Controversial But Important Topic

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm hoping this will be a reasonable and intelligent discussion and that this thread won't end up moved to the debate table and closed.

Does anyone know the details about Bugnini and the so-called Protestant advisors who helped design the Mass of Pope Paul VI? I recall seeing a quote from an interview or something in which one of the Protestants who helped create the novus ordo said something to the effect that what Martin Luther started, we've finished.

I know there is a lot of bogus propaganda out there so I take many such things with a grain of salt, but then there are many serious statements from sources that I respect.

I don't want to create another "novus ordo" vs. "tridentine" debate; I'm seriously looking for a discussion of what people like Ratzinger (now our Pope) have to say. I personally prefer the Traditional Latin Mass, but I have a problem with people who cut down the magisterium and try to spread schismatic attitudes, but there really are some issues that seem to be of great importance.

What made me want to make this thread was actually a bunch of quotes I found on some website which I will reproduce below.



[quote]"For the correct formation of the liturgical conscience, it is important to stop condemning the liturgical form as it was known up to 1970. Those, who at this moment defend the validity of the traditional liturgy or its continued use, are treated like lepers: all tolerance for them ceases to exist. In the whole history of the Church we have never before seen such intolerance manifested! This stance shows a contempt and scorn for the whole history of the Church. How can we ever trust the Church, with such a point of departure? I have never been able to understand why so many bishops, with no plausible reason, have given themselves over to this law of intolerance and thereby work against the needed reconciliation within the Church." [[b]Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger[/b]: "God and the world" (2002)]


"The promulgation of the banning of the Missal that had been developed in the course of centuries, starting from the time of the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, has brought with it a break in the history of the liturgy whose consequences could be tragic ....
The old structure was broken to pieces and another was constructed, admittedly with material of which the old structure had been made and using also the preceding models .... the fact that [the liturgy] was presented as a new structure, set up against what had been formed in the course of history and was now prohibited, and that the liturgy was made to appear in some ways no longer as a living process but as a product of specialized knowledge and juridical competence, has brought with it some extremely serious damages for us.

In this way, in fact, the impression has arisen that the liturgy is made, that it is not something that exists before us, something given, but that it depends on our decisions. It follows as a consequence that this decision-making capacity is not recognized only in specialists or in a central authority, but that, in the final analysis, each community wants to give itself its own liturgy. But when the liturgy is something each one makes by himself, then it no longer gives us what is its true quality: encounter with the mystery which is not our product but our origin and the wellspring of our life ....
I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us.

But if in the liturgy the communion of faith no longer appears, nor the universal unity of the Church and of her history, nor the mystery of the living Christ, where is it that the Church still appears in her spiritual substance?" [[b]Cardinal Ratzinger[/b]: "From My Life: Remembrances1927-1977" (1997)]

"The liturgical renewal in its concrete application is straying ever further away from its origin. The result is not renewal, but devastation."
[[b]Cardinal Ratzinger[/b] in his Foreword to Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s book ''La Reforme'' (1992)]



If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community
as much as possible, had been able to be advisor to the Church,
he could hardly have done a better job."
[[b]Dr. Berger[/b], Lutheran sociologist, in ‘Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Feb. 1979]



"I would like to ask forgiveness - in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate - for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people."
[[b]Pope John-Paul II[/b]: Letter "Dominicae Cenae" 1980]



"In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this?
......
It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against 'formalism' has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the 'forms' chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate."
[[b]Pope John-Paul II[/b]: Encyclical letter "Ecclesia de Eucharistia", 2003]




"In this regard it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease."
[[b]Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments[/b]: "Redemptionis Sacramentum", 2004]




"Neglect of prayer, contemplation and adoration of the Eucharistic mystery has weakened the sense of the sacred in relation to this great Sacrament..... This situation can lead to compromising the truth of Catholic teaching concerning the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, traditionally called transubstantiation. It can also threaten faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a belief which suffers from ideas which intend to explain the Eucharistic mystery not so much in itself but rather from a subjective point of view, for example, in the use of terms like 'trans-finalization' and 'trans-signification' .... It is widely held that Christ’s presence is a result of the community and not Christ himself, who is the font and centre of our communion and head of his Body, the Church .... at times, a certain way of acting indicates that transubstantiation and the Real Presence are understood in a symbolic sense only.

It is worth considering whether the removal of the tabernacle from the centre of the sanctuary to an obscure, undignified corner or to a separate chapel, or whether to have placed the celebrant’s chair in the centre of the sanctuary or in front of the tabernacle - as was done in many renovations of older churches and in new constructions - has contributed in some way to a decrease in faith in the Real Presence." ["Instrumentum laboris" of the [b]11th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops [/b](July 7, 2005)]




"Statistically, most Catholics today come nowhere near the Liturgy, and even when they occasionally do, there is the serious risk of their being infected with what one might term 'spiritual food poisoning' from the diet of poor translations, gross informality, trite music, and any number of abuses.... with which they may be confronted."
[[b]Dom Alcuin Reid[/b]: "Do we need a New Liturgical Movement?"UK CIEL conference, London 2004]




[b]Jean Guitton[/b], a distinguished French writer as well as the great friend and confidant of Paul VI, has said that his "intention .... was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy .... beyond the Council of Trent, and closer to the Protestant Lord's Supper .... making less room for all that some would call 'magic', (namely) .... transubstantial consecration, and for all what is of the Catholic Faith; .... there was with Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove .... what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass." [Broadcast December 19, 1993 by Radio-Courtoisie, Paris.]


"A great deal of Catholic liturgists seem to have come to the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the 16th century debates...
It is only against this background - the de facto rejection of the authority of the Council of Trent - that the bitterness of the fight against allowing the celebration of the Holy Mass according to the Missal of 1962 .... can be understood.
The possibility of celebrating the Mass in that way provides the strongest, and therefore most unbearable, proof against the opinion of those, who believe that the faith in the Holy Eucharist, as formulated by Trent, has lost its validity." [[b]Cardinal Ratzinger[/b]: Lecture held during the Liturgical Conference at Fontcombault (2001)]




"No one doubts the great effects resulting from the liturgical renewal prompted by the spirit of the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, the post-conciliar liturgy has greatly fostered the active, conscious and fruitful participation of the faithful in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar."

