UPDATED: How Many Cardinal Electors Have Celebrated the Pre-Vatican II Mass Since 2007?

I now have better information on cardinal electors of the next conclave who have celebrated the “Extraordinary Form” (the 1962 pre-Vatican II unreformed rite) since Pope Benedict granted its unrestricted use with “Summorum pontificum” in 2007. According to this information, twelve of the electors have celebrated the pre-Vatican II unreformed rite since 2007.

This is interesting and important information for all of us who want to know more about the cardinal electors. I apologize for the earlier misinformation. Thanks for the help from the commenters – comments alerting me to earlier incorrect information have been removed.

A note on the terminology “unreformed”: strictly speaking, the Roman liturgy has been reformed continually for 2,000 years, so every form of the rite is “reformed” compared to what went before. When Pope Gregory the Great celebrated Mass, for example, he didn’t genuflect or elevate the Host and Chalice during the Eucharistic Prayer, as far as we know, since those “reforms” hadn’t been added yet. Nor were there Prayers at the Foot of the Altar or an Agnus Dei or Last Gospel yet. When I speak of “reformed” and “unreformed,” I am using the Second Vatiacn Council, and the officially approved liturgical reforms of Pope Paul VI, as my point of reference. The decision of the fathers of Vatican II was, with all due respect for the inherited rite, it was in need of structural reforms and was not to continue in use in its 1962 form. But it is also true that Pope Benedict gave unrestricted permission in 2007 for celebration of the old form. While the 1962 rite is “reformed” in reference to what went before, it is not reformed according to the mind of the Second Vatican Council.

          *               *               *               *               *

Philippe Barbarin

Raymond Burke

Carlo Caffarra

Antonio Cañizares Llovera

Velasio De Paolis

George Pell

Albert Malcolm Ranjith

Jean-Pierre Ricard

Franc Rodé

Juan Sandoval Íñiguez

John Tong Hon

André Vingt-Trois

awr

39 comments

  1. Interesting – you came up with a more comprehensive list than John Allen.

    Rough math – 254 bishops out of est. 5,000 bishops (5%) 19 EF out of 116 Electors now (16.4%)

    Not exactly overwhelming percentages – yet, the ROTR tell us of the increasing numbers and popularity??

    Total – 27 EF out of all cardinals – appears that those who celebrate EF are quickly aging out and newly apointed cardinals are not availing themselves of this permission.

    And look at this list – it has some interesing, coincidental connections:

    Cardinals Electors who celebrate EF and have handled sexual abuse poorly:
    – Burke
    – George
    – Levada
    – Pell
    – O’Brian
    Total Cardinals who celebrate EF and have handled abuse poorly:
    add
    – Egan

    List of Cardinals who have impacted liturgy in the english speaking world but who no longer have any liturgical responsibilities:
    – Ranjith
    – Arinze
    – Medina

    But, it is always dangerous to make predictions.

    Ranjith is 65 years old.
    Ricard is 68 years old.

    1. @Bill deHaas – comment #1:
      REVISED per UPDATE:
      12 out 116 Electors: 10.3%

      You can add the unfortunate LCWR witch hunt of Rode’s to my list.

      Mr. Malcolm:

      – you ask: “And yes, Bill, this is your opportunity to clear the air about just exactly what you’re implying here.

      And while you’re at it, I’m curious to know exactly what failures you think that Cardinal Burke committed – and I really hope that it’s not a rehash of a SNAP press release.”

      Implying – nothing really…interesting that you and Mr. Douglas jumped on this which says what? Merely posing that out of 12 electors who have celebrated the unreformed mass (per VII and SC), Burke and Pell (per updated list) also have had issues in dealing with sexual abuse – nothing more; nothing less. Wonder if the energy for the unreformed could have been better used?

      Burke – no rehash of SNAP press releases (OTOH, without media and SNAP, etc. the people of God would have no clue in terms of the episcopal cover ups; alleged criminal behaviors; manipulation of SOL laws, etc. – that is a fact which even the Vatican has articulated e.g. Scicluna); via my own experience and classmates when Burke was in LaCrosse, WI and STL, he left a trial of unaddressed, poor decisions, and shuffling of alleged and confirmed clerical abusers. .

  2. Fr. Anthony, I must take issue with “unreformed rite”

    1. Modernist experimentation began as early as the ’20’s, gaining steam, along the Rhine, in the late ’40’s.

    2. In 1951, the reform of Holy Week began in earnest, becoming official in 1955.

    3. In 1961 there were major changes to the Pontifical.

    4. In 1962, yet more changes.

    Anyone celebrating by the books in force in 1962 were celebrating something that had been reformed.
    _____________

    Mr. deHaas, what does celebrating according to the 1962 books have to do with poorly handling the largely homosexual abuse of teens who were essentially young men? Should we tally prelates who support the LA Education Congress, along with Cardinal Mahony, and their handling or the abuse crisis?

    1. @Christopher Douglas – comment #6:

      Hello Christopher,

      Your points are well taken. And yet: However “reformed” the 1962 Missal is, it does not reflect any changes urged by the Council in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Perhaps “unreformed” strikes our ears as pejorative. I would hate to assume that was Fr. Ruff’s intention. (I doubt that it was.)

      Mr. deHaas, what does celebrating according to the 1962 books have to do with poorly handling the largely homosexual abuse of teens who were essentially young men?

