A scale of attitudes toward different forms of the Mass [UPDATED]

We have had a number of recent discussions here about different peoples’ attitudes toward the different forms or rites of the Mass – the views of papabili, for instance.

To simplify matters, I thought it would be useful to construct a scale of attitudes, making it as symmetric as possible. Jack Rakosky and our social scientists will correct me here, but I think that this is an example of a Likert scale, the kind often used in survey research. If we could agree on such a scale, we could say (for instance) that Pope Benedict seems to be a “3” – somewhat to the disappointment of many who hoped he might eventually reveal himself as a “2”.

Update: a lively discussion of this topic has led me to attempt an update of the original scale.  The following shows the previously published version and a revision.  I have tried to preserve the numbering from the earlier version, so that peoples’ comments would continue to make sense. At one point, I had attempted to maintain symmetry in the scale but I now think this may be impossible.  And so the addition of level “0” (pre-1962) is not there to balance levels “6” and “7” but because I have seen people calling for a restoration of the earlier version — including in this post’s comments. Where a level spans the two columns, it is unmodified.

 

VERSION 1 VERSION 2

 

0 Even the Mass of 1962 was hastily revised, and many of the changes to the Mass arising from the liturgical movement of the early 20th century were made too quickly. The recent changes to the older form of Mass should therefore be rolled back, at least as an option for celebrants. The pre-1955 Holy Week rites could again be authorised, for example, as could the baptismal ceremony in which adult converts from Judaism are exhorted, “Horresce Judaicam perfidiam, respue Hebraicam superstitionem”. Corresponding changes could be made to disciplinary regulations – for example, restoring the Eucharistic fast from midnight. [NEW] 

 

1 The Mass of 1962 is the immemorial rite and the only valid one; that of 1970 is little more than a Protestant prayer service [because it lacks the language of sacrifice, etc.] It should never have been promulgated and should be withdrawn immediately. No Catholic should attend it.

 

2 The Mass of 1970 is valid and licit – it is a real Mass – but it is in every way inferior to that of 1962. If pastoral considerations didn’t get in the way, it would be best for the Mass of 1970 to be suppressed as quickly as possible. In the meantime, the Mass of 1970 can be provided as an accommodation for those who cannot adapt to the richer and more challenging theology of the older rite.

 

2.5 The Mass of 1962 is in most ways superior to that of 1970, but there are a few things called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium or implemented after 1970 that could enrich the Mass of 1962, perhaps as options. These include an expanded lectionary, limited use of the vernacular, new prefaces, and perhaps a restoration of the oratio universalis or prayer of the faithful. If the Mass of 1962 were modified in this way, the need for two forms would eventually wither away. [NEW]

 

2.75 The Mass of 1970 and that of 1962 should have equal honour in the Church’s worship. Each should be recognised as a distinctive rite, and canonical structures, derived perhaps from the Anglican Ordinariates or the Eastern Catholic Churches, should be constructed to allow followers of the 1962 Mass to preserve their liturgical heritage. Priests and communities should be able to “belong” to either rite [under canonical terms and conditions yet to be defined], with provision for “biritual” priests. By example and, if necessary, by legislation or executive action, the Church should forbid followers of either rite from attacking or trying to change the other. [NEW]

 

3 The Mass of 1970 should remain the normative rite of the Church. But the Mass of 1962 plays an essential role in our worship and must be preserved and fostered. All priests should learn this Mass and every parish should provide it on a regular basis. The Mass of 1962 will have a salutary effect on celebration of the Mass of 1970, and may even lead to a “third way” that combines some elements of both.

 

[Renumbered as 3.25, with modification;  ‘mutual enrichment’ option separated and split into 2.5 and 3.5]
3.25 The Mass of 1970 should remain the normative rite of the Church. But the Mass of 1962 plays an essential role in our worship and must be preserved and fostered. All priests should learn this Mass and every parish (or every metropolitan deanery) should provide it on a regular basis, not necessarily every Sunday but sufficiently often to keep the older Mass alive and to meet the needs of its followers. [MODIFIED]

 

3.5 The Mass of 1970 is in most ways superior to that of 1962, but a few things were lost in the process of revision and reform that could enrich the newer rite; at the very least they should be offered as options. These include some form of prayers at the foot of the altar, the older offertory prayers and the last gospel. If the Mass of 1970 were reformed in this way, the need for two forms would eventually wither away. [NEW]

 

4 The Mass of 1962 remains valid; it should be provided as an accommodation to those who cannot adapt to the active participation that characterises the Mass of 1970. However, the older rite is inferior to the newer [because it fails to reflect the development of doctrine of the last century, etc.]; over time, it would be best for it to become a historical relic, or something to be studied but only used occasionally.

 

5 The Mass of 1962 was suppressed by Pope Paul VI, or was meant to be suppressed, or should have been suppressed. It certainly should be suppressed today. Some of the theology contained in it [e.g. anti-Semitic prayers] fails to reflect the teaching of the Church. The next pope should cancel the legislation that made it more accessible.

 

6 The Mass of 1970 should remain the sole and normative rite, with the older Mass wholly or largely suppressed. However, greater effort should be made to adapt this Mass to communities’ developing needs, and greater freedom should be provided to adapt it in translation. In English-speaking communities, continued use of the 1973 translation should be an option for priests, as should use of the 1998 translation. The concept of a single Latin editio typica, translated more or less literally into different vernacular languages, should be abandoned. The only criterion for liturgical use should be approval of a version, in Latin or a vernacular language, by Rome and by the local bishop. [NEW]

 

7 It is time to move away from the concept of a single printed Missal. Communities should be able to assemble their liturgical worship in ways that enable ecumenism and culturally appropriate celebrations. The Church should provide communities with rich resources to enable this, while at the same time ensuring that the integrity of the Mass and the riches of Catholic tradition are preserved. Such resources could include structural guidelines, advisors, sharing best practices, enhanced training for clergy and liturgy co-ordinators, etc.

 

In discussing this, I suggest that we try to avoid normative claims such as “The pope, the supreme legislator, has taught via Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae that the only valid position is a ‘3’, therefore Catholics can hold no other position.” The goal here is to understand attitudes, which may or may not be in line with the official teaching.

Does this scale work for you? What is missing?

Do you agree with my claim that Pope Benedict is a “3”? As pope, at least, he seems to have been just a bit higher on the scale, simply because he has neither celebrated the older form himself (in public, at least) nor forced all parishes to use it or all priests to learn it.

What about the most papabile cardinals?  I doubt that any would be either a “1” (this is more or less the position of the SSPX) or a “5” (though some here on PTB might put themselves there).

Fr Zuhlsdorf seems officially to be a “3”, though he occasionally lets slip comments that suggest he is more of a “2”. A good number of traditionalist bloggers seem to be closer to “2”.

For what it’s worth, I would peg myself at 3.675 – trending toward 4, but moderating this because of limited direct exposure to the older form of Mass.

Where are you on this scale?

Share:

161 comments

  1. Jonathan, as you no doubt knew someone would, I would propose some descriptions of intermediate categories.

    2.5: 1962 is in most ways superior, but there are a few things called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium and even a few things implemented in 1970 (an enriched lectionary, limited use of the vernacular, the new prefaces, perhaps a restored prayer of the faithful) that could enrich 1962. If this were done, the need for two forms would eventually wither away.

    3.5: 1970 is in most ways superior, but there are a few things lost in 1970 (some form of prayers at the foot of the altar, the old offertory prayers, the last gospel) that could enrich the current rite and should be allowed as options. If this were done, the need for two forms would eventually wither away.

    I would probably put myself around a 3.6, inasmuch as I am dubious about many of these “enrichments” (though I am growing more favorably inclined to the older form of entrance rite: Introit, Kyrie, [Gloria,] Salutation, Collect) but would be happy to have them as options in order to return to a single form of the Roman Rite.

    1. @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #1:

      Great suggestions, Dcn. Fritz.

      One or two notes:

      2.5: 1962 is in most ways superior, but there are a few things called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium and even a few things implemented in 1970 (an enriched lectionary, limited use of the vernacular, the new prefaces, perhaps a restored prayer of the faithful) that could enrich 1962. If this were done, the need for two forms would eventually wither away.

      I believe that Sam and I would dissent on the 3 year lectionary (though I could live with an optional OT reading). Otherwise, a nice intermediate option I would consider…

      3.5: 1970 is in most ways superior, but there are a few things lost in 1970 (some form of prayers at the foot of the altar, the old offertory prayers, the last gospel) that could enrich the current rite and should be allowed as options. If this were done, the need for two forms would eventually wither away.

      In your parenthetical, you might add in restoration to the calendar of Septuagesima season, Ember Days, Rogation Days, and the Octave of Pentecost – it was sad to see these removed from the new calendar.

  2. Fritz, especially if we can keep the scale symmetrical — as you have in these additions — I would be delighted to expand it. Let’s see what other comments we get. It will be easy enough to amend the original post based on those, noting where there have been changes.

    I agree with everything you have said, by the way. I don’t think the last gospel would be a helpful restoration — and hence my claim of an additional 0.075 points!

  3. I would be more inclined to a 3.6 too, although a 1962 missal in English allowing for lay readers and the elimination of the two seperate tracks for priest and congregation which the 1965 already did. But I think I like best of all the 1965 missal’s order of Mass as an option but with the entire contents of the 2012 missal including Eucharistic prayers prayed aloud or in a lower voice but not silently, but keeping the expanded lectionaries with its rubrics but adding a “year D” for the 1962 one, but for Sundays only. So I guess I am 3.7 as a little Latin goes a long way with me and I’m ethnocentric in liking the vernacular Mass even with the 62 missal.

    1. @Anthony Ruff – comment #4:
      Ditto – in fact, Jonathan, would have added another category…..Paul VI mass and allow for a pastoral period and sunshine laws to effect the end of the 1962 mass.
      Really, Allan, you are stuck between 1 and 2.

      1. @Anthony Ruff – comment #13:
        Sorry – lowered myself to his level and responded to his *unfair accusation* that I was channeling Gary Wills. My comment is my opinion only.

  4. 5 for me – totally.

    BUT, if the Tridentine rite has no expiry, then I definitely want my 1973 ICEL back too (updated and modified for inclusivity of course). The gates are open since Benedict introduced liturgical pluriformity big time.

  5. 4.5

    I would be more interested in a scale that measures authoritarianism, 1-5 but with your categories rearranged 1,5,3,2,4. 1 & 5 demand exclusivity for the respective forms; 3 demands participation in both; 2 demands, but will bend; 4 is open to both. On that scale I would choose the open option, the original #4.

    I already consider the EF an historical relic, not that there is anything wrong with that, which is what has me wavering between 4 & 5.

  6. A comment from someone who conducts surveys for a living.

    Usually, my suggestion for Likert scales is to have an even number of points on the scale, to push respondents off the fence of being “exact moderates” and tell us what they think.

    However, here we could see a bimodal distribution — the bell having two lumps in it — and point 3 is not an escape hatch but an actual considered position. So I’d leave it as is.

  7. As for my own view, if I could check only one box it would be “4”, but my more nuanced position is somewhere beyond that point, maybe 4.2

  8. 5 and beyond. And, for that matter, let there be no more attempts to tidy up the language of patriarchy, Ptolemaism and the divine right of kings. There are other alternatives in the scripture itself. Even Thomas Aquinas celebrated, for example, “Latens Deitas.”

  9. I would propose an alternate “moderate” solution that could be called “3b” (or to address RP Burke’s “exact moderates” problem, could be placed between 2 and 3). This addresses some of the tensions that exist between the two forms as well as considers the fact that each liturgical form consists of more than just the Mass.

    The Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite actually comprise two distinct Western Latin rites, each with its own coherent liturgical spirituality and praxis, and should be recognized as such. Latin Rite Catholics should have the opportunity to ascribe to the particular ritual church (classical or modern) that best suits their spiritual needs; priests trained in both rites should be encouraged to seek bi-ritual faculties. Since the spiritualities of the two rites are different, any proposed changes to either rite should be considered on their own merits within the spirituality of that rite, not as a “corrective” with respect to the other.

  10. Answer: 2

    But taking a page from Dcn. Fritz, I would add a qualification or two. I do not think it practical to abolish the Mass of Paul VI “quickly.” That might be not only a pastoral disaster, but might provoke open schism that could be avoided…

    I also wish to emphasize that in so voting, I am not making any judgment whatsoever on the souls of those attached to the Ordinary Form. It *is* a valid Mass, it confects the Eucharist when celebrated with the proper words of consecration (a very low bar to hurdle), and it is the only Missal that the vast majority of Roman Rite Catholics, now and for the last 43 years, have any access to or knowledge of, especially if they are below age 50. Graces do flow through its celebration.

