Vatican liturgical official seeks recovery of the sacred

Post 15 links to the changes of the language of the Mass that was voted upon by the USCCB. While some of these amendments may be accepted, many will not be considered.

With the word coming from Rome asking for more Gregorian Chant in worship, and with a return to a concern for the central placement of tabernacles in Churches, I think this reform is underway.

I am not sure why the Tridentine is not considered part of that reform? As Napoleon was fond of saying "Pas d'ennemis a droit" (there are not enemies to your right; this presumes that the leftists are where troubles will arise). Since those who love the Tridentine Mass will be to the right, and since they are those who tend to love chant, how are they not a part of the reform when their numbers are so small?

F

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2006/06/vernacular_and_.html

Vernacular and sacred language

Michael P. Foley, professor of patristics at Baylor University, makes a good (and, I think, rarely stated) point in a piece in the OpinionJournal about the new English translation of the Latin Order of the Mass:

The current controversy is also interesting because it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding over the nature of liturgical language. The Rev. Lawrence J. Madden, director of the Georgetown Center for Liturgy, dislikes the new and more accurate translation because "It isn't the English we speak. It's becoming more sacred English, rather than vernacular English."

Yet that is precisely the point. When Vatican II permitted translations of the Mass in 1963, it spoke of translating into the "mother tongue," not into everyday speech. Contrary to widespread belief, there has never been a tradition of the vernacular in Christian liturgy, if by "vernacular" you mean the language we speak on the street. Many of the earliest Masses were offered in a language the congregation could understand, but not in the language that could be heard in the marketplace. Before a native language was used in divine worship, it was first "sacralized"--its syntax and diction were gingerly modified, archaisms were deliberately re-introduced and even new rhythmic meters and cadences were invented. All of this was done in order to produce a distinctive mode of communication, one that was separate from garden-variety vernacular speech and capable of relaying the unique mysteries of the Gospel.

Thus, if English is to convey sacred mysteries, there should be a "sacred English." The very word we use for everyday speech, "profane," comes from pro-fano, "outside the temple." If Catholics wish to make the world Christ's temple, as Pope Benedict recently put it, they must first be careful not to make Christ's temple the world.

Posted by Carl Olson on Saturday, June 24, 2006 at 11:12 AM | Permalink

A universal indult for the Tridentine Mass could be part of that reform. However, a reform of the reform recognizes the legitimacy of Vatican II and of the Novus Ordo and therefore the suppression of the Novus Ordo and its replacement by the Tridentine Mass could never be a part of it. Hence, although many traditonalists could be part of this reform of the reform, the extremist traditionalists could never be part of it since they think that the Novus Ordo is fundamentally flawed and beyond fixing, that it cannot be reformed.

You don't know that no one is going to enforce the changes to the liturgy that Rome is likely to make. You are assuming that the neo-Modernists will remain in control of most dioceses and parishes but that is not likely. The radicals who imposed their modernist agenda on the rest of us after Vatican II are starting to die off and they are being replaced by bishops, priests, religious, and laymen who are more orthodox than they are. The modernist revolution has peaked and is now losing steam. The reform of the reform will help hurry its demise.

I agree with THIS statement totally. Many decry the hurried nature of the translations of the Mass after Vatican II. I lived through the entire thing so I know all too well how things went "higgledy piggledy" and many good souls left in confusion.

I think we are now in a phase in which WHAT the Council said will now be implemented on a gradual basis--a phase of consolidation and some reversal. That might include saying more of the Mass in Latin in the N.O. Mass (as was done on EWTN) and more faithful translations of the parts in the vernacular (we are seeing this now).

The garage sale nature by which statues were discarded, altar rails ripped up, votive candle stands moved out of the Church and the Tabernacle almost hidden will gradually be reversed. In all, I believe the discussion will be to reassert "vertical worship." The horizontal worship centering on the Assembly is not Catholic and has led to some horrible liturgical abuses. Listen to Fr. John Corapi if you want more amplification. The priest is acting in "persona Christi" and is neither a moderator nor a presider. His role is as an "alter Christus."

You highlight attributes of the longed for "reform of the reform" that are already part of the High form of Tridentine Mass, and yet you seem to be condemning the Tridentine Mass as something that can never be returned to. The fact is that the Tridentine mass is closer to what Vatican II envisioned than the current "reform of the reform" envisions. None of the bishops who signed up for Vatican II's changes envisioned the Novus Ordo. All envisioned an updated Tridentine Mass. It's arguable that based on the writings of the Holy Father that he sees a gradual return to the Tridentine mass as the long goal of the "reform of the reform." You should try the Tridentine mass as the Novus Ordo is toxic in its current implementation in most parishes in the United States.

Yes, Vatican II sought only to revise the Tridentine Mass and what the Council Fathers envisioned was something closer to the Tridentine Mass than what we have now. However, they did believe that the older form of the rite needed to be reformed, especially to enable the faithful to participate more fully in the Mass. (Remember, the rubrics of the Missal of Pius V contain NO role whatsoever for the laity.) Therefore, a "reform of the reform" could not mean just returning to the 1962 Missal since that would be a de facto rejection of the Council's call to reform the liturgy. This pope does not view the "reform of the reform" as ultimately returning to the Tridentine Mass.

