Motu Proprio Madness

.

INTERPRETING THE SYMPTOM

.

It is very difficult to reason with people suffering from mental illness. They cling to their bugbear, their fetish, their ‘King Charles’ head,’ and react with rage to anyone who puts it in question. In the Church today, the Tridentine Rite plays the role of that obsessive object. It can be interpreted as a symptom of a deep-lying pathology. The weird cult surrounding it is a phenomenon that calls for depth-interpretation, just as the strange obsessions cultivated in new religions do.

.

Eugen Drewermann, a prophet stoned, pointed out long ago that the problem with the liturgy is that we are not celebrating it in anything like the sense intended by Jesus. Steve Golay says the same thing: ‘Met too many catholic men lately who are simply chunking it. What’s missing. certainly not the 70’s catholicism that is still hanging about our parishes. but neither the sentimentality of prayer cards. The gospel challenge is missing’ (Against the Grain website).

.

One point of departure for interpreting the symptom is to note that the cult of the Tridentine Rite is chiefly born of reaction against the current vernacular liturgy. Instead of a dialogal meal-event shared by a community looking forward to the Kingdom and involved with creating the Kingdom of justice and peace here and now (this very language strikes horror in those suffering from the Tridentine obsession), the Tridentine Rite offers an event of sacrificial adoration of a transcendent God, in which there is no room for dialogue or creative variation of the text or rubrics, and in which the celebrant and the faithful do not look at each other but both together look towards God. This is experienced as a blessed escape from the bad English, the horrible music, and the unintelligible snippets of Old Testament readings that characterize the present liturgy. It is a return to a more distinguished aesthetic world than the common people, who have no Latin, can hope to appreciate. The musical problem is solved by restoring the chants that go with Latin as a liturgical language, or the sublime settings of Palestrina, Lassus, Byrd, Victoria, Desprez. (It seems to be forgotten that the Tridentine Mass as celebrated in the past was punctuated by devotional hymns such as “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name” and “To Thee, O Heart of Jesus.” It is unclear to me what the congregation at Sunday celebrations of the Tridentine Rite are supposed to sing; perhaps only Gregorian Chant.) All of this is a flight from the real challenge of celebrating liturgy in a manner that responds meaningfully to the signs of the times and expresses appropriately the identity and situation of the Christian community living out the Gospel today.

.

How does one know one is dealing with madness? When one finds that it clashes with reality again and again. The Tridentine fanatics who believe that the Motu Proprio will allow them to descend on any parish and imperiously demand a Tridentine Mass will run up against one huge reality check straight away: the impossibility of providing priests for this service. Here are reports from the ground from two priests active in the parish ministry: http://manwithblackhat.blogspot.com/2007/07/critical-mass-life-after-te-deum.html ; http://atonementparish.blogspot.com/2007/07/summorum-pontificum.html. Priests have complained that it is absurd to expect them to learn Latin again. I think it would be a good idea to insist, as the Pope himself seems to suggest, that those who want the Tridentine Mass acquire liturgical formation including a knowledge of Latin. This would ensure that their participation in the restored rite is reality-based, and would greatly lessen the pressure they intend to exert on priests and bishops (and on the Roman Commission in charge of all this, who may find themselves swamped by requests and disputes, and, like Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern, hoist with their own petard).

.

It must not be left unsaid that many of the Tridentine cultists also espouse eccentric right-wing political views. Thomas Woods, for example, who has an ardent piece on Benedict as the Great Liberator at http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods75.html, is described as follows on amazon.com (quoting Publishers' Weekly): 'Woods (The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History) argues that the history lessons schoolchildren learn are ideologically driven distortions aimed at producing citizens who believe that big government is good and big business is evil. He aims to set the record straight. He says that Americans have been fed propaganda about the origins of Social Security, which is nothing more than a tax. Indeed, Woods thinks nothing good came out of the New Deal, which, far from lifting the United States out of the Great Depression, actually prolonged the nation’s economic woes. Much of the book touches on issues of race: desegregating public schools hasn’t really helped black children; racial discrimination is not the main cause of the gap between blacks’ and whites’ salaries; and Martin Luther King Jr. was a dangerous radical who sought an immediate, palpable improvement in blacks’ material condition, a vision he thought could be achieved by racial quotas and socialism. Blacks, according to Woods, should model themselves not on King, but on an enterprising if oft forgotten 20th-century self-made man.'

.

However, in fairness I should add that the 'symptom' I am addressing is not merely irrational -- no symptom is. It reflects a profound crisis in our liturgical culture, due to our failure to implement Vatican II properly, to develop a biblical culture and to overcome the routinization of the Mass. The young people who are drawn to what they imagine the Tridentine Rite to be are expressing spiritual starvation and a longing for a sense of mystery and for silent adoration, of which they have been deprived by our talky liturgies and by the abolition of the culture of eucharistic devotion which sustained the Mass formerly. Like the cult of moving statues one mad summer in Ireland (see my piece 'Thoughts After Ballinspittle,' which I shall post here soon), or like the excitation about Medjugorje, such movements are reaching out after an experience of communal worship -- reaching out in the wrong direction, to be sure, but the force and persistence of the gesture demands to be interpreted and responded to. A deep rethinking of what we are doing in our liturgies is called for.

.

THE RATZINGER TOUCH

.

Faced with this situation of pathology and crisis, Pope Benedict appears as a well-meaning doctor with practical suggestions. His orders are fiercely contested by many bishops, priests, theologians and laypeople, but perhaps he thinks that this only shows how needed his medicine is. Toward the addicts of Trent, to whom he counsels respect for the Novus Ordo, he risks not being severe enough, coddling the patient. They, in fact, imagine that he is really on their side, and that when he says things like the following:

.

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

.

or the following:

.

In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman pontiffs have operated to ensure that ‘this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.

.

he is merely resorting to diplomatic sleight, being secretly of their opinion, that the Novus Ordo is a heresy-ridden modernist scam foisted on the Church by Free Masons. It seems to me that the Pope would be well advised to heed honest critics rather than such false friends.

.

They claim that he celebrates the Tridentine Mass in his apartments every day and they love to quote selected passages from his writings, which make it seem that he holds idiosyncratic notions on the liturgy. Though he now speaks with the venerable authority of the Vicar of Christ, neither the cardinal electors nor anyone else should be surprised if in this role he advocates the views that aroused admiratio when expressed in his copious earlier writings. The leopard does not change his spots -- or rather, once the leopard has changed his spots he does not change them back again. In his youth, as Professor Eamon Duffy writes in New Blackfriars, March 2007, Ratzinger was a sharp critic of the pre-Vatican II liturgy:

.

“Like many of the brightest minds of his generation, the young Joseph Ratzinger shared this reforming impatience. As a peritus at the Council he was to deploy a rhetoric of impatience and disparagement which stressed the problems of a Latin liturgy rather than its glories, designed to speed along liturgical reform. So, before the Council the same Ratzinger who had written time and again of his deep and nostalgic love of the liturgy of his childhood, could deplore the communal dynamic of the old Mass, ‘a lonely hierarchy facing a group of laymen each one of whom is shut off in his own missal or devotional book’. [Not quite. What Ratzinger wrote in Die christliche Brüderlichkeit is as follows: ‘The recognition that ekklesia (church) and adelphotes (brotherhood) are the same thing, that the church that fulfills herself in the celebration of the Eucharist is essentially a community of brothers, compels us to celebrate the Eucharist as a rite of brotherhood in responsory dialogue--and not to have a lonely hierarchy facing a group of laymen each one of whom is shut off in his own missal or devotional book.’] During the Council he would declare that the Latin Mass of his youth was ‘archaeological’, and presented a picture ‘so encrusted that the original image could hardly be seen’: it was therefore ‘a closed book to the faithful’, which was why the liturgy had been marginal to many of the greatest Catholics, why the great mystics, like St John of the Cross and St Teresa of Avila, in his opinion, had drawn little or nothing of their spiritual nourishment from the Mass.”

.

In sharp contrast to Ratzinger’s earlier views, the Motu Proprio cites the “evident” reality that “the Latin Liturgy in its various forms has stimulated in the spiritual life very many Saints in every century of the Christian age and strengthened in the virtue of religion so many peoples and made fertile their piety.”
.

As Fr Franklyn McAfee (a member of Opus Dei) writes (probably soliciting the Pope to his own views):

.

“This was in the euphoria days immediately before and after the Council. Obviously like others Josef [recte: Joseph] Ratzinger had forgotten the liturgy that had fed his childhood and which filled him with awe. He was young when he said it and perhaps infatuated with his learning and the others who felt like him (e.g., Bouyer). They saw a need for renewal of the Mass but after the council they felt betrayed. Then filled with the wisdom that comes only with age Ratzinger began to change those views helped no doubt with the beauty that had been lost, for the most part, with the Novus Ordo. As the student riots shook him and his liberal views and made him more conservative so the betrayal of the council by the reform brought him back to the truth of his childhood. Many of us who lived through those times and had great hopes feel betrayed by those who implemented the council. Many of us now see things clearly after the conciliar fog has dissipated. The pope grew in his appreciation of the old liturgy as children grow in the respect for their parents after they have passed 21.” (Pertinacious Papist blogsite)

.

Benedict has been complaining about the liturgy of Paul VI for decades, and he believes that the Tridentine Rite can help remedy its perceived deficiencies. This is not untenable, but it is very much a minority opinion in contemporary Catholicism.

.

“We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

.

Here the aspiration of many bishops to offer a “creative liturgy” to their people is discredited. Let us recall what the author wrote on this subject in The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000): ‘“Creativity” cannot be an authentic category for matters liturgical. In any case, this is a word that developed within the Marxist world view. Creativity means that in a universe that in itself is meaningless and came into existence through blind evolution, man can creatively fashion a new and better world. Modern theories of art think in terms of a nihilistic kind of creativity. Art is not meant to copy anything. Artistic creativity is under the free mastery of man, without being bound by norms or goals and subject to no questions of meaning’ (p. 168).

.

Given this attitude to creativity, it is unsurprising that there is no mention of inculturation, or of a return to biblical sources. The only values to be upheld are those Benedict finds in the liturgy of his childhood. He claims it was sensitively appreciated by those who had known the influence of the liturgical movement, and who were pained by the brutality of what came after the Council. He says nothing about the pain of the many faithful who have not been provided with creative, inculturated liturgy, but with sawdust texts, hopeless sermons, wretched music, etc. He says nothing about learning from the Anglicans, who do all these things so much better than we do. In short, both diagnosis and remedy seem very narrow.
.

APPEASING SCHISMATICS AND THOSE TEMPTED TO SCHISM

.

The Motu Proprio is intended as an inducement to the Lefebvrites to return to the fold:

.

‘Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the “legitimate aspirations” of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about.’

.

There is a wistful wishfulness to this, and its account of traditionalists and especially of the Society of Saint Pius X, whose leaders were excommunicated in 1988, is very edulcorated. The French Bishops have found the same people to be troublesome and aggressive. The present leader of the SSPX has denounced Cardinal Arinze as a “traitor” for not advocating the Motu Proprio. 

.

Benedict thinks bishops have not done enough to reconcile the traditionalists. The Motu Proprio “is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church.”

.

“Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity… One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to make it possible for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.” Benedict chides the traditionalists gently: “There have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition.” But He thinks that if bishops show “charity and pastoral prudence,” this will be “an incentive and guide for improving these.”
.

The restoration of the Tridentine Mass is then a sop or appeasement to the Lefebvrites and to those who threaten to follow them into schism. But is it likely to satisfy them? If Benedict does persuade them to drop their rooted hostility of Vatican II and all its stands for, then of course he will have scored a remarkable success in healing divisions in the Church. Do the results of previous overtures and concessions warrant optimism on this front? Is it not more likely that the traditionalists will seize on the new arrangements as grounds for advancing their intransigent cause?

.

The initial reaction of the Lefebvrites is exactly what one would expect: Thank you very much, Holy Father, for admitting we were right about the liturgy all along. Now rescind our excommunication so that we can resolve our remaining doctrinal differences. One of these concerns Judaism. The Anti-Defamation League has rightly condemned the restoration of the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. You cannot restore a dead past. When you attempt to do so, you will find that the remembered gold has become sticky, defiling mud.

.

THE AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS AND OF VATICAN II

.

The document approves of the erection of “personal parishes” for the celebration of the 1962 rites or the appointment of a “rector or chaplain” designated for the task. This sounds like the permission of Opus Dei to have personal prelatures bypassing the authority of the bishops. True, the creation of such parishes is to be left to the responsibility of the local bishop, but pressure may be put on him, and the parishes once established may assert their independence as much as possible.  There are indications that the Motu Proprio is designed to undercut episcopal authority, in line with Ratzinger’s views as expressed since his Theologische Prinzipienlehre in the early 1980s. It will be recalled that in the ultramontane period before Vatican II theologians who stressed the authority of the apostolic college of bishops as something enjoying its own dignity and autonomy were regarded as in error, and that the major ecclesiological shift of the Council was the restoration of the authority of the bishops. Doe the present Motu Proprio sufficiently respect this? It is issued over the vocal protests of the French and German episcopacies and against the misgivings of Cardinals in the Curia itself, such as Arinze and Kasper. As reported in The Independent, June 30, “Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, has written to the Pope to say that no changes are needed. Concerns about the prospect of the introduction of the Mass were also underlined on Thursday at an unusual meeting to underline resistance to it… The Rev Keith Pecklers, a Jesuit liturgical expert, said: ‘The real issue here is not limited to liturgy but has wider implications for church life.’ He added that proponents of the old Mass ‘tend to oppose the laity’s increased role in parish life... collaboration with other Christians and its dialogue with Jews and Muslims.’” Some French bishops have expressed their resolve to remain firmly in charge of the liturgy of their dioceses, and have been immediately denounced by neocaths as contumacious.

.