      This, on the other hand, is a valid concern. I would really, really hope that Bill is not trying to tie attachment to the TLM to sexual abuse malfeasance – a ridiculous assertion, really, most recently mooted by Bishop Thomas Burns, unfortunately – not least because there are so few such bishops in the first place, such that virtually all of the abuse and coverups of same have been perpetrated by clerics and prelates with no apparent love for, and often considerable hostility to, the Traditional Mass. (Cardinal Mahony, anyone?) On sheer numbers, in fact, we would assume that there must be something about the Missal of Paul VI that drives such scandals. But that claim wouldn’t really be much more sustainable. And yes, Bill, this is your opportunity to clear the air about just exactly what you’re implying here.

      And while you’re at it, I’m curious to know exactly what failures you think that Cardinal Burke committed – and I really hope that it’s not a rehash of a SNAP press release.

    1. @Jeffrey Pinyan – comment #8:
      This comment perfectly sums up the impression I got from this post (and a different post in which a bishop ‘s participation in the EF was randomly mentioned as if to prove a point).

      As for the term “unreformed rite,” I must admit that it is a rather meaningless term when it comes to quality of worship. After all, if I were moving to a major city I would’t necessarily want to live in an area that was “renewed” in the 50s and 60s, since that might mean I would have to live in an unwalkable neighborhood sliced up by an elevated highway and fields of cement. An unrenewed one might be better.

      1. @Jeffrey Pinyan – comment #15:
        Perhaps it would be, but I wonder why it should matter at all what candidates celebrated the EF a handful of times in the past few years unless you are an advocate of the EF and want to know who might not be hostile to it as Pope.

        As for Fr Ruff’s EF experience, it seemed uncharacteristic to me. Most EF Masses have a very strong sense of community with people visiting afterwards. People are likely to recognize you or know your name in my experience. Even the small rural ones I’ve been to didn’t seem any worse than a typical OF Mass when it came to participation and community. However, I’ve never been to a Sunday Latin Mass with fewer than 20 people, and the rural churches I’ve been to tend to be smaller in size, so it didn’t feel all that empty.

        At my usual Mass, which has around 60 regular attendees, most people do not sing the ordinary parts of the Mass, but will sing the responses – which isn’t really any different from what I see at the OF. Oddly, the most robust congregational singing I ever experienced was at an EF Mass I attended in Illinois about four years ago. I have yet to attend an OF or EF that matched that one.

  3. I don’t get the concern about how many Cardinals –or any priest for that matter– celebrates the Mass according to a Rite that is allowed? Is it some sort of litmus test of orthodoxy or pastoral sensitivity or… or… whatever? It reminds me of Paul dealing with those who claim, “I belong to Appollos” or “I belong to Barnabbas” or whatever. Or who eats meat or who doesn’t eat meat. Isn’t it enough that we all belong to Christ? If they stand in Rome and kneel in Carthage, who cares?
    Personally, the EF is not my cup of tea. But I’m glad it is available to those for whom it has great meaning. Liturgically speaking, I think both the EF and reformed rite have alot to offer each other, we can learn something from each about reverence, tradition, justifiable adaptation, respect for differences and legitimate choices and more. Too often, in different ways, we tend to place more value on the earthen vessel rather than the treasure it contains.

    1. @John Swencki – comment #5:
      Whether the Extraordinary Form is allowed is precisely the point at issue. Any number of commenters here (well, one anyway) would say that it isn’t allowed because when the Council said “Ordo Missae recognoscatur” (singular nouns, subjunctive verb) it meant what it said and its decree may not be nullified afterward by an individual pope. One of these twelve cardinals has said that those who raised such an objection to “Summorum Pontificum” were instruments of the devil. To us who disagree with this cardinal, it matters whether he and his confreres elect a pope who feels free to do what he isn’t authorized to do.

  4. @Richard Malcolm – comment #11:

    Of these twelve cardinals, 7 were elevated by Pope Benedict XVI and the other 5 by Bl. John Paul II. I have been tracking Pontifical Masses since 2007 and almost all of these Cardinals have celebrated the Extraordinary Form only a handful of times (De Paolis, Barbarin, Caffarra, Sandoval, Ranjith — yes, Ranjith — and Tong Hon only once). Among the electors only Burke celebrates the EF with any real frequency.

  5. The rite said to be used by S. Gregory sounds so Angelic, oops I mean so Anglican.

    A model for the Ordinariate’s rite if that institution should survive Pope Benedict?

  6. However “reformed” the 1962 Missal is, it does not reflect any changes urged by the Council in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Perhaps “unreformed” strikes our ears as pejorative.

    The 1962 Missal of course does not reflect any textual changes urged by SC, but the celebration of the unreformed missal incorporates many principles enunciated by SC.

    The preference for sung Masses and other forms of active participation (27, 113). A focus on well trained servers, choir members, ministers who can carry out their duties in with dignity and are imbued with the spirit of the liturgy (29). The people encouraged to take their parts and participate by gesture, posture, etc. (30). Increased attention to preaching and a preference for homiletic preaching (35.2, 52 ), Summorum Pontificum reflects a legitimate variation for a particular group (38), attention is often paid to giving Communion to the people from the same celebration (55), in some places that use the traditional baptismal rites they still have restored the catachumenate (64), while the wedding rite is still technically “outside Mass” the Nuptial Mass is now only rarely omitted, which is in accord with the spirit of 78, the pride of place of Gregorian chant is recognized even in those places unable to execute it all the time (116), etc.