"An increasingly secularized society has caused a weakening in the sense of mystery. This is witnessed in mis-interpretations and distorted ideas in the Council’s liturgical renewal, which has led to rites superficial in nature and devoid of spiritual significance....
Some liturgical celebrations suffer from an improper balance, ranging from a passive following of rituals to an excessive creativity which sometimes draws too much attention to the celebrant of the Eucharist.....

Many responses noted that some celebrants at the liturgy seem more like showmen, who must draw people’s attention to themselves, instead of servants of Christ, called to conduct the faithful to union with him.....

[There are] deficiencies and shadows in the celebration of the Eucharist on the part of both the clergy and the faithful which seem to have their origin in a weakened sense of the sacred in the Sacrament .... for example, a neglect by the celebrant and the ministers to use proper liturgical vestments and the participants’ lack of befitting dress for Mass; the use of profane music in Church; the tacit consent to eliminate certain liturgical gestures thought to be too traditional, such as genuflexion before the Blessed Sacrament; an inadequate catechesis for Communion in the hand and its improper distribution; a lack of reverence before, during and after the celebration of Holy Mass, not only by the laity but also the celebrant; the scant architectural and artistic quality of sacred buildings and sacred vessels; and instances of syncretism in integrating elements from other religions in the inculturation of liturgical forms."
["Instrumentum laboris" of the [b]11th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops [/b](July 7, 2005)][/quote]

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I was actually searching for one quote a read long ago (which, incidentally, I did not find) when I read these and thought of starting a discussion on this topic.

The main problem for me is that my personal experience confirms much of this stuff. After reading the article that I lifted these quotes from I went and read some anti-radtrad stuff by Dave Armstrong and Jimmy Akin, but it was pretty weak to be honest. It seems like one must down-play the issues on one side or another to really reconcile the trends of the Catholic Church as it is today, particularly in its worship.

Anyway, cheers.

[Era Might]

The Council in general wanted to bring the life of the Church back to the sources. This was the guiding principle of Liturgical reform, to recapture the "noble simplicity" that was the original characteristic of the Roman rite, and also to restore the sense of Liturgy as something the laity do (in their proper role) rather than something they hear or watch.

[quote]In any case the old Roman Rite is not exactly that now used. Our Roman Missal has received considerable additions from Gallican sources. The original rite was simpler, more austere, had practically no ritual beyond the most necessary actions.

...

So we see that at the latest by the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Rite has driven out the Gallican, except in two sees (Milan and Toledo), and is used alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying here too the principle that rite follows patriarchate. But in the long and gradual supplanting of the Gallican Rite the Roman was itself affected by its rival, so that when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no longer the old pure Roman Rite, but has become the gallicanized Roman Use that we now follow. These Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Our blessings of candles, ashes, palms, much of the ritual of Holy Week, sequences, and so on are Gallican additions. The original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical. Mr. Edmund Bishop says that its characteristics were "essentially soberness and sense" ("The Genius of the Roman Rite", p. 307; see the whole essay). Once these additions were accepted at Rome they became part of the (new) Roman Rite and were used as part of that rite everywhere.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm[/url][/quote]
The Holy Father's comments on the Liturgy are always about the way it is implemented in the local Church and the general perception of Liturgy. He supports the reformed Missal (and I have never seen him criticize the reformed Missal as such). He wants to animate the Church with a renewed understanding of what Liturgy is rather than restore the Tridentine Mass.

[quote]And so, I think we have to restore not so much certain ceremonies, but the essential idea of liturgy – to understand in liturgy, we are not representing ourselves, but we receive the grace of the presence of the Lord with the Church of the heaven and of the earth. And the universality of the liturgy, it seems to me, is essential. Definition of liturgy and restoring this idea would also help to be more obedient to the norms, not as a juridical positivism, but really as sharing, participating what is given to us from the Lord in the Church.

...

We need only norms how in peace, apply [the indult]so that the reformed liturgy is the normal liturgy of the community of the Church, but the other is always a valid use of the Church can be used but in obedience to the bishops and the Holy Father.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/RATZINTV.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/RATZINTV.HTM[/url][/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1298401' date='Jun 19 2007, 10:50 AM']The Council in general wanted to bring the life of the Church back to the sources. This was the guiding principle of Liturgical reform, to recapture the "noble simplicity" that was the original characteristic of the Roman rite, and also to give the Liturgy back to the people as something they do and not something they hear or watch.[/quote]
I agree to a point; and there does come a point at which a valid observation can become wool pulled over the eyes.
The prosaic anthems which culminate in the mantra of the "Spirit of Vatican II" are far from being solutions to the concrete problems which seem so evident in the Church of my lifetime.

Surely a general ressourcement would seem to be an intrinsic aspect of the teachings of Vatican II, but it can hardly be said that an authentic ressourcement fits the bill as the "guiding principle of the Liturgical reform" as it has played out. I'm not saying that this rant sums up your point by any means, but I would nonetheless have a hard time taking seriously one who would seek to sugar coat or turn a blind eye to the excesses and absurdities which have dominated the Catholic portion of the cultural revolution.

In sum: the direction that you propose does not strike me as the solution to my current dilemma—although seeking to recognize good intentions is rarely a bad thing.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1298401' date='Jun 19 2007, 10:50 AM'][quote]So we see that at the latest by the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Rite has driven out the Gallican, except in two sees (Milan and Toledo), and is used alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying here too the principle that rite follows patriarchate. But in the long and gradual supplanting of the Gallican Rite the Roman was itself affected by its rival, so that when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no longer the old pure Roman Rite, but has become the gallicanized Roman Use that we now follow. These Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Our blessings of candles, ashes, palms, much of the ritual of Holy Week, sequences, and so on are Gallican additions. The original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical. Mr. Edmund Bishop says that its characteristics were "essentially soberness and sense" ("The Genius of the Roman Rite", p. 307; see the whole essay). Once these additions were accepted at Rome they became part of the (new) Roman Rite and were used as part of that rite everywhere.[/quote]
[/quote]
I'm not sure what kind of applicability you have in mind here. The post-conciliar liturgical reform (and the principles thereof) involved a pretty radical departure from the liturgical reform as previously conceived--which is a well documented fact.
I mention this because that article which you are quoting was writing no later than 1910. The book it refers to, "The Genius of the Roman Rite", was written in 1904.
The "new" Roman Rite that is described in that article is no doubt the Mass of that time, namely the Tridentine Mass. This is especially evident in light of the fact that the Gallican right is significant to the shape of the Tridentine Mass—and, as far as I know, peripheral at best in the creation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. Some of the questions and issues which apparently inspired the novus ordo committee were very far removed from that of the Tridentine Mass. It is hard to imagine how much further one can get in light of the expressed ecumenical concerns. It would have been unthinkable in the time of Pope Pius V to look to Protestant worship for inspiration and guidance. No, but drawing with roots from the Gallican Rite was of course natural centuries ago when the Mass of the ages was as yet unfolding organically through the worship and unction of thousands of saints.