    Reading again the Holy Father’s reflections on the concerns about the Roman Rite as they existed before the Council, and thinking about the lived reality I see in parishes around the country, I’m aware of the genuine pastoral issues involved here. If indeed the EF ever were to become the OF, so to speak, I could see putting in place options for a) a dignified and accurate vernacular for the readings and most of the ordinary and propers; b) insertion of announcement of the mass intentions of the day; c) a lay reader for the Epistle; d) expansion of all the server responses to the entire congregation as a Dialogue Mass; e) an optional reading from the Old Testament inserted into the one year lectionary; f) continued permission for reception in the hand, standing (though it would no longer be normative) – for starters. (Other options might occur to me on further reflection.) These options, of course, would quickly become the norm in most places. Of course, I would also want the option of celebrating the pre-1955 Holy Week (with the Prayer for the Jews modified to that of 2008, of course).

    I am not delusional: None of this is in immediate prospect. I could live a world embodied in #3, however. That will be hard enough to achieve.

  11. My stats prof preferred Likert scale with an even number because subjects were forced to make up their minds.

    That said, I’m a solid 5.5.

  12. Jonathan, what a scale! — it shows how very much you (and others here) have been hypnotized by the current EF-OF liturgical discussion in the Church.

    May I point out that this is an entirely backward looking scale? The absolute terminus is 1970, and the only question this really assesses is how much tolerance there is for something in the bandwidth that begins in 1962 and effectively ceases with 1970.

    A lot of people in the Church want to go beyond 1970! In short, there is an entire world beyond 5 which didn’t make it onto the scale.

    Thus, I believe this is a scale that will give a false sense of what actually constitutes the “middle.” The big progress here would be to precisely place conservatives vis a vis reactionaries.

    Sorry, it doesn’t work for me.

    1. Rita (#26),

      You could do what I did and add on categories — e.g.

      6: The 1998 Sacramentary, including the revision to the order of Mass.

      7: A set of loose, minimal guidelines to insure validity and to encourage local creativity (something like the Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist in the American version of the BCP).

      This would, of course, violate Jonathan’s suggestion that additions be symmetrical, but I take it that it is the way in which the symmetry predetermines the conversation that you would object to.

      1. @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #28:
        Yes, Fritz, thanks. I think you have grasped the nature of my objection.

        Before the current pontificate, there was a significant push for inclusive language. It was seen as such a threat that LA “beats it down” with multiple provisions. Mirror reading of such documents should alert us that this is a big deal. Beyond language there have been other feminist interests in how liturgy is conducted, to de-emphasize hierarchy and re-emphasize equality.

        Before that, there were scholarly voices raised to suggest modest changes in the order of Mass because of experience. Adrian Nocent had some suggestions to this effect, I recall. Some of the proposals that didn’t make it into the 1998 edition of the Missal concerning the entrance rites also fall into this category. In other words, taking the liturgy not as permanent and fixed but subject to review and revision.

        There are those who would like to press beyond the 1970 missal with respect to ecumenism, in other words, instead of regarding “Protestant” as a dirty word, they would like to experience more liturgical sharing across what is currently the divide. This doesn’t necessarily mean “loose minimal guidelines,” but specific decisions. Some who are involved in interreligious dialogue would also like to see changes.

        There are provisions for inculturation in the Roman Rite following Vatican II. Some would like to see these expanded rather than restricted.

        Finally, there are those for whom the new translation has changed their minds about the Roman Rite overall. They are no longer convinced that it is a good thing to preserve everything from history and they would like to see the balance shift to new prayers, composed for people living in the 21st Century.

        In other words, the choice is not between order and chaos, it’s between different decisions being made to order the worship life of Catholics.

        Of course, there are also those who want what you suggest as #7.

      2. @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #28:
        Fritz, Jonathan, Rita – to your point and setting up this survey to mirror what we do thousands of times in the behavioral health field.

        You would set up a survey with (for example) ten questions (to get to Rita’s points).

        Each question would be followed by a Likert Scale – vote 1 for totally agree with the question; vote 2 for partially agree; 3 for neither agree/disagree; 4 for partial disagreement; 5 for total disagreement.
        Then, you add up all of the responses per question; divide by participants, and get an average for each question.
        Then, on a grid showing the 10 questions (for example) you would have averaged scores and be able to trend if most weight leans to the 10th question; somewhere in the middle; or question one.
        Obviously, final scores would be dependent upon the make up of the cohort of participants e.g. if an EF parish took the survey, you would expect answers that would lean toward scores that most value questions 2-4.

    2. @Rita Ferrone – comment #26:

      Hello Rita,

      The absolute terminus is 1970, and the only question this really assesses is how much tolerance there is for something in the bandwidth that begins in 1962 and effectively ceases with 1970.

      Well, with respect, that begs the question, doesn’t it?

      Since there is now official ecclesiastical approval of the older form, it should not seem unreasonable to do justice to each position on its own terms, which I think is all that Jonathan was trying to do.

      A lot of people in the Church want to go beyond 1970! In short, there is an entire world beyond 5 which didn’t make it onto the scale.

      That’s fair. If we’re adding adding points to the scale (some have been suggested already), there ought to be something beyond #5, arguing for a further reform of the 1970 Missal. What exactly that would consist of (beyond revisiting the translation) is hard to say; I will leave that to Jonathan to decide if he wants to revisit this scale. What would your descriptor of a “#6 position” (or whatever number it is assigned after other options have been added) read like?

      What is apparent already is that the PTB readership does seem to exhibit some real diversity on this subject. But I don’t think that comes as a surprise.

      1. @Richard Malcolm – comment #30:

        I challenge the statement concerning the “official ecclesiastical approval of the older form.” For more than 30 years there as no serious canonical challenge to the widespread opinion of canonists that Paul IV had indeed suppressed the 1962 MR when he promulgated the 1970 MR. All the canonical solemnities for promulgation and abrogation were followed by Paul IV. When he subsequently allowed individuals to use the 1962 MR for reasons of advanced age, sight disability, and other conditions, and when Blessed John Paul extended that use in an attempt to win back schismatics, it was by way of canonical indult. The suppressed 1962 MR was never re-promulgated as an approved liturgical book. Benedict XVI caused further confusion about the 1962 MR’s canonical status when he chose to engage in a legal fiction, saying that the 1962 MR had never been suppressed.

        I think the canonical status of the 1962 MR must be clarified. If it is to be an approved liturgical book, it needs to be promulgated as such by the next pontiff since it has not been promulgated as such up to now, IMO.

        I’m a “5” on the scale, thinking that the 1962 MR has been suppressed. But because of what has transpired since QAA, the use of that edition either needs to be reestablished as an indult with a clearly determined “sunset clause,” or it needs to be re-promulgated as a liturgical book.

      2. @Fr. Ron Krisman – comment #39:

        Hello Fr. Krisman,

        All the canonical solemnities for promulgation and abrogation were followed by Paul IV…

        Obviously, many of us disagree. The lack of express language of abrogation, such as that in Quo Primum, must be addressed.

        And indults aside, other points in the first two decades post-1970 are telling. Archbishop Bugnini *did* try to obtain an explicit ruling to the effect that the Novus Ordo Missae of 1970 abrogated the TLM, so that the latter would be suppressed de jure. To apply for such a ruling to the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Conciliar Documents, he needed permission from the Cardinal Secretary of State. On 10 June 1974 the Secretary of State refused to give the requested permission on the grounds that such an attempt would be seen as “casting odium on the liturgical tradition” (A. Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975, The Liturgical Press, 1990, pp 300-301).

        Secondly, there is the 1986 Commissio Cardinalitia, in which 8 of 9 cardinals concluded that there had been no abrogation, and all nine agreed that Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priests from celebrating the 1962 Missal. You might argue that the Commission was “stacked,” but clearly there’s enough evidence to cast some doubt on claims of abrogation.

        I find it curious that critics of the TLM take such a broad view of papal powers on this point. It seems that we are all ultramontanists now – indeed, that the theological spectrum has flipped, at least on the question of liturgy. But what the papal pen taketh away, it can give: If Paul VI could…derogate (if not abrogate) the TLM, Benedict XVI can fully restore it. And he has.

        I actually share your concern that SP’s distinction of two forms is awkward; they seem like two distinct rites to me. A future pontiff could declare such. But I must ask why there is such insistence the 1962 *must* be suppressed. Why not tolerance?

      3. @Richard Malcolm – comment #48:

        Richard, thank you for the Bugnini reference. I need to look at that again.

        Re: the 1986 Commisio of Cardinals, the question whether the commission was “stacked” is not ad rem. What is important to remember is that those cardinals had no authority whatsoever to give an authentic interpretation of law; neither do I. Only the Pontifical Council for the Correct Interpretation of Legal Texts has that authority.

        As for my take on the authority of the Roman pontiff, I hold that he is the supreme legislator in the Church. But that does not mean that he can do anything he pleases and it will be legal. He too is subject to the ius vigens which he or one of his predecessors has promulgated. If he wants to act in a way contrary to the law in force, he must promulgate a change in the law.

        The mere fact that there is so much disagreement as to whether or not the 1962 MR was or was not suppressed is sufficient for me to conclude that an authentic interpretation is needed.

      4. @Richard Malcolm – comment #48:

        Richard, I’ve pulled out Bugnini’s The Reform of the Liturgy and read several times pages 299-301. My conclusion is that you have misrepresented this entire affair about the clear abrogation of the 1962 MR.

        And so I ask you. What canonical literature exists from the period in question which challenges the fact that the Missal of Pius V was not definitively abrogated by the wording of the final paragraph of the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum? Please supply one or more references. I don’t care what Bishop So-and-so or Cardinal Whatever thought or said. I’m talking about a canonical opinion which was published. My earlier statement was about the community of canonical scholars accepting the sufficiency of the apostolic constitution’s wording to abrogate the 1962 MR. I still abide by that.

        Bugnini’s closing words are most telling: “Documents, no matter how solemn, are ineffective against bad faith. People will find all kinds of justifications to defend their actions against those in authority.”

      5. @Fr. Ron Krisman – comment #92:

        Hello Fr. Krisman,

        Richard, I’ve pulled out Bugnini’s The Reform of the Liturgy and read several times pages 299-301. My conclusion is that you have misrepresented this entire affair about the clear abrogation of the 1962 MR.

        If I have, it was not conscious, I assure you. In what way have I misrepresented that episode? Abp. Bugnini wanted a formal declaration of abrogation. The Secretary of State denied him the right to request it, concerned that it would cast “odium” on the previous liturgical tradition. Paul VI refused to intervene, or make his own clarifying declaration at the time. That’s really all I said.

        That episode does not, I agree, prove that the 1962 was not abrogated. All it does is present evidence that even Abp. Bugnini felt that a formal declaration was needed. You can argue, plausibly, that Paul VI *did* assume that he was abrogating it, not just derogating – indeed, even the sedevacantist Fr. Cekada has argued exactly that (though it does help serve his accusation of total rupture by the Council).

        Are there any formal canonical definitions refuting abrogation in that period? No, there are not, not to my knowledge. I don’t see that as dispositive either way. I think the most that can be said is that Paul VI *probably* meant to abrogate the 1962 Missal, and even that most bishops assumed that it had been abrogated, if they thought about it at all. As to the community of canonical scholars – canon law is not my specialty. I posit the possibility without having examined the record. But I’m not aware of much public scholarship by canonists on the question at the time.

        At any rate, whatever the state of affairs in 1970-1984/2007, it is clear that the Pope always has the right to declare the rite as permitted, and Benedict XVI did just that in 2007, whether one likes it or not.

        “Documents, no matter how solemn, are ineffective against bad faith.”

        Those words could be applied to many.

      6. @Richard Malcolm – comment #94:

        Richard, I asked a simple question. Where’s the canonical literature? And you “posit the possibility” that there is some. Sounds similar to Sen. Cruz positing the possibility that “Friends of Hamas” exists.

        No, there is no literature that I know of. Canonical scholars were not questioning the meaning of Paul VI’s action. The questioning was from non-canonists.

        Many in the canonical community did not need the 1994 authentic interpretation that women were not barred from serving at Mass. Reputable canonists had known since 1983, when the CIC was promulgated, that the prohibition of the 1917 CIC was not present in the 1983 CIC. If only the officials of the CDWDS had consulted a few of these canonists, many insulting letters to diocesan bishops who correctly understood the new law and permitted female servers between late-1983 and 1994 could have been avoided.

        IMO, in no way does Bugnini’s account lend credence to the suggestion that he had doubts about the efficacy of Paul VI’s abrogation. Rather, he was hopeful that an authentic interpretation would be helpful not to canonists but to non-canonists who did not know how to read legislative documents of the Church.

      7. @Fr. Ron Krisman – comment #96:

        Hello Fr. Krisman,

        Richard, I asked a simple question. Where’s the canonical literature? And you “posit the possibility” that there is some. Sounds similar to Sen. Cruz positing the possibility that “Friends of Hamas” exists.

        With all due respect – why do we need to politicize this discussion? Are you assuming that I am a Republican? I think this is an unfortunate and uncharitable comparison that you’re making. I don’t place pro-abrogation canonists on a level with “Friends of Hamas,” not least because I try to exercise charity.

