Skip to comments.John Paul II and Benedict XVI – What Next for the Traditional Mass?
Posted on 08/16/2005 10:36:26 AM PDT by Pyro7480
John Paul II and Benedict XVI What Next for the Traditional Mass?
In an important article, Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro traces the gradual if imperfect lifting of restrictions on the Traditional Rite by John Paul II and discusses the late Holy Fathers growing sense of urgency that the Holy Sacrifice was being devalued by liberal Catholicism. He then discusses in detail a strategy for the full liberation of the Traditional Mass and its re-incorporation in the heart of the Church. But will Benedict XVI act?
Some months after the end of the papacy of John Paul II and at the beginning of this new papacy it is pertinent to try a sober analysis of what the Church has done in the last quarter of a century to preserve the Traditional Liturgy of the Church as an expression of its constant belief in the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and what we might hope for in regard to the liturgy in the future.
As the Traditionalist writers Roger McCaffrey and Thomas E. Woods Jr recently pointed out in Catholic World Report (May 2005), we should not underrate John Pauls charity towards the Traditionalist movement. Sixty days after his election, he summoned Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to the Vatican for conversations to try to reach an understanding, and in due course other measures of restoration were undertaken. So we should call to mind with gratitude some of the most significant events that led to a restoration of the Traditional Mass during his pontificate.
Within the papacy of John Paul II we received important magisterial clarifications that allow us to see the Second Vatican Council in a proper perspective. On 6 November 1979, John Paul II in a discourse to the Plenary Assembly of the College of Cardinals, stated: It is not possible to make the Church go back, so to speak, along the path of human history. But neither is it possible to rush presumptuously ahead, towards ways of living, thinking and preaching Christian truth, and finally to ways of being a Christian, a priest, a religious, that are not envisioned in the integral teaching of the Council integral, that is to say understood, in the light of the whole of Sacred Tradition and of the basis of the constant Magisterium of the Church herself.
A pastoral council
Nine years afterward on 13 July 1988 and with the background of the recent illicit episcopal consecrations confered by Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out: There are many accounts of it [the Second Vatican Council] which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. At the beginning of his pontificate Benedict XVI declared: I also wish to confirm my determination to continue to put the Second Vatican Council into practice, following in the footsteps of my predecessors and in faithful continuity with the 2,000 year tradition of the Church.
One of the many false representations that have been made against the Traditionalist movement is that it is frontally opposed to the Second Vatican Council. Against this accusation we have to insist that we are ready to accept the Council, as the Magisterium of the Church teaches that it should be interpreted, in accordance with Tradition. With regards to the liturgical reform that is usually ascribed to the will of that Council it is important to keep in mind what Cardinal Alfons Stickler explains: Now, we must underline what should be considered the correct name of the Mass of the Second Vatican Council: the Mass of the post-conciliar liturgical commission. A simple glance at the liturgical constitution of the Second Vatican Council immediately illustrates that the will of the Council and the will of the liturgical commission often do not coincide, and are even evidently contrary.
In his Lenten Letter, Dominicae Cenae, of 24 February 1980, on the Mystery and the Cult of the Eucharist, eighteen months after the start of his pontificate, John Paul II gave an official confirmation of the liturgical crisis that the Church was suffering from, asking forgiveness for himself and for all the bishops:
for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine of, and the veneration due to, this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people.
On 3 October 1984, the Congregation for Divine Worship with the letter Quattuor Abhinc Annos, authorised the celebration of the Rite of St Pius V, allowing the use of the Missal of 1962, with some conditions and restrictions: 1. The concession of this indult depended entirely on the bishops. 2. The Mass should be celebrated only for the benefit of those who requested it. 3. Normally these indult Masses should be offered only in churches that were not parish churches. A positive element of this indult was that it forbade the mixing of rites. So it was clear that parts of the Pauline Missal could not be mixed with the Missal of 1962. The restrictions contained in this indult plus a lack of interest from many of the bishops led to its failure. With regards to this indult, it should be noted that in a letter of 18 March 1984, the then Secretary of State, Cardinal Agostino Cassaroli, requesting Mgr Agustin Mayer OSB, at that time Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, to prepare the text of the indult indicated: An absolute prohibition of the use of the mentioned missal can not be justified either from a theological or a juridical point of view.