    1. I strikes me that you really have to stretch it and force the most generous interpretation possible of how people now celebrate the 1962 rite, and then it only comes close to Vatican II’s principles in a few areas. And all this still depends on how it really is celebrated, which I’m sure varies widely. I’ve only been to two 1962 Masses in the past year, and I must so that both were pretty depressing. In one rural parish, a grand total of 17 souls gathered, scattered throughout a large church, and no one sang anything or said any of the responses together. I didn’t get any sense that they were really a community or that they were actively participating in their external behavior. How typical or atypical is that? Or however typical or atypical is the high ideal Sam describes?

      Vatican II didn’t just call for textual changes; it called for a deeper renewal than that. It wanted the rites to involve the whole community, with a deep ecclesiological renewal in the way the congregation would appear as a community. No matter how well the pre-Vatican rite is celebrated – and liturgical reformer Pius Parsch is legendary for stretching it as far as possible already in the 1930s to make it participative and commmunitarian – it still gives the impression that mostly the priest alone is performing lots of arcane rituals FOR the people or ON BEHALF of them. It is that that the Council fathers wanted to be reformed and renewed.

      awr

      1. @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #12:

        Hello Fr. Ruff,

        I strikes me that you really have to stretch it and force the most generous interpretation possible of how people now celebrate the 1962 rite, and then it only comes close to Vatican II’s principles in a few areas. And all this still depends on how it really is celebrated, which I’m sure varies widely. I’ve only been to two 1962 Masses in the past year, and I must so that both were pretty depressing.

        1. I can’t speak for Sam, but it seems to me sufficient to say both what I conceded above – that the Council plainly wanted certain things about the Mass as it existed reformed – but also affirm what Sam says, which is that, properly celebrated, the 1962 Missal can and does fulfill at least *some* of the principles laid down by the Council in SC.

        2. In the former affirmation, I recognized that some of what the Council wanted to reform was the actual texts, not just the manner of celebration. I do get why Douglas was rubbed wrong by the label “unreformed.” In part, it is because of what Sam alludes to: that too often, it is not sufficiently appreciated that the TLM *can* fulfill some of these principles, and often in its celebration today, *does* (and, even further, often does so better than many N.O. Masses).

        3. I think you are right to key in on how “how it is really celebrated.” As a general point I would insist that, whatever else is true, it is almost uniformly celebrated reverently and carefully, and that was not always so pre-1965. But there is variation. Examples: At. St. Alphonsus in Baltimore, near me, there is a genuine sense of community, but the community is *intensely* averse to any kind of Dialogue Mass. They can, to an outsider, seem passive, since only the servers give responses. At the FSSP parish in Krakow, however, congregants seem to boisterously give the responses in solid Latin. Why? Well, the Anglophone world has been more averse to “dialogue” than the continent…

      2. @Richard Malcolm – comment #18:
        A couple of other thougts:
        – PTB has had these discussions before but when B16 issued SP, he stated that there would be follow up in a couple of years to ascertain the impact of SP, etc. (keep in mind, prior to the motu proprio, most epsicopal conferences strongly advised him to not do this).
        Questions – given the initial episcopal advice and begging the question about how B16 phrased this part of the SP, it is a fact that the centralized papacy/congregations have never published any feedback on Summorum Pontificum (whether initiatied from individual bishops, conferences or whether Rome asked for this information). Why not? As JR constantly posts in terms of management models, it would seem that this would be important information.
        My guess (and that is all that I can provide) is that the feedback (and there may actually have been *collected* feedback) was not overly positive about the issuance of SP. Why so afraid of this?

        That is not unlike the popes/curia folks after Trent – by 1588, the Vatican passed a bull that collected all notes, records, documents, votes, etc of the council of Trent and locked them away forbidding any individual to review or raise questions. Ladislas Orsy, SJ names this follow up bull one of the most remarkable because it posited *positivism* which meant that the papal perogatives and interpretation of the council of Trent were now locked in concrete – and effectively, no one could raise questions for almost 300 years until just prior to VII. This presumes that the centralized authority is correct? It also rejects any notion of development which is what happened to the Roman Rite (thus, what O’Malley calls Tridentine – when in fact, much of it had little connection to the actual council fathers of Trent). Would suggest that Benedict’s attempt at a *new* hermeneutic is a similar *fabrication* that has little connection to the actual council fathers of Vatican II.

      3. @Bill deHaas – comment #21:

        Hello Bill,

        …it is a fact that the centralized papacy/congregations have never published any feedback on Summorum Pontificum (whether initiatied from individual bishops, conferences or whether Rome asked for this information). Why not?

        I can’t answer that question directly on point, as I do not work for PCED or the CDF.

        I do think you have in mind the passage in the Pope’s letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum, which stated: “Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.”

        This does not sound like a review process or a probationary period – especially since that letter has no canonical standing – but an invitation for feedback by local bishops.

        Did the Vatican receive feedback? I am sure that it did. Should it have published any of it? Above my pay grade. In part, it would depend on whether the bishops in question actually were even open to having their feedback published.

        My guess (and that is all that I can provide) is that the feedback (and there may actually have been *collected* feedback) was not overly positive about the issuance of SP. Why so afraid of this?

        I am not afraid of it, myself, because nothing in it could surprise me. I think you and I actually agree that large numbers of bishops in key conferences (esp. England, France, Germany) were hostile or at least skeptical about expanding celebration of the TLM. I of course deplore this; you are gratified by it.