[Ragamuffin]

Forgive me for my ignorance, being a Protestant in a debate on Catholic liturgy, but if you don't trust the Magisterium and the Pope to make a decision like this, doesn't that sort of undercut one of the very distinctives that makes the Catholic Church what it is? It would seem to me that if you say you are Catholic, the authority and trust question has been settled. You trust that the Holy Spirit is operating to lead the Church through its leadership and you believe said leadership has the God-given authority to decide these matters.

So to then act as if there's some conspiracy afoot regarding changes in the liturgy or that they got it spectacularly wrong seems to be an exercise in self-contradiction.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Ragamuffin

[Era Might]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1298444' date='Jun 19 2007, 12:58 PM']The prosaic anthems which culminate in the mantra of the "Spirit of Vatican II" are far from being solutions to the concrete problems which seem so evident in the Church of my lifetime.

Surely a general ressourcement would seem to be an intrinsic aspect of the teachings of Vatican II, but it can hardly be said that an authentic ressourcement fits the bill as the "guiding principle of the Liturgical reform" as it has played out. I'm not saying that this rant sums up your point by any means, but I would nonetheless have a hard time taking seriously one who would seek to sugar coat or turn a blind eye to the excesses and absurdities which have dominated the Catholic portion of the cultural revolution.[/quote]
There is a difference between "problems which seem so evident" and the Liturgical reform itself, which took shape in the revised rites of Pope Paul VI. I do not hesitate to say that the reformed rites achieved the purpose of going back to the sources and restoring the Liturgy to its roots. In terms of what the Council wanted to accomplish, I would say that the typical Mass on EWTN or at the Vatican is very much what was necessary. The obvious problem is that what we see on EWTN or at the Vatican is very different from what we see in many parishes, and those are the problems that the Holy Father has addressed in the past.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1298460' date='Jun 19 2007, 01:15 PM']I'm not sure what kind of applicability you have in mind here. The post-conciliar liturgical reform (and the principles thereof) involved a pretty radical departure from the liturgical reform as previously conceived--which is a well documented fact.[/quote]
There are too many distinctions that need to be made, but the reformed rites of Pope Paul VI are not a "radical departure" from either the Roman rite or Catholic theology (and I'm not sure if you are referring to the rites themselves). I would defend the rites in particular, although it's really a broad subject. I don't know what could be said here except that the integrity of the Liturgical rites of the Church are not, and should not, be in question. Cardinal Ottaviani noted that the integrity of the Liturgy promulgated by the Church (which is not synonymous with how the Liturgy is applied in the local Churches) is essential to her personal integrity: "The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult - when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the legitimacy of their origin protects and guards them against infiltration of errors." He also wrote that "no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized" by the new order of Mass, while stressing the importance of catechesis to understanding the Liturgy as the Church intends.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1298460' date='Jun 19 2007, 01:15 PM']The "new" Roman Rite that is described in that article is no doubt the Mass of that time, namely the Tridentine Mass. This is especially evident in light of the fact that the Gallican right is significant to the shape of the Tridentine Mass—and, as far as I know, peripheral at best in the creation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI.[/quote]
I'm not sure I understand completely what you're trying to say, but the point was that the Tridentine Liturgy had lost in some ways the original heart of the Roman rite. The purpose of the reform was to trim the Tridentine missal so that the simplicity of the Roman rite could shine more clearly. This is why the Council ordered redundant prayers and such to be simplified. The two missals are substantially the same, they have the same foundation. Entrance, Confiteor, Kyrie Eleison, readings, creed, canon, consecration, Our Father, communion, and final prayers. The reformed rite is more brief and direct, because that is the ancient characteristic of the Roman rite, and it helps with the other goals of making the Liturgy the work of all the people.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ragamuffin' post='1298490' date='Jun 19 2007, 12:52 PM']Forgive me for my ignorance, being a Protestant in a debate on Catholic liturgy, but if you don't trust the Magisterium and the Pope to make a decision like this, doesn't that sort of undercut one of the very distinctives that makes the Catholic Church what it is? It would seem to me that if you say you are Catholic, the authority and trust question has been settled. You trust that the Holy Spirit is operating to lead the Church through its leadership and you believe said leadership has the God-given authority to decide these matters.

So to then act as if there's some conspiracy afoot regarding changes in the liturgy or that they got it spectacularly wrong seems to be an exercise in self-contradiction.[/quote]
I often have a problem in that when trying to discuss the liturgy people often assume that my perspective is one or another extreme. To a radtrad I am often seen as liberal and suspect whilst to others I am often seen as rad trad. I'm not trying to present a case for sedevacantism or even simply to a return to pre-Vatican II worship. I believe in the Liturgical reform as called for by the Church many decades before the Second Vatican Council and continuing to this day.

The real question I seek to raise is not whether the Church has dropped the ball and given us a bogus Mass (my own position couldn't be further from that), my real concern pertains simply to the nature of liturgical worship and how liturgy ought to be understood historically, theologically and even in most practical terms.

I am offended and deeply wounded by many of the liturgies that I happen to attend, but I do not suppose that the infallibility of the Pope is at stake. That which I wish to look upon with a critical eye, and perhaps critique, are elements of culture more than anything else. In light of the world in which the Church today is situated it is no surprise that there would be tendencies and attitudes of mind and soul which ought to be exposed and combated.

I think my original post makes clear my intent pretty well. With a couple exceptions, the quotations that I would like to discuss are from a Pope or the Roman Curia. I don't see how the nature of this thread implies a critique of the Church's charisms or infallibility.