Seeking to improve the situation, in 1986 John Paul II appointed an advisory commission of cardinals. The findings of this commission have never been officially published, but the information that we have from serious sources allows us to affirm, with regards to the question if the Traditional Mass had ever been suppressed, that the opinion of the cardinals was that it had never been suppressed and that a bishop did not have the right to forbid a priest from saying the Traditional Mass. Cardinal Ratzinger in his conference of 24 October 1998 underlined that the Council never forbade the use of the previous liturgical books. In a recent interview, Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez emphasised this same opinion that the Missal of St Pius V had never been suppressed.
After the failure of the negotiations with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in June 1988 and the illicit consecration of four priests of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) as bishops in Ecône, Switzerland, on 29 June 1988, John Paul II promulgated the Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia Dei. In this document the Holy Father, after underlining his desire to facilitate ecclesial communion with those faithful attached to previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin Tradition by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations, decreed that, moreover, 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. The application of this document, to say the least, has been uneven; some few bishops have been generous, regrettably the same positive judgement cannot be applied to many others.
On 18 October 1988, the Feast of St Luke the Evangelist, the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP) was established as a clerical society of Apostolic Life with Pontifical Right. The founders of the Fraternity were committed to preserving the richness of Tradition in full communion with the Church. As the decree of erection establishes, they would seek their sanctification by conforming their lives to the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and observing the liturgical and disciplinary traditions invoked by the Roman Pontiff in the Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia Dei. The FSSP was granted the right to use all the traditional liturgical books in force in 1962. According to information in the current Pontifical Year Book, the FSSP now has 279 members. Subsequently, several other communities of priests, monks and nuns were founded, in particular the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest.
Ten years of Ecclesia Dei
To celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Motu Proprio, Ecclesia Dei thousands of Traditionalist Catholics went to Rome in October of 1998. John Paul II welcomed them with encouraging words in a special audience. In his address, he asked the bishops, to understand and to have a renewed pastoral attention for the faithful attached to the Old Rite and, on the threshold of the Third Millennium, to help all Catholics to live the celebration of the Holy Mysteries with a devotion which may be true nourishment for their spiritual life and which may be a source of peace. These words can be clearly interpreted as a reference to the difficulties that in many dioceses Traditionalists were encountering. Cardinal Ratzinger gave to the Traditionalist pilgrims a very supportive conference. In more direct ways he recognised the difficulties that Traditionalists were facing, noting that, in many places difficulties persist, and these continue because some bishops, priests and faithful consider this attachment to the old liturgy as an element of division which only disturbs the ecclesial community.
The establishment of the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney of Campos (Brazil) on 18 January 2002, showed the determination of John Paul II to preserve the traditional discipline and liturgy of the Church. Establishing this particular structure the Holy Father granted it all the necessary juridical guarantees. This Apostolic Administration receives the Rite of St Pius V as its ordinary rite. Its bishop receives full jurisdiction over the members of the Apostolic Administration. He has faculties that are similar to a territorial bishop, so he is entitled to form seminarians, to ordain and to incardinate priests, and he has the possibility of establishing under the universal legal requirements societies of religious life. On 18 August 2002 Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos consecrated H.E. Fernando Arêas Rifan, using the traditional rite of the Church, as Coadjutor Bishop, due to the precarious health of Bishop Licinio Rangel, who had previously been appointed Apostolic Administrator by the Holy See. At the death of Bishop Rangel, Bishop Rifan succeeded him.
