An SSPX priest opines on whether TLM and Novus Ordo are really same Rite: I respond


Ecclesia Militans
, the blog of a firm adherent of the SSPX, has a piece by the SSPX Fr. Peter Scott (rector of the SSPX seminary in Australia) about the differences between the older form of Mass and the newer form. 

He picks up on the terminology of "ordinary" and "extraordinary" use of one Roman Rite.

His comments are interesting and thought provoking and must be treated with due respect.

Here is an excerpt.  He is talking about the fact that there is no problem with having more than one Rite.  My emphases and comments.

The multiplicity of different forms re-emerged, but much more radically, with the post-conciliar introduction of the novelties and continual changes of the New Mass. The confusion, loss of unity, desacralization is far worse than that involved in the slight variants of the middle ages. Moreover, it cannot be said that these are forms of the same Roman rite as the traditional Mass. [Pay attention: He is reacting to the provision in Summorum Pontificum that the Novus Ordo and the "Vetus Ordo" are two "uses" of the one and same Roman Rite.  He disagrees.  He is saying that they are different rites.] They are forms of the New Mass. However, to say that the New Mass and the traditional Mass are forms of the same Roman rite would mean to say that they are substantially identical, and that the differences are only accidental. To the contrary, some accidental aspects, such as appearances, are similar. The substance is entirely different, for the traditional Mass is a true, propitiatory sacrifice, the same sacrifice as the Cross offered in an unbloody way to expiate the crimes of sinners. The new Mass, to the contrary, is a banquet, a celebration of the community, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, an acknowledgement of Christ’s love for humanity. [I think he is wrong here.  The Novus Ordo also makes it sufficiently clear that what is taking place is the Sacrifice of Calvary.  However, he is putting his finger on an important point: the prayers of the Novus Ordo, even when they were taken from ancient sources or the more proximate source of the pre-Conciliar edition of the Missale Romanum, were systematically edited for content.  So-called "negative" concepts (emphases on the Four Last Things, guilt for sin, the claims of the Church about herself, etc. were edited out or softened.  In there place were inserted other kinds of ideas, in themselves perfectly find, but quite different, such as the need to perform good works as a consequence of receiving Communion, etc.  Shift the prayers, and you shift a great deal more in the Church!  So, he is one to something that quite a few people are really taking a hard look at.] The meaning of the gestures, symbols, ceremonies and prayers is radically different.

The only way to affirm that the New Mass is the ordinary form and the traditional Mass the extraordinary form is to pretend that there is no fundamental difference. It is to look at the exterior alone, to live in a fantasy world, [This is a bit too tendentious, I think.  But not unexpected considering who is talking.] and to pretend that the traditional Mass has none of the doctrinal depth and richness that distinguishes it from the New Mass. [And interesting approach, but not as effective as merely stating that the Novus Ordo simply doesn’t point us well-enough to an indispensable dimension of our Catholic faith and something we ignore at our peril.] This is likewise the only way to come up with the preposterous claim that the rite of Mass that has been used constantly in the Roman rite for more than 1500 years has all of a sudden become in some way “extraordinary”. The fact remains that they are two different rites, and that if one claims, as did Benedict XVI, that they should [should] “mutually enrich one another” is to transform the traditional Mass into an entirely new rite, the New Mass.  [No, that doesn’t at all follow.  The older form might slowly be transformed, but not into the Novus Ordo, "the New Mass", but rather something else, a "tertium quid".   Also, I am not sure about the "should" part.  I think it would be more accurate to say "will".   That influence is going on even now, like it or not.  It cannot be otherwise.]

Scott has several good points.  He rightly exposes that there are different emphases in the prayers of the two forms of Mass.  However, I think he slightly overstates his case by not allowing that the Novus Ordo also reveals internally that it too is the Sacrifice and not just Banquet. 

However, I think where he stumbles a bit, and this is important for all of us to understand, is that by stating in Summorum Pontificum that there are two uses of one Roman Rite, Benedict has made a juridical distinction.  This is critical to understand how Benedict derestricted the older form of Mass so elegantly. 