It would be bad governance for a Pope to appear to ride roughshod over his own bishops and his most enlightened advisers. The reception of the Motu Proprio by the world’s bishops will be a significant factor. Some traditionalist bishops will enthuse, but I doubt if there will be a wide expression of support. The enthusiasts are treating the Motu Proprio as an oracle of the Will of God, directly inspired by the Spirit (in curious contrast with the blandness with which the same people dismiss Benedict when he speaks on the Iraq War, torture, capital punishment or the evils of capitalism.) In reality the status and authority of such a document is not absolute. Benedict pleads for understanding and support from his fellow bishops, but many of them may judge him to have made a practical mistake. Ongoing dialogue and negotiations between Pope and bishops will not be ended by the Motu Proprio.

.

In the process of ‘reception’, the bishops will pick up on the statement in Benedict’s accompanying letter that affirms that they are still in charge of the liturgy in their own dioceses. Thus if a priest unilaterally inaugurates the Tridentine rite in his parish, he will be called to explain himself to the bishop (just as if he were to unilaterally celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin or some other language than the local vernacular), and rightly so. Bishops will probably set down preemptive guidelines about how to handle requests for the Tridentine rite, perhaps insisting on a numerical quota and on evidence that the requesters have liturgical formation and knowledge of Latin. Moreover, requesters could be asked to ensure the formation of altar servers who can recite the Latin responses and to take care of the expense of buying the Latin books and providing the vestments suited to the Tridentine rite.

.

A worrying thought: Who or what are the Ecclesia Dei Commission? No doubt they were set up to deal with Lefebvrites. Now it seems they are being given interventive powers extending throughout the whole Church. Is it paranoid to detect a minatory tone in Art. 7 of the Motu Proprio: ‘If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 § 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.’ And note the insistence in Art. 12 on the power of this body: ‘This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.’

.

Benedict denies that the Motu Proprio takes anything away from the authority of diocesan bishops as the chief stewards of divine worship in their local churches. Their “role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity.” But one may well fear that bishops will be chosen in the French church on the basis of their enthusiasm for the new arrangements, so that the episcopacy will have a traditionalist stamp (as Témoignage chrétien hints).

.
The Motu Proprio will be greeted by many, deplored by many, as a blow to the authority of Vatican II. Benedict declares that the idea that the Motu Proprio “detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question” is “unfounded.” But in the eyes of many traditionalists the Motu Proprio will be greeted as a first step to undoing liturgical reforms they regard as near demonic.
.
A DIVISIVE DOCUMENT

.

Benedict also again dismisses as “quite unfounded” the fear that the new arrangement “would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities.” One reason he gives is a very poor one: that only a few people will avail of it. “The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language. Neither of these is found very often.” Well, it would be wonderful if the vocal traditionalists would acquire such formation and learn some Latin, but ignorance of Latin has never been an obstacle to their divisive crusading. “It is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.” A situation that the traditionalist will labor mightily to overturn. They want the Tridentine Rite and none other to be the ordinary Form.
.

What Benedict is restoring is an old form of the Roman Rite, to be celebrated alongside the newer form. “The two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching”; “celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.” Somehow the Tridentine Mass is supposed to have an aura of holiness that will spread to the Novus Ordo as well. This is weak and illogical thinking.
.

‘There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.’
.

I am no liturgical historian, but I wonder if there has ever been a case in history where older and newer forms of the same rite are maintained in the same church. The faithful will be choosing between a Tridentine Mass at 9 and a Novus Ordo Mass at 10. This is a troubling scenario. Meanwhile the chances the traditionalists will now embrace the Novus Ordo seem very slim, given that so much has been conceded to their pressure here.

.

This new arrangement will create nothing but headaches for bishops, priests and laity. Happily there will be a review after three years, and if the experiment turns out to be entirely counter-productive it may be abandoned. Most probably, the affair will turn out to be much ado about nothing; a huge expense of time, money and energy will have given birth, once more, to a pathetic little mouse – Rome again fiddling while the world burns. There is no functioning chain of command whereby Vatican edicts are put into practice at ground level -- a level with which their framers are utterly unacquainted. A far greater threat to the liturgical health of the Church is posed by the proposed new literalistic ICEL translations, as addressed elsewhere on this weblog. For sensible comments, see J. Peter Nixon at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/post/index/1103/Get-Your-Motu-Running. At Commonweal the question has been posed: what is the worst possible consequence of the Motu Proprio. The answer is given by Monsignor Anthony B. Boylan in The Tablet, June 30. He warns that, contrary to the minority experience of the double rite as an occasion of liturgical enrichment and reconciliation of traditionalists, the more prevalent pattern will be one of division -- traditionalist priests foisting the Tridentine rite on parishioners, traditionalist lay groups pressurizing priests to celebrate the old rite. Moreover, the restoration of the old rite sends the message that the liturgical renewal of Vatican II was merely optional, and inevitably undercuts the authority of the Council itself.

.

Finally, in answer to Mark Shea’s allegation that I loathe the Latin Mass, I should like to say that I love the Latin language and that my own favored language of celebration is Latin. But I have never found a lay congregation that wanted a Latin celebration or that know the responses, so I have celebrated in Latin only with fellow priests. Of course we have used the Novus Ordo with the Roman Canon. My favored church music would be Gregorian Chant with old polyphonic settings of the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, and Agnus Dei. The detestable state of church music in the English-speaking world has something to do with financial arrangments with music publishers.

.

THE ROMAN BREVIARY

.

One good aspect of the Motu Proprio is that the Vatican are making historical liturgical books and the Breviarium Romanum newly available, let us hope at a reasonable price and in a convenient format. One of the things that effectively destroyed the use of the Breviary by priests in recent decades was the hefty three-volume format in which it was published. If the Breviary is to be recited it must be made available in a portable version. I never bought the three-volume edition, but kept onto the interim version, The Prayer of the Church, which can be carried in a capacious pocket, along with a tattered copy of the Psalms in Hebrew which I bought in Jerusalem in 1977. This allowed an exiguous connection with the Breviary, or at least the Psalms, to be sustained. Another problem with the Breviary is that it still follows a monastic model that has little bearing on the rhythms of the ordinary priest’s or layperson’s life. One of the greatest failings of the Church since Vatican II has been its inability to provide the faithful with an essential instrument of the spiritual life: a prayer book. Perhaps the Breviarium Romanum could renovate the spiritual life of its users. The Psalms can be very different in different tongues (hear them sung in English by King’s College Choir, Cambridge). The monks at Ligugé chant them for hours in French to a dreary chant-tune; surely they would find far more contemplative sap in them if they reverted to Latin. But I fear that much of the Breviarium Romanum is irremediably archaic, and that if one went back to its selection of readings from the Latin Fathers, for example, one would have the feeling of play-acting, as in a historical drama. We need to connect the Gospel with the times, not to retreat from the times into a dream gospel. The US Bishops have pointed out the most glaring flaw of this restorationist movement in noting that the 1962 Missal lectionary has 1% of the Old Testament and 17% of the New Testament whereas the 2007 liturgy has 14% of the Old Testament and 71% of the Old Testament. How can liturgical advance be based on the suppression of Holy Scripture?

.

POSTSCRIPT: PHILIP BLOSSER’S SINISTER INTERPRETATION OF BENEDICT

.

There is a school of opinion that sees Benedict XVI as a Trojan Horse in the City of God. They see the Motu Proprio as only the first step in a movement to cancel entirely the liturgical reform inaugurated by Vatican II. In their view, Benedict’s expressions of respect for the Novus Ordo are merely diplomatic. He recognizes it as prevailing de facto, but not de iure.  Blosser writes: ‘The question is whether the current Novus Ordo represents the reform mandated by Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium. Licit it may be -- although there is much about the way the Novus Ordo is celebrated today that doesn’t begin to approach its licit form prescribed by the Vatican. But is the Novus Ord even in its licit form what Sacrosanctum Concilium mandated? The Fathers of the Council would almost unanimously vote thumbs down. So would many of the greatest liturgical historians of the Council, like Louis Bouyer. So would many of the most erudite and historically informed students of liturgy today -- including Alcuin Reid, Aidan Nichols, Klaus Gamber, not to mention the former Cardinal Ratzinger and present Holy Father, Benedict XVI.’ Thus the expressions of respect for the Novus Ordo in the Motu Proprio are not to be taken at face value. Benedict’s aim is to abolish the Novus Ordo completely, and restore the status quo ante as if Vatican II, at least liturgically, had never been. (The Lefebvrites of course wish that ecumenically, too, and above all in regard to the question of religious freedom, which they see as an American novelty foisted on the Church, Vatican II had never been.) Philip Blosser claims to respect the infallible authority of all Ecumenical Councils, but the trap is that Vatican II was 'merely' a pastoral council that made no new infallible statements; this leaves a big loophold for undoing the Council.

  If Benedict were really the Pope Dr. Blosser seems to imagine -- a more of less Lefebvrite Pope, the Church would have no alternative but to revive the conciliarist tradition of the Council of Constance (Haec Sancta); its doctrine of the superiority of conciliar over papal authority, masterfully upheld by Bossuet, has never been refuted. A Pope of such schismatic or even heretical tendencies would have to be deposed. Perhaps an intervention of the College of Cardinals would suffice. But I do not believe that Benedict is such a Pope. When he writes, ‘Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful,’ I believe that this willing acceptance is something he approves of and wishes to promote. The alternative nightmare scenario is inconceivable -- though we have seen the USA become the world's chief advocate of torture, something many would have thought inconceivable.

  Blosser has reprinted on his website several articles condemning the Novus Ordo, some by authors explicitly favored by Pope Benedict. One Michael Davies wrote: ‘Dr. Lothian is completely correct in claiming that the Vatican insists that a liturgical renewal “has taken place and that the Church is all the better for it.” Pope John Paul II assures us that “the vast majority of the pastors and the Christian people have accepted the liturgical reform in a spirit of obedience and indeed joyful fervor.” In reality the vast majority of baptized Catholics in Western countries do not assist at Mass on Sundays. Those who were not assisting at Mass before the Council have not been brought back to the practice of their faith, and millions who participated with joyful fervor in the unrenewed liturgy have now ceased attending altogether... The one prefect of a Roman congregation who has faced up to the reality of the liturgical debacle is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger... “What happened after the Council,” writes the Cardinal, “was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”... The liturgical destruction did not begin in 1969 with the promulgation of the new rite of Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. The debacle was well under way in 1965 when the Vatican allowed its liturgical bureaucrats to begin revising the Missal that had last been revised in 1962... No layman could help noticing the changes made to the Ordinary of the Mass in the 1965 Missal, and there can be little doubt that its purpose was to prepare the faithful for the revolutionary changes that were to be introduced in 1969. By design or by coincidence the preparation for this revolution followed precisely the strategy of Thomas Cranmer, the apostate Archbishop of Canterbury, prior to the imposition of his English Communion Service of 1549. One of the principal features of the Catholic liturgy had been stability. Developments in the manner in which Mass was celebrated did occur, but they crept in almost imperceptibly over the centuries, and the Missals in use in England and throughout Europe in the sixteenth century had remained unchanged for at least several hundred years. The faithful took it for granted that whatever else might change, the Mass could not. In order to avoid provoking resistance among the Catholic faithful Cranmer deemed it prudent not to do too much too soon. Parts of the Mass were celebrated in the vernacular – but, many insisted, it was still the same Mass, so why risk persecution by protesting? New material was introduced into the unchanged Mass, which while open to a Protestant interpretation was in no way specifically heretical; once again, why protest?’

.

There is much more in this vein, and in the other articles touted by Dr Blosser. The upshot is that the Novus Ordo is illegitimate. Dr. Blosser is firmly convinced that Pope Benedict shares this view. But since Pope Benedict has praised the inculturated liturgy of Zaire (see The Spirit of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press, 2000, pp. 169-70), a liturgy celebrated in the vernacular, I think we may safely assume Dr. Blosser’s restorationist fantasy to be baseless. For a sensible correction of his erroneous allegations about Paul VI and his advisers, see http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/post/index/1129/The-Vernacular-Setting-the-Record-Straight.

POSTSCRIPT

The madness unleashed by the Motu Proprio is one of the mightiest teacup-storms in Church history -- mighty in its wastage of episcopal energies at a time when there is so much urgent work to be done. And the TLM zealots have now taken to parsing every episcopal utterance on the subject in a paranoid manner. La commedia è stupenda! Look at how Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor is treated at http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/11/archbp-of-westminster-on-summorum-pontificum. Clearly the Motu Proprio has become a charter for badmouthing bishops everywhere.

"Following the Second Vatican Council, when the Liturgy of the Latin Church was extensively revised by the Council Fathers, the Bishops of England and Wales requested that Rome grant an Indult whereby the 1962 Rite of Mass could be celebrated in designated places with the permission of the Ordinary." [Yes, indeed.  But you see… Your Grace, times are quite different now.  Priests don’t need permission of the Ordinary any more.] The Indult was granted in 1971.  Here in Westminster there has always been a generous response [Do you suppose the people making requests always found a generous response?  I am sure we will hear from them about those days.] from successive Archbishops to requests from those who adhere to this earlier liturgical tradition for the celebration of the 1962 Rite. Provision is [I think he must mean "was"] made for a weekly celebration on Sundays in two parishes and for a monthly celebration in two further places. There is [I think he must mean "was"] also provision for weekday celebrations in a number of churches.  (I enclose a list of this provision which can also be found on page 132 of the Diocesan Year Book). In recent years, the sacrament of Confirmation has been celebrated annually according to the 1962 Rite by a Bishop of the Diocese.   
" To restore unity within the Church – both to enable those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity and to offer those who have not yet accepted the liturgical reforms and teachings of the Second Vatican Council a way back to full communion with the Church."  [This is a horribly narrow and inaccurate way of reading the Holy Father’s provisions.  This does not take into account those who have no dificulty with unity but who merely desire the older form of Mass for the good of their souls.  From the onset, therefore, the writer seeks to frame the whole issue as a matter of people who are on the edge of unity with the Church.  And he seems to want you to think that that is the POPE’s view also.  It isn’t.]
"The assessment of qualification rightly belongs to the Bishop" [I am not so sure.  By "right" in keeping with law, I suppose a bishop decides if a priest is idoneus to say any Mass at all.  If he is wicked or simply thick or sadly incoherent, the priest shouldn’t say Mass.  However, now we get to the real problem: Why for some many decades were bishops approving for ordination men who don’t know Latin?  And now they think to crack down on men who want to say Mass in the language of their Rite?  This would be an unjust imposition of a double-standard.]
     "It is not envisaged that such Masses, in either form, are advertised." [I love phrases like this.  They remind me of what I call the "episcopal subjunctive".  I get the image of very important fellow, with a very important voice, declaiming: "There shall be no illicit envisaging here.  Any envisaging to be done, will be done by the bishop!]
" The Motu Proprio gives Parish Priests permission to use the earlier rituals for the above Sacraments. Their use falls under the same requirements as the celebration of Mass using the Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII. The Bishop or Auxiliary Bishop should be informed."  [Bishops are to be informed if the older Rite is used to baptize a baby?  Okay… perhaps every priest of the diocese should put in a call to the bishops every time they baptize or marry or bury or bless a Rosary with any book in any language!  Apparently it is really important for the bishop to know that Father has baptisms today!]
    