        You asked a simple question, and I answered it: “No, there are not, not to my knowledge.” I’m not a canonist; I have a grand total of two canon law classes (at CUA) to my name. I’m allowing that there really are canonical treatments on this, because I don’t have sufficient knowledge to say so. That’s all I meant. Nothing more.

        IMO, in no way does Bugnini’s account lend credence to the suggestion that he had doubts about the efficacy of Paul VI’s abrogation. Rather, he was hopeful that an authentic interpretation would be helpful not to canonists but to non-canonists who did not know how to read legislative documents of the Church.

        That’s a theory, sure. Frankly, beyond what he wrote in his book, I don’t *know* what Bugnini really thought or intended. I conceded right up front that his failed petition was not dispositive in proving no abrogation. But I think it is not chopped liver, either. He made the effort, and it was rejected, whatever the motivations of each party involved. You can explain it, but it can’t just be dismissed.

        We can argue about this point, but the fact remains: It is no longer abrogated, at the least. You think this unfortunate, no doubt; I am pleased by it. A future Pope could abrogate it, or limit it, or expand it to be normative – the office has that power.

      8. @Richard Malcolm – comment #99:
        Richard,

        No no no. I’m sure Fr. Ron’s point is that “positing the possibility” of something being real is very far from demonstrating that it’s real, just as Sen. Cruz stepped in a hole (except in the mind of the Tea Party true believers) when he criticized an appointee based on connection to a nonexistent group.

      9. @Richard Malcolm – comment #99:

        Richard, I did not politicize the discussion, accuse you of being a Republican or that you place “pro-abrogation canonists” on a level with “Friends of Hamas.” And I certainly did not intend to be uncharitable. But this is serious stuff. Blogs are famous for statements for which there is no evidence. I asked for evidence of canonical literature. You could supply none. Fine. Let’s move on.

        You stated that my reading of Bugnini was my “theory” and that, beyond what he wrote in his book, (you) don’t know what Bugnini really thought or intended. But in an earlier post you accused him of being disingenuous in what he wrote.

        “the fact remains: It is no longer abrogated, at the least. You think this unfortunate, no doubt.” Actually, what I am thinking is that the 1962 MR was lawfully abrogated by Paul VI and Pope Benedict’s avoidance of that fact did not effectively re-promulgate the 1962 MR. Should the next Roman pontiff, on day 2 of his pontificate, say “the 1962 MR was abrogated and was never repromulgated and from this day forward may never be used,” I would, quite honestly, think that was both imprudent and insensitive.

      10. @Fr. Ron Krisman – comment #2:
        You maintain that the 1962 Missal is illegal today?

        Despite the fact that the Pope, the CDF, the CDW, et al. disagree with you? Based on the opinion of some small group of canonists?

        But no future Pope should say this or stop the use of the 1962 missal? So you’re in favor of a new promulgation of it?

      11. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #3:

        Hi, Samuel,

        Canonists don’t use “illegal” to describe a liturgical book. Rather, a book is “unapproved” for liturgical use.

        Second question. No, I never made the claim that I am an authentic interpreter of the law. I just pointed out that it was the accepted interpretation of the canonical experts in 1970 that Paul VI acted according to the law when he promulgated the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum, thereby abrogating the 1962 MR. And there appears to be no canonical literature which claimed otherwise. Nor did a person or dicastery in your question offer a contrary canonical opinion regarding that abrogation later on. I pointed out previously that the CDWDS was wrong on the question of female servers for more than 10 years.

        Let’s face it, if the 1962 MR really was abrogated, then what Benedict 16 did in SM did not re-promulgate it as a liturgical books. In the canonical tradition, liturgical books are promulgated through legislative texts of the highest authority, apostolic constitutitons. A motu proprio will not suffice.

        No, I’m not in favor of the use of the 1962 MR. But I’m for prudence in decision making. That’s what I was saying.

      12. @Fr. Ron Krisman – comment #8:
        Thank you for your comments on this thread, Ron. They are most enlightening to those of us who are not specialists in canon law. At least, they are to me. They offer a much firmer handle on the subject of abrogation, which has often had a “he said / she said” kind of flabbiness in other discussions. Bravo.

      13. @Fr. Ron Krisman – comment #8:
        Canonists don’t use “illegal” to describe a liturgical book. Rather, a book is “unapproved” for liturgical use.

        This is a silly quibble. Something that is unapproved is illicit. And it’s illegal. It violates the law. It may not be the usual technical language, but the plain English is perfectly accurate.

        No, I never made the claim that I am an authentic interpreter of the law.

        See, the problem is that the Pope IS an authentic interpreter of the law. So if he says it hasn’t been abrogated he’s right. (See altar servers being permitted.)

        I just pointed out that it was the accepted interpretation of the canonical experts in 1970

        Not relevant.

        And there appears to be no canonical literature which claimed otherwise.

        The commission of cardinals in the 80’s and the authentic interpretation in Summorum Pontificum.

        Nor did a person or dicastery in your question offer a contrary canonical opinion regarding that abrogation later on.

        Many persons have, such as Pope Benedict. But also Cardinal Medina in 2004:

        “I reaffirm my personal opinion that the abrogation of the Missal of St Pius V is not proven and I can add that the decree that I signed promulgating the third typical edition of the Roman Missal does not contain any clause that abrogates the ancient form of the Roman Rite. (…) And I can also add that the absence of any abrogation clause whatsoever did not happen by chance, nor as it caused by inadvertence, but was intentional.”

        “I pointed out previously that the CDWDS was wrong on the question of female servers for more than 10 years.”

        And I pointed out that the PCILT can change the law and that’s what they did when they allowed female servers.

        Let’s face it, if the 1962 MR really was abrogated, then what Benedict 16 did in SM did not re-promulgate it as a liturgical books.

        But you can rest easy since it wasn’t… so says the Pope, the authentic intepreter.

      14. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #23:
        Samuel,

        You should not be advising others to avoid quibbling. This is the sort of thing you do constantly. Take the plank out of your own eye first.

        Why is what happened in 1970 irrelevant? That’s precisely when the abrogation (or not) could be said to have occurred.

        Why don’t you understand that there’s a difference between a Cardinal’s personal opinion and canonical literature? The difference is so evident, it’s like apples and oranges.

        Really, as far as I can tell, everything you’ve said here boils down to “The Pope said so.” That’s not much of an argument. It may settle it for you, but it doesn’t dispose of any of the points raised by Fr. Ron.

      15. Rita Ferrone : @Samuel J. Howard – comment #23:Samuel, Really, as far as I can tell, everything you’ve said here boils down to “The Pope said so.” That’s not much of an argument. It may settle it for you, but it doesn’t dispose of any of the points raised by Fr. Ron.

        The “Pope said so” is the only way we have to settle most of these arguments. Resonable people could disagree forever on them, but reasonable people don’t want to disagree forever.

        Luckily, we have an umpire to whom we can submit our cases, and have them resolved. Just like a court case with a judge, or a democracy with an election.

      16. @Rita Ferrone – comment #25:
        And the opposing argument boils down to the often repeated “accepted interpretation of the canonical experts” in the 1970’s. That may be enough for some people here but the stated opinion of the Cardinals’ commission in the 1980’s, many of them canonists themselves, and the now still reigning pope matter even more, something to which Vatican II reminds us.

      17. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #23:

        Samuel, I agree with you that the Pope is both supreme lawgiver and authentic interpreter of the law. But, as I stated in a previous comment, he too is subject to the law of his predecessors and his predecessors’ canonical acts. He may overturn those decisions, but he may not finesse the issue by pretending that one of his predecessors did not do what he did.

        Cardinal Medina’s personal opinion (not an authentic interpretation, BTW) is quite revealing. Since the decree promulgating the third typical edition of the MR also does not abrogate the second typical edition of the MR, only stating that “the preceding versions in use up until now (be) emended accurately in fidelity to the original Latin text,” I wonder what would happen if someone were to write in all the Latin changes into their translation of the second typical edition and use that for the Eucharist?

        As to the PCILT changing the law, it is not authorized to do that by Pastor Bonus. The 1994 authentic interpretation of the PCILT authoritatively clarified what the law had been since late-1983, which is good enough for me.

      18. @Fr. Ron Krisman – comment #2:

        Hello Fr. Krisman,

        Blogs are famous for statements for which there is no evidence.

        I really don’t see where I said anything unsupported by evidence. I never claimed that there was formal or even scholarly canonical activity in those decades supporting an anti-abrogation argument (nor do I now). I cited a few developments which I thought could plausibly, but not definitively, support such an argument.

        But in an earlier post you accused him of being disingenuous in what he wrote.

        What I said was that merely that “I couldn’t help but feel that Bugnini was being somewhat disingenuous here.” I can’t prove it. That’s my gut feeling. The argument that the 1965-1970 changes are merely just another episode of change on par with the 8th or 16th centuries just seems incredibly weak to me. It was a far, far more ambitious and radical reform. But perhaps that’s uncharitable of me. Perhaps Bugnini really believed that.

        Actually, what I am thinking is that the 1962 MR was lawfully abrogated by Paul VI and Pope Benedict’s avoidance of that fact did not effectively re-promulgate the 1962 MR.

        With respect, how can that be so? The Pope is the supreme legislator in these matters. The law is, effectively, what he says it is. Perhaps I’m failing to understand what you mean when you say “promulgate.”

        …I would, quite honestly, think that was both imprudent and insensitive.

        On this much, at least, I think we are in agreement.

  13. Within about a mile radius of where I grew up there was Catholic Mass in Spanish, English, Italian, Maltese, Polish, Ruthenian Rite, Armenian Rite, Ukrainian Rite, French, Latin Novus Ordo, Latin Tridentine, Mandarin, Cantonese, Slovenian and Tagalog all with various shades of liturgical praxis and cultural baggage/history. (Not to mention Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox churches). So it seems silly to reduce liturgical plurality to just two books. But what do I know, I grew up on a tiny narrow island.

  14. Based on my experience with the OF and what I’ve learned/observed of the EF, I’d rate myself 3-3.5. We as a chuch fell into the pitfall that is ‘casual culture.’

  15. P.S. It is beginning to look like Jonathan should expand this out to a 10 point scale…

    A fair number of folks here seem to be between 4 and 5, and I am trying to determine what that would look like. My guess is that it involves an abrogation of most or all of Summorum Pontificum, returning us back to the “indult era,” wherein the 1962 still could be celebrated but only by permission of the relevant ordinary. In other words: TLM allowed, but restricted. Is that about right?

  16. @AWR or FrBdeH
    Speaking of Pr. Wills (and havIng read and found some merit in his previous works) – where on the scale might he register in your opinions? 😉

  17. I am a 5. It is abundantly clear that Summorum Pontificium was a big mistake since far from satisfying those who had a hankering for the old rite it has greatly encouraged those who want to cause trouble for the Church. Anyone who visits “traditionalist” websites can see that there is a group of dissidents who will not be satisfied until vernacular liturgy is eradicated. At least after SP we now know that giving concessions to the supporters of the TLM only makes things worse.

    I pray for an inspirational Pope who can gain the respect of the whole world, and will have the strength to be a Pope of unity, and put an end to divisive experiments.

    1. @Rom Kiul – comment #40:

      Hello Rom,

      Anyone who visits “traditionalist” websites can see that there is a group of dissidents who will not be satisfied until vernacular liturgy is eradicated…

      And on progressive websites and publications, one can see that there is a group of dissidents who will not be satisfied until women can and must be ordained, or even that the laity are empowered to celebrate the Eucharist.

      This cuts both ways, you see. And yet it is you that is demanding “eradication” of a rite. If intolerance is wrong on one side, why not the other?

      I pray for an inspirational Pope who can gain the respect of the whole world, and will have the strength to be a Pope of unity, and put an end to divisive experiments.

      Traditionalists could (and in some extreme cases, have) made similar such statements, only the other way around. Which is another way of observing that what is being sought after is not unity, but victory – since, presumably, which ever side found its liturgy “eradicated” would have no choice but to utterly submit, or move outside the Church – talk about ultramontanism! “Unity” seems like an empty term to me. Not least because it would, in this case, do exactly what the Secretary of State in 1974 feared an abrogation of the Old Mass would do – cast “odium” upon almost all of the Roman Rite’s liturgical tradition.

      And that is the elephant in the room in these debates. Abrogation would say that the old rite, the old sacramentaries really were/are odious, indeed, erroneous. That they might as well be Arian or Nestorian rites. That the Catholic Church, for most of its history, could not get something so fundamental and basic as its daily worship right. Dressing up our language in Rahnerian glosses of categorical contingency really is a dodge at this point, especially if we are to talk of utter “eradication.”

      I think to look at extreme claims (like that of the SSPX) simply is not helpful.

      1. @Richard Malcolm – comment #49:
        Mr. Malcolm – mentioned this on the other topic but your citing of *casting odium upon earlier rites, forms, etc. as erroneous, etc.

