That still missing motu proprio
I seem to recall Chesterton’s remarking that the most important thing about the “Missing Link” was that it was missing… Which seems to be the case with the motu proprio that would restore wider use of the Tridentine Mass. It’s still missing.
But while it’s missing, is it worth a thought or two about the wisdom of Paul VI’s having virtually forbidden its use? I remember at the time thinking that this was a mistake. You had priests saying Mass in clown face, making up their own eucharistic prayers (some of them with more about babbling brooks and beautiful butterflies than a certain Jesus Christ), using all kinds of breads (“This, except for the raisins, is my Body,” one uncertain priest is said to have intoned over what was offered for his use at a home liturgy.) So all that could go on, but the former rite couldn’t be continued?
So a first question, apart from whether it should now, almost forty years later, be permitted again: Was it wise to prohibit it back then?
Since I’m a dedicated eclectic I’d have to say that the absolute prohibition, at least as it was handled, was a mistake.
But worse than that, in my experience, which may of course be typical of nothing, was the philistinism the change unleashed on the church. Perhaps coloring that response is the way my liberal Baptist wife, who actually enjoys sermons on Marian devotion, was permanently put off the church by the early 70′s jihad against a wide variety of traditional liturgical music. And even that was not so much a matter of style as of distaste for priests who thought the new dispensation was a license to make it up as they went along.
Did not Paul VI (whose memory and greatness I honor) virtually forbid its use by an exercise of papal primacy that is applauded by some who are prepared to object if Benedict, by a similar exercise of primacy, were to allow its wider use again?
Supposedly, the Motu Proprio is coming down on April 16th.
What we need are good liturgies, period. In any language. We can complain about clown masses all we like, but I remember Tridentine masses when I was a kid when you couldn’t hear a thing.
Paul VI maintained that his change came as a result of the Second Vatican Council. an ecumenical council involving both the Pope and the bishops, by definition teaches infallibly.
In defending his decision, Paul VI wrote:
How could such a change be made? Answer: It is due to the will expressed by the Ecumenical Council held not long ago. The Council decreed: “The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished
For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, while due care is taken to preserve their substance. Elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded. Where opportunity allows or necessity demands, other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the Holy Fathers” (Sacrosanctum Concilium #50).
It is not an arbitrary act. It is not a transitory or optional experiment. It is not some dilettante’s improvisation. It is a law. It has been thought out by authoritative experts of sacred Liturgy; it has been discussed and meditated upon for a long time. We shall do well to accept it with joyful interest and put it into practice punctually, unanimously and carefully.
Now what is the state we are in? A situation in which one Pope simply feels that his predecessor made a “grave mistake” concerning the liturgy, and we are going to get bounced back and forth? What made Joseph Ratzinger feel that he had the right to express such an opinion while he was still a cardinal in any case? He apparently was’nt shy about expressing his “problems” with Guadiam et Spes either, which passed overwhelmingly at the Council.
I fear that this step is going to be extremely divisive. I believe in liturgical diversity, but this is a concession to those within the Church who believe the least in liturgical diversity. The self-styled uber-Catholics will attend their “real Mass” and leave the ‘”invalid Novus ordo” for the lesser Catholics.
I am well aware that Benedict would have taken this step with or without a concession
to the SSPX, but I’m horrified by the attention being paid to them by Benedict and and Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos. Are we really going to baptize the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by rewarding and burying the hatchet with affirmed Vatican II recusants and notorious anti-semites? There’s a lot more wrong with the SSPX than the illegal consecration of few bishops.
I don’t see that the distasteful misbehavior of certain irresponible clergymen has much to do with the wisdom or lack of it of Paul’s decision.
That said, it did seem rather abrupt simply to ban a liturgy that had been in use for quite a long time. Paul might have delineated in some detail the shortcomings in the Pius V mass, but that might have seemed to to show a certain lack of respect for his predecessor.
Irresponsible clergymen had nothing to do with it. Paul didn’t make his decision on account of Marcel Lefebvre, but Lefebvre’s intransigence and contumacious attitude about Vatican II and the Mass was a real thorn in his side.