        One sad aspect of the “Indult Era” (1984-2007) was that petitions (no matter how deferentially worded or backed by long lists of signatories) for TLMs were often ignored by chanceries – no response. This is, alas, true of *many* letters to bishops. Outside obvious crank letters, I think we all agree that bishops should answer their mail.

      4. @Richard Malcolm – comment #30:
        Agreed – well written and explained.

        To your last point: TLMs ignored by chanceries….that is a complicated question from my experience. Guess it depends upon how much *tolerance/mercy/pastoral patience* is in your backpack. Have seen too many TLM folks who were closed minded; defiant; angry; and missing the point of liturgy, period, who bombarded chanceries endlessly. In their frustration or whatever, demands were made that were incendiary, at best. To your point, know of many written reponses but after the same folks submitted multiple and endless demands, folks just stopped listening.

        Interesting that the same dynamic could be said about other issues – Humanae Vitae; sexual abuse; catholic parish & school closiings; etc. and yet, bishops also stopped or never responded to those requests (it works both ways – why are TLM folks different?). So, why did the papacy extend an indult after ignoring his own bishops? Why a blanket indult and after the initial JPII indult experience? (it does lend weight to the argument that he was influenced by the SSPX negotiations)

        Monday morning quarterbacking suggests that a period of time should have been allowed for the 1962 until that generation phased out. Reality – we are all but past that generation and yet TLM folks keep pushing for more and more.

        Finally, go back to my earlier statement that Vatican II called us to conversion and the eventual end of the 1962 is part of the *conversion* experience. (you are correct – IMO, there is a significant difference between approved rites in the West and this new invention of two forms of the one rite…it doesn’t work for reasons already explained i.e. ecclisiology, theology – sacramental/eucharistic, etc. It creates a pattern in which individual preference becomes the deciding point rather than the sacramental community.

      5. @Bill deHaas – comment #31:

        Hi Bill,

        To your last point: TLMs ignored by chanceries….that is a complicated question from my experience. Guess it depends upon how much *tolerance/mercy/pastoral patience* is in your backpack. Have seen too many TLM folks who were closed minded; defiant; angry…

        Oh, I know exactly what you’re talking about…

        I am fond of saying that if you treat people like social outcasts for long enough, they may start acting like social outcasts. Unfortunately, years of being shunned and marginalized has made some traditionalists rather…crusty. Not all, by any means – certainly not more recent or younger adherents.

        But I am thinking of appeals which did not suffer from such defects, and where the channels were followed properly and deferentially. Even a simple response giving a flat denial would have been *something.* But when a bishop receives a letter from several dozen – or several hundred! – of his own flock, he ought to at least acknowledge the letter in writing. And that goes beyond TLM appeals; if a letter by 100 parishioners dismayed by new liturgical changes in their parish goes to Bishop Morlino, he ought in justice do them the kindness of a written reply. It would even be nice if he were open to a face-to-face meeting. Too many bishops like to hide behind their chancery walls.

        And yes, that goes for parish and school closings, too (too many of which have been unjust, in my opinion) – or any other reasonable issue.

        If I had a point, it was that this is a phenomenon often overlooked by progressives, who often assume that chancery indifference or contempt only reaches them. Traditionalists, and not merely the kooky sorts, had a hard ride of it, esp. in the 70’s and 80’s.

        Given that I have termed the OF/EF distinction a “polite juridical fiction,” I agree in part with you about the novelty of all this, and agree that the Council majority never contemplated it. The rest I’ll save for another reply.

      6. @Richard Malcolm – comment #32:
        Will just add to your *polite juridical fiction* this link:

        http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/battle-lines-liturgy-wars

        Money Quote:

        As described by the late Benedictine Fr. Godfrey Diekmann of St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville, Minn., one of 55 international liturgists who helped write the document, “It was a Magna Carta of the laity.”

        It might be reasonable to presume that with the world’s bishops and the pope signing off on liturgical reform, all would be set for the foreseeable future. But the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, a solemn pronouncement of the council, was also a political document. Its implications went far beyond what prayers people would say and when they would stand and kneel, or what motions a priest would make during the ritual.

        The further-reaching implications had to do with ecclesiology, what kind of church we were becoming. It was clear in 1963 to then-Fr. Joseph Ratzinger what was at stake with the newly affirmed document. In what appear approving tones, Ratzinger wrote of the “decentralization of liturgical decision-making.”

        “The first chapter of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy contains a statement that represents for the Latin church a fundamental innovation,” he wrote, and that innovation was a new independent authority for national conferences of bishops.

        “Perhaps one could say that this small paragraph, which for the first time assigns to the conferences of bishops their own canonical authority, has more significance for the theology of the episcopacy and for the long-desired strengthening of episcopal power than anything in the Constitution on the Church itself,” wrote Ratzinger,

        Those are concerns identical in many ways to the objections voiced by many who opposed the reforms from the start. The question remains how to find common cause and make change. It would appear that the manner in which change has occurred is cause for perhaps even a deeper divide, and…

      7. @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #12:

        Continued:

        As to the parish you visited…I will say I have seen a pretty fair variety of TLM’s, here and in Europe, which is not to say I can say that I have seen a representative sample. What you saw…I also saw something similar once in a rural parish myself, but it was hard to judge “active participation,” since it was not a Dialogue Mass, obviously. The sense of community is trickier, since often times this kind of situation is a difficult one. A rural parish priest offers the TLM, usually at a less than ideal time, and traditionalists will come from all over the place since it’s the only one within in range, and that can make for challenges in building any sense of community. But when I think of full-fledged traditional personal parishes that I have seen, such as St. Francis de Sales in St. Louis (run by the ICR) or Mater Dei in Dallas (run by the FSSP), there may be no “Dialogue Mass” (save for murmured “et cum spiritu tuo’s”) but attendance is heavy, with lots of young families, and it is easier to discern some kind of genuine participation and a very strong sense of community.

