America: “The Latin Mass took off in this North Carolina diocese”

At America:The Latin Mass took off in this North Caroline diocese. What will happen under Pope Francis’ new restrictions“?

Excerpt:

“I feel misunderstood by our Holy Father,” Mr. Jackson said by email on July 20.

“I don’t believe that the Latin Mass caused the disunity. It is simply filling the void that the church has created by watering down the faith to accommodate the world. Christ’s cup was bitter and we want to drink from that cup. Young people don’t want to be catered to, we want to be called to mission,” he said.

Anthony Ruff, O.S.B., a liturgist and theology professor at St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minn., said that Pope Francis had little choice.

“The bottom line is that Pope Francis is resolutely following the Second Vatican Council in letter and in spirit. … “

69 comments

  1. Everyone is making much of Francis contradicting Benedict in all of this, but the really interesting contradiction here is Francis against Francis. Just last week, Bishop Fernando Rifan said that Francis told him in a private audience that the tridentine mass was a treasure to be preserved.

    My prediction is that Trads are going to Trad, they’ll just have to be more creative about it until a sympathetic pope is elected. This situation feels a lot like the investigation into women’s religious communities begun in the summer of 2012 at the end of Benedict’s pontificate.

  2. Dear Mr. Jackson, a few things:
    The Pope is NOT taking away your TLM Mass, he is reserving the power to approve its use to your ordinary where it belongs, i.e. a priest cannot do what HE wants or YOU want. Concurrently your bishop will ensure, per the motu proprio, that TLM is not the primary rite celebrated in your parish and that YOU KNOW both the infallible teaching of VII, and that you are outside the Church when you ignore it.

    Your privilege is showing. Every previous shift of the Roman rite was implemented withput accommodation for the previous one, and even Benedict said his ruling might likely need to be revisited once its effects were known.

    You say you want to drink the cup of Christ’s suffering, really? If you do really wish to do this, and you are suffering from the Novus Ordo and VII implementation, what is your resistance?

    If you wish to suffer from Christ’s cup, look outside your window, Covid suffering and the planet dying from human greed are ample enough.

    1. You are wrong on several points. First, the Missal of Pius V was not implemented without accommodation for the previous one. Pius V actually ordered the continuation of previous rites unless the bishop and chapter of the diocese concurred to adopt the new missal. Thus the Ambrosian, Braganza and Mozarabic uses continued.

      Moreover, it cannot be argued that the recent Motu Proprio is about standardization. The current missal is not universally implemented. Asides from the uses previously mentioned, there is a post-1970 Zairean rite. There are the 12 points of inculturation in liturgies celebrated in India. The US has some minor variants in the GIRM. The GIRM is not the same everywhere.

      Nor can it be said that the motu proprio is about narrowing the liturgical choices. Currently, there are three alternates to the penitential act, ten Eucharistic Prayers to be used with adults and three versions of the memorial acclamation. That alone gives 90 combinations, all of which can be used without interference by the bishop.

      Nor can it be said that the document is about the language used in the mass. Currently, if a priest wishes to celebrate a mass following the missal of Paul VI in Latin, I cannot see how a bishop can prevent him from doing so. Canon 928 makes celebration of the mass in Latin normative.

      But you are right, the document is about power and control.

      1. Your argument is specious. I have not heard of anyone using the Zaire Rite (which is not actually a rite in itself but a variant of the current missal), or one of the Eucharistic Prayers for Various Needs and Occasions, or the Ambrosian Rite, or any other variation in the Western rites that you care to name, looking down their noses at the rest of us and telling us that we are not real Catholics, that our liturgy is fake, that they alone have the True Faith, that Vatican II was the root of all the current evils in the Church, etc, etc. However, I have heard TLM devotees doing this on an almost daily basis.

        That is the point. The divisiveness is a major factor. This tiny splinter group is very vociferous, and very well funded. Just compare the number of “traditional” websites with the number of sites like this blog. Then compare the unchristian vitriol with the quiet reasonable-ness of other sites. The furore that Francis’s move has prompted only proves how necessary it was.

        Benedict assumed that these “stable groups” would die out over time, and gave them SP as a pastoral gift to lighten their dying days, but they misunderstood this.

        SP did not give them permission to proselytize.
        It did not give them permission to increase the number of their groups.
        It did not give them permission to expand the size of their groups.
        And yet they have not ceased to do all these things.

        I have read groups claiming to have doubled in size since 2007, and claiming to attract lots of young people. None of that was envisaged by Benedict, and was not permitted by SP.

        I have read some commentators (including a recent leader in the London Tablet), claiming that Benedict did not consult. On the contrary, he consulted widely. The English and French bishops begged him not to issue his document, foreseeing the trouble it would cause, but in his naivete he chose to ignore them. They were quickly proved right.

        Benedict had offered to review how SP was working within three years of its issuance. He never did it. It has been left to Francis to find out from the bishops of the world what a problem this whole business became. And not primarily a liturgical problem but an ecclesiological problem.

      2. I imagine some Catholics using the Zaire Rite or a particular Eucharistic prayer would probably adopt some of those same negative attitudes if they were treated similarly over time as those attending the Latin Mass were in the 70s-90s. I find that there is sometimes a lot of pressure from those against the use of the EF to reject Vatican II and the post conciliar liturgy.

        Regarding the idea that those who attend the Latin Mass may not share it with others – that is outright anti-Gospel. If that is indeed the intention of Summorum Pontificum, then it is rightly ignored. Imagine if you were told you could not invite friends to the Mass with you, or share it with your children. Beyond disgusting.

      3. My argument is not specious. The original post can be read as setting forth an argument for liturgical uniformity. But complete liturgical uniformity is impossible under the Missal of Paul VI given the options it contains. In fact, the ability to use options in the Missal of Paul VI is sold as a one of its features, not a bug. It is built into the system.

        Second, there is noting in SP which denies the ability of people who adhere to that form of the mass to proselytize. in fact, the document allows the erection of parishes for the purpose of supporting groups to celebrate that form of the mass.
        Presumably, those parishes were intended to be self-supporting. At some point, that requires getting replacement parishioners. Moreover, given the great commission, I can hardly see how the church could deny the right of any otherwise lawful group the right to encourage others to attend an otherwise lawful mass. It is in our nature as Christians to share the pearls of great price given to us.

        While the adherents of the Paul VI Missal might not like having someone say that their mass is invalid, the pope’s motu proprio is hardly going to stop that. As a practical matter, the motu proprio will probably will probably drive any who believe in the invalidity of the Paul VI Missal out of the church entirely.