        Will repeat that this strikes me as a desperate manuveur to defend earlier expressions of the church. It is linked to the HV decision which had little to do with the issue of birth control; rather, it was a decision made because a minority worried that approving use of birth control would undermine papal authority; negate the 1931 encyclical Castii Conubi; and confuse folks who had faithfully followed the earlier papal decree. Taken to an extreme, this makes any subsequent church decisions questionnable and makes every papal pronouncements as holier than Christ himself. Fact – papal pronoucements i.e. bulls, letters, encyclicals, etc. have over-ruled each other; contradicted each other since the early church. PTB has regularly posted a long list of papal pronouncements that were later understood as wrong e.g. religious liberty, democratic rule, slavery, usury as some examples. And this is not dressing up language with Rahnerian glosses of categorical contingency – do you really think that abrogating a missal *eradicates* what the church did in prayer using the older missal? Now, who is glossing over or creating contingencies that just aren’t there?
        Missals have been abrogated throughout church history – why is it that in 1970 this can no longer be done? (talk about unhistorical and overly dramatic)
        You talk about difference between Paul VI and JPII indults and B16 – would argue that Paul VI was acting under the explicit direction of the council fathers. Can’t say the same for either JP or B16. In addition, Paul VI consulted and sought approval from episcopa conferences as outlined in VII…something again that JP and B16 did not do (despite workaround gestures via minority groups or via synods). One could argue that Paul completed the council wishes – the other two used papal authority.

      2. @Bill deHaas – comment #56:
        Hi Bill,

        A couple points, by way of reply:

        1. Papal pronoucements i.e. bulls, letters, encyclicals, etc. have over-ruled each other; contradicted each other since the early church. PTB has regularly posted a long list of papal pronouncements that were later understood as wrong e.g. religious liberty, democratic rule, slavery, usury…

        I regret that I have not seen these posts on PTB – I come and go in spurts. All I can say is: I disagree, respectfully. On questions of faith and morals, the Church has not, cannot contradict herself, and that includes slavery and usury. On religious liberty and democracy…these are, some have argued, reformable doctrines on second principles, but I concede that there are tensions with pre-conciliar teaching that have yet to be clarified by the Magisterium. But this is a rabbit hole I don’t want to drag Jonathan’s thread into.

        2. Paul VI was acting under the explicit direction of the council fathers. Can’t say the same for either JP or B16.

        Perhaps, though it is worthwhile to note that JPII and B16 were notable Fathers of that same Council. At any rate, it strikes me as, respectfully, not really relevant. The Pope, as the Council affirmed in LG, is supreme legislator for the Church, and he does not need a warrant from a council to legislate.

        3. Missals have been abrogated throughout church history – why is it that in 1970 this can no longer be done?

        Aha! Now *this* is an interesting point.

        Your point is true, of course. The 1962 editio typica replaced 1920, and 1920 replaced 1884, and so on (with minor changes intervening). But these were clearly very, very minor revisions to the same rite. That simply is not the case with 1970. It really is a new rite, de facto if not de jure, and B16 seems to be treating it as such. Which, I admit, is a real tension in SP. That does not make it illegal, but leaves unresolved questions about the relationship of the two.

      3. @Richard Malcolm – comment #69:
        Father Joseph Ratzinger was not a Council Father. He was a “secondary” peritus, that is a personal peritus chosen by a bishop, who then requested from the Cardinal Secretary of State the permission for his assistant to be present at the sessions of the Council.

        “Primary” periti were appointed directly by the Cardinal Secretary of State on the basis of their noteworthy expertise. They were present at the sessions, and were assigned by name to assist in the work of the bishops of a particular conciliar commission, for example, the conciliar liturgical commission. Most of these “primary” periti had also participated, again by appointment of the Secretary of State, in the work of the Conciliar Preparatory Commission. Professor Ratzinger was not among them. This is an important distinction.

      4. @john Robert Francis – comment #72:

        Hello Fr. Francis,

        “Primary” periti were appointed directly by the Cardinal Secretary of State on the basis of their noteworthy expertise.

        That is a good point, of course. I would confine myself to observing that, as “secondary” periti (it is worth remembering that Rahner was such, assisting Cdl. Konig) go, Ratzinger did exercise an outsized influence at the Council, as evidenced by his commentary in Vorgrimler, his address to the German bishops on the schema on revelation, etc. There were periti who had a bigger impact on the writing of the actual texts, to be sure.

        I am not sure what it takes to be considered a “father” of the Council, since that is a more nebulous term. I think he fits my bill, but I am happy to recognize that opinions will vary.

      5. @Richard Malcolm – comment #76:
        Hello, Richard.

        I don’t think “father of the Council” is a nebulous term, actually. In the literature, it properly refers to the bishops themselves, not to the periti — of any rank or description.

        As for Ratzinger’s “outsized influence” on the Council, I really don’t see how you can make an argument for that. Yes, he wrote. He spoke. He was able. But I don’t see any of his fingerprints on the documents. Congar, Rahner, even the young Hans Kung all had more of an influence. In my opinion, Ratzinger would have gone down in history as a minor figure, a good theologian but not an epochal or particularly influential one, had he not ascended to his role in the CDF under John Paul II and later to the papacy.

      6. @Rita Ferrone – comment #84:

        Hi Rita,

        I don’t think “father of the Council” is a nebulous term, actually. In the literature, it properly refers to the bishops themselves, not to the periti — of any rank or description.

        I agree that most of the literature seems to have in mind just the bishops. Nonetheless, it’s not a formal term of art in the way that peritus is. I hate to dive into a semantic scrum here. Suffice it to say that Ratzinger was an important advisor at the Council. We can quibble about how important.

        As for Ratzinger’s “outsized influence” on the Council, I really don’t see how you can make an argument for that. Yes, he wrote. He spoke. He was able. But I don’t see any of his fingerprints on the documents.

        In point of fact, however, he and Rahner wrote the alternative text on revelation submitted by Cardinal Frings as a rebuttal/replacement to the Curia’s schema. Their schema was also rejected, but they both, of course, ended up on the subcommission charged with revising the text. Similarly, he had a hand in drafting the sections on collegiality in LG, and worked on the drafting committee for Ad Gentes;, where he contributed the definition of missionary activity that ended up being used, as I understand it.

        Would I put Ratzinger at the same level as Rahner or Congar in terms of contribution to and influethe texts? No. But it is clear that Rahner and others highly respected Ratzinger and sought his help, and if he isn't quite at the top of the heap, he was certainly an outsized figure of importance.

        Clearly being elevated to CDF and the papacy heightened his profile and influence from what they might otherwise have been as a purely academic theologian. No one would dispute that. But I think it is possible to underrate his importance as well, especially in the foundation of the highly influential Communio journal and movement.

      7. @Richard Malcolm – comment #69:
        You say: “That simply is not the case with 1970. It really is a new rite, de facto if not de jure, and B16 seems to be treating it as such. Which, I admit, is a real tension in SP. That does not make it illegal, but leaves unresolved questions about the relationship of the two.”

        Since you quote from Bugnini above, from his book he cites that there were three significant Roman Rite changes – 8th century, after Trent, and Vatican II. In terms of impact, he contrasts the Congregation of Rites (after Trent) which issued well over 500 liturgical decrees between 1565 and 1620. Compare this to the Vatican II period of 1965-75 which had issued 3-4 times fewer instructions. It reframes your comment about *significant change*. Thus, even post Trent (although standardizing) impacted the church depending upon your location, region, liturgical practices, etc.

        On the other post, you cited Bugnini and abrogation which had to be through the Secretary of State – who refused to approach Paul VI. That time period is described by Bugnini:
        – minority groups had tried to stop, impede Consilium since 1964 e.g. rumors that reached Paul VI which prevented Consilium forming a constitution; etc. Thus, it remained a *committee*
        – minority groups that repeatedly submitted slandarous papers to Paul VI (all of these were later proved false e.g. DePauw survey indicating that reforms were destroying church life when in fact only DePauw followers completed survey and later discovered that most also rejected Vatican II)
        – the campaign to defect reform efforts resulting in charge that Bugnini was a Freemason
        – campaign to weaken reform efforts that led to CDW being assumed as a part of CDF and taking a back seat

        It is in this context that you reference Bugnini’s attempt to get a formal abrogation announcement through the Secretary of State – not exactly an easy task but wonder if it had anything to do with *abrogation* or more to do with politics and the…

      8. @Bill deHaas – comment #78:

        hello Bill,

        Since you quote from Bugnini above, from his book he cites that there were three significant Roman Rite changes – 8th century, after Trent, and Vatican II.

        You’re right, he did make that argument (I don’t have ready access to it, most of my theology library is in boxes currently). And if there is validity to the argument, it has to be said that the post-conciliar reform is far vaster is scope and depth in liturgical change than the Carolingian and Tridentine periods (indeed, all changes in the rite’s history) put together. I couldn’t help but feel that Bugnini was being somewhat disingenuous here. He seems to be using these past periods as precedent and warrant for the Consolium’s project. I just can’t agree. I think he ought to have been more upfront about the revolutionary nature of the new missal.

        To the extent that Trent had a real impact, it was more in squelching local liturgies of recent origin and replacing them with the Roman Rite (for good or ill, perhaps). But the rite itself saw little change at its codification.

        And:

        It is in this context that you reference Bugnini’s attempt to get a formal abrogation announcement through the Secretary of State…

        I don’t deny the context you’ve given – though I might gloss it differently and qualify it in some ways. But I think it’s really beside the point, with all due respect. The charge was made that there were no significant canonical challenges to the Paul VI Missal, or to the seeming abrogation of the 1962, for three decades. The point is that here, in 1973-74, was a clear and energetic effort to get a formal declaration of abrogation, and that effort was rejected. Nor did Paul VI, who was aware of the effort, intervene to allow it to go forward.

        It also suggests, clearly, that even Bugnini himself at the very least had doubts that an abrogation had been formalized, even if he thought one had been intended.

  18. The problem with a “sunset clause” for the 1962 MR, is that many if not most of the people who were around (and “remained attached”) when it was in use, (pre the 1970 book) are reposed, quite elderly, or if younger with a memory of it, have been so used to attending the new Mass, that those wishing to “sunset” that book will have to come up with a new excuse to do so. Subsequent generations, especially since the JPII indult, and more still since the moto proprio, have found and become attached to the 1962 Mass, and continue as more celebrations of it happen.

  19. Rita, I didn’t mean to end the world with 1970. I was trying to avoid loaded terms — “TLM”, even “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” forms, which I think presuppose a lot. And I know that the Roman Missal was revised as late as 2008. I should have been clear that “1962” and “1970” were meant to be neutral labels, nothing more.

    I do take your point, in any case, that the scale is anchored in “official” versions, even though I said we should put normative considerations in brackets — so I have contradicted myself already!

    I can also see that the “space” of liturgical preferences is clearly multidimensional. If nothing else, there is a “strongly held” versus “weakly held” aspect to peoples’ choices. I tend toward 4 (the older form is good primarily for research and antiquarian interests) but temper the strength of that view because my experience is almost entirely with the newer Mass. So “4, moderately held” is probably a more accurate descriptor than “3.75, strongly held”.

    And then there are interesting possibilities like the “bi-ritual” model that Matthew Morelli suggests above. And Fritz’s idea that an English version, the 1998, could operate on its own, without a Latin urtext from which it is derived. And the suggestion, Fritz’s number 7 above, that a structure or pattern, rather than a single text, could be used to allow prayers to be made to fit the times and circumstances in which an assembly finds itself.

    So yes, my imagination was limited. Luckily I have the great resource of Pray Tell readers to stretch and supplement it!

    I will think more on the scale and come back, tomorrow or the next day, with some proposed modifications.

    Thanks, all, for some great contributions thus far.

    1. @Jonathan Day – comment #42:
      Jonathan,

      Thanks for these additional comments. I appreciate your patience! Let me try again.

      You said you were creating a scale of opinions, and so you have. The problem I am seeing is not that it uses official texts as reference points, nor that it is not multi-dimensional enough, but that it’s skewed to over-represent conservative to reactionary opinion. People on the progressive-liberal-radical end have opinions too. And these are opinions about the liturgy.

      The scale began, let’s face it, with the statement of an attitude that is FAR removed from any official position, namely that the reformed rite be withdrawn or encouraged to wither away. That’s Aidan Nichols, et al. Fine. You are charting opinions. He’s entitled to his opinion. But then, there is no Rosemary Radford Reuther or Mary Daly, much less a Joan Chittister, and not even a whiff of the people who talk about queer liturgy, eco-liturgy, cyber-liturgy. There’s no Gary Wills, who recently announced that priesthood is a pernicious invention, or even Edward Schillebeeckx who long ago argued that lay communities have a right to Eucharist even if there is no priest. (He was called to Rome on this, but never censured; they accepted his explanation.) I’ve already mentioned Adrian Nocent, and the advocates of modest developments to the Missal. They too, all of them, have opinions, and that’s the breadth of what you are surveying, presumably.

      Here’s the point. For a long time, many people worked to hold a middle ground between those who attacked the new liturgy or clung to older forms as a guarantee of orthodoxy, and those who wished to pull the liturgy into new forms for moral or theological motives having to do with an eschatological vision or a radical re-reading of the sources. This is still, as I see it, the middle ground and not the extreme end of Catholic opinion. A scale of 10 might do it.