By saying that, considered juridically, there is only one Rite in two uses, Benedict eliminated the need to grant special faculties (canonical "permission to say Mass" coming from proper authority) to say the older Mass.  If a faculty can be given, it can be withheld or withdrawn.  By saying that there is just one rite, juridically, Benedict has seen to it that if a priest has the faculty to say Mass in the Roman Rite at all, then he has the faculty to say either Mass, the older or newer form or use.  This is a juridical distinction.  

Benedict is not, I believe, saying that there is no longer a question of whether or not the Novus Ordo is, considered historically, liturgically, theologically, etc., a different Rite.  This was an elegant juridical solution. 

I think the question remains open about whether or not the Novus Ordo is really a different rite.

Frankly, I think it probably is.  I think the changes made were different enough to constitute it as a different rite.  I frankly think that that is what Benedict XVI thinks too, based on what I have read and also knowing the great esteem and harmony he has with Klaus Gamber.

A lot more study of this needs to be done and I sincerely think the door is still open for that study.  The need is sure there!

That said, I thank His Holiness for the elegant juridical solution in Summorum Pontificum of considering there to be one Roman Rite, juridically considered.  

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to An SSPX priest opines on whether TLM and Novus Ordo are really same Rite: I respond

  1. Fr. Paul McDonald says:

    Yes, very good. *Juridically* –and this depends on the supreme law-giver– There is one Rite with two uses. (Is he playing on different meanings of the word “rite”, such as a ritual Church ?)

    But Monsignor Gamber rightly opined that here *are*, liturgically, liturgiologically, historicly two rites: Ritus Romanus and Ritus Modernus>

  2. wcy says:

    Fr. Z, I think you hit the nail square on the head on this one; “two uses of the same rite” is simply a juridical solution, not a factual statement. This juridical device in Canon Law is also present in civil/criminal law. It doesn’t mean the Holy Father is being dishonest in promulgating S.P., or that he has changed his mind since his election. It is just a juridical solution.

    I do not know how people can believe that a great intellectual who was at the heart of the Church as a Cardinal divorced himself from his thoughts and writings as a Pope.

  3. Chris says:

    Father Z — you are right on. If the Pope really has been influenced by Mons. Gamber’s writings — can we expect that the Pope believes that the now-ordinary may someday be the future-extraordinary/experimental? In any event, I think the SSPX priest is right that the “rites” — if not juridicially, but essentially — are different.

  4. Claud says:

    I’ve heard people make the analogy to the Byzantine Rite, and that seems pretty apt to me: 1 Byzantine Rite, but with several constituent liturgies: St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and in some places St. James.

  5. Piers-the-Ploughman says:

    Thank you so much for discussing the question of one rite vs two. It was really the one part of SP I found puzzling, that the TLM and NO are different variants of the same rite and I am glad to see others have the same question. I like your interpretation of all this, that you suspect the Holy Father understands the differences are likely sufficient to qualify for a separate rite but from a juridicial aspect is considering them to be the same Rite.

  6. Charles Robertson says:

    I think you are correct in your judgment that they are in fact separate rites. The new Eucharistic prayers for instance incorporate distinctly Antiochene features that simplyu were not historically part of the Roman Liturgy. I would perhaps go further and say that the missal of Paul VI is not the historical Roman liturgy — were I to very cheeky, I would say that it’s not the Roman Catholic Mass at all. I think therer really needs to be frank discussion of this issue, but first I would like to learn more about the older form of mass, that which could be called the Roman Catholic Mass without qualifications, and how to present its positive aspects without having to denigrate the newer form. Pax!

  7. Federico says:

    Words have technical meaning. We cannot interpret Church documents (particularly legal ones) by ascribing to them their common-place meaning.