        What is the norm, then? Harder to say. But these are things that I have observed.

        Vatican II didn’t just call for textual changes; it called for a deeper renewal than that.

        I agree.

        …it still gives the impression that mostly the priest alone is performing lots of arcane rituals FOR the people or ON BEHALF of them.

        Aside from the word “arcane,” (could not the same be said of ANY Divine Liturgy?) which seems to me pejorative, I do not see why this is an erroneous conception of liturgy, though it may be an incomplete one by itself. The Holy Father made an interesting point in his general audience on Sept. 26, 2012, when he noted that “[t]he word “liturgy” in Greek means “work done by the people and for the people”.” In the latter respect, your impression…is actually true. “With,” but also “on behalf of.”

  7. I had the correct list of 12 last week and went so far as to predict that the new pope would be selected from one of these 12 apostles. Time will tell. So many read into the documents of VII what they perceive as implied or implicit, irreformable dogma concerning not only the reform of the Mass but other things too so as to hog tie the Pope in responding to the living Church of today as though the Church of the early period of unbridled reform of Paul VI era is the way it should be today, but of course it is not as every thing has changed with the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI and surely to continue with the ongoing living Magisterium of the pope alone and the pope and college of bishops together. Therefore we have one reformed Mass with two forms, OF and EF and each in some way or other fulfilling VII but neither on its own merits doing so completely but both together fully fulfilling VII. Cool for sure.

    1. Fr. Allan,

      1. When you write of the “unbridled reform of Paul VI era,” do you mean how various people in the Church celebrated the liturgy then, or are you critiquing Paul VI himself for the reforms he approved, or both?

      2. Pope Benedict spoke of one Roman rite in two forms. You’re using a quite different terminology – one reformed Mass in two forms. I’m not sure that’s a very accurate way of putting it.

      awr

      1. @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #13:
        I mean the “spirit” of that period where there were excesses even from high places especially allowing for experimentation. But from low places too. As for the 1962 Missal it, as you point out, is reformed but in its current usage many but not all parishes and religeous institutes are applying the VII understanding of full and actual participation and preserving Latin and its various forms of chant especially for the propers. Taken together all forms of the Mass in the west and East can fulfill various aspects of VII in general and SC in particular and together as a whole more or less completely.

      2. @Father Allan J. McDonald – comment #14:
        Allan – you read SC in your own way; how sad. And you ignore or condemn 50 years of bishops implementing the reformed mass of VII. Your response to Fr. Ruff is only a small part of what you mean, though.

        Well, you hit a new low; this resignation must really have you in a *panic mode*. From your site of innuendo, gossip, and kerfuffles:

        STEPHEN COLBERT’S INTERVIEW OF GARY WILLS! IF THERE IS AN AD PRECEDING THE VIDEO THAT COULD BE ALMOST AS OFFENSIVE AS GARY WILLS! BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, EVEN IF THE SEXUAL CONTENT OF ANY AD IS OFFENSIVE, TRUST ME, NOT AS OFFENSIVE AS GARY WILLS! (I wonder if Wills’ alias is BdeH on any other blogs? Certainly the theology is the same or at least the screed!

        OTOH – you did post Fr. Komonchak’s article below but your subsequent comments and now posts on PTB clearly show that you either don’t understand what he is saying or you really don’t agree:

        You blog: “1. In this Year of Faith, issue Pope Benedict’s uncompleted encyclical on Faith but work with him to complete it and add to it a list of “anathemas” as it concerns the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. In other words, call out the heresies of the last 50 years and do so strongly!

        2. Continue the on-going liturgical reform initiated by His Holiness Benedict XVI. This means codifying the traditional altar arrangement, allowing every pastor to follow any and all of the options in the latest Roman Missal as it concerns rubrics and the GIRM and a clear permission to any pastor to celebrate the OF ad orientem.

        3. Require kneeling for Holy Communion (with the exception for standing) and that only intinction be allowed when Holy Communion is given under both forms as is already done in Rome even for clergy who concelebrate!

        4. Make sure that every bishop celebrates the Extraordinary Form of the Mass on a regular basis, at least 12 times a year and that each bishop encourage every priest to do so as a sort of seminary for re-learning how to celebrate the Ordinary Form in a more beautiful and reverent way.

        5. Make clear what parts of the Mass should be in Latin.”

        Fr. Komonchak: http://commonwealmagazine.org/benedicts-act-humility

        Money quote: “One can hear it from both sides: from traditionalists who want still-tighter disciplinary control over doctrine, worship, and practice; and from progressives who want a pope who will loosen things up in all those areas. They both want something from Rome; they want the new pope to do something about what they each perceive as critical points. But the church is not the pope, and the pope is not the church, and perhaps what we most need is a pope who will encourage and allow the laity, the religious, the clergy, and the hierarchy to assume their responsibilities for the difference the church is supposed to make in the world. Benedict’s resignation was a self-denying act of personal humility. What we need now in Rome are acts of institutional humility and self-denial.”