        That said, there is a group of people who believe that the Missal of Paul VI is a valid but regrettable exercise of church authority. In many ways, such people resemble those who dislike the latest English translation. We might disagree with them.

        However, in obedience and charity, we remain free to criticize the prudence of any change in church discipline. If no one were able to criticize legitimate changes in the mass, the Missal of Paul VI would never have come about.

        All of this leads me to back to my conclusion, that the latest motu proprio is about the control and suppression and not the reconciliation of groups who prefer to worship using pre-1970 forms.

      4. To respond to just one point, I agree that the latest moto proprio is about suppression and not reconciliation of the pre-1970 groups.

  3. “Watering down the faith to accommodate the world”…to its spoken language?

    Tell the working mother who goes to mass how her faith is watered down because Mssr. Jackson is disappointed. This is what he calls his “bitter cup”: his druthers aren’t accommodated.

    1. How that working mother responds would likely vary depending on whether or not she happens to attend the same Mass as Mssr. Jackson. You shouldn’t assume everyone who attends the Latin Mass (or any traditional liturgy, for that matter) is affluent.

      Regarding the topic – the issue at the parish isn’t that the Latin Mass was included, it was that the people who already belonged to that parish were excluded. Un-pastoral priests who steamroll everyone and do what they want to do come in all stripes, it’s just become more common for traditionalist-leaning priests to do it now too. I imagine that priest isn’t going to reinstitute an average Novus Ordo with contemporary music if the Latin Mass goes away.

      At my parish, the OF Masses went largely unchanged when a Latin Mass was added, and the OF is still considered the principal Mass. We’ve been told by the Bishop that he doesn’t plan on changing anything at the moment, and it seems many Bishops are responding that way. It makes me wonder just how much all this “division” is manufactured and blown out of proportion by a tiny handful of people.

      1. What I was trying to question is whether those who attend non-Latin masses have a “watered down faith”. My example was meant to suggest the opposite: a busy mother still finding time for Mass suggests commitment, not watery indifference.

  4. Accepting the wisdom of Traditionis custodes, there are a few interesting intersections between its reasoning and Vatican II.

    The first is that while the Pope does call out “active participation” as an important principle, he seems fairly careful not to deem the unreformed rite itself as against the Council, only those who would use it as an anti-VII symbol. While presumably this is done partly to ensure the discontinuity with Summorum Pontificum is pastoral/disciplinary/prudential, rather than doctrinal, it does have the impact of relativizing some aspects of the Council others would deem absolute (i.e. if Benedict’s hopes had been realized in practice, by Francis’ teaching the unreformed rite itself would be doctrinally fine to be retained).

    And the second is that moving to ultimately suppress a rite, because it is being used as a symbol of error rather than an error itself, actually shows a great continuity with the thought of the counter-reformation (i.e. its the same reasoning use to suppress vernacular at that time, despite it being deemed acceptable in itself by Trent). Which does show how well supported the Pope’s act here is by tradition, though it does provide a contrast to the opposite inclination preferred by VII itself.

  5. It may difficult for some to understand, but it wasn’t just poorly implemented liturgies that brought us to the Vetus Ordo. In some cases, it was beautiful Novus Ordo liturgies with lots of Latin (i.e., all but the readings, responsorial psalm and hymns) at St. Matthew’s Cathedral in DC with a first rate schola that got us hooked on tradition. And then we kept digging. It was quite natural. For some of us, the Novus Ordo only truly makes sense by reference to the Vetus Ordo. We have many, many peers for whom exclusive exposure to the Novus Ordo in the 1990s led to “graduation” at confirmation from the Church. They never came back to Mass — according to any ordo.

    In any event, we suggest that many out there do a lot more listening. People’s faith and their expressions are precious and not to be handled with blunt force or gross negligence.

    1. I too have wonderful memories of attending the Latin Novus Ordo Mass at St. Matthew’s in DC,. I was very sad to learn that they’ve recently decided to cancel it, even after the pandemic ends. There was something refreshingly non-polemical about that liturgy. The only Masses in the District now celebrated in Latin with Gregorian Chant are done according to the 1962 missal (at least until they’re suppressed).

  6. In writing of “a diocesan clergy divided between Vatican II priests and those, mostly younger, who reject the council, at least in its liturgical changes. The two groups rarely interact ….” strikes me as a serious problem for any bishop. Vatican II, Christus Dominus 28-32 and Presbyterorum Ordinis 7-10 provide good guidance on how bishops and their priests are urged to share life and ministry. Does any cleric bother to read these, or re-read them to get a sense of how basic good advice gets implemented?

  7. I’m curious, has anyone heard of instances of parishes deciding to adopt practices such as ad orientem or singing Gregorian Chant at one liturgy in order to try to make people who have had their Tridentine Masses cancelled feel welcome?

    Or perhaps, have any parishes where the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are not followed decided to heed Pope Francis’ call to conform to them as a gesture of goodwill? (This could, for example, be a parish where the assembly does not kneel for the consecration beginning to follow the instruction to kneel?)

    1. I’ve yet to hear of a Tridentine Mass being cancelled. On the contrary, it seems every bishop cited publicly has taken a let’s-study approach while reassuring people.

      Perhaps the hope for traditional elements will be more alive in the next few decades. Where I grew up in the 1970s, the TLM was a badge of disobedience. Occasional Latin Masses with full singing were done with the 1970 Missal, but these were judged second-best.

      I think you and others would be hard-pressed to find many parishes within a day’s driving distance in direct disobedience to the GIRM and the Missal. I’ve been tagged as an ultra-liberal terrorist in some circles, but I’d dare you to find any instance of my parishes being seriously in arrears–at least anything in my power to guide.

      Frankly, if I were looking for enrichment in my parish’s liturgy–and I’m always on the lookout for it–I’d turn my gaze to places that are doing the Roman Rite well. Not the TLM downtown. On the whole, I think ordinary Catholics are looking for quality in preaching and music–something that at least won’t bore them.

      I seriously doubt there’s anything my current parish could do other than welcome refugees from another parish. We wouldn’t be chosen. My parish is small, the newest in the diocese, and still rents a warehouse for liturgy and office space. We follow the prescriptions of the liturgy, but I’m sure the temporary space would be an immediate turn-off.

      1. “Frankly, if I were looking for enrichment in my parish’s liturgy–and I’m always on the lookout for it–I’d turn my gaze to places that are doing the Roman Rite well.”