In the homily that Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos preached on 24 May 2003 at the Pontifical Solemn Mass that he celebrated at the Basilica of St Mary Major, Rome, with the express permission and blessing of John Paul II, he proclaimed some fundamental truths: The Rite of St Pius V cannot be considered to be extinct and the authority of the Holy Father has expressed his benevolent recognition of the faithful who, though recognising the legitimacy of the Roman rite renewed according to the indications of the Second Vatican Council, remain attached to the preceding rite and find in it valuable spiritual nourishment in their journey of sanctification. On the other hand, the same Second Vatican Council declared that, Holy Mother Church considers as having equal rights and honour the legitimate recognised rites, and she wills that in the future they be conserved and in every way fostered, and desires that, where it is necessary, they come to be prudently revised in an integral manner in the spirit of Holy Tradition and come to be given a new vigour according to the circumstances and necessities of our time (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 4). The ancient Roman rite hence conserves in the Church its right of citizenship among the multiformity of Catholic rites, both Latin and Oriental. That which unites the diversity of these rites is the one faith in the Mystery of the Eucharist, the profession of which has always assured the unity of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
John Pauls final moves
The publication by John Paul II of the Encyclical Letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, on 17 April 2004 marks an important effort to preserve the traditional understanding of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In this document the Holy Father remonstrates that, At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. The very serious concerns of the Holy Father on the ill application of the conciliar reforms were already manifested many years before in the Apostolic Letter, Vicesimus Quintus Annus of 4 December 1988.
Traditionalists have stated many times that the abuses which motivated Ecclesia de Eucharistia are a consequence of the ethos of the post-conciliar reform that allowed all sorts of liberties with the liturgy. We should ask ourselves: were there widespread abuses before the introduction of the new liturgy? Perhaps there were some, but they did not occur in a systematic way and in most cases were a consequence of the carelessness of individual priests. In most cases they were not motivated by the desire to change the dogmatic meaning of the Eucharist. Ecclesia de Eucharistia indirectly affirms the need to preserve the traditional liturgy as a living witness of the dogmatic meaning of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If the Holy Father needed to reaffirm in very strong terms the sacrificial nature of the Mass it is because this essential nature is being denied or obscured in many parts of the world through the undue emphasis that is given to the Mass as a communal meal.
On 5 May 2004 Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos marked an important milestone with an interview granted to The Latin Mass magazine, (reprinted in Mass of Ages, August 2004, which can be found on line here), in which he stated: I can say that the Holy Father, with the Ecclesia Dei indult and the establishment of the Pontifical Commission of that name, has already demonstrated his wish to protect the legitimate aspirations of the faithful attached to the ancient liturgy, and the Commission continues to work in this direction. After more than fifteen years of the Motu Proprio and also taking into consideration the not inconsiderable difficulties that have arisen between those faithful and various bishops who remain perplexed or who are rather hesitant to grant the necessary permissions the idea is constantly growing that it has become necessary to provide for the concession of the indult in a broader fashion that would correspond more with the reality of the situation. It is thought that the times are mature for a new and clearer form of juridical guarantee of that right which has already been recognised by the Holy Father with the 1988 Indult.
This statement is an official corroboration of the situation that many Traditional faithful are suffering, that regrettably there are bishops who are not applying the Ecclesia Dei indult, or if they apply it, it is without the generosity that is expected from them. Cardinal Ratzinger gave ample evidence of this fact in many of his works. This official recognition of a very uneven application of the indult exempts me here from presenting the evidence that exists in this matter. Due to these demonstrable facts, a new juridical system is required.
In the last year of his pontificate, John Paul II gave other significant signs of his concern for the Traditional movement, recognising as an Institute of Pontifical right, the Institute of St Philip Neri on 25 May 2004, located in the Church of St Afra in Berlin. This institute, which is based on the spirituality of St Philip Neri, will offer the traditional liturgy of the Church and develop an active apostolate in Berlin. (See the full report in Mass of Ages, February 2005).
Also, for the first time since the beginning of the celebration of World Youth Day, John Paul II decided that Traditionalist youth would be welcome to participate as a group. So from 15 August this year, at the celebration of this event in Cologne, around two thousand young Traditionalists, coming from twenty different countries, will participate. Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sidney, will celebrate Solemn Vespers with the group. Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago, will lead the recitation of the Rosary, and several other cardinals, archbishops and bishops will take part.