    “Process”, “scandal”, “rite”, are all examples of words that must be interpreted in light of the proper canonical context. Whilst the most recent formal definition of rite appeared in the CCEO (canon 28), the definition reflects the Vatican II Decree on (Catholic) Eastern Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum) which itself links to an earlier canonical tradition.

    Nor can we deny that the Latin Church is a Church sui iuris. Until 2004 or 2005 (there is a right answer, I just don’t remember the exact year), the title “Patriarch of the Western Church” was one of the titles of the pope reported in the Annuario Pontificio. This was deleted not because of a change in ecclesiology or juridic understanding of the Church, but out of a concern for “ecumenism” vis-a-vis our Eastern Orthodox brothers (this seems odd to me, given that it is a title directly linked to canon 6 of Nicaea, which is not part of the disagreement — but never mind).

    Thus, given what the Church means by rite, there can be little question but that the two uses (and other uses such as the Ambrosian) are expressions of the same rite. The arguments presented are interesting but don’t seem to add up in the context of continuous canonical tradition.

    I wrote more extensively on this here, back in August.

  8. Angelo says:

    That the Extraordinary & the Ordinary are an expression of
    the same Roman Rite is not tenable. Please allow me to quote
    Fr Joseph Gelineau, S.J., Demain la Liturgie, 1976 (p. 10):
    “Let those who like myself have known & sung a Latin-Gregorian
    High Mass (Extraordinary) remember it if they can. Let them
    compare it with the Mass (Ordinary)that we now have. Not only
    the words, the melodies and some of the gestures are different.
    To tell the truth, it is a diferent liturgy of the Mass (c’est
    une autre liturgie de la messe). This needs to be said without
    ambiguity: the Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists (le
    rite romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’esiste plus). It has
    been destroyed. (Il est detruit). Some walls of the former edifice
    have fallen while others have changed their appearance, to the
    extent that it appears today either as a ruin or the partial
    structure of a different building.” Demain La Liturgie (Paris,
    1976)

  9. Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R. says:

    Fr Z thank you for your clarifying point regarding Benedict making a juridical distinction of rites. It was a point of confusion for me.

    While it is clear that much of the ordinary form is taken form the extraordinary form, it is also clear that they are two different rites. The ordinary form is not an organic development of the extraordinary form, but a completely new rite that uses many of the same prayers. However, it has retained little of the ceremony and added a large amount of new material (new in the sense that it was not part of the TLM).

    Although the Ordinary Form is a different rite, that does not mean that it is any less the Sacrifice of Calvary offered in an unbloody manner than the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom or the Holy Qurbana or any other Rite of the Eucharist. Nor does it mean that it is invalid. While there is a greater emphasis on the banquet aspect of the new rite, that aspect was also present in the TLM. The altar rail was often referred to as the Lord’s table where He fed us with His Body and Blood. The great antiphon O Sacrum Convivium also refers to the Mass as a banquet.

    It is not a question so much of the emphasis of a particular rite, but rather what the Church intends in the celebration of that rite, whether old or new. If a validly ordained priest, acting with the intention of the Church and using valid matter and form, celebrates according to any valid rite, then the Sacrament is confected and the sacrifice is offered.

    I have not yet celebrated the Traditional Latin Mass, though I hope to do so soon. I am grateful to the Holy Father that I may licitly do so. But, I am also grateful to be able to celebrate devoutly and reverently in the Ordinary Form. I do not, at this time, see myself celebrating one or the other exclusively, but rather responding to the needs of the people God sends me to serve. If I had any doubts about the Ordinary Form I would forgo it entirely, but I do not. I do have issues with the English translation and the way many priests celebrate it. I hope the wider use of the TLM will correct this.

  10. Andrew says:

    Would it be an oversimplification to say that a “rite” is not much more than a “custom” or a “usage” that exists in a given religious ceremony?