      1. @Rita Ferrone – comment #80:

        Hello Rita,

        There’s no Gary Wills, who recently announced that priesthood is a pernicious invention, or even Edward Schillebeeckx who long ago argued that lay communities have a right to Eucharist even if there is no priest.

        It’s really hard to see Wills’ position as “Catholic” in any meaningful way, even allowing for expanding theological horizons of recent decades – as even Stephen Colbert seemed to realize when he interviewed him this month. If there’s no sacramental priesthood – and no Eucharist! – it’s really Protestantism by any other name. Which I say with full respect for our separated brethren and sisters.

        But this is Jonathan’s project, and I leave it to him to decide how he would like to set up the next version of his scale. I agree that there’s room for option(s) beyond “5” here in terms of where PTB readers are at – certainly if we’re going to be putting up the SSPX hardliners’ position (#1).

  20. Re. Rita’s suggestion…I wonder how far one can go before moving beyond Catholicism?

    Back to the survey, I’m a #3 with the additional suggestion that the 1962 missal be required on certain day’s, perhaps the Ember or Rogation days or some other accomodation keeping a significant role for it in an ordinary parish.

  21. This scale doesn’t work for me, because it fails (other than a nod in #5) to really grapple with HOW the form of our liturgy is received and changes. (I realize this itself is a perspective that is biased in acknowledging we no longer have a tradition that is received as a given, as it would have been in a culture before the Modern era; traditionalISM is Modern, not traditional – the harder it tries, the more Modern it is). The preferences, however well-reasoned, of prelates, clergy and professionalized laity (I will refer to them/us as The Establishment) are given too much weight and significance. The sanctification – through re-sacramentalization – of the faithful (largely alienated from the sacramental life for many centuries) at large is the greater arc of liturgical reform for the past century. I see deep infighting within The Establishment, and using The Faithful as a foil/rationalization (often well intended, but a rationalization nevertheless to the extent the Faithful are not deeply and broadly consulted in a way that would have a significant chance of results the Establishment would not prefer).

  22. Under the current definition of the scale, I’m willing to peg myself as a 4.8 or so. I *am* a big supporter of the 1998 Sacramentary, so I’m curious to see how the suggestions in the comments will reshape the scale.

  23. Forgive my perhaps literal insularity (being from Manhattan as I am) but would it not be healthier for those on the 4 and 5 of the scale to concede that there is a place for liturgical plurality, personal preferences for further development aside. A silly illustration: Say the Mayor of New York really loves the Guggenheim does that mean he should go out of his way to bulldoze the Cloisters?

    1. @Manuel Albino – comment #51:
      Why only 4 and 5?
      Hey, come on now, how about 1 and 2 particularly those with an agenda to eliminate the vernacular, communion in the hand while standing and ad populum?

      1. @Dale Rodrigue – comment #52:
        Because 1 and 2 generally don’t approve of liturgical plurality (e.g. Some Traditionalist blogs will have nothing to do with the Anglican Ordinariates) while 4 and 5 generally vaunt liturgical plurality (e.g. each ethnic group must have its own mass with inculturation of native rituals). Perhaps I am barking up the tree of religious anthropology rather than liturgical theology here.

      2. @Manuel Albino – comment #55:
        Mr. Albino – it also gets into disputes about forms and rites and enculturation. Is preserving the 1962 missal *enculturation* as understood by VII? (doubt it) Anglican Ordinatriates – again, papal authority; not sure that the council fathers would have agreed with this approach.

      3. @Bill deHaas – comment #57:
        So, does every Pope now need permission from an ecumenical council to do anything? 100 years from now is Vatican II going to still be pulled out as a reason not to do this or that?

      4. @Bill deHaas – comment #57:
        The “Tridentine” Missal is inculturation insomuch as it represents a thousand or more years of Western European liturgical development (leave aside value judgments as to theology). The mid century reforms were overly academic (I am especially referencing the 1955 Holy Week; some of the mistakes were actually corrected in 1970 and later). The Ordinariates would not have even been a thought in the Council Fathers’ minds but I believe what you mean is the “Uniate church” approach to ecumenism in contradistinction an action of collegiality.

      5. @Manuel Albino – comment #55:
        “Because 1 and 2 generally don’t approve of liturgical plurality”
        Except of course when it applies to them and allowing their abrogated Mass.

      6. @Dale Rodrigue – comment #61:
        1 and 2 tend to hegemony while 4 and 5 tend to plurality but only within their orthodoxy (a different type of hegemony but sociologically the same for the purposes of the scale.) Apparently basic sociology, anthropology and liturology must yield to pathology.

      7. @Dale Rodrigue – comment #61:

        “Because 1 and 2 generally don’t approve of liturgical plurality”
        Except of course when it applies to them and allowing their abrogated Mass.

        Except that it isn’t abrogated, thanks to a clear statement to this effect by the supreme legislator of the Church, the Pope. You can argue that it was abrogated at one time; but as of September, 2007 (at a minimum), it is not.

        To say that traditionalists do not approve of liturgical plurality is a statement that requires (at minimum) immediate qualification, since none that I know of object to the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Braga, Dominican, Cistercian, or any of the sui juris Eastern Rites, though perhaps there are a few hardshell Latinizers out there on the grassy knolls beyond the redoubts of the Society of St. Josaphat that I don’t know about.

        At worst, what traditionalists don’t approve of is just the 1970 Missal. Or certain parts thereof.

  24. This scale attempts to combine too many things into one scale: an evaluation of the 1962 Missal, and evaluation of the 1970 Missal, the relationships between these two missals, and best pastoral practices with regard to these missals.

    If we partial out the scales I am not sure each potential list of items would constitute a Likert scale (i.e. that everyone would have only one choice in the list) and that somehow we could infer the depth of their attitude by that choice.

    1962 Scale

    1. Only the 1962 Missal as written should be used.
    2. The 1962 Missal should be used only if updated to include recent feasts
    3. The 1962 Missal should be used only if updated to exclude things offensive to Jews or others.
    4. The 1962 Missal should be used only if updated to include recent prefaces
    5. The 1962 Missal should be used only if updated to include a greater lectionary
    6. The 1962 Missal should not be used.

    1970 Scale

    1. The 1970 Missal should not be used.
    2. The 1970 Missal should be used only if certain options from the 1962 Missal are added.
    3. The 1970 Missal should be used only if Propers are used.
    4. The 1970 Missal is ok as it is but needs to be better implemented.
    5. The 1970 Missal needs to be rewritten in better English.
    6. The 1970 Missal needs to be rewritten in more inclusive language
    7. The 1970 Missal needs to be rewritten to meet the needs of modern Americans.

    Pastoral Practice Scale

    1. Only the 1962 Missal should be available
    2. The 1962 Missal should be the preferred option available in each and every parish with the 1970 also available
    3. The 1962 Missal and 1970 should be used equally in each parish
    4. The 1970 Missal should be the preferred option in each parish with the 1962 also available.
    5. The 1962 Missal should be available only at the discretion of the pastor.
    6 The 1962 Missal should be available only at the permission of the bishop
    7 The 1962 Missal should not be available.

    Only the last of these appears to me to be a Likert scale.

    Once we get into ideas like mutual reform and influence there are just to many ways to go to form a Likert scale.

    Similarly with regard to rationale to have the 1962 Missal.

    1. It is the best missal
    2. It was a good missal in its time and is still good today although not the best
    3. It may be the best missal for some but not for others.
    4. It may be the only missal that will help some.

  25. As to my own opinions

    I agree with “The Mass of 1962 remains valid”

    But it was a good Mass for its times for many, many people (including myself) and is still a good Mass, perhaps even best Mass, for some today. I don’t regard those who love it and are nourished by it as somehow inferior mentally, emotionally or spiritually. They just have a different spirituality from mine. We all have the right to our own spirituality according to Canon Law.

    I think that all prior historical liturgies including reconstructions should be available for use by institutes of higher education. One of my prized CDs is a recording of the Old Roman Liturgy of Vespers for Easter which includes a lot of Greek as well as Latin. I use it every day during Easter Week.

    With regard to the OF, I am a 10, I am on my way to the construction of an American Rite from the ground up beginning with the Divine Office.

  26. I suppose I’m a 3.

    4 & 5 were more or less the official position of the Church in the years prior to SP, and that approach failed miserably. I doubt the mentality expressed in 1 & 2 would be any more successful.

    I think rather than debate about the EF being abrogated, it would be better to decide if attempting to suppress a liturgy that had served most of the Church for nearly a quarter of her existence was actually a good idea to begin with.

    1. Wayne,

      You ask the right question. Note that the fathers of Vatican II answered it: with all due respect for tradition, the rite does not adequately reflect what we now believe the church to be, it has elements that wrongly crept in in the course of history, and it should be reformed according to all the principles in SC. This is no judgment on all the people (including saints) who worshiped with that liturgy. But it is a pretty clear judgment from the council fathers on the adequacy of that liturgy now.

      awr

  27. I didn’t ask that we reflect on what the council fathers thought at the time of the council, but rather whether they were right to allow the old Missal to be suppressed when a very different replacement was created. Especially now that several decades of lived experience have elapsed since the council.

    Also, their judgement of the adequacy of the old Mass in the 60’s is not a judgement of its adequacy now. We live in the 2000’s, not the mid 20th Century.

    1. Good clarification – “whether [the council fathers] were right” about the liturgical reform. The arguments you make are really about whether Vatican II was right about liturgy or not, whether we Catholics should accept the ecumenical council or not.
      awr

      1. @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #65:
        There were a lot of compromises in SC and sometimes conflicting signals. We can argue, for example, whether biblical literacy is aided or hindered by having Scripture ..”read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years” without calling the legitimacy of the Council into doubt. (Try explaining the lectionary cycles to the uninitiated.) Perhaps it would have been better if SC were two documents the first a more theological charter, then an ancillary general reform program (both avoiding dealing with rubrical mechanics). But that my Monday morning quarterbacking.

      2. @Manuel Albino – comment #67:

        We can argue, for example, whether biblical literacy is aided or hindered by having Scripture ..”read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years” without calling the legitimacy of the Council into doubt.

        And we have argued it!

  28. 5, but any regular reader would expect that of me. I would be willing to entertain a 4, but under some conditions: that Ecclesia Dei wrestle seriously with Sacrosanctum Concilium and put 30, 124, and other prescriptions into effect. And that the Low Mass be immediately banned. We have no modern enrichment to be found in that impoverished form.

      1. @Dunstan Harding – comment #42:

        and the abomination of multiple masses being celebrated at the same time.

        An interesting comment, given that this is precisely what happens, we are told, at USCCB meetings.

      2. @Paul Inwood – comment #51:
        Paul – good luck with BL and Rome….if they haven’t gone into conclave yet; you might be able to raise this point with Cdl. Dolan.

  29. Anthony Ruff, OSB : Good clarification – “whether [the council fathers] were right” about the liturgical reform. The arguments you make are really about whether Vatican II was right about liturgy or not, whether we Catholics should accept the ecumenical council or not. awr

    More like whether or not the council fathers were right about everything, were right about those things for all eternity, and were right in how things were carried out after the council. You seem to think we can never revisit the council, use hindsight to decide if they might have been wrong about some things(or in how certain directives were carried out), and apply it to our own time.

    I think Vatican II was very right about liturgy in terms of active participation and re-establishing the rightful role of the laity, yet I think the 1962 Missal doesn’t do too bad a job fulfilling those desires when compared to its replacement.

  30. I tend towards no. 2, approaching from the direction of no. 3.

    My own research leads me to conclude that the Consilium was adversely affected by the spirit of the age – e.g. the differences between the propers of the OF and EF; Lauran Pristas’s forthcoming book The Collects of the Roman Missals of 1962 and 2002: Sundays in Proper Seasons should be a very interesting read, especially in light of her previous research articles.

    But I think that there is, for example, a place for vernacular languages in the Mass, and I have no problems with what Sacrosanctum Concilium asked for in terms of liturgical reform. My issues are with the Consilium, not the Concilium!

    1. @Matthew Hazell – comment #73:

      Lauren Pristas’s forthcoming book The Collects of the Roman Missals of 1962 and 2002: Sundays in Proper Seasons should be a very interesting read, especially in light of her previous research articles.

      I’m very much looking forward to that myself.

      1. @Richard Malcolm – comment #74:
        I as well. Her work was funded by the now-defunct Society of St Catherine of Siena, a traditionalist group. I hope that they did not attempt to steer her analysis.

        If her work makes at least some attempt to distinguish descriptive analysis from normative comment, it will be a valuable addition, even for us “4s” and “5s”.

        If if is tendentious polemic, thinly washed in scholarship (as is the case for similar work on both sides of the divide), not so much.

        I hope we can all agree that Consilium made changes to the Latin texts. It will be harder to agree on whether those changes were good for the Church … or not.