For those of us who were deeply troubled by the liturgical crisis of the Church, many of the opinions formulated by Benedict XVI as a cardinal were a source of comfort. As Cardinal Arinze pointed out recently, Cardinal Ratzinger had clear ideas on the liturgy and he was not afraid of expressing them. In a book interview granted to Peter Seewald in 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger underlined that the Traditional Rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. In his Memoirs published in 1998, speaking of the post-conciliar reform of the liturgy he gives a serious critical judgement of what actually occurred. He points out how the new missal has been set as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby making the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. After other important considerations he concludes that he is convinced, that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy. In the year 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger emphasised that, For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted.
We can probably expect in this papacy two convergent movements. On the one hand the restoration of the traditional liturgy of the Church; on the other hand a slow and progressive reform of the Pauline Missal. Cardinal Medina Estevez is of the opinion that this missal could be reformed by introducing very positive elements of the St Pius V Missal. It is obvious that many honest Traditionalists will welcome whatever changes could be introduced in the Pauline Missal to make this liturgical rite more sacral; at the same time we can logically foresee that if the Rite of St Pius V is generously permitted it will exert a positive influence on the Pauline Missal.
Already, since the beginning of his pontificate, Benedict XVI has made some small gestures to show his good will towards Traditionalists. He sent Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, the former Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, as a special envoy of the Holy Father to consecrate the new church of the Benedictine nuns at Le Barroux, a community that celebrates the traditional liturgy. Also, he sent on 25 May an e mail to Enea Capisani, the president of Una Voce Bolzano, in which he expressed his joy at the celebration of two Holy Masses in the Classical Roman Rite, and granted his apostolic blessing to all those who would be present. Hopefully, in the time that elapses between the writing of this article and its publication, other gestures of the generosity of Benedict XVI will be apparent.
A way ahead?
The fact that the Rite of St Pius V has never been derogated is amply proven. What we encounter is a non-juridical prohibition in many dioceses. So there are no theoretical difficulties if the right of all priests of the Latin Rite to celebrate this Mass is declared by the Supreme Hierarchy of the Church. This declaration putting in force a so-called universal indult allowing all priests of the Latin Rite to celebrate in accordance with the Rite of St Pius V, would be a mere declarative statement and would not be a constitutive legal norm, i.e. a legal norm that creates a previously non-existent right. But some difficulties remain, in such a way that a juridical authority would be required to supervise the implementation of this declaration. First, knowing the contemporary spirit that in many ways is alien to the traditional discipline of the Church, it would be necessary for a priest before he is allowed to celebrate this Mass, to give some proof that he has the required knowledge of the rubrics. (If not we run the risk that a priest with good will, or regrettably with a lack of good will, might make a sad caricature of this venerable rite.) Second, in cases where the ordinary of a priest, be he a bishop or religious superior, denies this right, there has to be in force a relatively fast procedure to guarantee the right. An old legal aphorism states that a delayed justice is a denied justice. Third, it is evident that a priest who has the right to celebrate in the Rite of St Pius V, has the undoubted power to celebrate it in a private way. The question that remains is how he can celebrate it in a public fashion. He will obviously require the permission of the rightful ordinary. What happens then when the local ordinary refuses him this permission? This is a reason why a universal authority is required to solve these controversies, in particular when a priest who has experienced both the Pauline Missal and the Rite of St Pius V feels a strong call from the Lord to use only the Traditional Rite.
This brings into consideration the right of the faithful to worship and be ministered to by the Church in accordance with this rite. To respect the rights of the faithful is a fundamental issue of justice. How can the Church preach social justice if she does not practice justice within her own ranks? Here we have to consider two types of question: the availability of priests and personal parishes. With regards to the availability of priests, it is known that in accordance with information presented to Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, there are a sufficient number of priests available in the United States of America who desire to offer the Traditional Mass. It is also known that in France a significant number of young priests are interested in the Traditional Mass. The question that remains is how to find legal means to permit these priests to exercise this option. It is also perfectly fitting that the faithful would prefer that the priests who take pastoral care of them should be exclusively dedicated to the traditional liturgy of the Church. Second, it is perfectly natural that the faithful would aspire to receive all the spiritual benefits that come from belonging to a personal parish. In many places today, we have the artificial situation that the faithful can assist at a Traditional Mass only on Sundays or other days and hence are deprived of the fullness of the pastoral care to which they have a right. Both Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Medina Estevez have mentioned the possibility of the establishment of personal parishes for Traditionalists.