I would just love to have an honest and gritty discussion about this stuff but my fellow Catholics often get terribly defensive and apologetic. This is Transmundane Lane so apologetics are certainly appropriate, but I'd say that my main hope is for brutal honesty. I'm not saying that bashing the Church is ever appropriate, nowayman!, but I do think it would be fine to have a conversation beyond the level or trying to cover over and explain away uncomfortable facts.

[i]"It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against 'formalism' has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the 'forms' chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate."[/i] - JP2

Yes, I'm sure most of us would admit this fact. But where things get sketchy is when we explore the deeper dynamics. Can we simply pass the buck to our perverted modern culture and completely vindicate the Church? Or perhaps, as with the sex scandals and other things, might we admit some fault in the human reality of the Church? Might we even open up the possibility that while a Council is protected from doctrinal error in the strict sense, and thus Vatican II and the new rite cannot be condemned but ought to have our full religious assent, yet the testimony of Church history makes me wonder if it is necessary that just because a teaching or enactment is "true", that is must be "the best possible".
We can go back in retrospect and conclude that certain Papal pronouncements or Conciliar decrees may have been composed with a fuller truth, and yet are we to suppose that the current rite and the teachings of Vatican II as commonly appropriated are above any improvement or deeper illumination? I doubt not. So let us discuss!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1298492' date='Jun 19 2007, 12:55 PM']There is a difference between "problems which seem so evident" and the Liturgical reform itself, which took shape in the revised rites of Pope Paul VI. I do not hesitate to say that the reformed rites achieved the purpose of going back to the sources and restoring the Liturgy to its roots. In terms of what the Council wanted to accomplish, I would say that the typical Mass on EWTN or at the Vatican is very much what was necessary. The obvious problem is that what we see on EWTN or at the Vatican is very different from what we see in many parishes, and those are the problems that the Holy Father has addressed in the past.[/quote]
I think here we may differ a good bit. There is not always so clear a line between the works of rogue liturgists or popular trends and things approved, sanctioned and even instigated from the top down (in different degrees of course). As an example on a lower rung I would consider the document "Environment and Art in Catholic Worship" to be a terrible mistake which has wreaked much havoc. The successor to that document, "Built on Living Stones", is also far from beyond criticism. At the very least there are ambiguities and implications which raise a great many questions.
These are just two examples of documents which have no official legal authority and which have never been submitted to the Holy See for confirmation and yet exercise very real formative power on our Catholic culture.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1298492' date='Jun 19 2007, 12:55 PM']There are too many distinctions that need to be made, but the reformed rites of Pope Paul VI are not a "radical departure" from either the Roman rite or Catholic theology (and I'm not sure if you are referring to the rites themselves). I would defend the rites in particular, although it's really a broad subject. I don't know what could be said here except that the integrity of the Liturgical rites of the Church are not, and should not, be in question. Cardinal Ottaviani noted that the integrity of the Liturgy promulgated by the Church (which is not synonymous with how the Liturgy is applied in the local Churches) is essential to her personal integrity: "The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult - when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the legitimacy of their origin protects and guards them against infiltration of errors." He also wrote that "no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized" by the new order of Mass, while stressing the importance of catechesis to understanding the Liturgy as the Church intends.[/quote]
We don't need to call into question the validity of the Mass to question the fittingness of particular matters. Why is it that the novus ordo is apparently beyond criticism when the justification of its existence seems to rest upon criticisms of the previous rite?

For the sake of argument one might suggest that the assertion that the new rite is justified because of the supposed "vain repetitions" of the old rite cannot explain the staggering degree of omissions, the unusual changes of words, the excessive multiplicity of Eucharistic prayers, children's Mass, etc., etc., (briefly compare the current missal, with its endless options and extraneous tidbits, to that of 1962 and tell me which one is more convoluted), to say nothing of the many practices that have popped up since its initial conception (the infamous issues: Communion on the hand; Mass toward the people; standing to receive; new music; pure vernacular; rites of baptism, ordination, exorcism, etc., etc.,). Yes, I'm playing dogfood's advocate; in this vein I can scarce find one aspect of worship and liturgical life that has not been drastically transformed.
My point may be simply that there is no one reason, nor perhaps one manageable and coherent set of reasons, which can adequately account for the wholesale revision of Roman Catholic culture, worship and ecclesiastical life which has taken place since the sixties. The liturgical reform prior to the sixties was much focused on improving catechesis and Catholic education. It is needless to point out that these are two of the things that suffered the most in the aftermath of the revolution. According to some Catholic culture can be engineered by specialists who will manipulate the ethos and in this way our psyches, rather than appealing directly to the our intellect and free-will.

I am not a schismatic here to say that the Church has no jurisdiction or right to rule upon those things which pertain to her temporal life--by no means would I say such things! But does not the slew of modern innovations that we are undeniably faced with open up an even larger slew of questions that must have adequate answers? Why not explore the matter further—ad nauseum perhaps?
I would opt for the easy, surface solutions were it not for the fact that many great Catholics, from Von Hildebrand to Pope Benedict XVI, don't seem entirely satisfied with superficial and nonchalant answers.

I appreciate the reference to Cardinal Ottaviani and I must say that I wholeheartedly share his sentiments. Perhaps it would be fitting to post another quotation from the Cardinal, one which is no doubt well-known, particularly in the context of this discussion.

[quote]Rome
25 September 1969

Most Holy Father:

Having carefully examined and presented for the scrutiny of others the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) prepared by the experts of the Committee for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel obliged before God and Your Holiness to set forth the following considerations:

1. The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae--considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted--represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.

2. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place--if it subsists at all--could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily.

3. We are certain that these considerations, prompted by what we hear from the living voice of shepherds and the flock, cannot but find an echo in the heart of Your Holiness, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. The subjects for whose benefit a law is made have always had the right, nay the duty, to ask the legislator to abrogate the law, should it prove to be harmful.

At a time, therefore, when the purity of the faith and the unity of the Church suffer cruel lacerations and still greater peril, daily and sorrowfully echoed in the words of You, our common Father, we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the integral and fruitful Missal of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness, and so deeply venerated by the whole Catholic world.