        What does it mean “doing the Roman Rite well?” I’ve seen references to good preaching, good music, and welcoming. All fine ideas, for any liturgy in any religion, but as I said, vague. Fifty plus years on, surely there should be some objective bar as to what the revised Roman Rite done well is. Unfortunately, I think the rub is that the answer can only be subjective, based on who you ask.

      2. Thanks for the reply, John. I am afraid that when we are talking about taking the “next step,” as it were, we are in the realm of art, not rubrics. Given the recent urging to beauty, that may well be in the eye of the beholder.

        There are books and articles that have described “excellent” Catholic parishes. These communities excel–or rather have found fruitfulness–in some aspect of Christianity, including worship. Sometimes the charisms they tap are much stronger and more well-developed than in my parish or others. This kind of thing can’t be duplicated.

        I suspect the end game is not excellent liturgy, but the state of discipleship and evangelization in a parish. If the people are deeply engaged in the faith and live it in the world, I can almost say “who cares what their liturgy is like?”

        I think the healthiest parishes, TLM and radical progressive alike, are the ones in which people take their faith as an intentional part of their lives. That’s not a function of the style of liturgy. You can’t get that by doing the red and saying the black.

        Bottom line: the Holy Spirit doesn’t give us a bar. Human nature being what it is, too many of us would just want to slip up to that level and take a long breather. We need to keep working.

  8. First I agree that TC was about suppressing the apparent divisiveness in the Trad community. But the vast majority of Catholics who attend the Latin Mass of the 1962 Missal do not reject Vatican II.

    Second, it seems clear that Vatican II wanted “a” reform of the Roman Missal. But one could not say that they signed on to the Roman Missal of 1970. It wasn’t yet in existence. That Missal, while perfectly valid and free from doctrinal error and presenting the perfect and most holy sacrifice of the Mass, is in many way, especially in its average parish implementation, deficient. Had that missal actually been in front of the council fathers, would they have accepted it?

    Third, Catholics that attend the Latin Mass want Sacrosanctum Concilium: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (36). “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services” (116).

    I for one like the Mass in the vernacular. I also like to hear Latin, but I love English. What I love above the TLM communities is that their Masses are so reverent and beautiful and other worldly. I attend novos ordo masses during the week, and while I appreciate being able to participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass, I don’t feel inspired because of the informal and banal quality of the manner of celebration.

    1. As I’ve argued elsewhere here, the Missal of 1970 *does* follow Vatican II in letter and spirit.

      I hope to lay this out soon in a future post, but I think the bar for “accepting Vatican II’ is a good bit higher than simply acknowledging that the Vatican II Mass is not invalid and accepting that other Catholics may celebrate the Vatican II Mass. To accept Vatican II is to accept its implicit and explicit teaching that the then-current (1962) liturgy is in need of reform and is to be replaced by a reformed rite which better expresses the nature of the true church.

      That is to say that even the most non-polemical attachment to 1962, with the most generous and charitable attitude toward the Vatican II Mass, is still less than totally obedient to Vatican II to the extent that it remains attached to a liturgy which the Council did not intend to continue. I would not judge the participants in pre-Vatican II liturgies for this – the issue is what Church leadership has done. Under John Paul II, and then more strongly under Benedict XVI, people were led to believe that attachment to 1962 is OK or even praiseworthy – in direct contradiction to the teachings of Vatican II.

      I think the key to understanding TC and the mind of Francis is *not* that it is all a practical, prudential measure based on alleged divisions and bad attitudes. No, Francis’s understanding runs deeper: is is following the teachings of Vatican II. When he says that all are to eventually return to the 1970 missal, this is because of his adherence to Vatican II, quite apart from how well (or not) things are going in 1962 communities today.

      awr

      1. Fr Ruff

        I believe the actual challenge that’s still likely to be avoided is not so much teaching but the experience on the ground. That is, while the preconciliar liturgy itself allowed a range of experiences on the ground (ranging from Solemn High Masses in full splendor to Low Masses with terrible music), the ground permitted as a practical matter by the reformed liturgy (even if not contemplated by the Council Fathers and implementers of the liturgical reforms) is much, much vaster: which means the range of subjective experiences of it is all the vaster. In both worlds, the PIPs who’ve reached a breaking point in their liturgical experience are virtually powerless but to absent themselves and find something else (if they are geographically blessed) – easier since changes in canon law in 1983. While there are people who leave a local community loudly, in my experience a lot of people just leave and their departure is hardly noticed, and there is no solid feedback mechanism to notice and digest it (that lack, btw, seems to be by design). (Some here may remember reactions from another end of the spectrum when the 2011 Missal translation was implemented.) There is an incredible amount of inertia in parish praxis, seasoned with sometimes abrupt changes in leadership and staff and consequent changes in liturgy. Rinse and repeat. And it’s become something of a parlor trick for any “side” to be able to claim conformity to the Council and its implementation at any given point in time.

        At some point, in a lot of places, money and personnel may run more or less dry for any form of liturgy beyond the most basic.

        For those of us who champion the conciliar reforms: how would we measure how well we have implemented them? What standards that could bite us in ways we don’t like (because if standards can’t do that, they aren’t worth much) can be developed to choose such measurements and engaging in serious self-evaluation? What of the conciliar reforms has been most effective, and what not so much – and how would we know?

      2. Karl, I agree entirely with you and I’ve been thinking much the same.

        Most people at 1962 Mass don’t read Pray Tell or Worship! They probably don’t think overly much about what Vatican II really meant, and they surely don’t think much about what Vatican II hypothetically could have been in another, better world if implemented differently. They think about their real lives and their experiences, and the support they experience from fellow believers in their liturgical community.

        Hence the limited value and effectiveness of what we’re doing at Liturgical Press, the importance of well-educated bishops with a vision of liturgical renewal, and the importance of respecting the people who worship with 1962 and have subjectively good experiences of it.

        The challenges of implementing Vatican II and making 1970 the only Roman rite and giving it real viability are formidable – nearly insurmountable when you factor in advancing secularizing and increasingly marginalization of organized religion. We live in hope.

        awr

      3. Fr Ruff,

        While I understand that is your long held view, it is pretty explicitly not what Francis has taught in TC. In his accompanying letter Francis quotes with approval Benedict’s proposition that the unreformed rite and attachment to it are not bad in themselves, nor does such an attachment per se contradict the Council. He then goes on to make clear that it is indeed only the divisions and bad attitudes which have led him to reverse SP and seek the ultimate suppression of the unreformed rite over time.