        Fr. Imbelli: “….do not suggest that the Pope is alone “the arbiter of what is authentic tradition:” and his resignation of the Petrine office brings that recognition once more to the fore.” (this clearly is what Komonchak is stating)

        Rita Ferrone: “….Benedict has been strongly opposed to those who do not share his own very particular and sometimes peculiar views, and has dismissed, demoted, and replaced many who faithfully and intelligently and responsibly implemented the liturgical reforms of the Council over the past fifty years. Look at the persons he has appointed to the CDWS. Look at ICEL. Look at Vox Clara. Look at the undertakings and books he endorses. He has put into place a change of course so dramatic that a whole generation of scholars and churchmen has been effectively disenfranchised from the official structures. If this is support, I don’t know what opposition would look like.
        How can anyone read Liturgiam Authenticam and not regard it as dismissive of the main stream of implementation of the Council’s direction for the forty years previous? This document was written without any serious consultation and has been decried by scholars of great probity and learning. And he was behind that, without a doubt, even though it appeared during John Paul’s pontificate. How can anyone look at the fate of the 1998 translation of the Roman Missal, the fruit of 15 years of work, approved by all the English-speaking bishops’ conferences, and thrown in the trashbin – none of it reused — and still say that Benedict “has only supported such efforts”?

        You observe that not all the effects of sincere labor are “faithful to the tradition.” True enough. History will show, I am afraid, that Benedict has been a poor judge of authentic and inauthentic developments arising from the Council. Even while deploring the “fabrication” of liturgy, he has invented a tradition that isn’t there, namely two forms of the Roman rite – to name only one example.”

        As O”Malley has shown clearly in his new book, Trent, when one speaks of continuity the council of Trent and its subsequent implementations by various popes/curia and the newly created Congregation of Rites clearly standardized the Roman Rite and abrogated all other earlier forms, missals, etc. (duly giving exceptions to certain longstanding rites (not forms). Thus, Benedict’s *fabrication* via his MP is, at best, discontinuity; at worst, it is *rupture*. His inconsistencies and personal preferences seem to win out rather than the cold logic and clear headed analysis of a theologian. As Rita said well, History will show…..

      3. @Bill deHaas – comment #16:
        You are quite magnanagous in your false egalitarian theological concepts and heroes and heroines, so I am sure you will happily allow me my choices too, and beginning first with the reigning pope, the happy ultrmontanist I am, and second my own beliefs since all things are equal as long as it is not hierarchical.

  8. Mr. Malcolm – what you miss in this discussion is that the ecclesiology and the eucharistic theology were reformed by Vatican II – based upon those reformed concepts, the reformed Paul VI liturgy was developed.
    The 1962 liturgy is just that – 1962 based upon a different understanding of ecclesiology and eucharistic theology. So, as you and others (e.g. Allan) argue that some parts of the 1962 fit SC; you are merely moving secondary sections around and missing the fundamental reforms. (it is truly pouring new wine into old wineskins altho you and others appear to be pouring old wine into old wineskins) And, in effect, you are missing the point of the reform…it was not to change rubrics or secondary liturgy parts. As you say, the 1962, seen in that light, is an *incomplete* fulfillment of the vision and reforms of Vatican II. (you say you agree with this but then proceed to compromise that agreement. As Fr. Ruff states repeatedly on PTB, it is about ecclesiology. Same thing that Komonchak says above and which Allan misses or doesn’t understand. It is the same reaction I have when you cite parishes such as Mater Dei in Dallas – well, you can find full churches with young folks in France at any number of SSPX parishes – but, is that something you want to support and foster. Mater Dei – let’s see if it lasts and if these *young families* continue to attend. And beyond having their own liturgy at Mater Dei, what does this group do to support the diocese; catholic schools, catholic outreach organizations, etc.? Sorry, my experience of this group is that it is insulated, provincial, and self-focused. Keep in mind – liturgy is about mission; not pleasing yourself. Ah yes, another issue around ecclesiology and basic concept of *Church*).

    Allan (no apology for your insults and calumny about me on your kerfuffle site? what would sister mary third grade say) – you don’t get it because to do so would make your *hermeneutic – in your case, opinion* irrelevant. I am not just listing my preferred approach – am echoing and citing exactly what VII and SC reformed (whether you like the people I cite is neither here nor there – you make it personal by using false labels such as progressive, conservative – it is the world you seem to need. Actually, most professionals accept a valid, peer-reviewed and broadly agreed upon hermeneutic. (B16 has unsuccessfully invented his own – see my original cites from Rita Ferrone and, IMO, am happy to leave this consideration to later historians).

    I, thus, don’t agree that you have one approach and I have another…your approach, at the heart, is a rejection and minimization of what the council fathers did (you try to cover that by referring to post council folks who supposedly implemented outside of what the council fathers intended and, when challenged on this, you knee jerk to your usual ROTR mantras – clown masses, etc. and when pushed, justify by citing B16. Sort of circular reasoning)
    Nowhere in SC or subsequent implementations does it require a certain amount of latin; or chant; etc. It did make statements that value latin, chant, propers but these are seen as options and choices to attain the goals of active, full, and complete participation. You again ignore or judge negatively on these hobbyhorse aspects because most episcopal conferences when implementing SC focused on the principles; not the secondary aspects and some things such as propers, chant have been implemented or are being developed/acted upon differently. You just don’t like it and so declare it against SC.)
    You want to arbitrarily judge the choices folks make to implement the goals and principles (as seen in your opinions that go from your PTB mildness to your SSPX extremes on your kerfuffle blog.)