"Slight revisions will be made to the Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII." [Oh really?  By what oracle is this known for sure?] ... The thing to pick up here is that unnecessary restrictions on the rights of people and priests are being suggested (remember, he says this is only a commentary.  It does not have the force of law).  I will share at this time a comment in an interview by His Excellency Archbishop Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship: "You know there have been, on the part of some dioceses, even interpretative documents which inexplicably aim at putting limits on the Pope’s Motu Proprio. Behind these actions there are hidden, on one hand, prejudices of an ideological kind and, on the other hand, pride, one of the gravest sins. I repeat: I call on everyone to obey the Pope. If the Holy father decided he had to issue the Motu Proprio, he had his reasons which I share entirely."  So Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor has now been added to the long list of bishops that Archbishop Ranjith claims are allowing themselves to be "used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else."

.

Comments on this piece by Fr John Zuhlsdorf include the following: "This prelate really does not prefer obedience to his Holy Father over his own feelings." "If Rome cannot or will not deal decisively with men like +Cormac, how can anyone fault the SSPX for being reticent towards rapproachment?" "This is part of a series of co-ordinated, negative and obstructionist responses by a certain cadre of the bishops of E and W – the group that thinks it’s untouchable by Rome. They are so full of their own self-importance, that they intend to put every obstacle in the way of the Holy Father’s teachings: Murphy O’Conman thinks he’s untouchable because he’s a cardinal and past retiring age; Roche thinks he is because of his Chairmanship of ICEL." "Is he truly serious about this or has he forgotten that it is the Holy See that makes the rules and he is just has to follow it?" "The tide is running against these guys. They will fight and argue and resist and there won’t be any way to squelch them entirely any more than there is with rank heresy or any of the other nonsense that has been going on for so long." "The petty-minded bureaucracy and control freakery displayed by some in the hierarchy who, rather than show dignity and true leadership, behave like inarticulate middle-managers afraid of losing their status. Do they think we can’t read Summorum Pontificum for ourselves? The sooner Cardinal Murphy O’Connor retires the better." "How can anyone reach such a high position in the church and be such an unthinking moron? He either didn’t read the MP or he didn’t understand a thing he read. (What is the reading comprehension of the average archbishop in his native language anyway?)" "Towering pride is a very serious problem here. He does not have much time left to live. Please God the veil will be lifted from his heart before it is too late. In his position he carries such heavy responsibility for the Church. To see him attempt to curtail her mission like this is damning." "Benedict liberates: Cormac castrates!" "Catholics feel empty, lost, deceived, cheated. There’s a double face presentation of our Sacred faith before the world, and we owe it to Vatican II and its plotters, and idealists who spit, raked the flesh of Christ with their abominations, and sins!"  "If it was 450 years ago he probably would have gladly signed off on Henry VIII as head of the Church and gladly celebrated the ‘Novus Ordo’ of those days" (this comment from a priest!).

.

One voice of sanity is heard amid the bedlam: "I am quite stunned by the writer’s comments on +Cormac’s letter but even more so by some of the comments here on site. It looks to me like all out rebellion against the cardinal archbishop. The writer’s RED comments were overwhelming and so substantial as to be revolutionary. I thought +Cormac was and is the canonical bishop of the diocese and as such deserves the loyalty and respect of those in that diocese. The attacks on his letter are mind-boggling to say the least and highly subversive. Yes, they are such because +Cormac is the bishop. I may be the lone ranger here but as far as I am concerned he is entitled to teach and preach the faith unless and until he is removed under canonical law by the Pope himself. And this is not about to happen. Come on – this is about the Latin mass, it’s not about the truth of the Gospels, the sacraments per se. He is not denying the faith, he is writing about a Motu Proprio which is not infallible. It’s time some writers and many woke up to the fact that the Church is not teaching here about the faith per se, but the way in which the Latin Mass a la John XXIII is to be implemented in the Church. I do not see thousands or millions of Catholics running to man the barricades or marching on the cathedrals of the world to demand the Latin Mass and all it encompasses. Where are the letters of the millions of the faithful; where are the masses storming the bishops’ residences? No they are not there because this is NOT an issue. It is only an issue with a selected few who focus on the external fashions and language.
In all my days in the seminary the holiest of students were those who prayed and lived out the Gospel – and still do. Their holiness was and is not measured by the way they could say a Latin Mass. A good friend of mine who is a bishop of his own diocese says he can’t say the Latin Mass, as he has never done so. This is not a major error, it's simply that the Church has moved on. Latin is NOT integral to the life of the Church. It is it's history from a time and era when it was the lingua franca – this has passed now and is more of a museum relic that some are seeking to hold onto. That B XVI has chosen to allow it, obiter dicto, is well and good and many will like and do like that. But let’s not get our lace albs in a twist and start calling for cardinals to step down and retire to their knitting. There needs to be a proper perspective here. But to attack and blast the cardinal with all the red inserts is just amazingly crass and not at al loyal. I write this as a concerned Catholic who does so in order that a proper perspective can be made and discussed."

.

The Motupropriists are enraged and desperate, and nothing or no one is sacred to them as they clamor for their bauble -- a bauble that no one but themselves is asking for. They have a friend in Rome -- Archbishop Ranjith -- who has surged from obscurity to sudden fame by indulging in the most extraordinary anti-episcopal rhetoric heard within the halls of the Vatican in living memory. By their fruits you shall know them. The fruits of the Motu Proprio are madness. The best that we can hope for it is that it remains a dead letter. Even if it does, it will have produced a remarkable effect -- as a textbook demonstration of how the Vatican shoots itself in the foot.

.

Archbishop Ranjith is a warm friend of the Lefebvrites, and may see it as his mission to install Lefebvritism at the heart of the Vatican; to do so, he has already had to lash out at the world's bishops, calling them instruments of the devil. I do not think that Benedict XVI, who recalled him to Rome whence he'd been banished, can afford to entertain his antics much longer. I read this at http://cornell-catholic-circle.blogspot.com/2005/12/new-secretary-of-cdw-friend-of.html: "In 2002, while our late Holy Father was still presiding from Peter's chair, a Society priest had this to say about the man who is now No. 2 at the Congregation for Divine Worship: Another tiny light of hope is the appointment of a bishop from Sri Lanka to the Roman Curia.... I had the opportunity to meet him last year in March (2001)... He said if we want to restore the Church, if we want to bring a true renewal to the Church, we must begin there, in the very center. We understood each other very well. At the very beginning of the month of October, we suddenly heard that Bishop Ranjith was nominated an Archbishop, and that he was appointed Joint Secretary to the Congregations for the Propaganda of the Faith and the Evangelization of the People in Rome. Some days later, I again had the opportunity to meet him... He said, "I agree 200% with you that there really is a problem in the Church with the liturgy and the priesthood, and both go together. We must work on this, and there is no doubt that the Pope has to set free the true Catholic Mass for everyone—I am going now to Rome where I will have my private chapel. I have just taken care to get a Missal of St. Pius V to celebrate Mass as it should be."... Msgr. Bernard Fellay, in a Nov. 2004 letter to the supporters of the Society, says, We have an archbishop in Rome -- well, now he is no longer in Rome, he has been kicked out -- who says the Church is not going out of the crisis without going back to the Tridentine Mass... Could Arbp. Ranjith Don be this promised friend of Tradition -- the Pope's man at the CDW, saying the Tridentine Mass privately by night and fighting for a traditional "reform of the reform" by day?"

Comments

[Crimson Wife]

Father O'Leary,
Do you truly believe that the Catholic Church should "learn from the Anglicans?" That denomination has steadily lost members and influence over the past half-century and is currently on the verge of schism. A number of Episcopal priests and even whole congregations have converted to Catholicism recently. I am a cradle Catholic but my mom & her family are Episcopalians so I hear first-hand accounts of the turmoil in that denomination. That's not what I want for our Faith!

The fastest-growing faiths in the world are the traditionalist ones- Pentecostalism, Mormonism, Islam, and so on. Within Catholicism, the fastest-growing parishes are ones offering Byzantine and Traditional Latin Masses. It's not just the older generation who grew up prior to Vatican II and converts, either. Many young cradle Catholics like me have grown dissatisfied with wishy-washy "feel good" Catholicism lite and have embraced orthodoxy.

We should do well to recall Christ's warning in Matthew 7:13-14: "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!"

[gravey]

"Somehow the Tridentine Mass is supposed to have an aura of holiness that will spread to the Novus Ordo as well. This is weak and illogical thinking."

"I am no liturgical historian, but I wonder if there has ever been a case in history where older and newer forms of the same rite are maintained in the same church."

I disagree. In the Diocese of Oakland (CA) a parish has maintained both rites since 1989. The NO Mass is in Latin, incorporates bells, incense, traditional vestments, traditional music and sacred silence. I believe that the introduction of the TM greatly influenced the NO Mass in that Church and that the NO Mass is offered in way which is truly holy, consistent with the real spirit of Vatican II.

[Stephen]

"The faithful will be choosing between a Tridentine Mass at 9 and a Novus Ordo Mass at 10. This is a troubling scenario."

Why is this troubling? It will draw out "traditionalists" and re-incorporate them into the standard parish community.

Increasing numbers of parishes offer NO Masses with Latin and chant. This is a type of gravitational "pull" that the Tridentine Mass has on the NO Mass. And it is a good effect that I hope continues to spread.

[Clayton]

Did you read the explanatory note? I thought this quote from St. Paul was particularly appropriate:

"Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

[Father V.]

Shouldn't we be applauding anything that will bring people back to the fold? I have heard from so many over the years, "Well, you know, it's a big Church, be open to the gifts that everyone brings." This is usually an excuse for some craziness, or some heterodox practice. Well, now those who have blown this horn need to realize that yes, it truly is a big Church, and there is room for two liturgies in the Roman rite.

Secondly, I sense in your post a certain lack of trust in the Holy Spirit. The Sedevacantists hold that there is no valid pope since Pius XII, but many on the other side of the aisle seem to think that the Holy Spirit has stopped working through the person of the Pope since Vatican II. Both are, of course, wrong. This is an action of the Holy Spirit working through Peter. Let us all relax, and "generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows."

God love you and keep you, dear brother.

[Pristinus Sapienter]

Oh, good grief! So much hot air, Father, with little warmth and absolutely no light!

Where, oh where, have you misplaced your faith?

Could it be there hiding behind and buried under your out-sized ego? Has it not occurred to you that only God can afford to exert ego, all and here abouts?

I will pray for you, surely - you appear to need prayers almost as much as I do.

[The young fogey]

Obviously, Father, we're on opposite sides of this issue but I've never forgotten your gentlemanly defence of me on Fr Jake's blog for my peace witness.

Me on the motu: http://home.att.net/~sergei592/motu.html

'Do you truly believe that the [Roman] Catholic Church should "learn from the Anglicans?"'

Well, of course I do! :) 1) The Episcopalians had the sense to backtrack very near the beginning of their liturgical revision and offer what many people wanted: a 'Rite I' traditional option in the new book and a traditional service once a week, often the early ('eight o'clock') service... that's why the Church of England has included a similar option in its new books; and 2) the English Missal and Anglican Breviary are traditionalists' for the asking to do the 1962 services in English.

[Anna Ficaldi]

Father O'Leary. Hello. I am not a Catholic. I was born and raised a Protestant. But I've read your writings, your views, all over the web for some time now. All I want to ask you is this: why do you not leave the RCC and join the "group" to which you belong in reality? You know, the so called "ultra-liberal Protestants"? Those people who barely can call themselves "Christian" any more? I can never understand why people like you who try and undermine (sorry, I know this is a strong word!) your tradition, still cling to it in a basically dishonest manner, while at the same time trying to smuggle with the heads and minds of your fellow church men/women. Have you ever asked this question to yourself? Perhaps you did. Did you reach an honest answer?

[Michael J. Bayly]

Fr. O'Leary is where he needs to be - at the growing edge of our Catholic tradition.

We need informed, courageous, and intellectually honest people like him to challenge and inspire us. I know there are many Catholics who appreciate the work of theologians like Joseph O'Leary. It would be a sad day for the Church if their voices were silenced.

Thank you, Joseph, for all you do.

Peace,

Michael

[The young fogey]

Not to presume to speak for Father but my theory is a lot of it is cultural - ethnic and class loyalty keeps a lot of dissident Roman Catholics where they are even though intellectually they're liberal Protestants. For example they don't become Episcopalians because of the bad history between the Irish and the English and because they don't like high churchmanship.

I can take this one further and say the liberals are an inverted form of the first kind of catholics I describe here: http://unasancta.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/talks-with-a-young-fogey/

Part of the same Roman culture as the EWTN conservatives?

[Joseph O'Leary]

Young fogey, I forget if you speak as an Anglican or as a Roman Cathoic, but why do you feel it necessary to use that Stalinist language about dissidents? I love the Anglican Communion and consider it an authentic form of Catholic Christianity, "our sister church" as Paul VI called it. To argue that I should therefore reject the Roman Catholic Church is sectarian thinking. I note that my revered teacher Enda McDonagh has been made an Ecumenical Canon of an Anglican Cathedral in Dublin -- a sign of how close our churches are, how one in Christ.

