJoy, post:9, topic:182298"]
Even when the treatment is worse than the disease, that is not proof that the patient was never sick in the first place.

[/quote]

Yes, but a 1600 yr sickness? This is our faith we're talking about now. :(

Msgr. Marini makes some very solid points. One phrase that particular struck me was:

From this perspective it is not difficult to realise how far distant some modes of conduct are from the authentic spirit of the liturgy. In fact, some individuals have managed to upset the liturgy of the church in various ways under the pretext of a wrongly devised creativity. This was done on the grounds of adapting to the local situation and the needs of the community, thus appropriating the right to remove from, add to, or modify the liturgical rite in pursuit of subjective and emotional ends. For this, we priests are largely responsible.

This is a very important statement and worth studying. Often, the cure is more painful than the illness, but, in this case, the illness has done much harm. It has managed to rupture the integrity of the Mass and has, in many instances, spread throughout the Church like a cancer.

No, it’s more along the lines of a 40+ year sickness. It is not what happened with Vatican II, but, people’s severe misintepretation of it that has led to what we are experiencing right now.

[quote="benedictgal, post:12, topic:182298"]
No, it's more along the lines of a 40+ year sickness. It is not what happened with Vatican II, but, people's severe misintepretation of it that has led to what we are experiencing right now.

[/quote]

Honestly, I think the sickness was brought on by modernism and two world wars, but things were not hunky-dory in the Church before Vatican II. I think the misinterpretation came out of that. I think that without the medicine, the patient would have still had a serious illness to deal with. Change or not change, every denomination in Christendom went through serious difficulties in the last 40 years.

But I could be wrong, and that is no matter. No do-overs of the '60s and '70s. We have today's work to do, instead.

As for our Holy Father, he reminds me of this passage (Matt. 13:52)
*And he replied, "Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old." *

I went to a EF Mass recently with my family and extended family. I listened to my cousin who was born much after the 70s and he commented that the Mass was so authentic. After reading the second article piece about the Pope commenting on the flaws of the EF, I could not fully understand this opinion. I thought the separation of the priest in the EF was good in order to better represent the holiness of the Eucharist and the very holiness found in the man’s ordination. Active participation is encouraged in the EF Mass, yet more could have been added for those who disagree.[sanctamissa.org/en/faq/active-participation-of-the-faithful-in-the-traditional-latin-mass.html]](http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/faq/active-participation-of-the-faithful-in-the-traditional-latin-mass.html]) At least in the EF, interior participation was encouraged. Also, from reading the threads on this website the silence in the EF allows God to speak directly to you. I do not understand how so much of the EF was abandoned in the OF. I admit I am no expert on the EF and I do not expect the opinions I give to be correct. I just question why the flaws were not fixed instead of a whole new Mass.

I would think that a reform of the reform would bring back ad orientum, communion rails (or receiving on the tongue), and many of the parts of the EF which have been forgotten. I do not see a strong return of Latin in the liturgy. The Pope will do a great job.

That was a quote in the forward to someone else’s book. Everytime I see it, I like to add the following from the preface to his own book,* Spirit of the Liturgy*, for balance:

We might say that … the liturgy was rather like a fresco [in the early 20th century]. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss

adoremus.org/0906BenedictXVI.html

If someone really wants a balance to the mind of the Holy Father, this is worth reading. He talks about both the good and the bad in liturgy today, giving a great deal of historical perspective.

Msgr. Marini’s lecture very closely mirrors the Papal Masses that he organizes. In the Masses we see Pope Benedict celebrate you can see how the elements that Msgr. Marini has implemented correspond to his lecture. We see the “Benedictine” altar arrangement (as is has begun to be called) with six candles and a crucifix on the altar. We see three altar clothes used on the altar (as in the EF rubrics), dignified vestments and sacred vessels, the use of the pontifical dalmatic and a larger mitre, and many other things.

I think that Msgr. Marini (and Pope Benedict) are not trying to re-invent the Novus Ordo, or turn the Novus Ordo into the Tridentine, but rather emphasizing that the Novus Ordo is not a departure from the reverence and structure of the “old Mass.”

It has been established that the “spirit of Vatican II” is not synonymous with the council itself. What the council says is not what the Church in America (and to a lesser extent, abroad) interpreted. In fact, in the document of Vatican II pertaining to the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) we see a call for an emphasis of Gregorian Chant, Latin, (even the continued use of Latin in the Ordinary!!). There is, however, no abrogation of ad orientum worship, the maniple, the communion rail, communion on the hand, cassocks and surplices for altar servers, the chalice veil or burse, high altar candles, incense, bowing at the Name of Jesus. Furthermore, there is certainly **no endorsement ** of the movement of the tabernacle, cheap vestments, or the routine use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

I would highly suggest reading this article : The Mass of Vatican II written by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. (YES A TRADITIONAL JESUIT!!!). It is a fantastic complement to Msgr. Marini’s lecture.

It seems to me that the fuss about the full and active participation of the laity is at the centre of the argument. I recently attended an EF mass for the first time, and saw how different it was compared to the NO/OF. When I heard someone who obviously didn’t know it was going to be an EF complain that it was in Latin, it became clear that language was clearly a barrier for most in their participation. Which I think is a fair point. Latin wasn’t the first langauge of the Church, it had been Greek prior to that, and if you want to take it further even Aramaic initially. When other Rites were permitted to retain their own liturgies, in their own languages, it would seem to me there was a case for allowing the EF or Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, without having to go to the lengths of creating a whole new rite for the mass.
I was just wondering, even though it is all hypothetical now, would an English version of the Tridentine Rite have been acceptable to traditionalists, and would those who prefer the NO have found that an acceptable compromise also?

I think, and I’d like to study this at some point but I haven’t yet, that it is difficult to understand what happened in the Church in the second half of the 20th century without recognizing that there were two simultaneous “sicknesses” starting to emerge in the United States and Europe before, and not as a result of, the Second Vatican Council. The causes of the Church’s troubles in the US and in Europe are separate, different, and their roots can go back to World War II (although I think they didn’t really start to come out in the United States until the later part of the 1950’s). To point at Vatican II as the cause, or to come up with blanket causes for the Western World distorts the picture, I think.

And I would argue that any misinterpretations of Vatican II are not the cause of the Church’s present troubles, but instead yet another symptom of previous causes that were incubating before Vatican II.

Latin is only an obstacle the first few times you encounter it, at least for the liturgy. For the readings and homily, those work better in the vernacular IMHO unless we return to the practice of proclaiming the word in Latin, then reading it in the vernacular just prior to the homily. But that's unnecessary. I attend Mass at a Benedictine monastery where the word is proclaimed in French... sung in fact, in plainchant, in a very reverent manner.

There is nothing wrong with the order of the Mass of Paul VI. Nor of greater use of the vernacular, but for all the prayers and responses Latin would be fine. Surely after a while you'll catch onto what "dominus vobiscum... et cum spiritu tuo", "Sanctus, Sanctus...", "Agnus Dei", "Gloria in excelsis Deo...", "Credo...", "Pater Noster", (and let's not forget the Greek Kyrie) etc all mean. And with the help of missal translations it should be easy. I would love it when I travel, to be able to have a Latin Mass; I would have a better chance of understanding it than, say, German!!!

At our Abbey in fact, the Mass is beautiful. The Introit, Gradual, Alleluia, Offertory, Communion, and Ordinary chants of the Mass (Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater, Agnus) are all in Latin (and Greek Kyrie) Gregorian Chant. The readings, homily, Eucharistic prayer, and responses with the people (Le Seigneur soit avec vous... instead of Dominus vobiscum), are in French plainchant on Gregorian tones. And this is every single day of the week.

It's beautiful and reverential. You have a sense of "adoration", which I expect means that we need to ensure that the Mass is sacred and holy, and held in a sacred and holy space.