      2. @Jonathan Day – comment #77:

        I as well. Her work was funded by the now-defunct Society of St Catherine of Siena, a traditionalist group. I hope that they did not attempt to steer her analysis.

        I knew of that; but I have some confidence that she she will play the tune the way she sees it. I had the opportunity to talk with her at length once, at a conference; she seemed more bemused than anything else at how traditionalist blogs had picked up on her work on the collects and the propers, which did not seem to be motivated by any liturgical crusade. Sometimes, she confessed, she would google her name just to say what people were making of her.

        Good scholarship means going where the evidence is; and her work will have less value if she can’t distinguish descriptive from normative. I think her articles to date have done a good job of that.

      3. @Jonathan Day – comment #77:
        “Her work was funded by the now-defunct Society of St Catherine of Siena, a traditionalist group.”

        I think the timeline is wrong here. Large portions of her work on the collects had already been published in Communio, Antiphon, and The Thomist before she won the 2005 Fellowship from the Society of St. Catherine. Since then it’s also been published in Nova et Vetera and New Blackfriars. (See her CV.) These are not traditionalist venues and most are peer-reviewed, I believe.

        It seems unseemly to make negative suggestions about a book that hasn’t been published yet. You could read and comment on her papers that have been published and are easily available.

      4. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #83:
        Nothing unseemly going on here, Samuel. I have read most of her published pieces, e.g. Theological Principles that Guided the Redaction of the Roman Missal (1970) in The Thomist 67 (2003) pp. 157-95.

        She does a decent job — and it is not an easy line to walk — of separating descriptive from normative claims. I have found her articles valuable.

        Given the neuralgic nature of the liturgical debate, it is not unreasonable or unseemly to be concerned that a book assembled with funds from a traditionalist group will not be tendentious.

        Let me add that RIchard’s comment above removes most of the worries I had. It would be great to see Lauren Pristas contributing here!

    2. Dear Matthew,

      Thanks for your honest and forthright criticism of Consilium. You remarks make me curious of this question: why do you think the Pope of the time failed so badly in his liturgical judgment? Pope Paul VI frequently and strongly defended the liturgical reform and the work of Consilium, and he stated strongly that its work was faithful to Vatican II. Why did Pope Paul interpret Vatican II and the post-Vatican II liturgical reform so differently than you? How do you think it came to be that the Pope who presided over Vatican II came to such a different judgment than you about its implementation? Can popes really miss the mark that badly in liturgical matters? (Of course lurking in the background is whether it’s all just about the politics and personal of the current guy in charge, which of course would relativise the liturgical impulses of Pope Benedict XVI as just the passing tastes of one more transitory inhabitant of the chair of Peter.)

      awr

  31. My basic view is that having two parallel missals is the wrong approach, is not what the 2nd Vatican Council either intended or called for, and breaks what should be a sign of unity into a sign of disunity. So I suppose that makes me a 5. But that doesn’t mean that every traditionalist critique of mass as it is celebrated in the parishes where I live is wrong. I’d like to see one normative missal, but with more imaginative pastoral implementations.

  32. . There’s no Gary Wills, who recently announced that priesthood is a pernicious invention, or even Edward Schillebeeckx who long ago argued that lay communities have a right to Eucharist even if there is no priest. (He was called to Rome on this, but never censured; they accepted his explanation.)

    Not exactly.

    They accepted Schillebeeckx declaration of his intentions being good, but they also condemned his theological position and in a letter that was later published in L’Osservatore Romano ordered him to publicly “adhere to the teaching of the letter Sacerdotium Ministeriale.”

  33. Regarding ” … lay communities have a right to Eucharist even if there is no priest.” I would phrase it somewhat differently. If an institution centers itself in Rome and declares for itself a measure of governance over the universal Church, then it bears some responsibility for the provision of the Eucharist for communities who lack a priest.

    At the very least, the institution should be willing to receive sound candidates from such communities, if one cannot be provided. That would seem to be a basic matter of sacramental care, trust, and pastoral ministry.

    My own position remains a 5. I have some respect for 6’s and 7’s, but I think the Roman mainstream remains between 4 and 5. 2’s are about as off-center as 7’s, and I would bite my tongue rather than call the catholicity of either into question.

    There is much in the Roman Rite that still needs reform, and I don’t think we’ll find much of value in looking to 1570/1962 for inspiration. We have the Scriptures. We have the sacraments. Most everything else is of human manufacture. The direction of reform is to go deeper into these essentials, not human religious culture of the past.

  34. I think it is somewhat useless to try to get into the minds of people immediately after Vatican II when the so-called “Pandora’s Box” was opened. Moving from an overly regimented Catholicism which most people, at least rank and file clergy and laity, thought could not change to the possibility that everything could and would change is quite a paradigm shift and one fraught with the reality of what happened, the pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other. Hindsight too is always 20/20. So Bugnini and company and with papal approval came up with the reformed Mass. I think we can question some of the changes they came up with all the while still agreeing with what Vatican II desired and SC wanted in particular. I think Pope Benedict certainly did that and opened the way to questioning various aspects of the implementation of Vatican II and in particular the liturgical implementation. Certainly there have been reforms since 1973 and there will be more in the future. Having both forms of the Mass at this juncture in Liturgical history was brilliant on the part of Pope Benedict in order to see what other direction a reform of the liturgy might have taken without throwing the Baby out with the bathwater. My own, most humble opinion, is that the basics of the current missal will remain, with minor adaptations at the introductory rites and possibly, but not necessarily at the preparation of the Gifts. Kneeling for Holy Communion will become the norm once again, even if nothing else changes and music in the Liturgy will be more jealously guarded.

  35. I’d categorize myself as a 5*. The * would note a preference for inculturation on both the macro and micro levels (different styles of worship offered even within the same parish to serve different needs, but all following the same reformed missal.)

    I know several people who regularly attend an EF Mass. With only one or two exceptions, these people are attracted to the externals of the rite–the style of music, the reverent manner of the congregants, the “smells and bells.” All of these aspects could be experienced in the OF celebrated in Latin with chanted ordinary & propers, incense, etc. I suspect that if the EF liturgies were replaced next Sunday with the Latin OF in this manner, hardly any of their congregants would object. Some would not even notice any difference.

  36. 2.

    But let’s retain one ’70’s idea: options.

    Namely:
    The unreformed Holy Week
    Folded Chasubles
    Violet for the Candlemas Procession
    Some of the old, suppressed sequences
    Other Gallicanisms
    Some options from Sarum (Three processional crosses!)
    et al.

  37. A lovely, rich discussion which I am joining far too late.
    Jonathan’s typology is surely illuminating. But I wonder if it concedes too much in placing the 1962 Missal as the focus of all the descriptions. My own instinct is that the 1970 Missal should be taken as normative (forgive the weak pun)–and the real question is how radical a change this represented. As one who would be inclined to answer that question with ‘quite strongly’, I’m clearly a 4 on Jonathan’s scale: attachment to the Tridentine liturgy is a pastoral problem, to be handled with sensitivity and compassion rather than over-heavy proscriptions, but theologically to be regarded as analogous to belief in a flat earth. At Vatican II, we recovered, from under an excessive defensiveness regarding the Reformation and pagan accounts of salvation, the full richness of the fourfold (real) presence of Christ in word, sacrament, minister and assembly. That such a view now seems extreme is a sign of the sorry state into which we have fallen.

  38. My choice of a 5-point scale, with a midpoint, was not a random one. I was curious about whether anything like a midpoint would emerge – and Rita, I acknowledge the limits of the ends of the scale as posted.

    One conclusion I have drawn so far is that almost no-one chooses mutual co-existence of the two rites or forms. Matthew Morelli put it like this, earlier in the discussion:

    The Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form … actually comprise two distinct Western Latin rites, each with its own coherent liturgical spirituality and praxis, and should be recognized as such. Latin Rite Catholics should have the opportunity to ascribe to the particular ritual church (classical or modern) that best suits their spiritual needs; priests trained in both rites should be encouraged to seek bi-ritual faculties. … any proposed changes to either rite should be considered on their own merits within the spirituality of that rite, not as a “corrective” with respect to the other.

    A simpler way to put it, without reference to distinct spiritualties, is that the two forms should continue to coexist for the foreseeable future, with neither one attempting to “reform” the other, with no drive toward “mutual enrichment”. A near analogy might be the way in which Anglican parishes can choose modern or “traditional” language.

    On the scale I proposed, this would somewhere close to a “3”, perhaps somewhat lower because it no longer positions the newer rite as normative.

    Now it seems to me that most people who have commented here are opposed to this “co-existence”. Most of us seem to want one form to modify the other – adding prayers at the foot of the altar to the Mass of 1970, or saying the Mass of 1962 in the vernacular, etc.

    My impression is that Jim Pauwels speaks for many of us when he says: “I’d like to see one normative missal, but with more imaginative pastoral implementations.” It’s just that we all have different views about what should be in that new, normative missal.

    Of course we are a self-selected group of “liturgy geeks” who care about this stuff. Perhaps most people who attend daily and Sunday Mass would be perfectly happy for peaceful co-existence, with neither “reform of the reform” nor “reform of the reform of the reform”.

    Does anyone want to make a case for peaceful co-existence – not just for a short time, but for, say the 50 years that Richard Malcolm proposed in another discussion?

    1. @Jonathan Day – comment #98:

      Hello Jonathan,

      Now it seems to me that most people who have commented here are opposed to this “co-existence”. Most of us seem to want one form to modify the other . . .Does anyone want to make a case for peaceful co-existence – not just for a short time, but for, say the 50 years that Richard Malcolm proposed in another discussion?

      I think these are insightful observations. We might call this idea of Matthew’s “the liturgical detente” paradigm.

      Most here do seem to want to make the liturgy of the Roman Rite world conform – as much as possible – to their favored theological emphasis. Progressives disfavor the Old Mass as outmoded, no longer reflecting the ecclesiology or sacramental theology of the Church today, too patriarchal, and indeed a real threat to ecumenical, interrreligious and evangelization efforts by the Church. Traditionalists (and perhaps even some RotR’s) see the New Mass as a harmful rupture with the Roman Rite’s long tradition, with a theological emphasis that is too anthropentric, too little aware of the Four Last Things, too prone to dangerous creativity to be allowed to stand as is. Simply gaining room for one’s own spirituality doesn’t seem to be the order of the day. Myself, I can’t say I would find this ideal. Indeed, if there is one thing most of us agree on, I think it is that having two forms of the Roman Rite is not an ideal or the traditional norm. Regional or local rites, perhaps, but not two forms of the R.R..

      But if it is true that neither side really has the power to make its vision prevail, one could argue that this may be the only way to keep the peace. To go biritual, and let things play out for a generation or two to see what time (and the Holy Spirit) are telling us. I would have to think about this some more.

      Of course we are a self-selected group of “liturgy geeks” who care about this stuff.

      Indeed, we are…

      1. @Richard Malcolm – comment #4:
        Richard, my problem with “detente” is that it implies that if the balance of power were different, one side would win. But it isn’t, so we sigh and agree to a cease-fire.

        Let me give two examples of co-existence. There is a Ukranian Catholic cathedral not far from ours. The roof of their church collapsed a few years ago, and they used our church while it was being fixed. Both parishes are in union with the Holy See. Neither has any desire whatsoever to “convert” the other.

        Closer to home: of the numerous Masses we have on a Sunday, the two most attended are a 9.30 am Family Mass (Novus Ordo, English, hymns, sometimes a children’s choir, strong catechetical emphasis) and the 11.00 am Solemn Latin Mass (Novus Ordo, Latin, sung, more formal ritual with incense, professional choir, lots of chant and polyphony but also classical and modern Mass compositions). The adult age distribution is similar in both, though the 9.30 has more children attending and the 11.00 more singles.

        People will say: I prefer the 9.30, or I prefer the 11.00. But in many years in the parish I have never heard either group criticise the other, or wish that it would change. Lots of people in the parish move between the two Masses, depending on their circumstances on a given Sunday. Both Masses have communion in both kinds, female altar servers and readers, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, communion in the hand or on the tongue, at the communicant’s choice, and the exchange of the peace.

        These are examples of “peaceful coexistence”. As far as I can tell, there is no wish in either group to change the other. But that is because it is the same Mass.

        Do you see why I am reluctant to describe this as “detente”? It is more like the relationship between France and the Netherlands than, say, the relationship between North and South Korea.

      2. @Jonathan Day – comment #10:

        Hi Jonathan,

        People will say: I prefer the 9.30, or I prefer the 11.00. But in many years in the parish I have never heard either group criticise the other, or wish that it would change.

        I think most Catholics are like that. If they’re actually unhappy, they usually just drift away, go to another parish.

        But there is often a vocal minority that can raise a fuss when change (often, *any* change) happens…

        My experience of the Eastern Rite Catholic churches is the same as yours – a generally happy and friendly arrangement. Where it may not fully work as a model is because the differences between Eastern and Roman Rite (whichever form) are assumed to be cultural, not theological. That is not the case with the OF/EF, at least in the perception of…some. And there is sometimes a history of bad blood in a way there is not between the sui juris rites. Where there *is* peace coexistence, it seems to be based on an assumption that it’s just different spiritual sensibilities at work.