[Joseph O'Leary]

Here is the response of the Archbishop of Paris:

Archevêché de Paris Paris, le 6 juillet 2007

Aux curés et aux prêtres de Paris

Chers amis,

Depuis bientôt un an, la presse nous annonce la prochaine publication d’un Motu Proprio. Elle en donne des versions diverses, au point que nous avons déjà été préparés à le lire avant qu’il ne paraisse. Maintenant nous en avons le texte et c’est ce texte dont nous devons assurer la « réception » par nous et par tous les fidèles. Après les vacances, nous pourrons faire le point plus précisément sur la situation mais dès maintenant, je souhaite donc simplement vous proposer quelques clés de lecture et quelques orientations pratiques. 1. L’intention du Pape. Dans sa lettre d’accompagnement le Pape exprime les raisons positives qui l’ont conduit à publier ce Motu Proprio. La première est la volonté de faire progresser la communion de l’Eglise. Il ne s’agit ni de « revenir en arrière » à une pratique préconciliaire ni de donner des gages à des groupes de pression. Il s’agit de prendre une mesure d’apaisement et d’ouvrir la voie à une plus grande communion entre les chrétiens. Ce serait donc aller à l’encontre de cette intention que d’utiliser ce texte pour rallumer une sorte de guerre liturgique. Nous ne sommes pas dans un conflit entre des rites qui feraient de l’Eucharistie un moyen d’opposition ou de division. Nous sommes devant un appel à vivre l’Eucharistie comme une expérience de communion. C’est donc notre premier objectif pastoral.

2. La règle. Le moyen de faire progresser notre communion sacramentelle est simple. Le Pape rappelle, comme le faisait déjà l’Exhortation post-synodale Sacramentum Caritatis, que la « forme normale » ou la « forme ordinaire » de la liturgie eucharistique est celle établie par Paul VI, et confirmée par Jean-Paul II, à la suite du Concile, telle que la donne la Présentation générale du Missel Romain. La nouveauté est l’élargissement du Motu Proprio de 1988 pour la célébration eucharistique selon le Missel de 1962, désignée comme une « forme extraordinaire » pour bien manifester qu’il ne s’agit pas d’un retour général à la pratique antérieure. Cette possibilité de célébrer selon le Missel de 1962 est élargie à tous les prêtres pour des messes sans participation des fidèles, à des communautés religieuses et à des « groupes stables de paroissiens » qui peuvent en faire la demande à leur curé. Elle peut aussi concerner des demandes particulières pour les sacrements célébrés, soit en latin selon le rituel actuel, soit selon le rituel de 1962. 3. L’application. Ces nouvelles mesures seront applicables à compter du 14 septembre 2007. Nous devons donc profiter de ce délai pour réfléchir aux possibilités de sa mise en oeuvre. Mais dès maintenant nous devons donner aux fidèles une information exacte qui corrige les présentations approximatives des journaux. Cette information porte sur trois points : • Il n’y a aucune mesure générale pour remettre en cause la « forme ordinaire » de la liturgie paroissiale. • Nous sommes invités à améliorer encore la qualité liturgique de nos célébrations y compris quand c’est pastoralement possible avec des parties latines de l’Ordinaire de la messe. • Les prêtres qui adhèrent à l’usage ancien doivent reconnaître « la valeur et la sainteté » de la messe selon le Missel de Paul VI pour être autorisés à célébrer selon le Missel de 1962. 4. Dans le diocèse de Paris. Comme vous le savez, depuis le Motu Proprio de 1988, le diocèse de Paris a institué la célébration selon le Missel de 1962 dans trois lieux : Ste Odile, St Eugène-Ste Cécile, et la Chapelle Notre-Dame du Lys. Ces trois propositions demeurent. A la demande de la Communauté de Notre-Dame du Lys, nous avons cherché une paroisse qui soit à même d’accueillir cette célébration plus largement. Ce sera chose faite à partir du 1er dimanche de l’Avent 2007. Pour assurer la qualité et la vitalité des célébrations selon le Missel de 1962, il me paraît raisonnable de renforcer ces trois lieux de célébration. Si de nouvelles demandes se présentent dans votre paroisse, vous voudrez bien les étudier avec générosité et me faire les suggestions pastorales que vous estimez justes. Je n’ouvrirai pas de paroisses personnelles dans le diocèse de Paris car j’estime que des fidèles qui demandent la célébration selon le Missel de 1962, ne sont pas des paroissiens « à part ». Mais cette volonté de ne pas les marginaliser suppose que nous soyons capables de répondre raisonnablement aux demandes qui seront faites. J’ai toute confiance dans votre jugement pastoral et votre capacité pour gérer cette situation avec justice et charité. Je compte sur vous pour que vous informiez les fidèles de façon à ne pas exacerber des polémiques dont les médias sont avides. Je souhaite que vous preniez quand même un repos bien nécessaire et je vous assure, cher amis, de mes sentiments cordiaux.

Mgr André Vingt-Trois

Note that he does not intend to open "personal parishes" because he does not think those who want the old rite are separate parishioners. Also he stresses that only those who accept the legitimacy and holiness of the Novus Ordo can receive permission to celebrate the Tridentine rite.

[Joseph O'Leary]

For the fetishism surrounding the cult of the Tridentine rite, I found a very illuminating comment from a young Catholic, John Heard, who expresses a fascination with the maniple-- "an ornamental handkerchief derived from a Roman soldier's sweat-towel"!: http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2007/07/dreadpublishing-being-heard-john-heard.html.

[Joseph O'Leary]

On episcopal authority, see the interesting and good-natured responses of Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard at his press conferences: http://www.dailymotion.com/fcrp/video/x2hc6i_motuproprio-cal-ricard-autorite-de

[Joseph O'Leary]

Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun says:

"Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the division of the Church that had directed the Inquisition before he became Pope Benedict XVI, has taken a powerful step toward the re-introduction of the process of demeaning Jews. You cannot respect another religion if you teach that those who are part of it must convert to your own religion. Interfaith respect is based on acceptance of the notion that people who do not become part of your own religion nevertheless deserve respect, and their religious commitments cannot be treated as something which must be overcome and left behind. While such notions of mutual respect are not honored recently in the practice of the U.S. government which currently believes it has the right to murder people in other countries and invade and topple their governments if they do not share the religion of capitalism and democracy, those of us who are spiritual progressives believe that this approach to the world is barbaric. So just as we oppose these policies in our own government, we join in supporting the many Catholics who are part of the Network of Spiritual Progressives who are dismayed and outraged at this latest assault on interfaith cooperation by the Pope, recognizing it as a first step on a slippery slope toward the restoration of anti-Semitism in the Church as well as the restoration of authoritarian and feudal ways of thinking that they had hoped would be relegated to the garbage bins of history... We see this move as wildly insensitive and further proof of the need of the Church to systematically teach its priests and its members about the disgraceful role it played in fostering anti-Semitism through the centuries, and how the teachings of hatred, and the need to convert the Jews, played into that anti-Semitism."

[Joseph O'Leary]

What Rabbi Lerner is complaining about is this prayer in the 1962 Missal that is to be restored:

"For the conversion of the Jews. Let us pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.

"Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness."

[Joseph O'Leary]

Interesting that there is a lot of restiveness among neocaths AGAINST the Motu Proprio. Benedict may have miscalculated the extent of his support base on this one. At Mark Shea's weblog we find sentiments such as the following:

'I entered the Church in 1971, so I had no first-hand knowledge of the Tridentine Mass. Out of (possibly) sinful curiosity, I attended a Lefebvrist celebration in the early 80's (did not receive communion of course). I was neither deeply enchanted nor particularly repelled. Though I lacked an emotional stake in the matter, until recently I favored making it widely available to those who preferred it. I thought the niggardly response of most bishops to the papal indults were petty and insolent (being, as they were, so obviously contemptuous of the Pope's plain intent). But after slogging through the comboxes on this during the last few months, I am this far (fingers 1/8 inch apart) from coming to the opinion that the motu proprio is a mistake and that the Tridentine Mass should be ruthlessly and finally suppressed. The arrogant disdain of some(not all, I admit) of its partisans for people who somehow can't perceive the total depravity of the Novus Ordo has been a major turn-off for me. I would never have thought that I could feel sympathy for the French bishops, but these guys have actually made me think that their froggish excellencies might be onto something.'

What if they gave a Tridentine party and nobody came?

[Joseph O'Leary]

One apect of the madness is that priests are already in short supply and over-burdened. As Bishop Matano of Burlington Diocese says:

'To celebrate the extraordinary form of the Sacred Liturgy with the proper reverence and honor it merits, careful preparation is needed. It is now over thirty years since this venerable rite has been celebrated in our Diocese. Thus, pastors able to celebrate the extraordinary form must reacquaint themselves with its rubrics. Also, servers must be properly trained, as well as choirs and cantors. At the same time, due to a severe shortage of priests, the first duty of the Bishop and the pastors is to make the Eucharistic Sacrifice available to as many people as possible, using the rite that is understood by the majority of the faithful in attendance... When this fundamental need is met, attention can be given to significant numbers of the faithful who seek the celebration of the extraordinary form of the Eucharistic Liturgy.'

[Joseph O'Leary]

Neocath rage from one Barbara Nicolosi, a disgruntled reader of the above blog entry:

Saturday, July 07, 2007
"Isn't it hard for you to kick against the goad?"

I did enough gloating for a year in my earlier post about the Pope's new Motu Proprio. So, I'm not going to gloat here about being right about the grinding and gnashing of teeth already coming from the G.H.C.W.L.A.L.T.F. (Grey-Haired Catholics Who Long Ago Lost Their Faith).

But, in truth, they're off. Here are a few choice snips from a GHPWLALHF (Grey-Haired Priest Who Long Ago Lost His Faith) twisting in the wind in a blog post he entitled, "Moto Proprio Madness". "Madness". The madness of the Vicar of Christ. I point it out just in case someone out there thought I was exaggerating about the disdain with which the GHCWLALTF have always treated the rest of us. In the name of the general good, of course.

The new Motu Proprio reflects clearly the rather idiosyncratic opinions of Joseph Ratzinger, opinions that have always been controversial and divisive.... [NOTE FROM BARB: Please note the hackneyed GHCWLALTF tactic of define and dismiss, a.k.a. "We call you names, so then, we don't have to listen to you."]

...Here the aspiration of many bishops to offer a “creative liturgy” to their people, is discredited.... [NOTE FROM BARB: See, the creative part of the liturgy is Jesus changing the bread into Himself. All the GHC'sWLALTF efforts to be more "creative" than Jesus at the liturgy have been obscenely inappropriate. Like watching Ellen Degeneres do her dancing at the Moscow Ballet.]

There is no mention of inculturation, or of a return to biblical sources.... Nothing about the pain of the many faithful who have not been provided with creative, inculturated liturgy, but with sawdust texts, hopeless sermons, wretched music, etc. [NOTE FROM BARB: Is it really possible for a GHPWLALHF to duck responsibility for the "wretched music" in the Church today? Are you kidding me?! You guys were the ones who shoved down our throats the Music Ministry People waving their hands in the air and croaking, "To Taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake Each MO-ment and Livvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvve Each Mo-ment in Peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeecae E-ter-nal-lyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy....."??? You gotta own the bodies of your rebellion, buddy.]

Nothing about learning from the Anglicans, who do all these things so much better than we do. In short, both diagnosis and remedy seem very narrow.... [NOTE FROM BARB: More name calling. Now the Pope is "narrow." But the Anglicans are super smart and good!]

...The Anti-Defamation League has rightly condemned the restoration of the prayer for the conversion of the Jews.... [NOTE FROM BARB: Because we do not wish that all people come to believe in Jesus? What you really meant to say here was, "What can we expect from a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth? People who like the Tridentine mass are all anti-Semites." Define and dismiss 101.]

...there are indications that the Motu Proprio is designed to undercut episcopal authority... [NOTE FROM BARB: Oh, no! Not people questioning authority?!!.... I suppose it is too obvious to say that someone might consider this GHP'sWLALHF blog post to be designed to undercut Papal authority. No, that's too obvious. I won't say it.]

...The Rev Keith Pecklers, a Jesuit liturgical expert [NOTE FROM BARB THE GHCWLALTF EXPERT...That's all, just wanted to balance out any whiff of the argument from expert authority.], said: ‘The real issue here is not limited to liturgy but has wider implications for church life.’ He added that proponents of the old Mass ‘tend to oppose the laity's increased role in parish life... collaboration with other Christians and its dialogue with Jews and Muslims.’” [NOTE FROM BARB: Because people who resist the GHCWLALTF are fearful, bigotted and racist. Define and dismiss. But really, is this guy really claiming that allowing the Mass of Bl. John XXIII is going to foster clericalism and bigotry? What is it with this generation that they always demonize in the worst political extremes, anyone who disagrees with them? Enough already. Can't you all go and pray somewhere while you wait for death?]

...Some French bishops have expressed their resolve to remain firmly in charge of the liturgy of their dioceses, and have been immediately denounced by neocaths as contumacious. It is bad governance for a Pope to appear to ride roughshod over his own bishops and his most enlightened advisers. [NOTE FROM BARB: Oh, so that's what JPII meant when he asked the French bishops, "Eldest Daughter of the Church, What have you done with your baptism?" It was all a papal euphemism for "you Frenchies are my most enlightened advisors.]

...The Motu Proprio will be greeted by many, deplored by many, as a blow to the authority of Vatican II.... [NOTE FROM BARB: No doubt the same people who distorted and misrepresented Vatican II for their own GHCWLALTF ends.]

...Somehow the Tridentine Mass is supposed to have an aura of holiness that will spread to the Novus Ordo as well. This is weak and illogical thinking. [NOTE FROM BARB: No reason given. Just because the GHPWLALHF says so. Oh, and note that the Vicar of Christ (author of something like 60 theological texts, has a weak and illogical intellect.]

I could go on, but what is the point? Just, please parse all the crap like the above that you are going to hear in the media once we get past tonights "The Planet is God" festivities.