I attended an indult Tridentine Mass for three years but I stopped since I after all that time I still had not learned the prayers (I don't know Latin) and could follow the Mass only with a missal and since I got tired of attending Mass as a silent spectator.

"I attended an indult Tridentine Mass for three years but I stopped since I after all that time I still had not learned the prayers (I don't know Latin) and could follow the Mass only with a missal and since I got tired of attending Mass as a silent spectator."

I agree that many TLM venues unfortunately perpetuate the "silent Mass" syndrome. However, many SSPX and FSSP churches as well as my own indult in Berlin, NJ (www.materecclesiae.org), have priests who put a lot of effort in to encourage congregational singing and responding during the Mass. There is nothing inherent in the Old Rite itself to prevent full and active participation. The silence you and I have witnessed is an unfortunate accident of history deeply rooted in the persecuted Irish Church which influenced American Catholicism. The great pre-V2 Liturgical Movement was making gradual progress is fostering a deep sense of liturgical life among the laity. Its goals were unfortunately never fulfilled and taken seriously off track after V2.

When I read Sacrosanctum Concilium, I envision the TLM with vernacular readings and a robust active participation in LATIN for the other parts of the Mass among the congregation. The 1965 Missal accomplished the first part but the second part was never given much consideration.

Lastly, my wife who had never been to a TLM before she met me, is now a herself a 3-year veteran of the TLM. She can read and pronounce Latin perfectly, even though she doesn't understand most of it. She also can sight read a fair amount of chant. Why? Because, she and I both put the effort in to learn. The same principle applies to a parish where a committed pastor puts the effort in to teach his parishioners and challenge them to learn Latin and sing chant.

I don't think we'll return to the Tridentine Rite mass as it was in the 1950s and preceding decades, but perhaps we will take up where we left off when the Novus Ordo broke into the liturgical renewal that was already in progress. It is unfortunate that many TLM communities seem to have preserved not only the traditional mass, but the abuses or at any rate inadequate practices that had accumulated around it (dead silent or unintelligibly mumbled or whispered, a few treacly hymns to cover up the lack of chant, etc.).

I think in fact that one of the reasons that the Tridentine Rite could not be revived is because many traditionalist commmunities have perpetuated some of the very things that were cited as justification for the VatII changes and the Novus Ordo. If the rite were generally restored without some very strict guidelines from the Vatican, there would be serious conflicts with some of these communities, which see any change (including the legitimate ones in process at the time of VatII) as a threat. And I'm not sure the Vatican wants to get into that particular battle.

That said, there was a sort of intermediary form that existed very briefly before the NO was imposed. It was really not much more than a translation into the vernacular of the Tridentine Rite mass, IIRC. Perhaps if they resumed from that point, although putting a few things back into Latin for the sake of unity, some progress could be made.

Sacrosanctum Concilium did call for a revision of the missal, for a simplification of the rites of the Mass. While I agree that it did not envision all of the changes that have been made to the Mass since 1963, it did not call for just adding the verncular to parts of the Mass while keeping the rites the same.

The rubrics of the Tridentine rite do not give any role to the laity. The fact that the Mass was entirely in Latin was itself an obstacle to the full and active participation of the laity. As you admit, priests have to make an effort to teach people Latin but many priests never bothered. The silence that was common during this Mass was not merely an "accident of history" but the logical result of the manner in which Mass was often celebrated: as a private act of the priest. Communion was often not even distributed to the laity or, if it was given to them, it was given to them at the wrong time during the Mass. While the era before the Second Vatican Council was not a liturgical dark age, it certainly was not a liturgical golden age.

"The rubrics of the Tridentine rite do not give any role to the laity."

Technically speaking, neither does the Novus Ordo. In both rites, there are provisions to allow non-clergy to replace clerical functions due to lack of clergy (e.g. altar services, schola, lectors). The difference really lies in to what extent the disciplinary rules allow for lay people to stand in the place of official clerical positions.

That being said, when I say "there is nothing inherent in the TLM rite itself to prevent active participation," that is not the same thing as saying the Rite doesn't give any role to the laity. The TLM does not prevent people from singing and responding in Latin, which is what there defined role is as participants at Mass. What obstructs this noble goal of active participation in Latin are many unfortunate factors: 1.) In the US, we are monoglots who have a sort of ingrained repulsion for foreign languages 2.) Low Mass became way too prevalent in the West, and 3) Priests were and are too lazy and careless to offer Mass in a more dignified way.

All three of the problems I listed are able to be overcome without the need to actually revise the rite of Mass itself. In fact, the TLM situation of today differs greatly from the typical 1950's Mass because the SSPX, FSSP, et al. have made serious efforts to promote the Mass in all its glory and restore active participation as Popes Pius X and XII called for. Yes, some indults and other TLM venues have not caught onto this noble goal, and this upsets me very much.

Although you think that the three problems you listed could all have been solved without revising the rite of the Mass itself, that is not what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council believed. They ordered the revision of the missal.

What was so wrong with the Council ordering the revision of the missal? It was certainly not the first time in history that such an ecumenical council had ordered the revision of the missal.

As Pius XII stated in Mediator Dei and as the Second Vatican Council stated in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the liturgy is made up of divine elements and human elements. While the Church cannot change the former and can and MAY change the latter. Surely you are not arguing that every part of the Tridentine Mass was a "divine element" that could not be changed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.