    1. @Bill deHaas – comment #20:
      I’m glad you like my kerfuffle, I mean, blog. Please video yourself reading it as that would be priceless, but all kidding aside, VII is primarily about God and the praise and worship due Him as He gives us the means to do it by His grace and through His Church. Ecclesiology while certainly important is but chaff or dross without the primary emphasis of the Council which is vertical and thank God, not horizontal and thus a futile excercise in navel gazing that leads to the current narcissism so damaging to the Church and her mission.

      1. @Father Allan J. McDonald – comment #23:
        You say: “Ecclesiology while certainly important is but chaff or dross without the primary emphasis of the Council which is vertical and thank God, not horizontal and thus a futile excercise in navel gazing that leads to the current narcissism so damaging to the Church and her mission.”

        Really, more ROTR mantra stuff – *horizontal vs. vertical* (you do realize that the council fathers never used that language; it is a later invention of the ROTR hermeneutic);
        *primary emphasis of the council is vertical*….and you arrive at this interesting but flawed opinion how? Where do the VII documents state that their primary emphasis is vertical? Could have sworn that the primary emphasis was ecumenical and aggiornamento efforts to speak to the modern world which meant articulating the ancient church truths/dogmas/Tradition so that their expressions could be developed to speak to the people of the world. Over and over again, the council fathers redefined and clarified our understanding of church – if anything, they repeatedly used the concept of *both/and*.

        * futile exercise in navel gazing that leads to narcissism* – agreed and an excellent definition of the ROTR movement. It ignores the reality that VII was an event of conversion and that means each person must experience conversion when reading/studing/praying the VII documents. Remaining *stuck* on the 1962 liturgy is to reject a *conversion experience* – IMO, an example of putting your individual needs above the church and its mission.

    2. @Bill deHaas – comment #20:

      And back to this post of yours, Bill, which gets to the heart of the matter:

      The 1962 liturgy is just that – 1962 based upon a different understanding of ecclesiology and eucharistic theology. So, as you and others (e.g. Allan) argue that some parts of the 1962 fit SC; you are merely moving secondary sections around and missing the fundamental reforms.

      While I am unclear about what you are referring to when you speak of change in Eucharistic theology by the Council, this whole question of ecclesiology is an interesting one. As I understand it, this centers on the question of the understanding of the laity in the Church – by far the largest component of the “People of God,” referred to in LG ch.2. That the laity are not merely innocent bystanders at Mass, but participants.

      I go back to the Pope’s description wherein “[t]he word “liturgy” in Greek means “work done by the people and for the people”.” If before the Council the former sense was sometimes lost, it seems to me that after the Council, the latter can seem lost. The whole Church offers up the Mass; but it remains true, as the Council insisted in SC and LG, that “the priest alone can complete the building up of the Body in the eucharistic sacrifice.” (LG 17).

      My question is whether the ecclesiology of the Church can really be said to have developed to such a significant degree that there really has been a change, a departure, that we must take account of it in our liturgy. And not just in the Roman Rite (the subject of SC), but all rites. Right? 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).

      Nota Bene: Not merely “desirable to adjust,” but “must.”

      1. @Richard Malcolm – comment #33:
        Well, you ask a complicated question about ecclesiology and whether there was a departure?
        First – no, not for all rites…..council fathers were clear about that but, yes, the VII documents that interjected *church* addressed the whole church but recognize that Eastern, other rites choose how they liturgically express these documents. Distinction between discursive law (context) and dispositions (practical implementations by rite).

        Doctrine did NOT change – so, not sure where you are going with the *changed in some very significant way* comment? Defective – again, no…rather, seen as incomplete; lacking fullness, core is the same but how it is expressed/celebrated needs to change, etc. Council fathers consistently used that language (not defective). Which gets to a ROTR point about dismissing anything prior to 1962 as if it was illicit/invalid – completely off point.

        Trent – keep in mind the goal of Trent; happened over three time periods and 20+ years; three popes; only three bishops attended all three period, etc. Thus, in an effort to end the council, liturgy was an afterthought; left to pope/curia who did make reforms via standardizing and codifying coupled with other bulls resulting in the post-Tridentine liturgy set in concrete (which was not the work of the council fathers). If you were to ask a church member in Paris in 1620 about *new* liturgy efforts, he might have reacted because he may have felt that his Paris liturgy of 1500 had changed dramatically under the auspices of Berulle and his liturgy reforms implementing post-Trent. (it wasn’t until 1621 that France was stable enough for Trentan reforms). Guess it is all in the eye of the beholder.

        Next post – impact of theology…..