[Darwin]

What Rabbi Lerner is complaining about is this prayer in the 1962 Missal that is to be restored:

"For the conversion of the Jews. Let us pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.

"Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness."

Yes and? I would certainly have no objection to Jews offering a prayer along the lines: "For the conversion of the Christian people to the true belief in the one God. May they see the falsehood of the teachings of Jesus the so-called-Messiah and come to understand that God is one and eternal, not divided into three persons."

Indeed, I would take it as a certain measure of respect for us, as Christians, if Jews did pray for us in this way. If someone believes his religion to be true (as I assume the good Rabbi does) and if the doctrines to which one gives belief differ from those of another (as I'm sure his do from mine) than one ought to pray for that person's conversion.

Vatican II rightly pointed out to us that many successfully give their love to God and attain salvation through love of Him despite holding to beliefs which are not true in every detail. But that does not mean that there is not a truth out there to subscribe to.

We also pray for the return of other Christians to unity with the one Church, and for the conversion of those who do not believe in God. Surely it would be odd if we then left the Jews out, as if they were not worthy of finding the truth.

All in all, though I'm no great fan of the Tridentine rite, I can't see a problem with the motu proprio, which seems to focus of providing power and flexibility to the laity. There's nothing clericalist or hierarchical about telling priests and bishops to listen to what the lay people want and give it to them -- rather than cramming down their throats whatever some panel of experts deem to be "at the people's level".

[Pertinacious Papist]

It is very difficult to reason with people suffering from mental illness.

So THAT'S what explains the challenge we've had trying to reason with you! You insist on clinging to your bugbear, your fetish, your foggy-headed notion of the "Spirit of Vatican II," and react with rage to anyone (like Benedict XVI) who puts it in question!

[LaVallette]

So what do we do with all those troglodytic Eastern Rites within the Catholic Church?

The Tridentine Rite is no more and no less than the traditional Western Rite.

Should they be banned outside the borders of their particular linguistic reach and traditions?

What is scaring the anti TR people? They still have the NO and no one is threatening that in any way.

Are they scared people may vote with their feet towards the TR or influence a more devout, dignified and elevated approach in the NO rite, especially in terms of the English language and the music currently in use rather than, the "get it over as quickly as possible" and "pop tune" current approach

[Joseph O'Leary]

"Get it over as quickly as possible" was quite a common attitude to the old Tridentine rite, as all of us who were altar boys remember. In no way was the acolyte encouraged to recite his responses at a slow contemplative pace.

[Joseph O'Leary]

Pertinacious Papist -- once again your contribution to the discussion is mere empty satire. Have you a substantive argument on any aspect of the issue?

[Joseph O'Leary]

Darwin, the prayer you quote was replaced in later versions and the current prayer is one that does not gratuitously offend Jewish people. To go back to the old prayer is nasty and insulting.

[Clayton]

If I'm not mistaken, the prayer in question is from the Good Friday liturgy... which won't be celebrated under the provisions of the MP.

So what is the point of raising the controversy about this prayer? Seems like a divisive distraction...

[Joseph O'Leary]

Clayton, "Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary."

"Art. 3. Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or "community" celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.

NOTE THAT THE EXCEPTION OF THE TRIDUUM DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PARAGRAPH 3. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE MOTU PROPRIO TO PREVENT A TRADITIONALIST COMMUNITY USING THE TRIDENTINE RITE FOR THE TRIDUUM.

[Joseph O'Leary]

http://atonementparish.blogspot.com/2007/07/summorum-pontificum.html

"I belong to a parish that welcomed in people from SSPX and our experience has been, if possible, even worse. Our pastor ended up in the hospital from the stress, bickering, and outright threats to the point where restraining orders had to be issued against members of this “holier than the Pope” group. Having been one of those “refugees” from SSPX I am in a unique position to sound the alarm. Out of the entire group (about 50 families) my husband and I are the ONLY ones who integrated into the parish. I am the Youth Minister and we both help teach RCIA. Since I am a lay person some people have been less than cordial re: my caveats."

[Pedro]

"Though you well know it, I shall remind you again that a Priest is 'another Christ'. And that the holy Spirit has said: 'Nolite tangere Christos meos — do not touch my Christs'."
(The Way, 67)

[Joseph O'Leary]

The Bishops of England and Wales, in their reception of the Motu Proprio, take the interpretive gambit I predicted: 'The Pope’s intention is to free Bishops from “constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to different situations”. He states that the Bishops’ own authority and responsibility, both for the liturgy and for the pastoral care of the faithful is fully maintained.'

Another excellent gambit, also followed by Archbishop Vingt-Trois, is to say: "We are already doing what the Motu Proprio asks for". Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor says: "“We are confident that the provisions already made throughout England and Wales under the indult granted back in 1971 go a significant way towards meeting the requirements of the new Norms. We foresee little difficulty in receiving and carrying out the Pope’s teaching about the two forms of the celebration of the Eucharist. There will of course be some priests who may not know immediately how best to respond to genuine requests for the extraordinary rite. The Norms are perfectly clear that the responsibility lies with the Bishop and where appropriate for him to refer to the Holy See for assistance and advice."

The art of "reception" has a long history in Catholicism and it is a deep and subtle one.

[Joseph O'Leary]

English Latin Mass Society: "The English Latin Mass Society said in a statement: "Thirty-seven years ago, the Latin Mass Society was denounced by The Universe newspaper for its attachment to the Traditional Latin Rite under the banner headline, 'Latin Madness'. Today, the loyalty, determination and sufferings of the Traditional faithful have been vindicated by Pope Benedict XVI's wise and pastoral motu proprio. This document puts an end to the discrimination, marginalisation and exclusion which, too often, Traditional Catholics have suffered. Instead, Pope Benedict has stressed legitimate diversity in the liturgical life of the Church and has enjoined the equality of all validly celebrated rites. In this respect it is important to note Pope Benedict's explicit statement that the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII 'was never juridically abrogated and consequently, in principle, was always permitted.'"

Note the word "equality". And note also this statement:

"Particularly important is Pope Benedict's implicit admission that many bishops could and should have done more over the years to accommodate the legitimate needs of those attached to the Traditional Rite."

The Latin Mass Society want the Pope to put his money where his mouth is: "We propose to ask the Holy Father to celebrate publicly the Traditional Rite as a mark of unity. This is a great day for the Church, particularly in Europe, where those attached to both the Traditional and new usages can now pull together as equals to launch the re-evangelisation of the continent."

Someone suggests that the reason Benedict feels the secession of the Lefebvrists as such a deep wound is that they take with them the residues of the old European aristocracy, on which he counts for the re-evangelization of Europe -- old Throne and Altar stuff.

[Joseph O'Leary]

Bishop David A. Zubik of Green Bay, Wis.: "Most importantly, I wish to state emphatically that the Mass is not changing. The normal way that we have been celebrating the Mass for the past 40 years remains. What you and I are asked to do is to open our hearts and be more aware of and attentive to those who have a spiritual need for the extraordinary form of celebrating the Mass."

The reality of this spiritual need may be questioned, as the bishops suggests when he adds that papal intervention appears to be "in response to serious concerns that have been expressed in countries other than our own."

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley said that he also believed the document "will not result in a great deal of change for the Catholics in the U.S."

"The issue of the Latin Mass is not urgent for our country.. I think they wanted us to be part of the conversation so that we would be able to understand what the situation is in countries where the numbers are very significant." So -- the USA, where the noisiest neocaths are jubilant about the Motu Proprio, will be virtually unaffected by it!

"There are some conservative Catholics who feel that everything ended with the Council, and some liberals who think that everything began with the council, and this Holy Father is trying to say that this is continuous growth, that it's the same church, and that we must try to avoid allowing the liturgy to become a battleground rather than a point of unification and communion for believers," O'Malley said in a July 7 telephone interview with the Boston Globe.

NOTE THAT HE SAYS THAT BENEDICT BELIEVES THAT THE NOVUS ORDO IS IN CONTINOUS GROWTH WITH THE OLD LITURGY, NOT THE DISCONTINUOUS LEAP THAT MOST TRADITIONALISTS SEE AND CLAIM THAT BENEDICT SEES.

Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany, N.Y., expressed concern about "the reality that there are many priests in our diocese serving two or three parishes and few priests who are trained to celebrate the 1962 Latin form."

[Joseph O'Leary]

Surprise! Pertinacious Papist does not treat the Motu Proprio as an infallible oracle: "Judgments of prudence in matters of discipline are clearly not always prudent. In such matters, the pontiff is clearly not protected by the divine charism of infallibility. Our response: prayers of petition for what needs changing, and prayers of unceasing gratitude for whatever good gifts we've been given." Here is good Catholic principle to check hot-headed zealots.

[Joseph O'Leary]

On the other hand, Pertinacious uses his principle to suggest that the reforms of forty years ago were imprudent. But there is a deeper issue here. Those reforms were not just a papal initiative, they were carried out in obedience to the mandate of an Ecumenical Council. The suggestion that the reforms of Vatican II could be overturned in principle (a suggestion formally rejected by Benedict) savors of schism and even heresy.

[Joseph O'Leary]

More good Catholic principle in Pertinacious Papist's combox: "For me some Traditionalists fool themselves if they believe there is ever a way back for the whole church to times and worship before Vatican II - Novus Ordo is an inherant part of the organic catholic development. This is it - those that truly enjoy worship according to the Latin Rite will find ways to do so - but I bet the future will see plenty of liberal and progressive leaning parishes who will offer hybrid masses - services that are a mix between nice meditative gregorian chants, some melodic old rite Latin, great contemporary music and a feelgood homily."

[Joseph O'Leary]

The Motu Proprio is a very brief document. The implications from the point of view of Canon Law will be difficult to work out. As canonist Dr Edward Peters remarks (http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/07/motu-proprio-mo.html#comments): 'Skimming comboxes here and there, one might conclude that (pace chronically cranky liberals) there is nothing about this document, now that we can finally read it, that warrants a closer look or raises any concerns. I think some tempering of enthusiam might be in order. There are, I'm thinking, A LOT of real questions in here.'

[Joseph O'Leary]

On the Triduum, even private celebrations can happen then if the celebrant has permission; or so at least Jimmy Akin thinks: "This makes it clear that in private Masses the priest has discretion about which missal he is going to use. He doesn't need permission from anybody. Now watch the two blue clauses in the following sentence, because they're important: The only time he can't use the Tridentine missal without permission at private Masses is during Triduum. This doesn't say that he can't get permission to use the Tridentine missal at a private Mass during Triduum. It also doesn't say that the Tridentine missal can't be used at public or conventual masses during Triduum. As the norm is written, it's addressing the situation of private Masses during Triduum, presumably to keep priests from sneaking off to celebrate in this way privately and not participating in the public and conventual Masses that are offered then."

Akin also thinks that in speaking of (merely) "due" reverence for the Novus Ordo the Motu Proprio is implicitly downgrading it.

[Joseph O'Leary]

Akin goes into the nitty-gritty of potential frictions and flash-points. "In practical terms, the PCED [Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei] is likely to uphold the bishop's judgment if the group of the faithful is small or a Tridentine-rite-capable priest is not available. However, this norm contains the flip side of the fact that there is no minimum number of the faithful that is required for a group: As the law is written, a group of any number of the faithful can appeal to the PCED."

Actually, one can easily imagine the PCED being inundated with requests and complaints by tiny conventicles demanding a Mass to their liking; that would be a delicious nemesis! Bishops, too, could keep sending conundrums and quandaries to the PCED for resolution, initiating consultations that could drag out for years (in the manner of the recent Kennedy non-annulment). In short, if the Vatican turns out to have created headaches for bishops, priests and laity, it will have turned out to have created even more headaches for itself!

[Joseph O'Leary]

On the triduum again, Akin's combox has this: 'So, if you're in a parish that primarily observes the extraordinary form, it is likely your pastor will choose to use it for the Triduum. If not, you will likely have one in the ordinary form. Which, honestly, shouldn't be some heinous suffering for people. Those Masses are usually performed as the highest form of the Novus Ordo in the parishes I've attended. Respectful, reverent, often with extensive Latin usage, and all the "smells and bells". I can't say if my parish decided to use the extraordinary [?]form for the Triduum it would upset me, nor should it.'

[Joseph O'Leary]

And here is some realism from the ground:

'1) How many people does it take to 'trigger' the extraordinary rite? I work in a parish that already has mass in 3 languages. If ten people came to us with the desire for a mass in a fourth language, would we comply? No. Because the priests are already stretched thin by the three language groups we serve, because it would mean added expense for the music (which the collection from ten people might not cover) and because we don't have the 'slot' available on a Sunday. I can't imagine that we are that unique. You can also factor in that we have two priests avaialable, but something like 60% (?) of the parishes in the US have one priest assigned to them. How would he manage?

'2) I work in a diocese with three parishes which provide the 1962 missal mass under the old indult. I figured out a while back that no one in the diocese is more than about a 30 minute drive from one of these parishes. Even with a generous estimate about how many attend each of the 1962 masses, I don't think that more than about .4% of the mass-going public avails themselves of the opportunity now. In our parish, that would be 5 people, at that rate of attendance. Note what I said above about resources being stretched. I would just give them the phone numbers and Mapquest directions to where the mass they prefer is already being offered.

'3) All of that being said, one hasn't even begun to factor in the purchase of new liturgical books, the training that goes into saying the mass according to the old missal, etc. (The one priest I know who is chomping at the bit can't really pronounce Latin. So, he needs a bit more practice, I would say.) And, as I said above, there is the expense of the music ministry. (We could recreate the hurried and silent 15 minute masses of my childhood, but I don't think that these fulfill anyone's hopes (across the spectrum) for something beautiful, dignified, with full, conscious and active participation.)

'So, what do I think will happen? A big yawn. No huge changes. Maybe a few more opportunities to experience the 1962 missal. And we roll on to the next thing that will clamor for attention.'

What did I tell you? The whole thing is MAD. It is mere ideological posturing, massaging of the fetish, with no serious connection with potential practical effects.