One church I sing in, had foolishly put the altar in the nave, surrounded by pews, when they had a beautiful sanctuary with marble tabernacle at the back of it, and choir benches around it, with a marble communion rail separating it from the nave. I am happy to report that the new curate had them move the altar back to the sanctuary and rearrange the pews. The next step would, IMHO, be to actually USE the communion rail, and use the high altar at the tabernacle. A man can dream... and there are other churches out there that are even worse!!!

And the EMHC... that get's to me. The whole purpose seems to be to get 'em primed, wined and dined in less than an hour. Where's the sacred? Can we not dedicate a wee little extra 20 min, for Christ? The abbey's Mass lasts 1 hour on weekdays, and 1h15 min on Sundays. A tiny extra little 15 min compared to a parish Mass.

Everything that is needed to correct the liturgy can easily be done with the current Mass.

[quote="fish90, post:14, topic:182298"]
I went to a EF Mass recently with my family and extended family. I listened to my cousin who was born much after the 70s and he commented that the Mass was so authentic. After reading the second article piece about the Pope commenting on the flaws of the EF, I could not fully understand this opinion. I thought the separation of the priest in the EF was good in order to better represent the holiness of the Eucharist and the very holiness found in the man's ordination. Active participation is encouraged in the EF Mass, yet more could have been added for those who disagree.[sanctamissa.org/en/faq/active-participation-of-the-faithful-in-the-traditional-latin-mass.html]](http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/faq/active-participation-of-the-faithful-in-the-traditional-latin-mass.html]) At least in the EF, interior participation was encouraged. Also, from reading the threads on this website the silence in the EF allows God to speak directly to you. I do not understand how so much of the EF was abandoned in the OF. I admit I am no expert on the EF and I do not expect the opinions I give to be correct. I just question why the flaws were not fixed instead of a whole new Mass.

I would think that a reform of the reform would bring back ad orientum, communion rails (or receiving on the tongue), and many of the parts of the EF which have been forgotten. I do not see a strong return of Latin in the liturgy. The Pope will do a great job.

[/quote]

I think you forget that what was absent from the EF you went to were the people who formerly had to be compelled to go it. They are generally not of the opinion that giving little room for exterior participation encourages them towards interior participation. Give a collie nothing to do, and it doesn't participate interiorly, instead. It doesn't non-participate, either. It either participates in exterior ways that you don't want, or it goes elsewhere. Like it or not, we live in a crazy-busy world gone ADD for which "collie mind" is a charitable description, and most of the Church is immersed in it. Even the cloistered monasteries are on the internet.

Ad orientum could come back, with the sound systems that are in existence now, but I don't see it coming back with largely inaudible liturgies. People are going to want to either hear or see what is going on. So if there's going to be a lot of silence, I predict there will be something to see. Silence could be a hard sell, even: it is hard enough to get people to get offline, take off their headsets, and turn off their cell phones for an hour. That passes for silence now.

Communion rails could come back, although they would be seen as opportunities to kneel close to the sanctuaries, and not barriers. I predict that we will not see the laity older than 8th grade expelled from the sanctuary in our lifetimes, let alone all females of all ages.

Latin could come back in the ordinaries, to the extent that people could learn the bits that occur over and over every week, but I don't see it coming back in the propers. Not in a country where people are as allergic to second languages as this one is. But I could see a limited amount of Latin being welcomed.

What I do see, though, is a growing segment of parishes offering "contemplative" liturgies, in which the music is minimal and done in chant, and EF liturgies. There is a real thirst for that. It is not so widespread that it is going to become the OF, but I think it will become de rigeur for it to be offered in some capacity.

We're also in a world with 500 channels, after all. One liturgy may be the norm, but we're not likely to return to the days of one single liturgy becoming the only option, even in any one parish. (Geographically dense vicariates with different parishes taking on different "liturgical charisms" and rural parishes with one priest covering two or more of them being a common exception.)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.