    If that is true then a question can be asked: Is an English Novus Ordo Mass representative of the Roman rite? I would say that it is, even beyond the merely juridical consideration, simply because its intent is to represent the roman rite. As if one was to dub Gone With The Wind into say Japanese. It would still be Gone With The Wind. Even if one was to insert some additional material that never existed in the original movie, played by Japonese actors. Now, if one was to insert more and more new material, at some point it would no longer be Gone With The Wind. Right?

  11. BK says:

    Comment by Fr. Z.: “By saying that there is just one rite, juridically, Benedict has seen to it that if a priest has the faculty to say Mass in the Roman Rite at all, then he has the faculty to say either Mass, the older or newer form or use. This is a juridical distinction. “

    Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, in his September 14th interview, seemed to be emphasizing this very point:

    “the Code of Canon Law says who must give permission to say Mass and it is not the bishop: the bishop gives the “celebret”, the power to be able to celebrate, but when a priest has this power, it is the parish priest and the chaplain who must grant the altar to celebrate.”

    What the Pope and Cardinal Hoyos appear to be saying is that, after granting the celebret the bishop cannot make any distinction whatsoever between the “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” forms, and therefore their restrictive guidelines are already null and void.

    Fr. Z., do you think Ecclesia Dei will enlarge on this point when they clarify Summorum Pontificum?

  12. Andrew: You raise an interesting point about “translation”, given how awful the English was. However, let’s not take this down the road of “translations”. Let’s just stick to the discussion of the norm, which is the Latin form, the editions of 1969/70, 1975, 2002 as compared with 1962.

    PS: I always watch films in the original language, not dubbed. But, PLEASE people, let’s save translation questions for another entry.

    Again, were the changes to the Missal, in the prayers and in the structure, so great as to constitute a different rite? I think so. I think that can be defended.

    However, there are some who argue the opposite position, namely, that the changes were >i>not so great as to constitute a different rite; that the Novus Ordo is continuous with the older form. These are smart people and they make arguments.

  13. Federico says:

    Ritus est patrimonium liturgicum, theologicum, spirituale et disciplinare cultura ac rerum adiunctis historiae populorum distinctum, quod modo fidei vivendae uniuscuiusque Ecclesiae sui iuris proprio exprimitur.

    I’m sorry, I may be too thick and too legalistic get the arguments. Still, I just don’t understand how it can be argued that the NO established a new rite. Are we suggesting the Latin Church somehow split, or that the NO is not part of Her patrimony?

    If so, to what patrimony does it belong?

    I am genuinely not trying to be pedantic or difficult, I’m honestly struggling to see the two sides of this argument.

    I apologize if I’m seeming uncharitable.

  14. Dob says:

    Fr. Z. I can’t quite believe my eyes when I read your comments. This whole issue has been breaking my heart. It is such relief to have what I know to be true spoken. I cannot but state that the more I attend one form the more bitter the other becomes.

  15. Kate Asjes says:

    I am happy to see the issue of *intent* brought up. Our family has attended more wacky Masses than we care to remember. It is a point of great consolation to us that our God still brings us to the foot of Calvary at Mass, even when the priest blows bubbles with a little plastic thingy during the homily…

    I have often contemplated that Our Lord’s suffering in the ignored/hidden Tabernacles of today, and the ignominy he endures on the altar at a clown Mass might actually be worse than his physical suffering on the cross. He knew what He was doing when He entrusted Himself to mere men. And He did it anyway. Even the most carefully celebrated Mass of the SSPX is still not really perfect enough for God (though far better than what Fr. Pat puts out at a NO Mass), because even SSPX priests are not sinless. Right?

  16. Mike in NC says:

    By employing a juridical method and by decreeing that there are two forms, is it proper to make one or the other preferred? Others have commented that the terms \’ordinary\’ and \’extraordinary\’ do not by themselves express or imply a preference or cardinal numbering. Is this true?

    It occurred to me after the release of Summorum Pontificum, that just as the 1962 Missal is an option, from now on the 1969/1970 Missal is an option.

  17. Henry Edwards says:

    Mike: Others have commented that the terms ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ do not by themselves express or imply a preference or cardinal numbering.