[Joseph O'Leary]

Continuing this discussion may be a frivolous waste of time, since the insignificance of the Motu Proprio, except possibly as a negative symptom of more Vatican foot-dragging on Vatican II, is becoming quite apparent. But here in any case is a useful contrast of the old and new rites, provided by the US Bishops:

Extraordinary Form (1962)
includes 1% of Old Testament
includes 17% of New Testament

Ordinary Form (2007)
includes 14% of Old Testament
includes 71% of New Testament

Extraordinary Form (1962)
Begins with prayers at the foot of the altar prayed
privately by priest and server

Ordinary Form (2007)
Begins with a greeting and communal
penitential rite

Extraordinary Form (1962)
One Eucharistic Prayer: the Roman Canon

Ordinary Form (2007)
Nine Eucharistic Prayers, the first of which is
the Roman Canon

Extraordinary Form (1962)
Faithful usually receive Holy Communion only
under one kind

Ordinary Form (2007)
Allows for wider distribution of Holy
Communion under both kinds to the faithful

Extraordinary Form (1962)
Last Gospel and Prayers to Saint Michael the
Archangel included in closing rites

Ordinary Form (2007)
Closing rites include Prayer after
Communion, Blessing and Dismissal

Extraordinary Form (1962)
Preserves prayers and rites of 1570 with some
changes

Ordinary Form (2007)
Simplifies prayers and rites in the light of
contemporary research and understanding

Extraordinary Form (1962)
Only clerics or “altar boys” perform liturgical
ministry

Ordinary Form (2007)
Restores lay liturgical ministries and encourages careful differentiation of roles.

In short, as the bishops show, the 2007 liturgy has everything the 1962 one has and more!

[Joseph O'Leary]

The Bishops also say:

In both the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Missale Romanum, full, conscious, and active participation of the faithful is to be desired above all else. (cf Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14). In both forms, this begins with an interior participation in the sacrifice of Christ, to which the gathered assembly is joined by the prayers and rites of the Mass.

The ordinary form of the rite customarily accomplishes this participation through listening and responding to the prayers of the Mass in the vernacular, and by taking part in forms of exterior communal action.

The extraordinary form accomplishes this participation largely through listening to the prayers in Latin and following the words and
actions of the Priest and joining our hearts to “what is said by him in the Name of Christ and [what] Christ says [to] him”(St. Pius X).

THIS SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BY THE US BISHOPS IS PERFECTLY OBJECTIVE, BUT IT IS A TOTALLY DAMNING COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RESTORATION!

[Joseph O'Leary]

At Sacramentum Vitae we have this "welcome" to the Motu Proprio:

"Despite the best of intentions, this move will legitimate what is already a de facto schism. For the Tridentine Mass is the rallying point for Catholics, clerical or lay, who think Vatican II was unnecessary at best and a disaster at worst. The new indult will make it easier for lay Catholics of that sort to attend Mass in that form; many of them already attend such a Mass but do so despite resistance from their bishops, so that some of the priests who preside at such Masses are doing so illicitly—either without "faculties" or as members of schismatic groups. Greater lay access will do little to change the attitude of such priests toward either their bishops or to the "updated" Church in general; what it will do is make attendance at their liturgies guilt-free; and in the medium term, the most conservative bishops will probably permit seminarians to learn how to do a Tridentine Mass. The effect of all that will be to make it easier and more respectable to be what the traditionalists already are, which is a much wider reality than that of liturgy alone. In effect, it will further entrench a spiritual culture sharply at odds with much of what has happened, good as well as bad, since Vatican II.

"That does not mean I oppose the new indult. As a tactical matter, it is probably the only way to bring closer that "reform of the reform" which Joseph Ratzinger has long thought necessary. I suspect that's probably what he now thinks too. For the effect of the Tridentine-Mass culture on the wider Church will be to make it more respectable to seek out liturgy that isn't schlock and is more organically connected to the great past than the Novus Ordo has been. My own preference, for example, has long been to bring back Latin for the Ordinary of Mass and celebration ad orientem by the priest, neither of which Vatican II or the Missal of 1970 forbade, but without sacrificing those aspects of the Novus Ordo I like, such as the wider lectionary cycle in the vernacular, lay lectors, and communion in the hand. My hope and prayer is that easier access to the "extraordinary" form will make that possible in many quarters where it now is not. But in the meantime the price will be high."

[Darwin]

"Darwin, the prayer you quote was replaced in later versions and the current prayer is one that does not gratuitously offend Jewish people. To go back to the old prayer is nasty and insulting. "

I understand that the prayer I quoted (I pulled it from your post above -- I've never been to a Tridentine Good Friday service) is an older version that has since been revised. My point however -- lonely and unaddressed -- is that is a sad and flabby sort of "tolerance" that rests on all parties pretending that they do not actually believe themselves to hold the "truth" and hope that others will embrace it as well.

Perhaps it is easier to separate warring children by telling them "no one is right" but our goal should be a mutual respect of each others convictions, not an agreement to pretend we have none.

As such, a Catholic prayer for the conversion of the Jews should not be offensive to Jews -- and Jewish prayer for the conversion of Catholics should not be offensive to Catholics.

[David Bennett]

It is very difficult to reason with people suffering from mental illness.

For me, a major red flag pops up when disagreement with the author's assumption/perspective is equated with mental illness. I do not see how such an opening line is positive in encouraging real discussion and debate about the merits of the Tridentine mass.

Even though I would probably be stereotyped as a "neo-cath" by Fr. O'Leary, I am not a huge fan of the Tridentine mass, but I certainly can see the reasoning behind those who want to see it used more frequently.

[Joseph O'Leary]

David Bennett, I find it more enlightening to view the Tridentine Mass cult as a pathological symptom of the liturgical crisis than as a coolly reasoned response to it.

Darwin, see http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html

"NOTES on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism
in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church"

Preliminary considerations

On March 6th, 1982, Pope John Paul II told delegates of episcopal conferences and other experts, meeting in Rome to study relations between the Church and Judaism: "'you yourselves were concerned, during your sessions, with Catholic teaching and catechesis regarding Jews and Judaism' We should aim, in this field, that Catholic teaching at its different levels, in catechesis to children and young people, presents Jews and Judaism, not only in an honest and objective manner, free from prejudices and without any offences, but also with full awareness of the heritage common" to Jews and Christians.

In this passage, so charged with meaning, the Holy Father plainly drew inspiration from the Council Declaration Nostra Aetate, 4, which says:

"All should take pains, then, lest in catechetical instruction and in the preaching of God's Word they teach anything out of harmony with the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ"; as also from these words: "Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred Synod wishes to foster and recommend mutual understanding and respect".

In the same way, the Guidelines and Suggestions for implementing the conciliar declaration Nostra Aetate (4) ends its chapter III, entitled "Teaching and education", which lists a number of practical things to be done, with this recommendation:

"Information concerning these questions is important at all levels of Christian instruction and education. Among sources of information, special attention should be paid to the following:

- catechisms and religious textbooks;

- history books;

- the mass media (press, radio, cinema, television).

The effective use of these means presupposes the thorough formation of instructors and educators in training schools, seminaries and universities" (AAS 77, 1975, p. 73).

The paragraphs which follow are intended to serve this purpose.

I. Religious Teaching and Judaism

1. In Nostra Aetate 4, the Council speaks of the "spiritual bonds linking" Jews and Christians and of the "great spiritual patrimony" common to both and it further asserts that "the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to the mystery of God's saving design, the beginning of her faith and her election are already found among the patriarchs, Moses and the prophets".

2. Because of the unique relations that exist between Christianity and Judaism - "linked together at the very level of their identity" (John Paul II, 6th March, 1982) - relations "founded on the design of the God of the Covenant" (ibid.), the Jews and Judaism should not occupy an occasional and marginal place in catechesis: their presence there is essential and should be organically integrated.

[Joseph O'Leary]

3. This concern for Judaism in Catholic teaching has not merely a historical or archeological foundation. As the Holy Father said in the speech already quoted, after he had again mentioned the "common patrimony" of the Church and Judaism as "considerable": "To assess it carefully in itself and with due awareness of the faith and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practised still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life of the Church" (underlining added). It is a question then of pastoral concern for a still living reality closely related to the Church. The Holy Father has stated this permanent reality of the Jewish people in a remarkable theological formula, in his allocution to the Jewish community of West Germany at Mainz, on November 17th, 1980: "the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked".

4. Here we should recall the passage in which the Guidelines and Suggestions (I) tried to define the fundamental condition of dialogue: "respect for the other as he is", knowledge of the "basic components of the religious traditions of Judaism" and again learning "by what essential trait the Jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience" (Introd.)

5. The singular character and the difficulty of Christian teaching about Jews and Judaism lies in this, that it needs to balance a number of pairs of ideas which express the relation between the two economies of the Old and New Testament:

Promise and Fulfilment
Continuity and Newness
Singularity and Universality
Uniqueness and Exemplary Nature.

This means that the theologian and the catechist who deals with the subject needs to show in his practice of teaching that:

- promise and fulfilment throw light on each other;

- newness lies in a metamorphosis of what was there before;

- the singularity of the people of the Old Testament is not exclusive and is open, in the divine vision, to a universal extension;

- the uniqueness of the Jewish people is meant to have the force of an example.

6. Finally, "work that is of poor quality and lacking in precision would be extremely detrimental" to Judaeo-Christian dialogue (John Paul II, speech of March 6th, 1982). But it would be above all detrimental - since we are talking of teaching and education - to Christian identity (ibid).

7. "In virtue of her divine mission, the Church" which is to be "the all-embracing means of salvation" in which alone "the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained" (Unit. Red. 3); "must of her nature proclaim Jesus Christ to the world" (cf. Guidelines and Suggestions, I). Indeed we believe that is is through him that we go to the Father (cf. Jn. 14:6) "and this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (Jn 17:33).

Jesus affirms (ibid. 10:16) that "there shall be one flock and one shepherd". Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all, "while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Declaration Dignitatis Humanae)" (Guidelines and Suggestions, I).

8. The urgency and importance of precise, objective and rigorously accurate teaching on Judaism for our faithful follows too from the danger of anti-Semitism which is always ready to reappear under different guises. The question is not merely to uproot from among the faithful the remains of anti-Semitism still to be found here and there, but much rather to arouse in them, through educational work, an exact knowledge of the wholly unique "bond". (Nostra Aetate, 4) which joins us as a Church to the Jews and to Judaism. In this way, they would learn to appreciate and love the latter, who have been chosen by God to prepare the coming of Christ and have preserved everything that was progressively revealed and given in the course of that preparation, notwithstanding their difficulty in recognising in Him their Messiah.

II. Relations between the Old* and New Testament

1. Our aim should be to show the unity of biblical Revelation (O.T. and N.T.) and of the divine plan, before speaking of each historical event, so as to stress that particular events have meaning when seen in history as a whole Y from creation to fulfilment. This history concerns the whole human race and especially believers. Thus the definitive meaning of the election of Israel does not become clear except in the light of the complete fulfilment (Rom 9-11) and election in Jesus Christ is still better understood with reference to the announcement and the promise (cf. Heb 4:1-11).

2. We are dealing with singular happenings which concern a singular nation but are destined, in the sight of God who reveals his purpose, to take on universal and exemplary significance.

The aim is moreover to present the events of the Old Testament not as concerning only the Jews but also as touching us personally. Abraham is truly the father of our faith (cf. Rom 4:11-12; Roman Canon: patriarchae nostri Abrahae). And it is said (1 Cor 10:1): "Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea". The patriarchs, prophets and other personalities of the Old Testament have been venerated and always will be venerated as saints in the liturgical tradition of the Oriental Church as also of the Latin Church.

3. From the unity of the divine plan derives the problem of the relation between the Old and New Testaments. The Church already from apostolic times (cf. 1 Cor 10:11; Heb 10:1) and then constantly in tradition resolved this problem by means of typology, which emphasises the primordial value that the Old Testament must have in the Christian view.

Typology however makes many people uneasy and is perhaps the sign of a problem unresolved.

4. Hence in using typology, the teaching and practice of which we have received from the Liturgy and from the Fathers of the Church, we should be careful to avoid any transition from the Old to the New Testament which might seem merely a rupture.

The Church, in the spontaneity of the Spirit which animates her, has vigorously condemned the attitude of Marcion** and always opposed his dualism.

5. It should also be emphasised that typological interpretation consists in reading the Old Testament as preparation and, in certain aspects, outline and foreshadowing of the New (cf. e.g., Heb 5:5-10 etc.). Christ is henceforth the key and point of reference to the Scriptures: athe rock was ChristÓ (1 Cor 10:4).

6. It is true then, and should be stressed, that the Church and Christians read the Old Testament in the light of the event of the dead and risen Christ and that on these grounds there is a Christian reading of the Old Testament which does not necessarily coincide with the Jewish reading. Thus Christian identity and Jewish identity should be carefully distinguished in their respective reading of the Bible.

But this detracts nothing from the value of the Old Testament in the Church and does nothing to hinder Christians from profiting discerningly from the traditions of Jewish reading.

7. Typological reading only manifests the unfathomable riches of the Old Testament, its inexhaustible content and the mystery of which it is full, and should not lead us to forget that is retains its own value as Revelation that the New Testament often does no more than raume (cf. Mk 12:29-31). Moreover, the New Testament itself demands to be read in the light of the Old. Primitive Christian catechesis constantly had recourse to this (cf. e.g., 1 Cor 5:6-8; 10:1-11).

8. Typology further signifies reaching towards the accomplishment of the divine plan, when "God will be all in all" (1 Cor 15:28). This holds true also for the Church which, realised already in Christ, yet awaits its definitive perfecting as the Body of Christ.

The fact that the Body of Christ is still tending towards its full stature (cf. Eph 4:12-19) takes nothing from the value of being a Christian. So also the calling of the patriarchs and the Exodus from Egypt do not lose their importance and value in God's design from being at the same time intermediate stages (cf. e.g., Nostra Aetate, 4).