A. Card. Ottaviani A. Card. Bacci [/quote]For those interested, the "critical study" that is mentioned can be found here: [url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html[/url]


[quote name='Era Might' post='1298492' date='Jun 19 2007, 12:55 PM']I'm not sure I understand completely what you're trying to say, but the point was that the Tridentine Liturgy had lost in some ways the original heart of the Roman rite. The purpose of the reform was to trim the Tridentine missal so that the simplicity of the Roman rite could shine more clearly. This is why the Council ordered redundant prayers and such to be simplified. The two missals are substantially the same, they have the same foundation. Entrance, Confiteor, Kyrie Eleison, readings, creed, canon, consecration, Our Father, communion, and final prayers. The reformed rite is more brief and direct, because that is the ancient characteristic of the Roman rite, and it helps with the other goals of making the Liturgy the work of all the people.[/quote]
If that is in fact the best way to sum up the principle intent of the post-conciliar liturgical movement I fail to see how it can be said to have succeeded (for the record I see things differently).

The Canon of the old rite goes back to about 390 ad. The new liturgy has multiple "canons" (quite unprecedented) composed in the 1960's (in fairness based largely on ancient prayers and not pure fabrications) and the closest prayer to the age old canon is still greatly modified and made up of largely "optional" parts (not to mention that it is hardly ever used); Eucharistic Prayer 2 seems to get all the play for some reason.
Some of the other distinct things (distinct to Catholicism and to liturgical traditions in general, east and west, from the ages of old) which has been systematically reduced or eliminated in the new rite are the once numerous invocations of the Saints and in particular Our Lady (devoutly attending the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in an Eastern Church may invoke shame), references to the Holy Angels, hell, judgment, etc., etc., most people have heard the laundry list and I see no need to carry on. Much of this is a matter of opinion since there are those who believe that the Mass is better off all around, but such persons obviously have a fundamentally different concept of what Liturgy is than I and there can be no real agreement between us. I consider the extremes either way to be erroneous and narrow.

Here is the text of the old rite side by side with the contemporary liturgy: [url="http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/compare.html"]http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/compare.html[/url]

It can be helpful to read the texts side by side and form a judgment--aesthetic, spiritual, theological, personal.

Of course there is much more to consider. There are ancient liturgies which are more bare-bones than the contemporary rite (forgetting about the myriad of options for a moment of course), so the comparative brevity along hardly stands for much. Of course quibbling over which Liturgy is better as a prayer, as an expression of the Church's theology and spirituality, etc. tends to go nowhere fast, and I believe it often tends to become irreverent. What is of real concern to me is simply the spirit of the Liturgy and how the contemporary rite, or whatever, can be celebrated with the fullness of the dignity and reverence that it deserves.

This is what the liturgical reform is all about. One of the essential aspects of it which can be discerned quite clearly before the Council, in the Council documents themselves, and unto Church documents of our own day is sacred music.
A popular book of an earlier age (the 1940's) in the liturgical reform explains the matter thus: [i]"Special efforts are to be made to restore...[the chanting] by the people, so that the people may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in olden times."[/i]

And I quote [i]Divini Cultus [/i]of Pope Pius XI promulgated in 1928.

[i]"So that the faithful take a more active part in divine worship, let Gregorian chant be restored to popular use in the parts proper to the people. Indeed it is very necessary that the faithful attend the sacred ceremonies not as if they were outsiders or mute onlookers, but let them fully appreciate the beauty of the liturgy and take part in the sacred ceremonies, alternating their voices with the priest and the choir, according to the prescribed norms."[/i]

These sentiments are echoed in Sacrosanctum Concillium as we know.

I'm rambling on like a fool so I will quote Ratzinger and it is enough for me.


[quote]In this reform of church music, Pius X has put to good use his own liturgical knowledge and experience. At the major seminary he had already conducted a Gregorian chant schola, and as bishop of Manuta and later patriarch of Venice he fought to eliminate the operatic Church-music style which was then dominant in Italy. Insistence upon Gregorian chant as the genuine music of the liturgy was for him but a part of that greater program of reform which was aimed at restoring to liturgical worship its pristine dignity, shaping and forming Catholic cult on the basis of its inner requirements....

The liturgy constitution of the last council indeed laid the foundations for a reform which was then shaped by a post-conciliar committee and in its concrete details cannot without further ado be attributed to the Council itself. That sacred synod was an open beginning whose broad parameters permitted a number of concrete realizations. When one duly reflects upon these facts, then one will be disinclined to describe that broad arc of tensions which manifested itself in these decades, in terms like "pre-conciliar tradition" and "conciliar reform." It would be better to speak of the confrontation or contrast between the reform of Saint Pius X and that introduced by the Council in other words, to speak about stages of reform instead of a deep trench between two opposing worlds. And if we broaden our perspective even more, we can say that the history of the liturgy always involves a certain degree of tension between continuity and renewal.

The history of the liturgy is constantly growing into an ever-new Now, and it must also repeatedly prune back a Present which has become the Past, so that what is essential can re-appear with new vigor. The liturgy needs growth and development as well as purgation and refiningand in both cases needs to preserve its identity and that purpose without which it would lose the very reason for its existence. And if that is really the case, then the alternative between "traditionalists" and "reformers" is woefully inadequate to the situation. He who believes that he can only choose between Old and New, has already traveled a good way along a dead-end street.

The real question is rather: What is the essential nature of the liturgy? What standard does the liturgy set for itself? Only when this question has been answered, can one proceed to ask: What must remain? What is permanent? What can and perhaps must change?

Our reflection upon the frescoes at Mt. St. Mary's in South Tyrol have by anticipation given a preliminary answer to the question about the essence of the liturgy. It is time to examine the question in greater depth.

As we begin to do so, we at once encounter another of those alternatives which derive from that dualistic view of history which divides the world into pre- and post-conciliar ages. In this view, the priest alone "did" the liturgy before the Council, while now, after the Synod, the assembled community "does" liturgy, indeed "causes" it. Hence, some conclude, the celebrating community is the true subject of the liturgy, and determines what occurs in the liturgy.

Now, it is of course true that the priest celebrant never had the right to determine by himself what was to be done, or how, in the Sacred Liturgy. For him, the liturgy was not at all a matter of acting according to his own liking. The liturgy existed before the priest, as rite, as the objective form of the Church's common prayer.

