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 ofbreads ("This, except for the raisins, is my Body,"one uncertain priest is said to have intoned over what was offered for his use ata 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?

Rev. Joseph A. Komonchak, professor emeritus of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America, is a retired priest of the Archdiocese of New York.

Also by this author
The Amalfi Drive

Please email comments to [email protected] and join the conversation on our Facebook page.

Must Reads