9. The Exodus, for example, represents an experience of salvation and liberation that is not complete in itself, but has in it, over and above its own meaning, the capacity to be developed further. Salvation and liberation are already accomplished in Christ and gradually realised by the sacraments in the Church. This makes way for the fulfilment of God's design, which awaits its final consummation with the return of Jesus as Messiah, for which we pray each day. The Kingdom, for the coming of which we also pray each day, will be finally established. With salvation and liberation the elect and the whole of creation will be transformed in Christ (Rom 8:19-23).

10. Furthermore, in underlining the eschatological dimension of Christianity we shall reach a greater awareness that the people of God of the Old and the New Testament are tending towards a like end in the future: the coming or return of the Messiah - even if they start from two different points of view. It is more clearly understood that the person of the Messiah is not only a point of division for the people of God but also a point of convergence (cf. Sussidi per l'ecumenismo of the diocese of Rome, n. 140). Thus is can be said that Jews and Christians meet in a comparable hope, founded on the same promise made to Abraham (cf. Gen 12:1-3; Heb 6:13-18).

11. Attentive to the same God who has spoken, hanging on the same word, we have to witness to one same memory and one common hope in Him who is the master of history. We must also accept our responsibility to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah by working together for social justice, respect for the rights of persons and nations and for social and international reconciliation. To this we are driven, Jews and Christians, by the command to love our neighbour, by a common hope for the kingdom of God and by the great heritage of the Prophets. Transmitted soon enough by catechesis, such a conception would teach young Christians in a practical to way cooperate with Jews, going beyond simple dialogue (cf. Guidelines, IV).

III. Jewish Roots of Christianity

1. Jesus was and always remained a Jew, his ministry was deliberately limited "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 15:24). Jesus is fully a man of his time, and of his environment Y the Jewish Palestinian one of the first century, the anxieties and hopes of which he shared. This cannot but underline both the reality of the Incarnation and the very meaning of the history of salvation, as it has been revealed in the Bible (cf. Rom 1:3-4; Gal 4:4-5).

2. Jesuss relations with biblical law and its more or less traditional interpretations are undoubtedly complex and he showed great liberty towards it (cf. the "antitheses" of the Sermon on the Mount: Mt 5:21-48, bearing in mind the exegetical difficulties; his attitude to rigorous observance of the Sabbath: Mk 3:1-6, etc.).

But there is not doubt that he wished to submit himself to the law (cf. Gal 4:4), that he was circumcised and presented in the Temple like any Jew of his time (cf. Lk 2:21. 22-24), that he was trained in the law's observance. He extolled respect for it (cf. Mt 5:17-20) and invited obedience to it (cf. Mt 8:4). The rhythm of his life was marked by observance of pilgrimages on great feasts, even from his infancy (cf. Lk 2:41-50; Jn 2:13; 7:10 etc.). The importance of the cycle of the Jewish feasts has been frequently underlined in the Gospel of John (cf. 2:13; 5:1: 7:2.10.37; 10:22; 12:1; 18:28; 19:42; etc.).

3. It should be noted also that Jesus often taught in the Synagogues (cf. Mt 4:23: 9:35; Lk 4:15-18; Jn 18:20 etc.) and in the Temple (cf. Jn 18:20 etc.), which he frequented as did the disciples even after the Resurrection (cf. e.g., Acts 2:46; 3:1: 21:26 etc.). He wished to pu tin the context of synagogue worship the proclamation of his Messiahship (cf. Lk 4:16-21). But above all he wished to achieve the supreme act of the gift of himself in the setting of the domestic liturgy of the Passover or at least of the paschal festivity (cf. Mk 14:1.12 and parallels; Jn 18:28). This also allows of a better understanding of the "memorial" character of the Eucharist.

4. Thus the Son of God is incarnate in a people and a human family (cf. Gal 4:4; Rom 9:5). This takes away nothing, quite the contrary, from the fact that he was born for all men (Jewish shepherds and pagan wise men are found at his crib: Lk 2:80-20; Mt 2:1-12) and died for all men (at the foot of the cross there are Jews, among them Mary and John: Jn 19:25-27, and pagans like the centurion: Mk 15:39 and parallels). Thus he made two peoples one in his flesh (cf. Eph 2:14-17). This explains why with the Ecclesia ac gentibus we have, in Palestine and elsewhere, an Ecclesia ex circumcisione, of which Eusebius for example speaks (H.E. IV, 5).

5. His relations with the Pharisees were not always or wholly polemical. Of this there are many proofs:

- It is Pharisees who warn Jesus of the risks he is running (Lk 13:31);

- Some Pharisees are praised w e.g., "the scribe" of Mk 12:34;

- Jesus eats with Pharisees (Lk 7:36; 14:1).

6. Jesus shares, with the majority of Palestinian Jews of that time, some pharisaic doctrines: the resurrection of the body; forms of piety, like alms-giving, prayer, fasting (cf. Mt 6:1-18) and the liturgical practice of addressing God as Father; the priority of the commandment to love God and our neighbour (cf. Mk 12:28-34). This is so also with Paul (cf. Acts 23:8), who always considered his membership of the Pharisees as a title of honour (cf. ibid. 23:6; 26:6; Phil 3:5).

7. Paul also, like Jesus himself, used methods of reading and interpreting Scripture and of teaching his disciples which were common to the Pharisees of their time. This applies to the use of parables in Jesus' ministry, as also to the method of Jesus and Paul of supporting a conclusion with a quotation from Scripture.

8. It is noteworthy too that the Pharisees are not mentioned in accounts of the Passion. Gamaliel (Acts 5:34-39) defends the apostles in a meeting of the Sanhedrin. An exclusively negative picture of the Pharisees is likely to be inaccurate and unjust (cf. Guidelines, Note 1; cf. AAS, loc. cit. p. 76). If in the Gospels and elsewhere in the New Testament there are all sort of unfavourable references to the Pharisees, they should be seen against the, background of a complex and diversified movement.

Criticisms of various types of Pharisees are moreover not lacking in rabbinical sources (cf. the Babylon Talmud, the Sotah treatise 22b, etc.). "Phariseeism" in the pejorative sense can be rife in any religion. It may also be stressed that, if Jesus shows himself severe towards the Pharisees, it is because he is closer to them than to other contemporary Jewish groups (cf. supra n. 17).

9. All this should help up to understand better what St Paul says (Rom 11:16 ff) about the "root" and the "branches". The Church and Christianity, for all their novelty, find their origin in the Jewish milieu of the first century of our era, and more deeply still in the "design of God" (Nostra Aetate, 4), realised in the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets (ibid.), down to its consummation in Christ Jesus.

IV. The Jews in the New Testament

1. The Guidelines already say (note 1) that "the formula "the Jews sometimes, according to the context, means "the leaders of the Jews' or "the adversaria of Jesus', terms which express better the thought of the evangelist and avoid appearing to arraign the Jewish people as such".

An objective presentation of the role of the Jewish people in the New Testament should take account of these various facts:

A. The Gospels are the outcome of long and complicated editorial work. The dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum, following the Pontifical Biblical Commission's Instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia, distinguishes three stages: "The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explicating some things in view of the situation of the Churches, and preserving the form of proclamation, but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus" (n. 19).

Hence it cannot be ruled out that some references hostile or less than favourable to the Jews have their historical context in conflicts between the nascent Church and the Jewish community.

Certain controversies reflect Christian-Jewish-relations long after the time of Jesus.

To establish this is of capital importance if we wish to bring out the meaning of certain Gospel texts for the Christians of today.

All this should be taken into account when preparing catechesis and homilies for the last weeks of Lent and Holy Week (cf. already Guidelines II, and now also Sussidi per l'ecumenismo nella diocesi di Roma, 1982, 144 b).

B. It is clear on the other hand that there were conflicts between Jesus and certain categories of Jews of his time, among them Pharisees, from the beginning of his ministry (cf. Mk 2:1-11.24; 3:6 etc.).

C. There is moreover the sad fact that the majority of the Jewish people and its authorities did not believe in Jesus - a fact not merely of history but of theological bearing, of which St Paul tries hard to plumb the meaning (Rom chap. 9-11).

D. This fact, accentuated as the Christian mission developed, especially among the pagans, led inevitably to a rupture between Judaism and the young Church, now irreducibly separated and divergent in faith, and this stage of affairs is reflected in the texts of the New Testament and particularly in the Gospel. There is no question of playing down or glossing over this rupture; that could only prejudice the identity of either side.

Nevertheless it certainly does not cancel the spiritual "bond" of which the Council speaks (Nostra Aetate, 4) and which we propose to dwell on here.

E. Reflecting on this in the light of Scripture, notably of the chapters cited from the epistle to the Romans, Christians should never forget that the faith is a free gift of God (cf. Rom 9:12) and that we should never judge the consciences of others. St Paul's exhortation "do not boast" in your attitude to "the root" (Rom 11:18) has its full point here.

F. There is no putting the Jews who knew Jesus and did not believe in him, or those who opposed the preaching of the apostles, on the same plane with Jews who came after or those of today. If the responsibility of the former remains a mystery hidden with God (cf. Rom 11:25), the latter are in an entirely different situation. Vatican II in the declaration on Religious Liberty teaches that "all men are to be immune from coercion" in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor "restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs" (n. 2). This is one of the bases - proclaimed by the Council - or which Judeao-Christian dialogue rests.

2. The delicate question of responsibility for the death of Christ must be looked at from the standpoint of the conciliar declaration Nostra Aetate, 4 and of Guidelines and Suggestions (III): "What happened in (Christ's) passion cannot be blamed upon all the Jews then living without distinction nor upon the Jews of today", especially since "authorities of the Jews and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ". Again, further on: "Christ in his boundless love freely underwent his passion and death because of the sins of all men, so that all might attain salvation" (Nostra Aetate, 4). The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that Christian sinners are more to blame for the death of Christ than those few Jews who brought it about - they indeed "knew not what they did" (cf. Lk 23:24) and we know it only too well (Pars I, caput V, Quaest, XI). In the same way and for the same reason, "the Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy Scriptures" (Nostra Aetate, 4), even though it is true that "the Church is the new people of God" (ibid.).

V. The Liturgy

1. Jews and Christians find in the Bible the very substance of their liturgy: for the proclamation of God's word, response to it, prayer of praise and intercession for the living and the dead, recourse to the divine mercy. The Liturgy of the word in its own structure originates in Judaism. The prayer of Hours and other liturgical texts and formularies have their parallels in Judaism as do the very formulas of our most venerable prayers, among them the Our Father.

The eucharistic prayers also draw inspiration from models in the Jewish tradition. As John Paul II said (Allocution of March 6th, 1982): "the faith and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practised still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life of the Church. Such is the case of liturgy".

2. This is particulary evident in the great feasts of the liturgical year, like the Passover. Christians and Jews celebrate the Passover: the Jews, the historic Passover looking towards the future; the Christians, the Passover accomplished in the death and resurrection of Christ, although still in expectation of the final consummation (cf. supra n. 9). It is still the "memorial" which comes to us from the Jewish tradition, with a specific content different in each case. On either side, however, there is a like dynamism: for Christians it gives meaning to the eucharistic celebration (cf. the antiphon 'O sacrum convivium), a paschal celebration and as such a making present of the past, but experienced in the expectation of what is to come.

VI. Judaism and Christianity in History

1. The history of Israel did not end in 70 A.D. (cf. Guidelines, II). It continued, especially in a numerous Diaspora which allowed Israel to carry to the whole world a witness - often heroic - of its fidelity to the one God and to "exalt him in the presence of all the living" (Tobit 13:4), while preserving the memory of the land of their forefathers at the hearts of their hope (Passover Seder).

Christians are invited to understand this religious attachment which finds its roots in Biblical tradition, without however making their own any particular religious interpretation of this relationship (cf. Declaration of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 20, 1975).

The existence of the State of Israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in their reference to the common principles of international law.

The permanence of Israel (while so many ancient peoples have disappeared without trace) is a historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within God's design. We must in any case rid ourselves of the traditional idea of a people punished, preserved as a living argument for Christian apologetic. It remains a chosen people, "the pure olive on which were grafted the branches of the wild olive which are the gentiles" (John Paul II, 6th March, 1982, alluding to Rom 11:17-24). We must remember how much the balance of relations between Jews and Christians over two thousand years has been negative. We must remind ourselves how the permanence of Israel is accompanied by a continuous spiritual fecundity, in the rabbinical period, in the Middle Ages and in modern times, taking its start from a patrimony which we long shared, so much so that "the faith and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practised still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life of the Church" (John Paul II, March 6th, 1982). Catechesis should on the other hand help in understanding the meaning for the Jews of the extermination during the years 1939-1945, and its consequences.

2. Education and catechesis should concern themselves with the problem of racism, still active in different forms of anti-Semitism. The Council presented in thus: "Moreover, (the Church) mindful of her common patrimony with the Jews and motivated by the Gospel's spiritual love and by no political considerations, deplores the hatred, persecutions and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews at any time and from any source" (Nostra Aetate, 4). The Guidelines Comment: "the spiritual bonds and historical links binding the Church to Judaism condemn (as opposed to the very spirit of Christianity) all forms of anti-Semitism and discrimination, which in any case the dignity of the human person alone would suffice to condemn" (Guidelines, Preamble).

Conclusion

Religious teaching, catechesis and preaching should be a preparation not only for objectivity, justice, tolerance but also for understanding and dialogue. Our two traditions are so related that they cannot ignore each other. Mutual knowledge must be encouraged at every level. There is evident in particular a painful ignorance of the history and traditions of Judaism, of which only negative aspects and often caricature seem to form part of the stock ideas of many Christians.

That is what these notes aim to remedy. This would mean that the Council text and "Guidelines and Suggestions" would be more easily and faithfully put into practice.

Johannes Cardinal Willebrands
(President)

Pierre Duprey
(Vice-President)

Jorge Meija
(Secretary)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*We continue to use the expression Old Testament because it is traditional (cf. already 2 Cor 3:14) but also because "Old" does not mean "out of date" or "out-worn". In any case, it is the permanent value of the O.T. as a source of Christian Revelation that is emphasised here (cf. Dei Verbum, 3).