Paul was responding to an ecumenical council, just as the standardized use of a revised Roman write was proscribed by Trent. The Council was an exercise of the Ordinary Episcopal Magisterium (Universal). It’s teachings are binding. If anyone has trouble in their own minds reconciling the Council documents with certain papal encyclicals, like those written by Pius IX, or Pius X, or Pius XII’s Mediator Dei, you need to go with the Council, because it carries more authority than any encyclical.
Paul responded to a council. What is Benedict responding to, but his own opinion of what the post-conciliar crisis was caused by? What will stop his successor from merely overruling his “grave mistakes” concerning the liturgy as he sees fit?
“Roman write” (sic)
Sorry, Roman rite.
As for Gaudium et Spes :
Placet, 1997; Non Placet, 224
What gives Benedict the right to have such problems with it?
I have a fair degree of sympathy with the Council of Trent (at least for a Catholic), but surely Paul VI, whom I also try to admire, should have looked at the liturgical proscriptions of Trent and seen an example of how not to proceed.
Also, and I could be wrong on this, Trent was dealing with issues of clerical discipline and formation that were not significant in the context of Vatican II (whether they are now I won’t venture), and hence might have had more excuse for drastic liturgical changes.
That said, one of the dangers I see in the present situation is that, like Sherlock Holmes, cultural artifacts that are restored from the dead or nearly dead are never quite the same afterwards, the famous example being the attempt at the Congress of Vienna to reintroduce the minuet.
And if the Pian rite does come back I can only hope it will be purged of those wretched “Prayers for the Conversion of Russia” that disfigured the mass of my youth.
No one is denying that the reform of the Roman Rite was called for by Vatican II; the question I asked is simply whether it was wise to suppress the Tridentine Rite. Why, for example, could you not have had the two rites continuing side-by-side, with, perhaps, the wisdom of Gamaliel settling the issue?
(In case there is any doubt, I much prefer the reformed Roman Rite, but the question of pastoral wisdom may still be raised.)
And, by the way, disciplinary decrees, even of ecumenical councils, are not considered to fall under the sphere of infallibility, which applies only to doctrinal matters.
Hi Father,
“Why, for example, could you not have had the two rites continuing side-by-side?”
I don’t have a problem with liturgical diversity, but unfortunately, as I stated previously, those who are most vociferous in their desire for the Tridentine Rite believe the least in liturgical diversity. Therefore, I think the threat of larger schism than the one we saw with the SSPX would have been very real.
Mu support fo liturgical diversity notwithstanding, I think there is some wisdom in this quote from Brian Wilson
“While the laity have a right to [the Tridentine Mass], keep in mind that the unity of the Church is more clearly shown when all celebrate the same rite…. You allow or tolerate what is acceptable and sufficient, you promote what is best. It is one thing to say that the faithful who so desire have a rite to have the Tridentine Mass available. It is quite something else to say they would not do better in principle by participating in the celebration of the Eucharist in the form currently approved for universal use: while celebrating the same Sacrifice, they would make more visible and effective the unity the Eucharist must build.”
Sadly, this has all been highly politicized.
It’s troubling to me that Benedict seems in effect to being saying that his predecessor Paul made a mistake, and that he would roll back the clock if he could get way with it, but that he can’t without causing “confusion”, so he’ll have to take things slow for now… What will be the upshot? Is the goal to have the Tridentine Rite be the norm again?
Do you know what the Motu Proprio says to me? That the Second Vatican Council is a dead letter.
It is possible to believe, as I do (and did back then), that Vatican II was correct in urging a reform of the Mass, but that Paul VI made a mistake in prohibiting the Tridentine Mass. Similarly, to allow a greater use of the Tridentine Mass (which, as I understand it, is what the motu proprio would permit) is not to say that Vatican II is a dead letter.
On my way home after Mass on Easter I passed a Protestant church whose message-board announced the Easter services: “Traditional” at 8:30; “Modern” at 11:00. Didn’t the Episcopalians thirty years ago or so print two different translations of the formularies for their service, one Elizabethan, one modern?