Plurality of rites
We can state that at present within the Latin Church we have several rites. We have the reformed Pauline Rite, we have reformed particular rites like the Ambrosian and the Mozarabic Rites and we have also, as has been amply demonstrated above, the Rite of St Pius V. As Cardinal Ratzinger demonstrated in his conference of 24 October 1998, the existence of a plurality of rites does not fracture the unity of the Church. To the contrary, it can be affirmed that a plurality of rites enriches the Church. It is evident that each rite needs a universal or particular ecclesiastical authority to regulate it, (particular authority if the rite is used only in a limited geographical area; universal if it is used worldwide). In the case of the Rite of St Pius V we can say that it is legally used world-wide by a significant number of the faithful, so a particular ecclesiastical authority cannot regulate it; it needs a universal ecclesiastical authority to do so.
However, to try to keep this liturgy frozen and immobile will be tantamount to slowly killing it. But as Cardinal Ratzinger recognised, here we have to be very careful about possible changes.
Thus some important considerations have to be mentioned: 1. Since the Enlightenment, change has been seen as progress within Western culture. In some ways, we can say that the Pauline liturgical reform was motivated by this approach. Liturgy instead has to be seen as something permanent, a reality that is transmitted from generation to generation, so changes should be very limited. 2. After years of liturgical turmoil and due to the fact that in most places Traditionalists have not been treated in a reasonable way, it has to be considered that any possible changes that might be introduced to the Missal of St Pius V would run the risk of being received with suspicion. (Many faithful might be concerned that behind those changes there was a concerted effort to move them to the Pauline Missal.) 3. The 1962 Missal can be enriched with the introduction of some new saints like Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, the Martyrs of Spain, the Martyrs of Ukraine and many others. But here we have to be wary that in adding new saints we do not displace others who have a significant value in the history of the Church and in popular piety. 4. In the 1962 Missal, in its approved edition for France, there are some additional prefaces; those prefaces could be extended to the Universal Church.
The establishment of a universal authority for the Rite of St Pius V should not cause any injury to the episcopal structure of the Church. This is so because the Holy Father in establishing a universal jurisdiction to regulate the use of the Rite of St Pius V would be using his supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church as established in c. 331 and c. 333 of the Code of Canon Law. It should be noted that the establishment of categories of faithful who are exempt in some particular way from the jurisdiction of the local geographical or territorial ordinary has been a frequent occurrence within the history of the Church. The most prominent recent example (discussed above) is the situation of the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney. The other possibility, which is given by the Code of Canon Law, is a personal prelature, which is a jurisdictional entity established by the Holy See within the hierarchical structure of the Church as an instrument for the performance of particular pastoral or missionary endeavours.
It is important to establish the objective criteria to determine the membership of the faithful in this juridical structure. Here the decree of erection of the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney provides us with a valuable antecedent in that it establishes that: Those who acknowledge that they are attached to the special status of the Personal Apostolic Administration could demand to belong to it in writing and in consequence they should be inscribed in a proper register which must be kept at the seat of the Apostolic Administration. Also, we should keep in mind that a juridical structure will provide in itself all the necessary objective criteria to regulate the use of the Rite of St Pius V. It is a known fact that in most places Traditionalists have been treated like second class citizens in the Church; as a consequence, it will be necessary that in a just and charitable way confidence-building measures of a juridical nature should be adopted. The establishment of this juridical structure will also help to create a sense of peace within the Church because both rites will co-exist side by side, living in different juridical structures but both acting as instruments for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls.