        Not every parish would so easily accommodate to the happy arrangement you seem to have between NO and Latin NO. But it would be welcome if they did! There is clearly more openness to this kind of arrangement than there was ten years ago, and perhaps I overrate how volatile this is out there on the ground now. There is a lot of that sort of thing across the river in the Arlington Diocese, which has at least 13 parishes with a regular TLM as part of the regular mass schedule, with only occasional frictions (there was a minor blowup at one that decided to phase out altar girls). But my sense was that Arlington is exceptional (as in different).

        “Detente” may not have been a felicitous word. It was the best I could come up with to describe Matthew’s “biritual” solution, which seems to seal off each form/rite from the other more clearly.

      3. @Jonathan Day – comment #10:

        There is a Ukranian Catholic cathedral not far from ours. The roof of their church collapsed a few years ago, and they used our church while it was being fixed. Both parishes are in union with the Holy See. Neither has any desire whatsoever to “convert” the other.

        Thank you for continuing along with my idea – I think this example comes closer to what I had proposed, a model where the two “forms” gradually are recognized as two distinct rites, possibly eventually as separate churhes sui iuris (as the Latins and Ukranians are). This would bring about a more peaceful coexistence, and I think would be best way to preserve the rights of most if not all of the Catholics involved.

        On the scale I proposed, this would somewhere close to a “3”, perhaps somewhat lower because it no longer positions the newer rite as normative.

        In the arrangement, the newer rite would be normative for the vast majority that are ascribed to the “modern Catholic” rite. The older rite would be normative for the minority ascribed to it.

        Also, I think it’s worth noting that this is something I’ve been working through in my own mind recently but before this thread arose — it isn’ t a complete solution in any way.

        I will post some consequences of this approach in an additional post. Certainly one would be, as Richard correctly pointed out, that it seals off each rite from the other.

      4. @Matthew Morelli – comment #16:

        Some consequences of the view I have proposed:

        * It would be co-existance of the two rites not for a short time or for 50 years, but permanently as separate juridic entities.

        * This would deviate from Benedict XVI’s explanation in Summorum Pontificum that the Missal of Paul VI and the Missal of John XXIII are “two forms of one Roman Rite”. It would be affirming that these are two distinct Latin Rites, one ancient and one modern, branching from a common Roman patrimony.

        * It would be an admission that the Consilium really did generate a new liturgical rite in the fullest sense (and that there is no problem with that). The modern rite could be understood as a pan-Latin Rite that is Roman at its core, but also draws in Gallican and Ambrosian elements, as well as the ancient elements that were recovered in the ressourcement.

        * It would likely lead to the death of the “reform of the reform” as we know it. Also DOA with this approach is any concept of a mixed-rite “hybrid Missal.” Changes could still be introduced into either rite, but it would end the use of “mutual enrichment” that serves as a “corrective”.

        * The “Ancient Rite” group would receive bishops that are their own (as opposed being forced to seek the services of sympathetic bishops/cardinals); however, these bishops would be few and far between (much as the Eastern Rite Eparchs are in the US).

        This isn’t a complete list, but hopefully it further clarifies this alternate middle-way that I suggested.

      5. @Matthew Morelli – comment #18:
        Wholeheartedly agree with you Matthew. Having both under one roof creates tension with one side attempting to “correct” the other. They are even arguing over at “Z”‘s site that some even want hosts from the EF kept in separate ciboria from the OF hosts in the church’s one tabernacle!
        The Church has 22 separate rites (23 including the western Latin Rite). Give them their own canonical rite. Since they “have so many young people” it will be no problem to “cut them loose” and allow them to build/purchase their own church buildings. They should also take a title along the lines as the “Old Latin Rite” or Old Traditional Rite or whatever as long as there is no confusion with the Roman Catholic Latin Rite. Live and let live.

      6. @Dale Rodrigue – comment #21:
        How much of this “tension” really happens in the world outside internet comment boxes, though? Most of the hosts given at the EF I attend were very obviously consecrated at the OF celebrated earlier, yet I’ve never heard a complaint. In my experience, the traddies who are disturbed by OF hosts tend not to go to official Latin Masses – they go find the SSPX and independent chapels.

        I have seen some tensions in a parish that began offering the EF, but it wasn’t the traditionalists who caused it. When a local parish allowed a monthly celebration of the EF at an out-of-the-way time, I saw nothing but gratitude expressed towards the pastor and people of that parish. Unfortunately, some of them didn’t want us and when a new unsupportive pastor came along we were made to feel totally unwelcome. Our presence did not affect the OF Mass schedule in any way, and nobody in our group ever complained about having to constantly disassemble and reassemble the mountains of decorations they liked to put in front of the altar or the extra collections we had to take up because we supposedly used up too much electricity.

      7. @Jack Wayne – comment #24:
        Jack,

        I’m so glad they are not “sorting hosts” in your parish! This sort of story really pushes me to despair.

        However, you should be aware that some communities are experiencing tensions. There is a conflict about architecture inherent in the situation, wouldn’t you agree?

    2. @Jonathan Day – comment #98:
      My impression is that Jim Pauwels speaks for many of us when he says: “I’d like to see one normative missal, but with more imaginative pastoral implementations.” It’s just that we all have different views about what should be in that new, normative missal.
      —————————————–
      My view exactly. A 5+? Permit the diocesan bishop flexibility to work largely within a primitive Roman , St. Justin Martyr and Didache format as a way to go. Borrowing liberally from eastern and western sources for content and rubrics. Some form of confession rite as part of the pre-Mass office.

      Strong emphasis given to commentaries upon the scriptures with holy communion under both forms at all masses everywhere, but with reasonable opportunities to suspend the chalice during emergencies.

      The liturgy to start with an office or short vigil and morning prayer of the resurrection for Sundays . To include baptismal themes and sprinkling rite. Multiple old and new testament readings interspersed with psalmody, canticles, collects,and commentaries by homilist. Use of incense largely as a room deodorizer burning throughout the liturgy or restricted to the officel.

      Clergy to be seated from the start. Altar and sanctuary close to people, but I don’t favor “wreckovations” to achieve this. Reduce number of vestments, chasuable OR stole, and multiple colors . Dump miters and the silk and train get up. A cope, alb, and biretta or hood should be sufficient, or a simpler form of Mass attire as an alternative.

      Multiple eucharistic prayers drafted locally could be taken from any established eastern or western source. Gloria reserved for entrance, office, or as communion thanksgiving. Offertory in silence accompanied by psalmody. A somewhat extended thanksgiving rite following eastern and Anglican practice.

      1. @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #43:
        Deacon Fritz, Thanks for the suggestion. Saint Gregory’s got the right idea, but I’d prefer having the bishop order the form for use throughout his diocese. Carefully consulting with his theologians, both clergy and lay, but with the EP approved by a national body of bishops. A body probably in consultation with Rome which gives final approval.

        There is a place for the enforcement of Catholic eucharistic teaching and not leaving that teaching to the tender mercies of creative celebrants. Having said that, some flexibility for developing salvation history, or drawing added parallels to the OT sacrifices in the EP is a good thing and should be permitted.

        This might be accomplished with a revised Roman canon expanded for public recitation or for chanting, EP III and EP IV, or a reworking of some of the eastern forms of the anaphora.

  39. Coexistence is possible with the two forms but to what extent must be decided by each pastor and as a Vatican II priest, I would add the caveat of consultation with the pastoral council. Our solution that has worked well here is that we have a once a month Sunday High Mass at a separate time from our OF Masses, of which we have 4 on Sunday, at 2:00 PM and a low Mass each Tuesday at 5:00 PM. We have the EF for Holy Day’s of Obligation as a Vigil and have one scheduled for Easter Sunday each year and we have a two or three celebrations of the EF for special occasions. I suspect some would want us to replace one of our regularly scheduled OF Masses every Sunday with the EF, but there has been no great push for that and I would be most reluctant to do it, although our 12:10 Mass is now Ad Orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist only to placate those who do want the EF and expose others to another way the OF may be celebrated.
    Our arrangement has caused no divisions in the parish primarily because we have not taken away any regularly scheduled OF Masses. We have a couple of hundred people overall that like the EF but would not want it all the time, only about 50 who might like it every Sunday.

    1. @Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #100:
      The pastoral council? Woefully insufficient. Over time, pastoral councils tend to attract those who align with the pastor (oh, a couple of hardy gadflies excepted) and repel those who do not, so they tend to reinforce cognitive blindspots….

  40. Also, the commission of cardinals in the 80’s that is largely the root of this never abrogated idea contained many men with doctorates in canon law, so I don’t see why their opinion (as far as we know it) is so easily discarded.

  41. Samuel J. Howard : Also, the commission of cardinals in the 80′s that is largely the root of this never abrogated idea contained many men with doctorates in canon law, so I don’t see why their opinion (as far as we know it) is so easily discarded.

    And only one of them – Stickler – was arguably anything close to a “traditionalist.”

    Their opinion was never published, or given force of law (until 2007), and no doubt canonists of high standing and real sincerity might have (and did) conclude otherwise. But the ’86 commission can’t be simply dismissed, either.

  42. Re: abrogation. The Pope engaged in a finesse, one designed to *reduce* the reliance on positive legislation, to reduce the papal profile in liturgy-making. The way you can tell it’s a finesse is: have the Missals of 1945, 1955, 1965, 1970 et cet. been abrogated? If not, may they be used freely? If not, does “abrogation” mean much?

    1. @Karl Liam Saur – comment #11:
      A good point about all the other rites that “haven’t been abrogated” either. “Finesse” sounds a bit kind as a description.

      Will the next pope be able now to take his pick, write another motu proprio, and retrieve some other not-abrogated rite or other at will, and thus multiply further the “forms” of the Roman Rite for splinter groups? What a precedent.

      1. @Rita Ferrone – comment #13:
        Another aspect to the finesse: no one ever addressed bination/trination in the documentation related to SP, which if they had been really serious they would have addressed….

      2. @Karl Liam Saur – comment #15:

        Another aspect to the finesse: no one ever addressed bination/trination in the documentation related to SP, which if they had been really serious they would have addressed…

        Canon law already sufficiently addresses this — a priest can celebrate/concelebrate as many Masses on a day as his faculties allow (up to 3), whether those are in the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form. If he lacks the faculties to binate, then the priest is forced to choose to celebrate Mass in one form to the exclusion of the other.

      3. @Matthew Morelli – comment #19:
        That’s not the problem. The problem is for parishes with one priest, and a full schedule of OFs. If SP was more serious, it would have given permission to ignore the rule for the sake of an additional new EF Mass.

      4. @Rita Ferrone – comment #13:
        Mr. Malcolm has said in different ways: “…Because I cannot think of a previous Council where doctrine on this point changed so fundamentally that existing rites were changed in some very significant way, but indeed were seen as now, suddenly, clearly defective. Even in Trent, it was really just a question of codifying the Roman Rite as it existed (freezing it, even).”

        Addresses one of Mr. Malcolm’s points – which is that the liturgical changes of Consilium were so *significant* that they are different from the 8th century or Trent (talk about writing history to fit your ideology). Simple question – in the long history & tradition of the Roman Rite, have there ever been any missals that weren’t abrogated? He appears to dismiss the tradition; minimizes what happened after Trent via papacy/Congregation of Rites (guessing that many local/regional/kingdom missals were abrogated by the estimated 500+ decrees of the Congregation of Rites (3-4 X more than Paul VI) and that is not significant, etc; and decides that without a *smoking gun* (as defined by him) then later events can be used to prove his point of view.

        Mr. Malcolm – you also asked about ecclesiology and eucharistic theology changes which gets at the core of any type of *detente* – http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2013/02/23/how-many-cardinal-electors-have-celebrated-the-pre-vatican-ii-mass-since-2007/#comments

        #37 – no response.

        Like Fr. Ron – reread my Congar last nite (pg 300). Provided a list of events from 1970 onwards that can suggest why the Secretary of State declined a specific letter, Responded in #78 which sets the context of Paul VI in his last four years. That list of events indicate only that the curial minority (led by Ottaviani) continued to wear down Paul VI. If this were a US legal case, do you think that your proffered evidence would be enough to support *reasonable doubt* in terms of 1962 abrogation? Doubt created by a minority that opposed reform? Doubt created by this Sec. of State letter denial? Doubt because of some imagined *casting odium*? Doubt because of some handpicked 1986 cardinal group (sounds like another Vox Clara group)? Doubt because at this time, 2013, a pope can do anything? (who cares about the merits of the question, issue, truth, what is best for the church)
        As Congar says on pg 301 – “People will find all kinds of justifications to defend their actions. Documents, no matter how solemn, are ineffective against bad faith.”

  43. Jonathan Day :Let me give two examples of co-existence. There is a Ukranian Catholic cathedral not far from ours. The roof of their church collapsed a few years ago, and they used our church while it was being fixed. Both parishes are in union with the Holy See. Neither has any desire whatsoever to “convert” the other.