Yes, the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer includes both Traditional and Modern texts (I’m not sure they’re translations of anything, except maybe Elizabethan English in some cases), but the Traditional doesn’t go back that far — it’s more like early 20th century formal speech.
In my experience the traditional/modern choice is common in many Protestant and some Catholic churches, but in the Catholic Church it seems to have been caught up in unpleasantries for thirty years.
If they’re are any on this weblog who prefer the Pian Rite, I would be curious as to why they do so. The local church (in Veneta Oregon, dedicated to Thomas a Becket) that advertises it wraps it up with a whole lot of traditionalism and activism, but I’m not sure that’s universal.
And I have to say that the language of same…better…best as applied to worhip makes me very uncomfortable. Is it to apply to ethnocentric notions like the common middle class progressive feeling that the traditional elements in Hispanic/Asian liturgies are not quite up to snuff?
Yes, and aren’t the Episcopalians turning more and more into two separate churches? They had high-church vs. low-church rifts even before the recent controversies they’ve ben going through.
If we allow the Tridentine Rite, will we allow more leeway for enculturation in Latin America, Africa, and Asia? Will there be indults for more use of Eastern rite Masses, Celtic rites, Ambrosian or Mozarabic rites? No, I don’t get the sense that this is the idea. I think the goal behind this is to “repair the damage” and return to the Tridentine Rite once these old gray-haired Vatican II fogeys are gone or too old to remember what happened in the sixties. I’m only 47, but I’ve already lived long enough to see certain things and certain theologians fall in and out of favor to make me a bit cynical about following authority blindly.
I find it harder and harder to defend Benedict from the charge that he has a restorationist agenda. I actually have conservative sensibilities when it comes to the liturgy, but even I have to look at the evidence over the last couple of decades and come to the conclusion that the Pope and the bishops (and what look to me like increasing numbers of laity) are abandoning the Council, if not openly repudiating it.
Alright.
Let’s go with the Motu Proprio. Can we make a deal?
What about the OTHER mistakes that Paul VI made…. The ones where he discounted advice from his own lay commissions and from his own priests and reserved the decisions for himself alone… Can we have an enlightened Pope reverse those decisions? ;-)
The important thing to realize is that the Tridentine and the Novus Ordo are both valid liturgy. People should be free to choose which one to attend and not look down upon those who choose a different one from their own. Though that will be difficult for some to do.
More control needs to be centered in the local churches. Hopefully that ministering will be in charitable and fraternal activities and not in building edifices in which material gain and honor will be an attraction
It would be nice for arguments to break out as to who will perform corporate works of mercy, who will visit prisons and lepers etc.
Amazingly, little fiefdoms have a way of building even on such apparently spiritual concerns. So the human situation will always affect things.
The problem with this is there is a lot of power in all the money chanceries have. When we have true financial tranparency, there will be a earth shaking shift in interest in pastoral concerns.
Bill:
Did you actually say:
“The important thing to realize is that the Tridentine and the Novus Ordo are both valid liturgy. People should be free to choose which one to attend and not look down upon those who choose a different one from their own. Though that will be difficult for some to do.”?
That’s the second time you’ve said something I agree with. Somebody help me…
I suppose broadmindedness is a noble attitude. But is liturgy like ice cream? I like vanilla, you like chocolate, she likes coffeee. So? Would it not be more useful to consider the differences between the two liturgies and to try to see if the Novus Ordo is an improvement, a mistake, or what.
V2 called for revision of the Latin rite liturgy, not a rewrite. Too much was changed too quickly. As Benedict has wisely pointed out, the new mass was born not of organic development but rather a harsh break with history.
Also, it is worth noting that, AFAIK, while the council is binding and authoritative, the products of Bugnini, et al., are only binding as long as the Church says they are. The mass can be changed at any time without making V2 a dead letter, especially when one really considers how well its requests for improving the liturgy were or were not fulfilled by the new mass. The Church was right to call for reform of the liturgy, IMHO, to believe that the novus ordo represents entirely good reform and should not itself be reformed is an insult to those who participated in V2.
should read :
“…reform of the liturgy. However, IMHO…”
Eric Williams:
You say: The Church was right to call for reform of the liturgy, IMHO, to believe that the novus ordo represents entirely good reform and should not itself be reformed is an insult to those who participated in V2.”