I have presented above the case that many priests might reasonably discern a call from the Lord to serve Him by offering only the Rite of St Pius V. A priest might receive at the same time a vocation to join one of the societies of consecrated life that use this rite, but might also feel called to remain a diocesan priest. Currently we do not have in the Church any legal possibilities that guarantee this option. We have to keep in mind that historically more than fifty per cent of the priests who have served the Church have been diocesan priests. This possibility will also be better for the current societies of consecrated life. It is known that some young men have entered these societies not because they shared their particular charisms but simply because they felt called to offer the traditional liturgy of the Church.
A fundamental element in the preservation of the traditional liturgical spirit and discipline is a proper formation of seminarians. The traditional liturgical spirit is pervaded by a sense of objectivity and discipline that is very much counter-cultural in our times, so seminarians will need to be formed in this spirit with prudence and wisdom. In this process we will have to avoid contemporary laxity but also unnecessary rigorist attitudes or any forms of spiritual Jansenism. We have to consider that today we find many cases of young men who are attracted to the beauty of the traditional liturgy, but being children of our times have a hard time accepting the discipline that goes with it. Seminarians will need to be formed in such a way that they will fully internalise the objective teachings of the Church. They should be prepared to proclaim these teachings with intelligence in the society in which we are living that is so alien to the values of the Gospel. The intellectual preparation of these young men should be seriously pursued through the same academic demands that they would encounter in any serious university.
In a speech given on 21 September 1998, Cardinal Ratzinger underlined that we live in times in which we do not seem to leave space to the action of God in human history. So I would like to finish this work with a prayer asking the Lord through the intercession of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to come to the assistance of His Church so that it can become again a light to the nations, recovering its right liturgical spirit.
[Taken from the Latin Mass Society's August 2005 Newsletter.]
"Thus some important considerations have to be mentioned: 1. Since the Enlightenment, change has been seen as progress within Western culture. In some ways, we can say that the Pauline liturgical reform was motivated by this approach. Liturgy instead has to be seen as something permanent, a reality that is transmitted from generation to generation, so changes should be very limited. 2. After years of liturgical turmoil and due to the fact that in most places Traditionalists have not been treated in a reasonable way, it has to be considered that any possible changes that might be introduced to the Missal of St Pius V would run the risk of being received with suspicion. (Many faithful might be concerned that behind those changes there was a concerted effort to move them to the Pauline Missal.) 3. The 1962 Missal can be enriched with the introduction of some new saints like Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, the Martyrs of Spain, the Martyrs of Ukraine and many others. But here we have to be wary that in adding new saints we do not displace others who have a significant value in the history of the Church and in popular piety. 4. In the 1962 Missal, in its approved edition for France, there are some additional prefaces; those prefaces could be extended to the Universal Church."
I have a few comments to make on the above passage:
1.) I agree entirely with the overall point being made. A sense of permanence needs to be restored. However, DISCUSSION of possible changes to the 1962 Missal makes for interesting conversation/debate and does not have to mean that anyone is calling for changes to be made in reality. Abstract vs. concrete so to speak. I like such discussions, but many just dismiss the very idea of discussing changes. Discussion does not mean actual implementation.
2.)The Gallican (French) prefaces noted above for the 1962 Missal were, in fact, extended to the Universal Church in 1962 by Pope John XXIII. These include the Prefaces of Advent and the Blessed Sacrament among others.
3.) The best case scenario going forward will be to unrestrict the TLM while reforming the NO at the same time. This may ultimately lead to a single Roman Rite again in the future, which will be a Rite that is essentially Tridentine with organic modifications.
Fr. Barreiro bumpus ad summum.
Substitute any word you like for the word "liturgy" and you have a perfect description of liberalism in general.
(Traditional practices that were dropped in error do not stop at Mass. Please, see my profile page.)
Some right here on FR as a matter of fact.
You go Benedict.
I think that would be a wonderful outcome. One of the problems, however, is that Catholic practice and formation at the parish level is so poor now that it is going to take a massive "missionary" effort to restore the liturgy. That is, it doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the practices (things like Confession, the devotion to saints, etc.) that surrounded and supported the Tridentine rite have nearly vanished, in the US at least.
In some places, like my parish, they are stressed. With over 1,000 families, it's hard to tell just how many are really following it, but there are always lines for confession and Adoration is getting crowded.