        Pope Francis may be mistaken on his understanding of Vatican II here, but it is what he has taught.

      4. Dear Robert,

        Thanks for your comments. I would say Yes and No. Francis is concerned about his perception of divisions and lack of unity, but in my reading that is not his only or primary reason for acting. He makes it clear in several places that he is guided by his understanding of Vatican II and the need to follow Vatican II in affirming the 1970 Missal and leading everyone (in the Roman rite) back to it. One gets the impression that Francis would have issued all his norms even if there were no divisions and the celebration with the 1962 Missal was done everywhere with a peaceful attitude and respect for Vatican II. At least that’s what I find in my careful reading of the entire motu proprio and accompanying letter. But you are correct, he does quote some of those claims of Benedict XVI (but is it ‘with approval’?) in his letter.

        awr

      5. Idk, Pope Francis told Franciscans of the Immaculate in an audience that if someone wants to use the old rite because it helps them adore God better then they should do so, the problem is using it to attack the council. “those who want to use the old rite should be free to do so.” This was June 10 2014 and a recording is available on youtube.

      6. Isn’t this rather typical of Pope Francis, to say contradictory things to different groups?
        awr

      7. I believe that comments about TC have been too narrowly focused on the celebration of Mass. Summorum Pontificum allowed the use of the preconciliar rites of all the sacraments. A traditionalist parish could find a sympathetic bishop who would confirm people in the unreformed rite, creating a “bubble” parish in which Vatican 2 never happened. Actions speak more loudly than words.

      8. I completely and totally ascribe to Vatican II. I believe one should interpret the text according to its original public meaning and that any passages that do not “seem” to readily compatible with earlier Magisterial statements should be interpret in such a way that both statements are true. One cannot act as though one part of the Magisterium is opposed to another. And Vatican II is much more traditional that extreme traditionalist say.

        I am not a TLM-only-ist. I just have a hard time worshiping God in almost all NOM parishes.

        I find the architecture of the average parish church today to be secular and banal and not at all interesting or uplifting. I am an architect, so I know a thing or two about architecture. I don’t see anything in Sacrosanctum Concilium that says that we must destroy the sacred images, sacred furnishings, and marble altars, and beautiful traditional temples. You and those on this blog may not agree that these things aught to have been done but they were and from my point of view these demolitions were deplorable. There is nothing in the document about preferring the spartan and unadorned to the beautiful and elegant and the new church buildings are boring, pedestrian, and uninteresting. Why? Vatican II is not opposed to earlier or later Magisterium and Tradition.

      9. Sacrosanctum Concilium also says: “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services” (116). Later Magisterium confirms that the Church’s historic hymnody should not be lost. The music in most parish’s is abysmal. I’m not necessarily against contemporary worship music, though it may be better to reserve it for services other than the Sacrifice of the Mass. But what is presented to the faithful as hymns and Mass settings is ugly and banal. For contemporary worship music done well see Bethel Church in Redding, California. But Gregorian Chant, appropriately prepared for congregational participation, is beautiful and should be the norm.

        Furthermore, the ceremonial at the average NOM parish is very informal and nonchalant. Sometimes it is blatantly irreverent. The sloppy execution of the Mass teaches the faithful that Mass just isn’t that important. Examples of poor ceremonial that were not asked for by the Council Fathers are celebrating Mass versus populum and Communion in the Hand. When a priest celebrates Mass facing east he is, together with the rest of the congregation, praying to God not entertaining the people as center of attention. And Communion in the hand lacks the reverence due to the ineffable Mystery. People seem to approach casually as if waiting in line at the gas station rather than in wonder and awe at receiving their creator.

        I’m still just curious, how does this comport with Sacrosanctum Concilium?

      10. I attend the NOM for daily mass every week. I love the people. I love the priests. I love our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. But I am not inspired by the casual and ugly setting. I am not engaged by the dated nearly half-century old folk music. (If you are going to use contemporary music, at least learn a thing or two from Bethel.) I am often scandalized by ceremony that makes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass seem to be a cringy and irrelevant joke.

        What I would want — and perhaps you and this blog also want this — is a reverent, traditional, and beautiful Vatican II Mass.

        For most of today’s Catholics there are no options for that kind of liturgy. The NOM can be done well but rarely is. One begins to wonder why. For better or worse, we are stuck with ugly, banal, and uninteresting Masses. And the general demolition and mass abandonment of traditional and reverent architecture, music, and ceremonial seems to have been done intentionally — on purpose — but without the mandate from Sacrosanctum Concilium that other legitimate reforms had.

        People are hungering for a deeper, more authentic, and richer experience of the Church’s Divine Liturgy in its aesthetic and ascetic dimensions which are actualized by reverence and beauty. Today, the TLM is filling that gap, providing Catholics with a reverent and beautiful Mass that feels connected and infused with tradition. The TLM would not have so much appeal if the NOM was offered in a reverent and beautiful setting that felt connected to tradition. People’s “attachment” to the TLM is probably not so much to the Missal of 1962 as it is to the Reverence and beauty with which these communities celebrate the Divine Liturgy.

        This shouldn’t be political, an ideological battle between different factions. We aught to have common cause. All Catholics should be allowed to return to the 1970 Missal as it was intended by the Council: Reverent and Beautiful and Traditional.

        Thank you.

    2. Fr Ruff

      Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I might also note:

      “Most people at [] Mass don’t read Pray Tell or Worship! They probably don’t think overly much about what Vatican II really meant, and they surely don’t think much about what Vatican II hypothetically could have been in another, better world if implemented differently.”

      This is a general reality on the ground. What people in the pews are aware of is that the priest has LOTS of options (and, depending on how much or little authority the people programming music themselves have for choosing repertoire, the musicians may be perceived as having LOTS of options too – not just hymn repertoire but also for the Ordinary of the Mass, largely treated as functional wallpaper and typically for practical reasons set for long seasons for the convenience of the musicians but rationalized as giving a seasonal structure to the overall music). The PIPs have none, other than to choose to sing or not sing. Some PIPs will be loud in providing unsolicited feedback (and at the worst times), but most likely do the Kathlick Thing of enduring and zoning out before absenting themselves – periodically and then long-term.

      Therefore, one of the perhaps unintended consequences of having a liturgical form with such abundant choice is that it underscores that who has it – and who very much still does not.