Can you offer any particulars to illustrate your point? In what way do you find the Novus Ordo lacking?
First of all, a hearty greeting and thanks to Father Komonchak for posting this topic. It is a great honor to be able to discuss this topic with such a master theologian, America’s foremost expert on Vatican II. Father I don’t know if you remember me from my days at CUA, but this is truly a pleasure.
So, the question posed by Father Komonchak was, should the Tridentine Rite have been restricted in the first place?
No. The restrictions were a mistake that caused great divisiveness and hurt within the body of Christ. It has contributed to the identity crisis that the Church has suffered here in the English-speaking world. It has resulted in the persecution and marginalization of those faithful attached to the Tridentine Rite. Indeed, I would submit that some of the comments posted on this page betray an alarming ignorance of the real situation faced by many of the faithful attached to the Tridentine Mass. It also shows that the dialogue of self-proclaimed “liberals” has not extended to significant segments of the Body of Christ that desire to retain legitimate liturgical traditions and remain in communion with the Holy See.
First, a little background is in order. During the pontificate of Paul VI, significant revisions were made to the Roman Missal, culminating in the promulgation of the Pauline Rite on November 30, 1969. A group of English scholars and intellectuals alarmed at the cultural and spiritual loss of the Tridentine Rite petitioned Paul VI for permission to continue the celebration of the Classical Roman Rite. Among the signatories of the petition was the great mystery writer, Agatha Christie. Paul VI granted a particular indult for the celebration of the Classical Roman Rite in the U.K, which came to be nicknamed the Agatha Christie indult. This was followed by more general indult grants by John Paul II, first in Quator Abhinc Annos in 1984 and then later in Ecclesia Dei.
So there are a couple of things to point out here. First, I want to point out that the promulgation of the Pauline Rite did not make the Classical Roman Rite invalid. Of course we all know that in order for a sacrament to be valid, there are three requisites: matter, form and intent. In order for a particular liturgical form to be valid, the text must have a series of liturgical elements. The most prominent of these are epiklesis and anamnesis- prayer to the Holy Spirit to transubstantiate the gifts and institution narrative. Consequently, it is fair to conclude that liturgical revisions cannot alter the validity of previous liturgies- the form which transubstantiated yesterday will transubstantiate today.
The second question here involves the current status of the Classical Roman Rite. Currently, its celebration is limited by Church documents. The prescient question here is as to whether or not the promulgation of the Pauline Rite abrogated Quo Primum, the bull promulgating the Classical Roman Rite. It is fair to say that this is an open discussion question. It is not simply the question of liberalization that is at play with the motu proprio, but also a clarification of the status that it has had for the past thirty years. This is why there is talk of the rapprochment with SSPX; it would clarify that the rupture in communion decisively resulted from the schismatic episcopal consecrations and not attachment to or celebration of the Classical Roman Rite. Rumor has it in the blogosphere, that Benedict asked the CDW its opinion on whether the Pauline Rite had been abrogated. About a year and a half ago, it was reported that Benedict was unhappy with the Congregation’s positive response. The author was Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino, then secretary of the CDW. Rumor has it that the pontiff’s displeasure resulted in Sorrentino’s appointment to Assisi. I think that a very strong argument can be made that the Classical Roman Rite was restricted, but not abrogated in the wake of the council. These fine distinctions make a huge difference.
I mentioned great divisiveness and hurt within community of believers. First of all, it is the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc to assume that those faithful attached to old liturgical texts want anything to do with the Lefervrites and their more questionable theological propositions. There are many of us who are attached to the Classical Roman Rite and rich spiritual traditions contained therein. Perhaps the most common complaint about Tridentine spirituality is that, “It’s not the spirituality of today.” It irritates me to hear people think that they are qualified to make pronouncements about the ontological superiority or inferiority of legitimate Catholic liturgical traditions. Intellectually, this is the equivalent of arguing that the Maryknoll spirituality is superior to Dominican spirituality or Franciscan spirituality because it is a 20th century spirituality that has found success in the Latin American missions. Ultimately if all life is ordered towards the salvation of souls, no legitimate orthodox Catholic spirituality that draws souls to God should be dismissed for its age. It’s a truly spurious utilitarian argument. Coca-Cola learned the hard way that the “New Coke” of the 1980s was not necessarily better than the classic.