**A man of gnostic tendency who in the second century rejected the Old Testament and part of the New as the work of an evil god, a demiurge. The Church reacted strongly against this heresy (cf. Irenaeus).

[Joseph O'Leary]

Central to the above document is its stress on the deep bond that unites Jews and Christians. The conversion prayer of the 1962 liturgy does not reflect this but echoes the epoch of division and hostility, notably in the phrase "even the Jews".

[TF]

Fr. Joe,
How long does it take for the acid you took during the 60's to wear off? Your superiors should have warned you not to take Carlos Castaneda so literally!

[Joseph O'Leary]

Here are responses of Joan CHITTISTER and Thomas REESE with indignant expostulations of John ZUHLSDORF.

CHITTISTER:

It used to be that if you asked a question about the Catholic church, you got very straightforward answers. No, we did not eat meat on Friday. Yes, we had to go to church every Sunday. [Before legions of the discontinuity folks really snatched the reins of power in schools, chanceries, universities, seminaries, convents….]

They tell us now that Mass texts—including even hymns—may not include feminine references to God. And this in a church that has routinely addressed God as Key of David, Door of life, wind, fire, light and dove. God who is also, they tell us, "pure spirit" can never, ever, be seen as ‘mother.’ [sniff] Are we to think, then, that even hinting at the notion that the image of God includes the image of women as well as the image of men, as God in Genesis says it does, is dangerous to the faith? Antithetical to the faith? Heresy? [If the shoe…. well….]

Or, too, we learned that the words of the consecration itself would soon be edited to correct the notion that Jesus came to save "all" [Nooooooo… that is not what the correct translation "pro multis".] —as we had been taught in the past—to the idea [the FACT] that Jesus came to save "many." The theological implications of changing from "all" to "many" boggles the mind. Who is it that Jesus did not come to save? [This is just tendentious.]

Does such a statement imply again that "only Catholics go to heaven?" And, if read like that by others, is this some kind of subtle retraction of the whole ecumenical movement?

Now, this week, we got the word that the pope himself, contrary to the advice and concerns of the world’s bishops, [First, the Pope is not subject to the bishops. Second, the bishops are to be in union with Peter. Third, Peter’s role is to strengthen the brethren and govern the Church entrusted in the first place to him. Fourth, the Pope DID consult... and consult, and consult, and consult. And do you think he was just twiddling his thumbs without anything to do before he became Pope?] has restored the Tridentine Latin Rite. [Noooo….. even a fast reading of the MP shows that the older, extraordinary form of the Roman Rite had never been abrogated.] It is being done, the pope explains, to make reconciliation easier with conservative groups. [Noooo…. it doesn’t stop there. That is unjust. These provisions are for THREE, groups, those who are in questionable unity or broken with the Church (which subsists in its fullness in the Catholic Church), those who were wounded by the changes decades past, and those who have discovered the older ways and want them now. The writer was lacking in justice not to give the Pope’s document a fair reading. But here at WDTPRS we try to be just. If you want peace, work for justice, after all. This is a social-justice oriented blog, or rather an ad orientem justly social blog… well… you get it.]

But it does not, at the same time, make reconciliation easier with women, [HUH??? Whenever I go to a approved parish or chapel to celebrate the older use of Holy Mass (something the writer of this article will never do in any use) I always see lots of women. Women everywhere. Big women, old women, little women, young women, girls, and they are pretty happy to be there, too. You can tell by the way their chapel veils hang.] who are now pointedly left out of the Eucharistic celebration entirely, certainly in its God-language, even in its pronouns. [Nooooo….left out especially in its pronouns, Sister, let’s be precise.] Nor does it seem to care about reconciliation with Jews who find themselves in the Tridentine Good Friday rite again as "blind" and objects of conversion. It’s difficult not to wonder if reconciliation is really what it’s all about. [Well… it ain’t about reconciliation on your terms, Sister, I can tell you that. And the provisions for the use of the extraordinary right really aren’t about the Jews at all. They don’t figure in the equation. And, you know what? That’s okay. Moreover, the writer is not just wrong, but also unjust. True Catholics don’t treat other people as "objects". People, made in God’s image and likeness, are the dignified subjects of their own actions. That dignity cannot be violated. No one is forced to be a Catholic or to listen to us. But, darn it, we have a right to be Catholic, and have our own language, and symbols, and prayers. And if anyone is interested in talking, we’ll talk. But in the CATHOLIC Church, we are not going to betray Jesus Christ and compromise our beliefs for the sake of "buonismo".]

What’s more, where, in the intervening years, bishops had to give permission for the celebration of Tridentine masses in the local diocese, the new document requires only that the rite be provided at the request of the laity. [Right. This empowers the laity. It empowers WOMEN, come to think of it LAY WOMEN! And SISTERS! Sisters can now boss priests around and make them say the old Mass!]

But why the concerns? If some people prefer a Latin mass [I think the writer means the older form of Mass] to an English mass, why not have it?

The answer depends on what you think the Mass has to do with articulating the essence of the Christian faith.

The Latin Mass,[I think the writer means the older form of Mass] for instance, in which the priest celebrates the Eucharist with his back to the people, [kaCHING! Say da magic woid, winnahunnud dahlahs!] in a foreign language—much of it said silently or at best whispered [much of it said very much out loud]—makes the congregation, the laity, observers of the rite rather than participants in it. [I think we have covered what the Church really means by "active participation" here so often readers can recite it in their sleep. So, let’s just back away from this embarassing cliche and move on.]

The celebrant becomes the focal point of the process, the special human being, the one for whom God is a kind of private preserve. [Well…. yah… that’s about right. When the priest is at the altar, he IS special. He is alter Christus. That, Sister, is special!]

The symbology of a lone celebrant, [cue Clint Eastwood music….] removed from and independent of the congregation, [a clear whistled melody…. the distant howl of a wolf and… what’s that hear? Gunfire?!] is clear: ordinary people have no access to God. They are entirely dependent on a special caste of males to contact God for them. [B as in B. S as in S.] They are "not worthy," to receive the host, or as the liturgy says now, even to have Jesus "come under my roof." [Ehem…. one of those things the lone male priest is saying silently up there at the altar Sister can’t approach is "Domine, non sum dignus… Domine, non sum dignus… Domine, non sum dignus…" before anyone else says it. And, NEWS FLASH: No one is worthy to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist. We approach Him because He invitingly commands it and we, in hope that He will crown His own merits in us, extends to us now this great pledge of future glory. We come with humility, not a sense of our own "worth". His Holiness even before his election wrote and warned eloquently about an unbridled sense of "self-sufficiency" in the Church.]

The Eucharist in such a setting is certainly not a celebration of the entire community. It is instead a priestly act, a private devotion of both priest and people, which requires for its integrity three "principal parts" alone—the offertory, the consecration and the communion. The Liturgy of the Word—the instruction in what it means to live a Gospel life—is, in the Tridentine Rite, at best, a minor element. [Riiiighhhht…. so… show me that list of great saints raised up solely on the newer form of Mass…. oppps…. where are they? It look like all these saints we so venerate were nourished on a Mass that had little to do with the Gospel life. I guess the Chinese and Spanish martyrs, Teresa of Calcutta, Damien of Molochai, Catherine of Siena, Bakhita, and well… others somehow just stumbled onto their…. thing… by chance.]

In the Latin mass, the sense of mystery—of mystique—the incantation of "heavenly" rather than "vulgar" language in both prayer and music, underscores a theology of transcendence. It lifts a person out of the humdrum, the dusty, the noisy, the crowded chaos of normal life to some other world. It reminds us of the world to come—beautiful, mystifying, hierarchical, perfumed—and makes this one distant. It takes us beyond the present, enables us, if only for a while, to "slip the surly bonds of earth" for a world more mystical than mundane. [So far so good.]

It privatizes the spiritual life. The Tridentine Mass is a God-and-I liturgy. [Riiiight…. that is why St. John of God and Camillus of Lellis, the aforementioned Teresa of Calcutta founded hospitals and houses for the desperate, why saintly mother foundresses built schools and shelters and orphanages, why holy missionaries left everything to go to the ends of the earth. This is why millions of quiet lay people saved and sacrificed to build their churches and support women religious (before they needed pants suits and hairdoos) and give to the poor and to missions. In the end, everyone of them, if you were to ask them after Mass why they did those things they would say without hesitation…. "It’s all about me and Jesus". That’s right! That’s sure what they would tell you.]

The Vatican II liturgy, on the other hand, steeps a person in community, in social concern, in the hard, cold, clear reality of the present. [Especially when those out of tune guitars start a strummin’ and the shouting into the microphone over the bongos begins…. hard, cold reality of the present… for an hour or so that seems never to end.] The people and priest pray the Mass together, in common language, with a common theme. They interact with one another. They sing "a new church into being,’ non-sexist, inclusive, centered together [BLEEEEEAAAAACHHH .... ‘scuse me o{]8{ sorry… please go on… ] in the Jesus who walked the dusty roads of Galilee curing the sick, raising the dead, talking to women and inviting the Christian community to do the same.

The Vatican II liturgy grapples with life from the point of view of the distance between life as we know it and life as the gospel defines it for us. It plunges itself into the sanctifying challenges of dailiness. [Wow… no one had EVER thought of that before 1963!]

The Vatican II liturgy carries within it a theology of transformation. It does not seek to create on earth a bit of heaven; it does set out to remind us all of the heaven we seek. It does not attempt to transcend the present. It does seek to transform it. It creates community out of isolates in an isolating society. [Ehem…. to me… that sounds like hell. That sound like exactly the OPPOSITE of what Vatican II asks of the baptized living in the world. Still… let’s all sing!
Not in the dark of buildings confining,
not in some heaven, light years away,
but here in this place, the new light is shining;
now is the Kingdom, now is the day.
Gather us in – and ….aaaaaaaand…..
BLEEEEEAAAAACHHH .... sorry… sorry again…]
There is a power and a beauty in both liturgical traditions, of course. No doubt they both need a bit of the other. [After all that, you make this admission?] [The] Eucharist after all is meant to be both transcendent and transformative. But make no mistake: In their fundamental messages, they present us with more than two different styles of music or two different languages or two different sets of liturgical norms. [Which is a pretty good start, thank you very much.] They present us with two different churches. [B as in B. S as in S.]

The choice between these two different liturgies bring the church to a new crossroads, one more open, more ecumenical, more communal, more earthbound than the other. The question is which one of them is more likely to create the world Jesus models and of which we dream. [While those who follow followed the heremeutic of rupture and "dreamed", in the bad old day Catholics WORKED and created the infrastructure the dreamers are still living off of. For people like this, who can see things only in blacks and whites without any flexibility and nuance, who are incapable of taking what is good from the last, say four decades, and then make corrections, I bet all of this really is pretty scary. We should be nicer…. .... .... later maybe… ]

There are many more questions ahead of us as a result of this new turn in the liturgical road than simply the effect of such a decree on parish architecture, seminary education, music styles, language acquisition and multiple Mass schedules. [I’ll settle for those.]

The theological questions that lurk under the incense and are obscured by the language are far more serious than that. They’re about what’s really good for the church—ecumenism or ecclesiastical ghettoism, [Always the drama… always with the drama.] altars and altar rails, [yeppp….. pretty scary] mystique or mystery, incarnation as well as divinity, community or private spirituality?

From where I stand, it seems obvious that the Fathers [and Mothers] of Vatican Council II knew the implications of the two different Eucharistic styles then and bishops around the world know it still. [And that is why the Fathers … and Mothers… of the Council mandated only VERY FEW changes to Holy Mass. Read the documents.] But their concerns have been ignored. They don’t have much to do with it anymore. Now it’s up to the laity to decide which church they really want—and why. Which we choose may well determine the very nature of the church for years to come.

REESE
"Much fuss is being made over the rumor that the Tridentine Mass is allegedly going to be “restored.” If anything happens, and it probably will, the decision will have more to do with power and politics than Latin and liturgy. [For all feminists it’s always about power.]
"The issue is not Latin in the liturgy. Any priest can say the current Catholic liturgy in Latin. Nor is the issue the Tridentine or pre-Vatican II mass. Any priest, with the permission of his bishop, can say the Tridentine Latin mass.

"The real issue is the power of local bishop to decide [As I said. Most of concern was about the power of the bishops, not whether this was the right thing to do or not.] whether the Tridentine mass will be said in his diocese. Right now, a local bishop has the power to approve or not approve the use of the Tridentine mass in his diocese. [That they were not so generous brought this present situation on.] Under current practice, a priest or a group of people petition the bishop to allow them to use the Tridentine mass. [Or… the bishop could do it on his own without a petition.] He then investigates the situation and decides on pastoral grounds whether it is a good idea or not. Often he will require that the petitioners state that they accept the new liturgy and Vatican II as legitimate.

"Some bishops, especially in France, have said no because they judge that the petitioners reject the reforms of Vatican II and are divisive in their dioceses. If the pope issues a Motu proprio allowing the use of the Tridentine mass without the local bishop’s permission, he is basically saying that he does not trust the pastoral judgment of the bishops. Those who have been fighting the bishops over the Tridentine mass will celebrate this as a victory over the bishops. [Not if the bishop takes charge of the situation from the very beginning.]

"Some in the Vatican, including Benedict, hope that allowing free use of the Tridentine mass will make possible reunion with Society of St. Pius X, the schismatic group started by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The leaders of the group, however, have indicated that their rejection of Vatican II goes way beyond the vernacular liturgy.
"Some in the Vatican hope that greater use of the Tridentine mass will undermine support for the Lefebvrite leaders and bring some of the society’s members back into union with the Catholic Church. [That is what happens where bishops have been generous with the older form of Mass.]

"Rumors that the Tridentine Mass was giong to be made more easily available date back to the papacy of John Paul II. So far the bishops have been able to fight it off, but the record shows that when it is an issue of papal power versus episcopal power, the Vatican usually wins. [Right, because for men like Reese, this is seen through the lens of power and conflict.] Other than embarrassing the bishops and pastors who have opposed wider use of the Tridentine mass, the Motu proprio will probably have little effect since public opinion polls show overwhelming support for the new liturgy among Catholics."