      To be clear, I am not complaining of so-called optionitis in the way that’s become rote in traditionalist online discourse. But I am acknowledging that, as with many things, there’s a kernel of truth there that is in deep tension with other values pro-conciliar liturgical writers/practitioners often promote – but that the tension very much is largely ignored because it would be vexing to have to consider triaging values and effective implementations thereof. And that, to my mind, is the largely ignored Achilles’ Heel of where pro-conciliar liturgical folk find ourselves today.

      We should stop ignoring it or pretending it’s smaller than it really is.

      1. Great response Karl, but I think summed up, all this is seen by the people as the updated version (reformed version, if you will) of “pray, pay, and obey.”

      2. Week-late added thought to my comment above:

        Upon further reflection, it also occurs to me that the issue of choices may have a nexus with public or semi-public devotional life in the Church.

        In the preconciliar context, the liturgical choice spectrum was narrow compared to the post-conciliar context, but the opposite was often more true vice-versa. In the preconciliar context, it was the devotional side where laity might exercise some greater measure of choice.

        With the effective narrowing of that side after the council, out of an interest in promoting the liturgy as primary, it may be that a part of the laity may have experienced a net narrowing of agency/choice, and a certain energy arising from that has contributed to making this more vexed than it might otherwise have been.

  9. “…is still less than totally obedient to Vatican II”. I don’t think engaging in an activity that V2 did not foresee is in itself being disobedient. V2 probably didn’t foresee the widespread uptake of the vernacular (which IMHO is a good thing) but there we have it. The Missal is 1970 is certainly very interwoven with the Council itself, but still not on the same level. Trent, like V2, left the reform of the liturgy up to Rome. There were well meaning decisions made after Trent that were probably wrong then. The Reforms after V2 also are not infallible. Yes, they were made with a greater consultation of the worldwide bishops, and the very ones who actually attended the council so the Missal is very interrelated to the council. Yet, these Bishops were not acting as part of an ecumenical council. And the consultations were (necessarily) filtered through smaller committees led by Annibale Bugnini. I have no strong opinions on the man, but it is safe to say if Paul VI choose another prelate in Bugnini’s place, the reform would have looked at least somewhat different.

    One of the unintended consequence of the Liturgical movement and VII is that it opened up the possibility of widespread liturgical change and unfortunately it is very hard to put that genie back in the box.

    1. “And the consultations were (necessarily) filtered through smaller committees led by Annibale Bugnini. I have no strong opinions on the man, but it is safe to say if Paul VI choose another prelate in Bugnini’s place, the reform would have looked at least somewhat different.”

      This is what I was trying to say. The Missal of 1970 is only one possible reform of the Missal that could have came out of Vatican II. It is contingent. It could have been different. It could have been better. It could have been worse.

      But even the Bugnini Missal is not as big a problem as the execution of the NOM in the average parish. It is banal, casual, ugly, and uninteresting.

      I am convinced that of those who attend the TLM, most are not “attached” to the Missal of 1962. They want a Mass the is traditional, reverent, and beautiful. I don’t think they would be opposed to such a Mass being celebrated in the vernacular.

  10. People keep returning to the alleged fact that Vatican II never asked for/foresaw/desired whatever-it-is-that-they-don’t-agree-with.

    It all depends on how you define Vatican II. If you think of it merely as the actual years of the Council itself and the sixteen major documents, some of that may perhaps be true. But if you realize that Vatican II includes not just the years of the Council but the following time of immediate implementation, stretching into the next decade(s), along with the subsequent decrees and documents guiding the implementation, it becomes clear that “Vatican II” did in fact request/foresee/desire a lot of these things.

    Sacrosanctum Concilium may not have specified Mass facing the people, or the widespread use of the vernacular; but both of those things were specifically requested by the multitude of bishops around the world in the years immediately following. They saw these things happen ad experimentum and were impressed with the pastoral benefits they brought; and so they consistently and continually petitioned the Consilium to move forward and develop these things with some speed. All of this is well documented in Piero Marini’s A Challenging Reform (Liturgical Press, 2007).

    And the Consilium responded to the bishops’ requests. The much-maligned Archbishop Bugnini was not “wrecking the Church”. He was trying to accommodate all the requests that the world’s bishops were throwing at him.

    Taking up a different point, you can find many of the initial seeds of the Council’s renewed ecclesiology in Sacrosanctum Concilium. That first apostolic constitution was not just about reforming the liturgy but about reforming the Church’s total mindset. I recommend a reading of my NPM John XXIII Lecture First the Sacred Liturgy: Setting the Agenda for Council and Renewal (2012).

    1. Your comments helped me understand the issues and the history a little better.

      Concerning whether the Missal of 1970 is “a” possible form or “the” only form of the post-conciliar Liturgy, one can distinguish between:

      1. The Conciliar Documents themselves,
      2. Consilium Implementation Phase,
      3. The text of the 1970 Missal itself with the GIRM and the various nota, and
      4. The average experience of the Novos Ordo for the ordinary PiP.

      For example, is the number of Eucharistic Prayers and the norms concerning when they can be said explicitly stated in the Conciliar Documents or is this part of the “implementation phase”?

      Is it possible, in another possible world there could have been fifteen Eucharistic Prayers? An Episcopalian and a Methodist recently published a book claiming continuity with the principles of the Liturgical Movement where they composed a unique Eucharistic Prayer for every Sunday in the RCL. The downside of such a thing is that there is no stable form of comfortable words that the faithful would know by heart for their spiritual edification.

      In another possible world, there might have been a rubric that required EP 1 to be said at the principle mass on Sundays and Feasts days and EP 2 for secondary and tertiary masses on Sundays and daily masses, and EP 3 on certain specific days. Also, some EP’s have their own preface so they cannot be used in Masses that have their own prefaces. This is kind of inconsistant. I can imagine a possible world where no EP’s have their own preface, so that they could be used at any mass.

      As a member of the Byzantine Rite, I’m new at attending and following along with the Conciliar Mass. What really confuses me is how I am supposed to know which EP the priest is going to use so I can be on the right page. (I had to get the Missal from the library since none of the parish’s around me have missalets in the pews.) The Byzantine Rite has two EP’s and I know which one will be used every time. Do I ask the priest in the narthex before the Mass…

      1. Ryan,

        I would say don’t even try to follow along. Just listen. You don’t really need to know which EP is going to be used. Just let it happen.

        It has been noticeable how the spectrum of the different EPs has impacted people. Before the translation change in 2011, many had the words of Prayers II and III by heart in their heads. Many of those using the three EPs for Masses with Children could say the same.

        At the same time, the richness of some of the other texts (for example EP IV, though the re-translation has sucked some of the power out of it, or the Prayers for Reconciliation or those for Various Needs and Occasions) has provided people with much food for thought. The unexpectedness of less familiar phrases that touch the heart when heard is largely responsible for that. That’s another reason for letting the spoken text reach you without trying to read along at the same time.

        In an ideal world, the choice of EP would be dictated by the scriptures, and to a lesser degree the season or the day. Presiders still mostly aren’t doing that. Many use only III on Sundays, and II on weekdays (because it’s short), and not a lot else. I have seen liturgy planning guides in the past which recommended a particular EP for each particular day or occasion, but alas not recently.

        The re-translation has also affected praxis. Many presiders who formerly used I and IV have given up on them in their new versions. The EPs that have been the least adversely affected by the re-translation process appear to be those for Various Needs and Occasions. (And I do realize that VNO is basically just one EP with four sets of variants, but referring to it as four Prayers is a useful shorthand.)

    2. The problem is that much of what occurred at the parish and diocesan level is not in accord with what the Council legislated. The Council clearly said that steps are to be taken so that the people can say in Latin those parts of the ordinary of the mass which pertain to them. SC para. 54. And yet, how many of the people today can recite / sing the Creed in Latin? How about the Gloria? What concrete steps are being taken in your diocese to put SC para. 54 into force? The answer in my diocese is none. I would think that the answer would be the same for any part of the world. Even worse, if a parish priest or a bishop were to mandate the use of Latin for the Ordinary of the Mass for some period of time so that SC para. 54 could be carried out, he would probably be viewed as a dangerous reactionary rather than a loyal servant of the Council.

      The Council also made it clear that Gregorian Chant was to have pride of place in liturgical celebrations. Consistent with that request, in 1974 St. Paul VI published Jubilate Deo as a minimum repertoire of chant that the faithful should know. What percentage of the people in the diocese where you live actually know the Jubilate Deo chants? In mine, the number approaches zero. When was the last time the average Catholic parishioner was at a mass where the Te Deum was sung according to Jubilate Deo? When was the last time that such a parishioner was at a mass where the Jubilate Deo Credo was sung? In the last forty years, I think I have sung a Latin Creed maybe three times. And yet, according to Paul VI, I am supposed to know one as part of a minimum repertoire. But I don’t sing it on a regular basis, how can I know it?

      If we wish to have Sacrosanctum Concilium and the missal be the norm of the church, that is fine. But then it, all of it, should be the norm of the church. I find it difficult to critique those who want two Latin Confiteors in their mass, when they are denied even one.

      1. Dear Mr Kramer
        The matters you raise seem similar to those raised earlier in this thread by Ryan Close. The answer seem to be that provided by Paul Inwood on 29 July at 11.55 above.
        “Vatican II includes not just the years of the Council but the following time of immediate implementation, stretching into the next decade(s).”
        In substance it seems that Paul is saying that those paragraphs you refer to in the published edition of SC have since been abrogated. That was not by formal declaration but by consistent disregard of them by those at the Council and by those acting under their authority. SC was in this way revised.
        Thus the reintroduction of those practices would be seen as in opposition to the revised SC and so a rejection of the Council.
        Sincere apologies to Paul Inwood if I have misunderstood his argument and misrepresented his understanding. Clarity on this would be useful. There my be many who would support the original SC but not the revised SC. To describe such as rejecting the Council would be unfair: there is just a different understanding of which version of the Council is accepted.

      2. In substance it seems that Paul is saying that those paragraphs you refer to in the published edition of SC have since been abrogated. That was not by formal declaration but by consistent disregard of them by those at the Council and by those acting under their authority. SC was in this way revised.
        Thus the reintroduction of those practices would be seen as in opposition to the revised SC and so a rejection of the Council.

        Nothing in SC was abrogated. Superseded, yes. Similarly, SC was not revised, but the liturgical landscape developed after it was promulgated. That is not sinful; it is the way the Church grows. People did not disregard SC; they simply moved on from it. You cannot freeze the life of the Church at a particular moment in time.

        As I implied in my previous post, there is no point in bewailing the fact that the bishops of the world decided by a vast majority to move beyond the provisions of SC. We are now in a post-SC world, and appealing to various details of that document which have already been overtaken by subsequent developments does seem rather a waste of time.

      3. Thank you Paul for your prompt response. Between abrogate and supersede I will not quibble. Your explanation is helpful in its clarity. It took me a while to think through what you had written. It would be interesting if others were to indicate if they share or dispute your analysis.
        Good on you, Peter

      4. If completely disregarding parts of the council can he seen as moving beyond it, then why can’t the continued use of the old Mass not be seen as such? Particularly since virtually all celebrations of it are so strongly influenced by Vatican II.

      5. Picking up on Charles Kramer and Jack Wayne’s points:

        I think you are unfortunate to live in a parish where little or no Latin chant has been heard for 40 years. In this part of the world, Agnus XVIII, Sanctus XVIII, Kyrie XVI, Credo III, Veni Creator, Salve Regina, Pange lingua (Tantum ergo), Pater noster, etc, are all in regular use and known by the people. Even using them only a couple of times a year is enough to keep the memory alive.

        I don’t agree that parts of the Council were disregarded. For example, SC para 36 says, among other things, “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”. Note the first five words of that sentence. Particular law has changed.

        “But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.” And “it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used”.

        All of this is precisely what happened, in accordance with the Council’s directives and the bishops’ wishes. The use of the vernacular was extended, and bishops’ conferences did indeed decide the extent to which it could be used. The transformation from an all-Latin liturgy to a predominantly-vernacular liturgy was very rapid indeed — just a few years. In the British Isles, altar missals were produced in elegant loose-leaf binder format so that, as progressively more sections of the Mass went into the vernacular every few months, the old pages could be replaced by new ones.

        As far as continued use of the Tridentine Rite is concerned, it is clear that the Council wanted the rites to be revised; and so they were. I personally do not have an issue with small groups continuing with the preconciliar rite, as long as it is not used as a banner-waving exercise. Unfortunately, in many instances the preconciliar rite has been presented as superior, the only authentic rite, the “Mass of the Ages” (totally ignoring the changes that in fact took place over the centuries), etc; and post-conciliar Catholics have frequently been insulted. This is true not just in the US but in England and France. The lack of Christian charity over many years has been very marked.

      6. I think Paul Inwood’s response highlights one of the dynamics which makes talking about this topic challenging: there is a lot of local variation.

        For example, I am not aware that there is any parish in my diocese (and I’ve looked) that has the entire Ordinary of the Mass in Latin/Greek* predictably enough that the congregation knows it. (I’ve looked; my parish, which has some portions in Latin/Greek in Advent and Lent, seems to use it the most.)

        I would take the “particular law remaining in force…” to be non-contradictory to SC.54; the places where the vernacular can be used may be extended by the local authorities, but the minimum is that Latin should be used enough in the Ordinary for the congregation to be able to chant the Ordinary in Latin.

        *Latin/Greek because the Kyrie is part of the Common but is in Greek even in the Tridentine Mass.

      7. I would agree that it depends on where you live. I attended Mass in four different states growing up and never heard Latin aside for a soloist singing Ave Maria at my grandmother’s funeral in 1991. I was adult the first time I heard any real measure of Latin at Mass.

        As for the Latin Mass being used as a banner-waving exercise – why would anyone have expected anything different? For decades you had to struggle to attend a Latin Mass and justify it constantly to unsympathetic people itching to take it away or who chuckle at the thought of making you miserable (I’ve personally met such people). I know older people who arranged to have traditional requiems said for family members – complete with willing priests – for whom it was their mother or father’s dying wish be denied – and even then denied an OF funeral with the traditional chants, but they’re supposed to love the reform? That breeds an unhealthy attitude towards the liturgical reform. Now we will return to that situation wholeheartedly if Bishops adhere to the new directive. What happened to the folks at this North Carolina church was sad – but if you have sympathy for them and think their feelings are valid, but don’t have the same attitudes towards Latin Mass people who have often had similar or worse done to them, then I think there is a problem.

      8. I think that Paul is correct that the word “disregarded” was not right.
        What seems to have happened is that certain parts of SC have become meaningless and in that sense superseded as described by Paul.
        So 36.1 required Latin to be maintained as normal but allowed an exception. Now the exception is the norm
        54 required the faithful to know their part of the Mass in Latin (so confirming that 36.1 really was the norm) and then permitted wider (now it is universal) use of the vernacular such that the previous sentence is negated.
        This begs the question as to whether it is now permitted to maintain the use of Latin and to have the faithful say or sing their parts in Latin or is that contrary (in letter and in spirit) to Vatican II?
        It must be noted that the OF is offered in Latin with chant in Solesmes. Is that a rare permitted exception or a model that might be legitimately be followed? The fact that the concelebrated Mass in St Peter’s is Italian only suggests that Solesmes is the exception soon to be stopped.

      9. The normative mass (of Paul VI) may not be said / sung in Latin in most of America, but it certainly is in Europe. On any Sunday of the year, there are 5 or 6 London parishes where almost all of the mass is in Latin. A good number of papal masses, at least under popes Benedict XVI and Francis, have been done primarily in Latin, mostly because the congregation is international and multilingual. At the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston, parts of the mass are done in Greek or Latin with Gregorian chant — see http://holycrossboston.com and click on “Worship Guide”.

        I have been to a number of monasteries where the normative mass is regularly conducted in Latin; Ealing Abbey conducts Latin courses throughout the year for people who want to grow in the language. None of this involves the older form of mass.

        I am well aware that the practice I describe is scarce on the ground. My only point is that it does happen, often with large congregations who join enthusiastically in singing the Latin parts and responses. It could happen more often, and there’s nothing about it that is forbidden by or remotely contrary to the spirit of Vatican II, or to the liturgical reform that started many decades before that council. It’s pastorally appropriate, given the congregations involved.

        Even the Council of Trent was generous about combining Latin and the vernacular — the only practice they anathematized was the complete elimination of Latin.

  11. In the world here below, the reality of human nature matters. A leader who no longer commands respect, even though he has broken no law or rule, and who realizes that he can no longer lead, resigns. The same is true in the Church’s disciplinary law (things outside the Deposit of Faith). For instance, altar girls. Even though there was a prohibition, people in certain quarters (from bishops on down) simply ignored it. That prohibition no longer exists. We’ll do the same with TC. In fact, we’ll follow the example of the altar girl crowd. A certain stong-willed group will persevere. TC will go the way of the altar girl prohibition.

    1. I suspect you may be somewhat right. Of course, PF had little respect from the get-go from some groups. So it seems he could do nothing right at any rate.

      I had heard that it was progressives who were the disobedient ones from the 80s on. (And probably before.) What Pope Francis has repeatedly revealed is that virtue is not an exclusive quality of the Right, nor is it totally deep. And disobedience is not exclusive to the Left. All are sinners and fall short.

      1. Mr. Marchal:

        Your confusion arises from my poorly-written post. With the crisis of leadership example, I was trying explain my belief that the universality of human nature makes it possible to recognize situations that can’t be empirically documented, but nevertheless can be observed. They’re axiomatic (think postulants in geometry or St. Paul’s ‘evidence of things unseen’ or philosopher Mortimer Adler’s assertion that some things are ‘simply manifest’). For instance, a young teacher or second lieutenant who collects resentments from imagined slights, making healthy interactions with subordinates impossible. Using that kind of thinking, I think it impossible to erase the Traditional Latin Mass even over a generation, by fiat. There will be acrimony and instances of rank authoritarianism, but it won’t work.

        Why won’t it work? Again, the commonality of human nature across space and time. Regardless what claim about the times in which we live, that the old rite isn’t efficacious, the TLM causes a light to shine forth in my soul, calling me to higher things, just as it has over the centuries to other individuals. It will continue to do so. If a Palestrina motet or a Caravaggio painting can still be an inspiration in the post-modern atmosphere of the West, so can the TLM.

  12. Somewhat related, I wonder if there is possible space to move forward to make both those with traditionalist and progressive tendencies happier.
    The 1970 RM seems to imply that the EPII should not be used that frequently if at all during the normal Sunday celebration, but in practice this is the exact opposite. I suppose you could interpret this as the Spirit leading the way. Or you could rank this with the practice of going to the Tabernacle during communion instead of having everyone receive the Eucharist from the very mass it was consecrated at, a regrettable practice that exists mostly due to practical considerations.

    Traditionalists seem to really dislike EPII and some others take notice that the only the clergy are specifically singled out in one of its intercessions. If my perception of those on the more progressive end of the spectrum is correct, they have a strong affinity for the Prayer for Various Needs & Occasions which the the current rubrics imply it is not to be used on Sundays in OT . Since I suspect traditionalists would have less of a problem with VN&O, would it not make sense to remove EPII from the missal and replace it w/ VN&O?

    Perhaps specifically with the preface and variations limited to VN&O III and IV?

    1. Not sure why traditionalists would dislike EPII, inspired as it is by the anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition, also known as the anaphora of Hippolytus, predating the Roman Canon by at least 400 years. You can’t get much earlier than this text.

      In my experience, it is currently more used on weekdays than Sundays, except when the presider desires to save time after an over-long homily (!)

      1. I will forgive Maesro Inwood for confusing Catholics devoted to tradition with antiquarians in gratitude for his superb explanation a bit further up the page – I’ve never heard or read a better explanation of “the Spirit of the Council”! I cannot wait to share this with my students!

    2. I have to admit curiosity about the hand-wringing on EPs. In 30-plus years, I’ve never heard the RC neglected, I rarely hear II on Sunday (III is most popular during green Sundays), and most priests have a good sense of progressive solemnity and choose it over pragmatism. My new pastor has used IV a few times in 8 months and I’ve heard the VNO now and then.

      My subjective experience? Sure. All these parishes have hired a professional as a liturgist. They rarely ask me for my input on the choice, but intentionality about choosing prayers is a commonality.

      I think there are well-meaning and good priests for whom liturgy is not a priority. They don’t see the text of the prayer as important as getting in the consecration. That’s all that matters: the elements are transsubstantiated and the people are nourished, happy, paying customers. Seriously, liturgical patterns are set very early in a priest’s ministry, I’ve observed. They are influenced by three things: a priest mentor in a parish, what they are taught in seminary, and their early nervous experiences with presiding at Mass. Guys who are more at ease with liturgy have a wider range, and the others stick with what has worked for them, regardless if it works for others.

      Is it a problem? If so, it is one that can only be solved in two generations by sifting through seminaries and ejecting anyone without a liturgical sensibility. I don’t think we want that.

      1. “Seriously, liturgical patterns are set very early in a priest’s ministry, I’ve observed. They are influenced by three things: a priest mentor in a parish, what they are taught in seminary, and their early nervous experiences with presiding at Mass.”

        +1

      2. For me it is the opposite, when I attend the OF it is almost always EP II unless the priest is a more “reform of the reform” type. I hear the Roman Canon more than the other two EPs (I think I last heard IV fifteen or more years ago), but I suspect that is because I favor more traditional OF Masses. However, if it is an “average” church on an average Sunday, you can almost bet money EP II will be used.

    3. Putting on my traditionalists hat, the arguments against EPII are:
      1) the lack of sacrificial & other themes
      2) the prayer is just a new composition only mildly inspired by the anaphora of Hippolytus
      3) the shortness of the text compared to the importance of the EP within the Mass.
      4) the origin of the text as a rush job

      I confess to sharing most of these sentiments, but I am not a Roman Canon only person nor do I attend the TLM or would I attend it over the current missal. I have no issues with the other new compositions. I like EPIV the best.

      In experience, older priests tend to use EPII most frequently on Sundays (and this was true before the translation) with the younger priests using EPII/EPIII and a scattering of the others. Also progressive solemnity seems to be inverted. Easter Sunday, the Triduum and Christmas is the most popular time for EPII.

      I see a need for liturgical texts to be used often enough to seep into the heart but also recognize a certain amount of variety is needed to bring richness to the prayers and to keep the liturgy from becoming stale. Where the translators as of the 1998 Missal saw a greater need to add even greater variety and options, I see the greatest need as a pruning. Texts should be heard frequently enough to have some familiarity. And prefaces (and perhaps the orations) should not be heard only once a year. There are some prefaces like Palm Sunday that just occur once a year, while there are other prefaces such as those of Sundays III-V of Lent Year A that may only be heard every three years. I don’t know what the appropriate balance is between stability and variety.

      But I suspect if there is tp be a more varied use of the eucharistic prayers, then eliminating EPII would be the easiest way to encourage greater variety as the remaining texts are roughly similar in length and complexity.

      1. I could survive he suppression of EPII and the Memorial Acclamations. I admit my regard for EPII improved with the 2011 translation.

      2. I doubt MR4 will be suppressing texts.

        I used to think that bishops permitting a very limited number of local compositions (in all prayer forms, including a EP) might be a good development. I’m more on the fence about this now.

        I think more literary translations would help, but the moment may not be with us. Perhaps original compositions in non-European languages would help in the Third World. I’m not sure, but I think linguists, poets, and non-European theologians together might have a good answer.

        I think Roman compositions of whatever age are good for a Roman Church, but maybe not for a Catholic one.

  13. Depends on the traditionalist, many are Roman Canon only. The dislike of EPII has less to do with its content and more to do with is ubiquity and how it is favored over the Roman Canon.

    While I wouldn’t advocate for the suppression of the other EPs, I personally like EP I (Roman Canon) the best and think it is by far the richest of the EPs. Indeed, I think one of the only things I occasionally miss regularly about the Novus Ordo is not getting to hear such a profound prayer out loud. I liked EP I the best well before I had any idea that it was the “traditional” one, and it is the only one I have ever heard anyone else admire or quote from in real life. It’s nice to hear in this thread that some people find the others meaningful.

    1. Many liturgy folks express fondness for EP IV for Sundays of Ordinary Time. I can remember priests who diligently avoided having a set Sunday-to-Sunday choice, but instead actively chose from among the then-permitted options and neglected none of them.

  14. Mr. Flowerday,

    I agree with you entirely that one group or another has a corner on virtue or vice! Speaking of various groups is a useful shorthand on the surface, but it doesn’t begin to fathom the thoughts and behaviors of an individual member of a particular group. Someone who spent weeks fashioning a huge puppet for the Los Angles Education Conference or someone who spend seeks sewing a Roman chasuble are going to experience pretty much the same feeling of rejection when told that their offerings are no longer wanted. Same with a girl who is told she can no longer serve or a boy who is told that there is no use for his Latin responses.

    1. On the individual level, the pastoral approach is always best for the minister. And in the parish, the pastor. Delegating with trust seems to be a movement in the Pope Francis papacy. For that, I see TC as a step in the right direction. TLM communities everywhere will be impressed to cultivate good relations with the local bishop, rather than see themselves as faithful seeds in a universal church that has let them fly in the wind and land where they will. The Holy Father is far more traditional than that approach.

      As for North Carolina, Peter Jugis is a bishop very much aligned with traditional expressions. If people there are nervous, then this is about a lot more than liturgy.

Leave a Reply

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