Such an argument also betrays a deeply troubling historiographic view- specifically it accords with a modern progressive view of history that sees the course of history as the progress of man ever upward and onward. It is hard to fit circular and progressive views of history with salvation history.Such a view of history ignores the image suggested by Lumen Gentium- the pilgrimage towards holiness. Indeed, we recall the line from revelation, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” This is precisely what this means. The history of created being has its origin at one finite point, which scientists have thus far traced back to the Big Bang. Scientists are unable to come up with a cause for the Big Bang, suggesting that this was the moment of creation. Ultimately, God is the first and final cause of our existence here on earth. Salvation history has a decisive midpoint— a high point— the redemptive and salvific act that was the cycle of crucifixion and resurrection. The decisive end point is the parousia. So the focus is less on an upward march, or on circles, but on these three events.
However, I digress. I was discussing divisions within the body of Christ. In many dioceses, there is very minimal availability of the Classical Roman Rite. Add to this the very jarring differences between the Classical Roman Rite and the Pauline Rite and you have a recipe for trouble. I want to make clear that even as someone who grew up with the novus ordo, it is a very jarring liturgical experience once you become used to the precision, rhythm and pace of the Classical Roman Rite. Many devout Catholics felt and feel very marginalized by the unavailability of the traditional sacraments, and are hurt by the stilted, caricatured, narrow-minded view of them held by many liberal Catholic bishops and laity. I have been the blunt of rather ignorant and hateful comments on the part of Novus Ordo fans. I will be the first to admit that there are some crazies involved with the Classical Roman Rite, but (a) there will be crazies everywhere in a fallen world such as ours, (b) we must rejoice in the fact that they remain in the Church and avail themselves of the grace of the sacraments, and (c) we must pray for their continued healing. The many good people attached to the Classical Roman Rite are unjustly grouped with the crazies. The vast majority of folks who go are not Mel Gibson style anti-semitic schismatics. Many Latin Mass communities live in fear that a liberal bishop will be installed and try to improperly tamper with the Latin Mass, assign an untrained priest, or withdraw the indult. One of the good things that Archbishop Burke did was to effect the canonical erection of St. Francis de Sales as an Oratory of the Institute of Christ the King. This protects the oratory from tampering by a more liberal successor, because the procedure for getting rid of the Institute requires him to obtain the approval of the Holy See. The way in which tradition-minded Catholics have been banished and marginalized by authorities to which they remain loyal has been a very painful experience, especially here in America. The momentum for the motu proprio, is in part fueled by the poor response of bishops to John Paul II’s Motu Proprio Letter Ecclesia Dei.
Let me distill some choice quotes to show the frustration being felt:
“To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following… respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.”
Notice the phrases used: “respect for their RIGHTFUL aspirations”, “respect must everywhere be shown”, “wide and generous application”.
Has John Paul II’s vision come to fruition in the current ecclesial reality? No it hasn’t. This was twenty years ago. Traditionalists seeking the indult Mass have been stopped and rejected by the majority American bishops, every step of the way. Fundamentally, this is a basic failure to provide for the pastoral care of the lay faithful, colored more by prejudice than experience. It is a very painful thing for traditionally minded Catholics to be subjected to this- especially given the state of affairs in America’s parishes. It is very hard to maintain the faith at St. Around the Corner’s Suburban Catholic Community, where liturgical discipline is lax, the choice and sound quality of liturgical music is abominable, apathy is rampant (meaning folks are too lazy to do more than mumble the responses- doesn’t participation just enhance the Mass so much?) daily Mass is conveniently scheduled at 8 AM for the senior citizen crowd to follow it up with breakfast (forget about folks who have to be at the office by 8), there certainly are no afternoon or evening Masses, and the confessional is only occupied on Saturday afternoons. For a traditionally minded Catholic, it is very painful to put up with all this, but we have done so because we desire to remain in union with the Pope and the local bishop. There is a sense in which this is a test, but how long must we be tested before our “rightful aspirations” are respected and recognized? For a young Catholic, such as myself this cross is even harder being the only one under 60 at daily Masses. I had a theology grad student friend who attended a Jesuit college in the midwest before coming to Catholic. He commented to me that the only classmates of his who still attended Sunday Mass, let alone daily Mass were the ones who married after college. As to how this relates to the Latin Mass- every Latin Mass parish or Oratory I’ve been to has had a very vibrant sacramental life due to the availability of the Eucharist and Confession. This attracts many young people. If they’re anything like myself, frequent communion and confession is something they appreciate after having fallen flat on their faces spiritually. After that happens, one recognizes and appreciates the importance of God’s grace.
Something that Fr. Komanchak might speak to is that one of the big post-conciliar buzzwords was “collegiality”. The idea was that the bishops and the pope share the responsibility of governing the Church. For lack of a more elegant way to put it, it was an ecclesiological vision that wanted to de-emphasize the rather vertical, hierarchical, relationships that had become communication silos during the pre-conciliar era (especially between bishops and the Roman Curia) in favor of enhancing horizontal relationships and communication between brother priests and brother bishops. I think that both are important. However, the lack of pastoral solicitude for traditionally minded Catholics does nothing to commend the American bishops to those suspicious of collegiality.
The second issue that I mentioned was the issue of identity. This issue has been particularly bad here in America. Because English is not a Romance language, it could not fall back upon the shared roots and identity present in a language such as Spanish or Italian. And so the first set of ICEL translations were very poor. In addition to being written in casual language, they failed to properly render some of the expressions of the Latin originals, resulting the texts being traduced. The old ICEL translations set the stage for a very post-WWII American use of the English language. The problem with this has to do with the fact that liturgical action is fundamentally different from the action of the daily world. Especially if liturgy is the space between the finger of God and the finger of Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, it seems rather impertinent to say, “Hey God, I’m just calling to remind you that I need your report on my desk by 4:00. Also, look into doing something about the traffic situation on I-84. I have to be at a party tonight and I’ll be way late if there’s traffic. Finally, give me a call around 11:00 tonight; there’s something I want to talk to you about.” The old translation takes this dumbed-down Hemmingway-esque tone all the way through, explicitly rejecting English words with Latin roots that recollect the original Latin expression of the faith, for example, “and became incarnate” is what the new translation says. This is why the British and the Australians did not like the old translation. Instead of bringing Christ from the communion rails out into the word- bringing the liturgy to the world- we have infused the liturgy with the humdrum banality of everyday life in the world.
I think part of the problem ties to the nepotism and insularity at ICEL. Dr. John R. Page, the longtime head of ICEL was the nephew of liturgical majordomo Msgr. Fred McManus. [See editor's note below: Brislin is completely wrong about this.--Ed.] I want to make clear that I am not alleging or implying that Dr. Page improperly obtained his job. Although I disapprove of ICEL’s work under Dr. Page, I lack the necessary information to determine whether or not there was nepotism present. However, it is only realistic to observe that such an arrangement creates an appearance of impropriety. [Again, this is false.--Ed.] The point that I am making is that ICEL became too cozy with scholars of one particular liturgical school of thought. Consequently, there was very little representation of legitimate diversity. As the ’90s progressed, the bureaucrats at ICEL became more and more sure of themselves, producing increasingly objectionable translations. The straw that broke the camel’s back was ICEL’s interest in producing so-called “gender-neutral” or “inclusive language” texts. The problem with this is that there are no gender neutral pronouns or possessives in Latin, as well as all the Romance languages. Add to this, the fact that the persons preoccupied with “inclusive language” texts tended to be confrontational radical feminists and the result was a mess. Of course this provoked a very polarized binary response by bishops and laity. Perhaps the seminal event here was the Holy See’s outright rejection of ICEL’s “inclusive-language” psalter. Combined with the systematic exclusion of conservative voices from ICEL, it spelled the end of the status quo. The critical voices that had been kept outside for so long began to reach a crescendo which culminated in the conservative takeover of ICEL.
But so within this context, there is no American or English-speaking liturgical identity. Liturgies at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception are very different from St. Louis Jesuit guitar Masses. At the Basilica, there is a sense of the sacred in the liturgy: the tasteful use of Latin in parts of the ordinary, the uses of incense at the Masses, the many reverent hymns and Mass settings in which there is very active participation. The result is a mess- the lack of liturgical identity has contribute to the deterioration of any unified sense of Catholic identity in parishes.
This has most noticeably played itself out in the context of liturgical music. After Vatican II, we turned in two directions to form this identity. Musical identity came from the secular culture and from other Christian faiths. The only prolific composer who bucked that trend was Richard Prolux. He understood the liturgy. The rest of them- Martin Haugen, David Haas are the musical equivalent of dime novelists. I will say that the truth of the Catholic faith is difficult to understand when it is divorced from the precision, clarity, and nuance of the Latin idiom. The majority of composers and liturgical musicians know music much better than they know the liturgy. And this is the problem. I think that the lack of a unique Catholic liturgical identity has contributed to the confusion of recent years. There is a decisive identity in the Classical Roman Rite that is not currently present.
Following the Council, there was a great interest in “inculturation” both as it actually means and as it is misused. As I understood it, the basic idea of inculturation was to adapt the Roman liturgical tradition to the cultural norms of the mission countries: largely in Africa and Asia. However, it was only to be for the mission lands, where it was necessary for the sake of evangelization. It wasn’t to be so that Eastern Europeans with a 1000+ year history of Catholicism could have a polka Mass, or so that rock ‘n roll Mass could be celebrated in America.
So you asked, what do many traditionalists dislike the Novus Ordo. This has much to do with the fact that the revised liturgy exceeded the reforms called for by the council and in some ways contradicts council documents. Bugnini’s liturgical consilium actually attempted to eliminate the Roman Canon in the name of revisionism! If you read Sacrosanctum Concilium, you’ll see that it says that the ordinary should be Latin and the propers in the vernacular. It also praises the use of the organ, Gregorian Chant, and polyphony. Here are a few choice quotes:
“Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. ” SC#54
“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.” SC #116
“In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.” SC#120
As you can see, a credible argument can be made that the liturgical consilium was not entirely faithful to these directives in the revision of the liturgy. Add to this the fact that the consilium was run by Archbishop Bugnini with the help of Archbishop Weakland and you can see the revision might engender suspicion even among those committed to SC. Thankfully, the indefectibility of the church prevented serious damage to the liturgical form. Nonetheless, I hope you can see why the current state of affairs might be a bete noir for many conservatives.
The new ICEL translations are more in keeping with the traditional understanding of what liturgy is.
Speaking to my own experience, I would add that personally, I discovered the Classical Roman Rite while I was in college at Catholic University in Washington. Some of the guys from my hall were regulars My discovery of the Classical Roman Rite coincided with my discovery and study of Thomism. As I came to understand the Latin idiom through which theology was transmitted for centuries, I came to better appreciate the Latin Mass. Nonetheless, it was clear that we were disliked by Cardinal McCarrick, who never visited the Latin Mass comunity. Now I would add that some American bishops have been very generous to the Latin Mass crowd. Archbishop Burke gave us the perpetual use of St. Francis de Sales and invited the institute of Christ the King. Consequently, there was a very vibrant Catholic life at the parish. Both beams of the cross were present- the most fitting and beautiful divine worship was offered to God by a community of Catholics who really valued and looked out for each other on the pilgrimage towards God.
So I do look forward to the increased availability of the Classical Roman Rite.
*****
Editor’s note: The above comment contains erroneous information about John Page. I received the following correction from Page:
“To set the record straight: 1. I am not related to the late Monsignor McManus; 2. I was appointed executive secretary of ICEL in September 1980 by the Episcopal Board of ICEL (eleven bishops), meeting in Rome under the then chairman, Archbishop Denis Hurley of Durban, South Africa. Monsignor McManus, a member of ICEL’s Advisory Committee, had no authority to appoint the commission’s executive secretary.”
–Grant Gallicho