    Hah. Plenty of Eastern Rite Catholics will be happy to tell you that their understanding of the faith is superior to the western/Latin one.

  44. Samuel J. Howard :

    Jonathan Day :Let me give two examples of co-existence. There is a Ukranian Catholic cathedral not far from ours. The roof of their church collapsed a few years ago, and they used our church while it was being fixed. Both parishes are in union with the Holy See. Neither has any desire whatsoever to “convert” the other.

    ### Hah. Plenty of Eastern Rite Catholics will be happy to tell you that their understanding of the faith is superior to the western/Latin one.

    When I attended an Eastern Rite Mass for the first time I was surprised at how many of the people I encountered had actually grown up with the OF and found it lacking. I also know some folks who attend the EF who spent a couple decades attending an Eastern Rite parish because the Latin Mass wasn’t available.

  45. Fr Ruff (#75, comments page 1): Can popes really miss the mark that badly in liturgical matters?

    Yes, I believe they can. Popes are people too, you know! 🙂

    Let me be clear that, in my criticisms of the OF, I am not questioning its orthodoxy or validity. The Holy Spirit protects His Church, after all. But part of the point of reform is surely to improve things, and I’m not at all convinced that the Consilium’s editing of existing proper texts and composition of new proper texts was an improvement. And that’s before we get into questions like the rearrangement of the calendar.

    Take the seasons of Advent and Lent, for example. With the exception of Palm Sunday, none of the previous collects in the 1962 Missal were retained in even an edited fashion in the same place in the 1970 Missal. This has the effect of significantly modifying the theology and character of the Sundays of Advent and Lent in the new Missal. Yes, SC 107 does call for a revision of the liturgical year, and SC 109 gives some specifics in the case of Lent. But it’s questionable whether such revisions required moving, editing or jettisoning prayers that, in some cases (e.g. 1st Sun in Adv) had been in unbroken use in the same place in the Missal for 1200 years.

    It strikes me that, in the decades following the liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II, there doesn’t seem to have been a lot of popular attention given to these sorts of questions. Most of the attention has been on things like the vernacular, or aesthetics, or the theology and meaning of the ordinary of the Mass – which, of course, are all important questions and issues. However, it is my hope that Benedict XVI’s freeing-up of the 1962 Missal will help the Church in the coming decades to have a more in-depth and frank discussion about the Missal that Paul VI and the Consilium gave us.

    1. Matthew,

      Do you know of Patrick Regan’s comprehensive study, Advent to Pentecost: Comparing the Seasons in the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite from Liturgical Press? I haven’t read it yet myself but it’s on my list. I think it’s of interest to both of us.

      awr

      1. @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #34:

        Thank you very much for the suggestion, Father. It looks like a good read; I will also put it on my list (and save up for it: £25 [about $38] is a little pricey for me at the moment).

        How I wish that the Brepols Corpus Orationum series wasn’t so unbelievably expensive, or that Anthony Ward and Cuthbert Johnson’s work wasn’t so hard to track down! 🙁

    2. @Matthew Hazell – comment #30:

      But it’s questionable whether such revisions required moving, editing or jettisoning prayers that, in some cases (e.g. 1st Sun in Adv) had been in unbroken use in the same place in the Missal for 1200 years.

      Just because something had been in use for 1200 years is not an argument against jettisoning it. One could equally well say that it is precisely because it has been in use for 1200 years that it ought to be jettisoned…..

  46. Rita Ferrone : @Jack Wayne – comment #24: Jack, I’m so glad they are not “sorting hosts” in your parish! This sort of story really pushes me to despair. However, you should be aware that some communities are experiencing tensions. There is a conflict about architecture inherent in the situation, wouldn’t you agree?

    I’m sure there are tensions, but we should ask how common they are. How often do EF folks agitate or cause problems in otherwise OF parishes? How often do the biggest conflicts occur because a vocal minority (those who would be a 5 on the above scale) doesn’t want the EF people around regardless of what they are like. Some would happily conclude that conflict is rampant at “bi-form” parishes based on internet comment boxes and use this as proof the EF must be suppressed, yet every parish has tensions of some kind, after all.

    I know some traditionalists who don’t like like the OF and think most of them are invalid because of how they are celebrated, but most of them are older folks who were treated like garbage during the indult years, so I take them with a grain of salt. The 4s and 5s take some blame in creating those people, IMO.

    Conflicts about architecture happen all the time in parishes that only celebrate the OF. However, if a parish is building a new church or remodeling an old one, and they have a vibrant EF community, then they need to take that into account.

  47. Fr. Ron Krisman : P> As to the PCILT changing the law, it is not authorized to do that by Pastor Bonus. The 1994 authentic interpretation of the PCILT authoritatively clarified what the law had been since late-1983, which is good enough for me.

    Actually, it is authorized to do that by Pastor Bonus. PB says:

    “Art. 155 —With regard to the universal laws of the Church, the Council is competent to publish authentic interpretations confirmed by pontifical authority, after consulting the dicasteries concerned in questions of major importance.”

    But an authentic interpretation is defined by the Code of Canon Law and is not always retroactive. This is a legislative power, not a judicial one. (Which is why in PB the Council is not treated with the Signatura, Rota, etc.)

    If you look at Beal, et al. in the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law pgs 71-72 it describes that there are four different kinds of authentic interpretation (remember that this is a legislative body): 1) declarative 2) restrictive 3) extensive 4) interpretive. Only the first is retroactive. That the council in its decision refers to instructions of the Holy See not yet then issued seems to sugest that it is extensive rather than declarative.

    1. @Samuel J. Howard – comment #37:

      Thank you for the references, Samuel.

      But, in light of those references, I fail to understand why you think the 1994 authentic interpretation of the PCILT was a change of law. Yes, it was communicated in the form of a law (canon 16, 2), but it declared what had been certain already – at least for many canonists.

      You may be thinking that the declaration did not have retroactive force because the cover letter of the CDWDS said something to the effect “yes, this is the law but diocesan bishops do not need to follow it.” That appears to restrict the law, so then it is not retroactive. But there are serious canonical problems with the cover letter. It appears not to have been approved either by the PCILT or the supreme pontiff. Or am I wrong about that?

  48. I am impressed with Jonathan’s HTML formatting skilz.

    The recalibration seems to have worked for me, since I think I’m still a 3.6, though I wonder whether that would be modified by my desire for some reworking of our translation in a 1998 direction.

    1. @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #39:
      Deacon – agree but will not bore you with other issues – such as – self-selection bias. This gets complicated but the survey choices only tell us a few things e.g. your score and Allan’s score are less than .5 points apart…and yet, reading your post on PTB and his posts plus his kerfuffle blog, it is difficult to understand how this can be. Self-selection bias gets to the fact that each of us reads the questions through our own experience, definition, or imaged outcome – there is no common agreement on this. Example – do one EF mass per month, so am basically OF and score 3 or above. Never have done an EF but sympathize with pastoral needs so keep my score around a 3.
      Any way, you get my oint.

  49. With the updated scale, I’ll switch from 4 (“The Mass of 1962 remains valid; it should be provided as an accommodation to those who cannot adapt”) to 6 (“greater effort should be made to adapt the Mass of 1970 to communities’ developing needs, and greater freedom should be provided to adapt it in translation.”)

  50. With the updated scale, I find myself at #7 provided:

    a) we remember the importance of Rome as the origin of western liturgy, tied to the apostolic status of the Bishop and See of Rome.
    b) communion with the Bishop of Rome as a part of liturgy
    c) previous Roman missals and their translations are included among the resources provided to all

  51. I think a person should be able to vote 5 and allow for epikeia (that was my vote before 6 and 7 came along). I believe that there is always supposed to be room for epikeia, as there is for Jell-O. Whether 6 or 7 or neither is a good way for exceptions to 5 to be made, I haven’t decided.
    Jonathan asked that we try to avoid normative claims when we make our choice. Fat chance of that, as these comments have amply demonstrated. Catholic liturgy is not improvised, and our judgment of how it is best carried out is (or ought to be) influenced by who we think the rulemakers are and to what extent we consider their rules obligatory, or wise.
    I come to this exercise believing:
    (1) It’s plain on the face of SC 50 that 2,000 bishops in union with the pope laid down conditions for celebration of Mass that are incompatible with use of the 1962 missal in 1973 or 2013; and consequently
    (2) The Council de facto abrogated the old order of Mass; and furtherly consequently
    (3) It doesn’t matter what abrogatory or rehabilitative moves were made by succeeding popes or prefects or committees; and
    (4) To command a single new order of Mass, as the Council did, is not to call the old one junk or demonize those who are attached to it, but simply to try to bring about an orderly renewal of the Church’s liturgy in a completely understandable and responsible way.
    Thus when I read comments by people who keep parsing the statements of this pope or that congregation or the other commission of cardinals as if it didn’t matter what an ecumenical council said previously, or who assume that to replace a worship practice is to classify it as an intrinsic evil, I wonder where their anchor in reality has gone. I feel like Alice in Wonderland.

  52. Hello Jonathan,

    I thought that your original scale was a good start, but that this is a real improvement.

    I would still suggest some tweaks – even though you’re probably sick of playing with it.

    The new “4” seems to be a return to the “Indult Era” (Ecclesia dei adflicta), with a presumed revocation of Summorum Pontificum – is that correct? If so, it might help to spell that out – make clear exactly what the status of the 1962 Missal is.

    Secondly, your new “6” actually seems to take a less hard line on the 1962 Missal when it says “The Mass of 1970 should remain the sole and normative rite, with the older Mass wholly or largely suppressed” – given that Option 5 actually calls for its full suppression, no exceptions.

    Some of the difficulty, I think, is that some of the items given on each Option can be mixed and matched with other options. For example, I am probably at around a 2.2 on this scale, but I have advocated for the option of a pre-1955 Holy Week in the celebration of the TLM. Likewise, I can see someone advocating allowing the 1962 Missal on at least an indult basis, but still desiring a new translation of the 1970 Missal closer to what the failed 1998 ICEL was. This is going to be a difficulty for ANY scale, however. I am not sure I could do any better with further reflection.

    I might make the whole thing is a two part exercise: “1) What is your *ideal* position on this scale;” and “2) What position could you *live* with?”

    1. @Richard Malcolm – comment #48:

      Secondly, your new “6″ actually seems to take a less hard line on the 1962 Missal when it says “The Mass of 1970 should remain the sole and normative rite, with the older Mass wholly or largely suppressed” – given that Option 5 actually calls for its full suppression, no exceptions.

      I agree with this, which is why I would probably put myself down as a 6.5 on Jonathan’s revised scale.

  53. Richard — yes, I should have omitted “wholly or largely” from option 6, to maintain consistency.

    A few things are clear to me from this discussion. First, any scale is limited because the social space we are working with here is naturally multi-dimensional. One dimension that this scale doesn’t capture very well is the degree of variation allowed either for the older Mass (pre-1955, 1962, 1962 with more vernacular readings, etc.) or the newer (1998 translation, etc.).

    And hence you could be a “strict constructionist 2” on the revised scale, i.e. you want the 1962 Mass, but celebrated precisely according to the 1962 book, no variation or adaptation. Or you could be a “loose constructionist 5” — 1970 Mass, but with lots of room to adapt in either direction, even to the point of adding in maniples and all sorts of other things not in the book.

    The second is that, even with all of its problems, the scale has been useful — to me at least — in clarifying attitudes toward a challenging liturgical issue. I hope we can use this method again here on PTB.

  54. 6 is a good addition. I think I’m landing at about 5.67 these days.

    I think the Missal of 2002 can be celebrated in Latin with local communities adding peripherals so as to give a “spirit” of 1962. That seems appropriate. I’ll withdraw harping on silly vestments and finery if the 2’s will cut the h-word out of their vocabulary. Deal?

      1. @Jonathan Day – comment #57:

        I’m hooked, too.

        My guess is “heresy” since “hermeneutic” seems to be more of a RotR (2.75-3.5) catchphrase than a traditionalist (0-2) one. But I know that the two categories can be conflated from time to time.

        I do appreciate Todd’s openness to a little Latin, however. Beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam.

  55. I’ll add to the chorus of affirmation for the new additions, Jonathan. Like Todd, I’d put myself somewhere between 5 and 6 on the new scale.

  56. A stab at what I prefer, but that still does not sufficiently address the process of liturgical discernment:

    The Mass of 1970 is in most ways superior to that of 1962, but a few things were lost in the common praxis of the reform that obtained in many places but that the faithful should be given the opportunity to become familiar with so that local communities can make more informed decisions about the best practice regarding the options offered by the ritual books The Mass of 1962 remains valid; it should be provided as an accommodation to those who do not wish to adapt to the active participation that characterises the Mass of 1970, but care should be taken that the celebration of the rite should not be as informed by the centuries of relatively rare sacramental participation by the faithful, but more by the periods of Church history where the faithful have been frequent sacramental participators in the Mass.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *