Comments on: What Ratzinger Tells Us About Benedict

By: John Drake

John Drake — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:30:10 +0000

To those who dispute the pope’s credentials as a “liturgist”…

http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2010/08/pope-is-expert-in-liturgy-elder-marini.html

By: Fr. Allan McDonald

Fr. Allan McDonald — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:41:27 +0000

The Holy Father truly wants liturgical renewal in all of the rites of the Church. What Cardinal Levada said yesterday at the dedication of the FSSP seminary chapel was not received too well by many traditionalists. What Msgr. Marini told John Allen of the NCR is controversial too, for many people on both sides of the liturgical questions. I have a commentary on Marini’s interview in the NCR with pictures in living color:
http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2010/03/national-catholic-reporters-mrjohn.html

By: Anthony Ruff, OSB

Anthony Ruff, OSB — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:24:12 +0000

Yes, there are “plenty of traditionalists” who think that. But the point is, Pope Benedict doesn’t. This is the crucial difference.
awr

By: Jeffrey Herbert

Jeffrey Herbert — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:37:10 +0000

I mean that Pope Benedict understands that it cannot be mandated from the top if the objective is to succeed. Paul VI did so, and as a result there were many problems, some directly related to the method by which change was implemented. Pope Benedict has clearly chosen instead to take a more measured approach, seeking concensus before mandating anything.

I don’t actually remember saying anywhere that Paul VI did so previous to this…

By: Fr. Christopher Costigan

Fr. Christopher Costigan — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 02:52:30 +0000

In the Northeast, we still celebrate Ascension on the proper day. It would be nice if Epiphany was moved back to January 6 (“Saint-elect Andre could be moved?). The other calendar change that has to be made in the US is the whole “if certain holy days of obligation fall on Sat or Mon there is no obligation attached” idea. The result is that less people come to Mass for those days as well as the added confusion as to which days that rule counts for and which days it does not.

By: Fr. Christopher Costigan

Fr. Christopher Costigan — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:13:22 +0000

This is a hindsight being 360 thing, but you can wonder what would have been the result had the new rite in 1965 included the current Liturgy of the Word (3 readings, vernacular) with a simplified, vernacular version of the 1962 Missal for the Liturgy of the Eucharist…almost a hybrid between the OF and Book of Divine Worship. Also, I think one place where the motu proprio dropped the ball is in the calendar issue. Both forms really should be using the same calendar–especially if a parish celebrates both on a Sunday (is Epiphany January 6 or a Sunday?).

By: Fr. Allan McDonald

Fr. Allan McDonald — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:59:32 +0000

I wonder the same thing! I have a mint edition of the 1965 missal–only difference from it and the 1962 version is the prayers at the foot of the altar make the Requiem ones the norm and in English, these can be done if so desired from the chair,along with the English Gloria and Collect. English Creed, Prayers of the Faithful are added. Still has old offertory and canon, but some new English prefaces. Only has Roman Canon, with same rubrics except at the “per ipsum.” All priestly prayers and Canon silent in Latin. Lord’s Prayer in English, slight modification with the return of the “paten” for the host. Same format and order as 1962 for post communion and blessing. Last Gospel eliminated. Everything heard by the laity in English. This could easily be adapted to our current calendar and lectionary.

By: David Anthony Domet

David Anthony Domet — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:54:09 +0000

As a Cantor for both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite and as a former Altar Boy under the 1965 Missal, which we knew then as the “new mass” I have long wondered why the 1970 Missal was ever necessary.

Was not the 1965 Missal essentially what the Fathers of the Council asked for in SC? Certainly, the wider selection of readings was still to come, but it was in the vernacular the priest could and almost always did face the people, it was slimmed down and the rubrics were simplified. I still have my brown hard cover St. Joseph Missal from then and an Altar Missal and every time I open them, I wonder “what if?”.

By: Fr. Allan McDonald

Fr. Allan McDonald — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:46:42 +0000

I think some but not all priests did rush this Mass. But the congregation understood and participated in this Mass as they were taught or accustomed. It wasn’t foreign to them, especially its “spirituality.” Today when introducing this form of the Mass-we have to teach people that it has a different type of “spirituality” than the OF Mass and that it is a bit more complicated for them to participate. So from the congregation’s point of view, especially new comers, we have an opportunity to bring to bear the “conscious, active participation” that we understand now with the OF. I think in the past there was too much of a separation between what the priest did and what the congregation/choir did, not good. Some today continue this unfortunate custom. But there was no making up rubrics and imposing one’s personality on the EF, then or now which occurs frequently in the OF.

By: Ioannes Andreades

Ioannes Andreades — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:36:11 +0000

In case I seemed insincere, I really am interested in reading more.

I would like to say that I see nothing necessarily wrong in large-scale changes. Vatican II called for some extensive changes (certainly more for the divine office than for the mass) but also put limits on the nature of the innovations.

There have attended an OF masses that were beautiful, solemn, respectfful, and kept as much as possible to the EF as the current rubrics permit. I don’t know that I would have thought of such masses in terms of “rupture” or “inorganic”. I have been to some OF masses that have really upset me in the choices made, even though they were permitted by the rubrics. I would argue that at least some OF developments are inorganic.