      2. @Bill deHaas – comment #36:
        You say: “….whether the ecclesiology of the Church can really be said to have developed to such a significant degree that there really has been a change, a departure, that we must take account of it in our liturgy”

        Complicated explanation but let’s start with notes from Thomas Richstatter:

        http://www.tomrichstatter.org/eEucharist/e41theol.htm

        To your questions:
        – The Second Vatican Council, in placing the chapter on the Eucharist first, ahead of the chapter “The Other Sacraments and Sacramentals” signals an important “tip of the pistol” shift in thinking about the Eucharist. Eucharist is the First Sacrament, not merely one of the seven.
        – Baltimore Catechism taught the relation of the Eucharist to Divine Life. The Council felt that in 1963 it was also important to emphasize the relation of the Eucharist to the Unity of the Body of Christ. The Baltimore Catechism taught that sacraments were “outward signs…. to give grace.” The Council adds that they are also acts of worship (and they have a catechetical function).
        – The purpose of the sacraments is to make people holy, to build up the Body of Christ, and finally to give worship to God; but being signs they also have a teaching function. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it; that is why they are called “sacraments of faith.” (VII makes connection between eucharist and initiation. Trent did not do this)
        – There was an important evolution in the various drafts of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Chapter 2 was first titled “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.” In the approved text this becomes “The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist.” This is a significant change. (Allan – NOTE)
        – Eucharist is not only Good Friday, but Holy Thursday and Easter Sunday
        – The Mass is a sacrifice because it is a meal.
        – The Eucharist is more verb than noun
        – Gathering, Story Telling, Meal Sharing, Commissioning
        – The eucharistic prayer is our principle creed.
        – Eucharist is the primary sacrament of reconciliation.

        Why is ecclesiology important?

        “Lex orandi legem credendi constituit.” The way we pray determines belief. This axiom which played such an important role in the early Church is once again dear to the heart of contemporary liturgists and catechists. We start with our experience of Eucharist. And we all realize that the way we pray the Eucharist has changed radically in the past 50 years. This different experience of Eucharist leads to a different theology of Eucharist. And since eucharist builds up the body of Christ (both horizontal and vertical to borrow from Bob Hurd); praying the eucharist determines communal belief. Thus, my concern/reservations about two forms of one rite – it creates division and disunity. (see Fr. Krisman on the Scale of Attitudes, #39)

  9. you do realize that the council fathers never used that language; it is a later invention of the ROTR hermeneutic..

    I’m sorry, Bill, to interrupt your little quarrel with Allan, but though the first statement is likely true, the second is certainly NOT. The first time I ever heard the “horizontal/vertical” cliche was at an in parish liturgical workshop offered by one of my (still) favorite writers, Dr. Bob Hurd, in the early eighties. And I can’t count the number of occasions at mostly NPM, LAREC and other such events that it was repeated there along with others like “Jacob’s ladder v. Sarah’s circle.”
    I’m not demeaning either analogy, but you can’t lay this shibboleth (thank you , Liam) at the R2 crowd.

    1. @Charles Culbreth – comment #25:
      Mr. Culbreth – don’t disagree…heard the same language from liturgy profs in the Chicago area in the mid-70’s. My point was that it is a *cliche* – and currently, hear it most often from the ROTR folks who are trying either to defend SP or to demean *progressives* (as defined in their imaginary world). And to somehow link this cliche to the council fathers (as Allan does above) touches on the ridiculous ….but then Allan, Fr. Z, EWTN speakers do reveal the ridiculous in the world. If it demonstrates anything (and to borrow from Fr. Ruff) it appears that much of the language used by liturgists/musicians, theologians has been appropriated by the ROTR folks….thus, what they condemn; they now use to justify. Nothing like the end justifying the means.

  10. Father Bill, understood and we’re good.
    Frankly, all of the recriminations, schadenfreude and weltschmerz (I knew those 8 years of German would pay off one day) has this old man, he plays one, he plays nick knack ’til he’s numb!
    i’m not losing my faith, but in the southern sense I may be losing my religion (REM).
    Regarding the cults of personalities, especiallly among clerics of all stripes, I suggest someone ought to start following the money….

    1. @Charles Culbreth – comment #28:
      well said and that was the lastest theme from Jason Berry’s book. As a good friend once said…..have lost faith in the institution but haven’t lost faith.

      Memory lane added thought – remember using Kung’s The Church as a textbook in 1st year college. Don’t have time to verify but my memory was that Kung repeatedly identified, explained, and wrote about the documents using the *both/and* paradigm and this also used language such as vertical/horizontal.

  11. The Eastern rites of the Catholic church celebrate Eucharistic liturgies quite differently than we, yet they are valid. Is their sacramentology/Christology/ecclesiology difficient? Given the limitations of human understanding and expression, is any one form completely perfect in itself? If “ecclesia semper reformanda”, so will its lived expression reformanda sunt.

  12. Thought I’d stick my nose into the tired “reformed/unreformed” discussion. I discovered the Traditional rites in 2003, while still in highschool. They transformed my life, along with the lives of almost all my friends– I kid not. Since then, studying Liturgy and worshiping in the older rites (Breviarium, Missale, Rituale) has become a constant occupation, an expression of my single passion, love for the Church and for her Lord. When I read and re-read “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” it seems impossible for me to see the principles and wishes there enumerated present in the reforms implemented by the Concilium. I think the Concilium so far exceeded their conciliar mandate as to render the traditional forms, especially with those marked by the love and fervor that surrounds them today, as much closer to the mind of the Council than the product of the Concilium. I have no problem with the terms “reformed” and “unreformed” in themselves. I merely quibble over whether the new rites really deserve to be considered the reform mandated by the Second Vatican Council. But, then again, the grace I’ve gained from immersing myself in the traditional way of life of the Roman Church has made me, lets say–unenthusiastic about even the more modest reforms that SC seems to wish. As far as I’m concerned, the 1962 Missal needs more a minor “restoration” than a substantial reform.

Leave a Reply

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