The polemic alternative "Priest or Congregation Source and Support of the Liturgy?" is unreasonable because it prevents instead of promoting a correct understanding of worship, and because it creates that false chasm between "preconciliar" and "postconciliar" which rends as under the overall continuity of the living history of faith. Such a false alternative is rooted in superficial thinking which does not penetrate to the heart of the matter. On the other hand, when we open the Catechism of the Catholic Church we find a masterfully luminous summary of the best insights of the liturgical movement and thus of the permanently valid elements of the great tradition. First of all, we are reminded that liturgy means "service of and for the people."

When Christian theology adapted from the Greek Old Testament this word formed in the pagan world, it naturally was thinking of the People of God which the Christians had become through the fact that Christ had broken down the barrier between Jews and heathens in order to unite them all in the peace of the one God. "Service for the people" -- Christians thought of the basic truth that this people did not exist of itself, for instance as a community by ancestral descent through blood lines, but rather came into existence through the Paschal service of Jesus Christ -- was based, in other words, solely upon the ministry or service of someone elsethe Son. "People of God" do not simply exist the way Germans, Frenchmen, Italians, Americans or other peoples "exist". They always come into being only through the ministry or service of the Son and by virtue of the fact that He raises us up to fellowship with Goda level we cannot attain by our own efforts. Accordingly, the Catechism continues:

In Christian tradition (the word "liturgy") means the participation of the people of God in"the work of God" (opus Dei). Through the liturgy, Christ our Redeemer and High Priest continues the work of our redemption in, with, and through His Church.

The Catechism quotes the Liturgy Constitution of Vatican II which stresses that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the Priest, and of His Body, which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others (actio præcellenter sacra).

And now, matters already look very different. The sociological reduction which can only oppose human actors to each other, has been burst open. As we have seen, the sacred liturgy presupposes that heaven has been flung open, and only when that is the case, can there be any liturgy at all. If heaven has not been opened, then what formerly was liturgy will atrophy into a mere playing of roles, an ultimately insignificant search for community self-confirmation in which at bottom nothing really transpires. Decisive, in other words, is the primacy of Christology. The liturgy is God's work -- opus Dei -- or it is nothing. The primacy of God and His activity which seeks us in earthly signs, also includes the universality and the universal publicity of all liturgy, which cannot be comprehended in the categories of community or congregation, but only on the basis of categories like "People of God" and "Body of Christ."

It is only in this great structural framework that the mutual relationship of priest and congregation can be correctly understood. In the Divine Liturgy the priest does and says what by himself he cannot say or do -- he acts, as the traditional expression has it, in persona Christi, which is to say he acts on the strength of the sacrament which guarantees the presence of the Other of Christ Himself. The priest does not represent himself, neither is he the delegate of the congregation which has invested him with a special role. No, his position in the sacrament of succession or following of Christ manifests precisely that primacy of Jesus which is the basic and indispensable condition of all liturgy. Because the priest depicts and indeed embodies the truth that "Christ comes first!" his ministry points every assembly above and beyond itself into the larger totality, for Christ is one and undivided, and insofar as He opens the heavens He is also the One who breaks down all earthly boundaries.

The new Catechism presents its theology of the liturgy according to a Trinitarian scheme. It is, I think, very important that the community or the assembly appears in the chapter on the Holy Spirit, in these words:

In the liturgy of the New Covenant every liturgical action, especially the celebration of theEucharist and the sacraments, is an encounter between Christ and the Church. The liturgical assembly derived its unity from the "community of the Holy Spirit" who gather the children of God into the one Body of Christ. This assembly transcends racial, cultural,social, indeed, all human affinities ... the assembly should prepare itself to encounter its Lord and to become "a people well disposed."10

Here we must recall that the word "congregation" (which originates in the tradition of the so-called Reformation) cannot be translated in most languages. In the Romance tongues, for instance, the equivalent expression is assemblée or gathering, which already imparts a slightly different nuance or accent.

Both expressions (congregation, assembly) indisputably manifest two important facts: first, that the participants in a liturgical celebration are not mere individuals totally unrelated to each other, but are joined together through the liturgical event to constitute a concrete representation of God's people; and secondly, that these participants as the people of God gathered here are genuine actors in the liturgical celebration, by the Lord's will.

But we must firmly oppose the "hypostasizing" of the congregation which is so widely bandied about today. As the Catechism quite rightly says, those assembled become a unity only on the strength of the communion of the Holy Spirit: of themselves, as a sociologically closed group, they are not a unity. And when they are united in a fellowship which comes from the Spirit, then that is always an openhanded unity whose transcending of national, cultural and social boundaries expresses itself in concrete openness for those who do not belong to its core group.

To a large extent, contemporary talk about "community" presupposes a homogeneous group which is able to plan common activities and jointly carry them out. And then, of course, this community may perhaps be asked to "tolerate" none but a priest with whom it is mutually acquainted. All of that, of course, has nothing to do with theology. For instance, when at a solemn service in a cathedral church a group of men gather who from a sociological point of view do not form a unified congregation and who find it very difficult to join in congregational singing, for example do they constitute a "community" or not? Indeed they do, because in common they turn toward the Lord, and He approaches them interiorly in a way which draws them together much more intimately than any mere social togetherness could ever do.

We can summarize these thoughts by saying that neither the priest alone, nor the congregation alone, "does" the liturgy. Rather, the Divine Liturgy is celebrated by the whole Christ, Head and members: the priest, the congregation, the individuals insofar as they are united with Christ and to the extent that they represent the total Christ in the communion of Head and Body. The whole Church, heaven and earth, God and man take part in every liturgical celebrationand that not just in theory, but in actual fact. The meaning of liturgy is realized all the more concretely the more each celebration is nourished by this awareness and this experience.

These reflections appear to have taken us far away from the subject of Regensburg tradition and postconciliar reform but that only seems to be the case. It was necessary to describe the great overall context which constitutes the standard by which any reform is measured. And only in terms of that standard can we appropriately describe the inner location and the correct type of church music.

Now we can briefly depict the essential tendency of the reform chosen by the Council. In opposition to modern individualism and the moralism which is connected with it, the dimension of the mysterium was to appear once more, that is, the cosmic character of the liturgy which encompasses heaven and earth. In its sharing in the Paschal Mystery of Christ, the liturgy transcends the boundaries of places and times in order to gather all into the hour of Christ which is anticipated in the liturgy and thus opens up history to its final goal.11

The conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy adds two other important aspects.

First, in Christian faith the concept of the mysterium is inseparable from the concept of the Logos. In contrast to many heathen mystery cults, the Christian mysteries are Logos-mysteries. They reach beyond the limits of human reason, but they do not lead into the formlessness of frenzy or the dissolution of rationality in a cosmos understood as irrational. Rather, the Christian mysteries lead to the Logos -- the Word -- that is, to creative reason, in which the meaning of all things is finally grounded. And that is the source and origin of the ultimate sobriety, the thoroughgoing rationality, and the verbal character of the liturgy.

With this there is connected a second fact: the Word became flesh in history. Hence for the Christian, to be oriented toward the Logos always means also being oriented toward the historical origins of the faith, toward the word of Scripture and its authoritative development and explanation in the Church of the Fathers. As a result of contemplating the mysterium of a cosmic liturgy (which is a Logos - liturgy) it becomes necessary to describe in a visible and concrete way the community aspect of worship, the fact that it is an action to be performed, its formulation in words.

This is the key to understanding all the individual directives about the revision of the liturgical books and rites. When one keeps this in mind, it becomes clear that in spite of the outward differences, both the Regensburg tradition and the motu proprio of Saint Pius X intend the same goal and point in the same direction. The de-emphasizing of orchestral accompaniment, which above all in Italy had developed opera-like qualities, was meant to put Church music once again at the service of the liturgical text, and of adoration. Church music was no longer to be a performance on the occasion of a liturgical service, but rather the liturgy itself, i.e. joining in with the choir of angels and saints.

Thus it was to be made clear that liturgical music was to lead the faithful into the glorification of God, into the sober intoxication of the faith. The emphasis upon Gregorian chant and classical polyphony was therefore ordered at once to the "mystery" aspect of the liturgy and its Logos-like character as well as its link to the word in history. That emphasis was, one might say, supposed to stress anew the authoritative nature of the Patristic standard for liturgical music, which some had occasionally conceived in a manner too exclusively historical. Such an authoritative standard, correctly understood, does not mean exclusion of anything new, but rather means pointing out the direction which leads into open spaces. Here, progress into new territory is made possible precisely because the right path has been found.

Only when one appreciates the essential elements of intention and tendency which are common to the reforms of both Saint Pius X and Vatican II, can one correctly evaluate the differences in their practical suggestions. And from that position we can turn the proposition around, and assert that any view of the liturgy which loses sight of its character as "mystery," and its cosmic dimension, must result in the deformation of worship instead of its reform.[/quote]
More: [url="http://www.adoremus.org/10-12-96-Ratzi.html"]http://www.adoremus.org/10-12-96-Ratzi.html[/url]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1298572' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:50 PM']Why is it that the novus ordo is apparently beyond criticism when the justification of its existence seems to rest upon criticisms of the previous rite?[/quote]
No, not beyond criticism. But it shouldn't take the form of "criticism" as the term is commonly used, but should be a healthy discussion for the common good, and in full respect of the authority and decisions of the Church. This goes for criticism of the Tridentine Mass as well. The problem I have with a lot of criticism of the Liturgy is that it sets a line of demarcation between 1960 and everything that came before and after it. Either we are told how bad the Liturgy was before the Council or we are told how bad it was after the Council. I know that this is not what you are doing, and I do not mean to suggest anything about your own views, but that's just an explanation of way I see things the way I do. I do not use the phrase "Traditional Mass" because I think it is historically inaccurate (at least how it is often used), and because the reformed rites of Pope Paul VI are completely traditional. Another line of demarcation is set up where the Tridentine form of the Roman rite is presented as the only way Liturgy has ever been done, and it is not.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1298572' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:50 PM']For the sake of argument one might suggest that the assertion that the new rite is justified because of the supposed "vain repetitions" of the old rite cannot explain the staggering degree of omissions, the unusual changes of words, the excessive multiplicity of Eucharistic prayers, children's Mass, etc., etc., (briefly compare the current missal, with its endless options and extraneous tidbits, to that of 1962 and tell me which one is more convoluted), to say nothing of the many practices that have popped up since its initial conception (the infamous issues: Communion on the hand; Mass toward the people; standing to receive; new music; pure vernacular; rites of baptism, ordination, exorcism, etc., etc.,). Yes, I'm playing dogfood's advocate; in this vein I can scarce find one aspect of worship and liturgical life that has not been drastically transformed.[/quote]
Without getting into all these specifics, what if I were to say the same thing about the Tridentine Mass? What if I were to say that the Tridentine Mass has "omissions" and has "drastically transformed" the traditional structure of Liturgy? Putting aside whether or not I would be correct (and I am not actually arguing this or suggesting it is true), would I be free to say such things in the eyes of the Liturgical critics? This illustrates the point I was making above, that those who put down the reformed rites often reject any constructive criticism of the way Liturgy was done before the Council; if their own harsh condemnations of the reformed rites were applied to any other Liturgy, they would not stand for it. Those who have different views are accused of being modernists. Again, I'm not saying you do that, but that kind of approach colors how I look at these issues. I often do not see a balanced, respectful critique of the question of Liturgy. I more often see berating of the Church and people acting like the Popes today don't have the same authority that the Popes had a hundred years ago, or that they aren't to be trusted. The Holy Father is a worthy model here. I think he is a great thinker, and brings balance and great insight when he speaks on the Liturgy.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1298572' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:50 PM']My point may be simply that there is no one reason, nor perhaps one manageable and coherent set of reasons, which can adequately account for the wholesale revision of Roman Catholic culture, worship and ecclesiastical life which has taken place since the sixties. The liturgical reform prior to the sixties was much focused on improving catechesis and Catholic education. It is needless to point out that these are two of the things that suffered the most in the aftermath of the revolution. According to some Catholic culture can be engineered by specialists who will manipulate the ethos and in this way our psyches, rather than appealing directly to the our intellect and free-will.[/quote]
If we are talking about "Catholic culture" then I would agree in general that there are deep problems. However, I do not want to confuse the official decisions of the Holy See with everything else. From the Council to Pope John Paul II, the Church has been upholding the authentic understanding of the Liturgy and correcting errors. The revolution we have seen is terrible, but it can be corrected by actually listening to the Church and following the rubrics. I think it is a great error to charge the Popes and the Council and the reformed rites themselves with what we have seen the last fourty years (again, not saying you have).

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1298572' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:50 PM']I appreciate the reference to Cardinal Ottaviani and I must say that I wholeheartedly share his sentiments. Perhaps it would be fitting to post another quotation from the Cardinal, one which is no doubt well-known, particularly in the context of this discussion.

For those interested, the "critical study" that is mentioned can be found here: [url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html[/url][/quote]
This was written in 1969. He amended his previous statements on the matter in 1970, which I cited above. Here is the full context:

[quote]I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourse at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing.[/quote][quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1298572' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:50 PM']Much of this is a matter of opinion since there are those who believe that the Mass is better off all around, but such persons obviously have a fundamentally different concept of what Liturgy is than I and there can be no real agreement between us. I consider the extremes either way to be erroneous and narrow.[/quote]
Honestly, I'm not the best person to be discussing this anyway. We probably do have very different outlooks on these matters, and besides that, I am somewhat bitter at the attacks made against the Church and the Council by so-called "traditional" Catholics. I usually put "traditional" in parentheses for the reasons I explained above, because I feel like I am under attack by the suggestion that those who live according to the current disciplines of the Church are somehow less traditional. It confuses what real tradition is, and does not give proper respect to the Bishops who are the teachers of tradition. I'm rambling by now. Anyway, I do hope you can have a good discussion, but I don't think I have much patience to contribute. Someday it will all make sense, let's console ourselves with that. :

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1298592' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:22 PM']No, not beyond criticism. But it shouldn't take the form of "criticism" as the term is commonly used, but should be a healthy discussion for the common good, and in full respect of the authority and decisions of the Church. This goes for criticism of the Tridentine Mass as well. The problem I have with a lot of criticism of the Liturgy is that it sets a line of demarcation between 1960 and everything that came before and after it. Either we are told how bad the Liturgy was before the Council or we are told how bad it was after the Council. I know that this isn't what you are doing, and I don't mean to suggest anything about your own views, but that's just a point about how I see things. I do not use the phrase "Traditional Mass" because I think it is historically inaccurate (at least how it is often used), and because the reformed rites of Pope Paul VI are completely traditional. Another line of demarcation is set up where the Tridentine form of the Roman rite is presented as the only way Liturgy has ever been done, and it is not.[/quote]
YES!! I absolutely agree with this statement.

Ok, I still need to read the rest of your post, I just had to respond to that part straight away.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1298592' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:22 PM']Without getting into all these specifics, what if I were to say the same thing about the Tridentine Mass? What if I were to say that the Tridentine Mass has "omissions" and has "drastically transformed" the traditional structure of Liturgy? Putting aside whether or not I would be correct (and I am not actually arguing this or suggesting it is true), would I be free to say such things in the eyes of the Liturgical critics? This illustrates the point I was making above, that those who put down the reformed rites often reject any constructive criticism of the way Liturgy was done before the Council; if their own harsh condemnations of the reformed rites were applied to any other Liturgy, they would not stand for it. Those who have different views are accused of being modernists. Again, I'm not saying you do that, but that kind of approach colors how I look at these issues. I often do not see a balanced, respectful critique of the question of Liturgy. I more often see berating of the Church and people acting like the Popes today don't have the same authority that the Popes had a hundred years ago, or that they aren't to be trusted. The Holy Father is a worthy model here. I think he is a great thinker, and brings balance and great insight when he speaks on the Liturgy.[/quote]
I think that you would have a difficult position to maintain and would likely be forced into absurdity to comprehensively defend such a view. I'm not saying that the old rite is absolutely perfect; the only "perfect" Liturgy is that which is timelessly and eternally unfolding in Heaven. That is the feast in which our temporal images seek to participate--and do truly participate through the Sacramental Grace of the Lamb who is both Priest and Victim.
Yes, I must admit that I consider to Holy Father to be practically infallible on these matters (verily infallible if speaking from the chair ;-).
His sensibility, sensitivity and insight tend to blow my mind. I want to read more of his stuff!

[quote name='Era Might' post='1298592' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:22 PM']If we are talking about "Catholic culture" then I would agree in general that there are deep problems. However, I do not want to confuse the official decisions of the Holy See with everything else. From the Council to Pope John Paul II, the Church has been upholding the authentic understanding of the Liturgy and correcting errors. The revolution we have seen is terrible, but it can be corrected by actually listening to the Church and following the rubrics. I think it is a great error to charge the Popes and the Council and the reformed rites themselves with what we have seen the last fourty years (again, not saying you have).
This was written in 1969. He amended his previous statements on the matter in 1970, which I cited above. Here is the full context:[/quote]
Yes, I read that text years ago and I assumed that it was from his later stuff. I even suspected that you were setting me up but I took the bait anyway because I find the earlier Ottaviani thing to be fascinating on its own.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1298592' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:22 PM']Honestly, I'm not the best person to be discussing this anyway. We probably do have very different outlooks on these matters, and besides that, I am somewhat bitter at the attacks made against the Church and the Council by so-called "traditional" Catholics. I usually put "traditional" in parentheses for the reasons I explained above, because I feel like I am under attack by the suggestion that those who live according to the current disciplines of the Church are somehow less traditional. It confuses what real tradition is, and does not give proper respect to the Bishops who are the teachers of tradition. I'm rambling by now. Anyway, I do hope you can have a good discussion, but I don't think I have much patience to contribute. Someday it will all make sense, let's console ourselves with that. :[/quote]
Perhaps we have a difference in emphasis and expression which results in a kind of accidental difference in view? I tend to sympathize more with the traddies as my personal experience has fostered a certain horror and resentment of what some call liberal Catholicism (what I mean by the term could be better described as apostate Catholicism). In contrast with my exposure to crazed "progressives" I consider most rad trads to be a breath of fresh air.


These incessantly dichotomized ways of describing things is started to make me ill.. I trust you know what I mean when I speak of traddies and liberals, but I think we perhaps agree in that such terms and categories are distasteful. It just seems the most expedient way of getting a point across.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I had been up for at least 24 hours when I created this thread. In retrospect I tend to think that it may be a bit on the fringes of inappropriate. I have decided that it shall be closed, effective immediately, since it seems like it could encourage disedifying and disrespectful conversation (it may already be at that point according to the sensibilities of some).

Cheers!