    On the other hand, someone has asked, “Who would want to be merely ‘ordinary’ if he could be ‘extraordinary’?”

  18. fxavier says:

    Fr. Peter Scott said:
    The substance is entirely different, for the traditional Mass is a true, propitiatory sacrifice, the same sacrifice as the Cross offered in an unbloody way to expiate the
    crimes of sinners. The new Mass, to the contrary, is a banquet, a celebration of the community, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, an acknowledgement of Christ’s love for humanity.

    He seems to be implying that because the “substance” is oriented towards celebration, that the intent of the church is celebration and not sacrifice, therefore rendering the Mass invalid. That’s a bit troubling. Sure, latrian and trinitarian aspects are reduced, as is veneration of the Saints, but the “substance” of the prayers still effects transubstantiation.

    Fr. Peter Scott said:
    The only way to affirm that the New Mass is the ordinary form and the traditional Mass the extraordinary form is to pretend that there is no fundamental difference.

    Fr. Z., I think he’s trying to say “juridical solution” and “legal fiction” here.

    Claud: Yes and no. The Byzantine Rite uses all stem from the same ancient source. That is not so between the TLM and the Novus Ordo.

    The Traditional Latin Rite has other uses, many of them suppressed at this point, and others abandoned. Pick any city in Europe, and it probably had a Missal that is a use of the Roman Traditional Missal. Differences were minor, usually in the private prayers said at Mass.

    Mike: Perhaps there is no preference juridically, but the point of S.P. is that individuals may make a preference. “Vote with your feet,” I think, is one of the slogans here.

    Federico said:
    I’m sorry, I may be too thick and too legalistic get the arguments. Still, I just don’t understand how it can be argued that the NO established a new rite. Are we suggesting the Latin Church somehow split, or that the NO is not part of Her patrimony?

    Extremes can be pretty useful to illustrate a point. While it may be unimaginable that Rome would promulgate the following, it is imaginable that some priest within the last 2000 (and very likely 40) years did something like it.

    Imagine a liturgy at its barest, all parts fixed. It has a very minimal (maybe even only 1 sentence) of: Gospel, offering, epiclesis, consecration of the bread, consecration of the wine, eucharistic prayer, consummation by the priest, and “Ite, missa est.” In effect, a 5 minute Mass. Such a liturgy is valid, and also licit if promulgated. But it is almost entirely divorced from the Apostolic Tradition of the Church, except in its validity. It breaks the maxim of “lex orandi, lex credendi”, and people would leave the Church in droves. It would be entirely scandalous, to God and to the people, despite being valid and licit.

    As Cardinal, Ratzinger said that there is a Mass of Paul VI, but no such thing as a Mass of John XXIII, Pius X, Pius V, or even Gregory. No Pope ever wrote a Mass, with the exception of Paul VI being the first.

    I would suggest The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr. Klaus Gamber, preeminent liturgical historian (who I’ve heard indexed the liturgical collection in the Secret Archives.) Check http://booksforcatholics.com/ .

  19. Anna says:

    Thank you, Fr. Z., and Fr. Scott, for bringing up this “elephant in the room”. I have a side-by-side comparison of the two “uses”, and they are too dissimilar to be given equal status.

  20. Fr. Z’s points are well taken. I am grateful that the Holy Father has taken this brave step. It is really only the beginning of the reform of the reform. Some people are rejoicing, others are angry and many don’t even know what has happened. In the long run, this will force the whole Church to reflect on where we came from, where we are now and where we should be in the future.

  21. Mike in NC says:

    fxavier typed:

    Fr. Peter Scott said:
    The substance is entirely different, for the traditional Mass is a true, propitiatory sacrifice, the same sacrifice as the Cross offered in an unbloody way to expiate the crimes of sinners. The new Mass, to the contrary, is a banquet, a celebration of the community, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, an acknowledgement of Christ’s love for humanity.

    He seems to be implying that because the “substance” is oriented towards celebration, that the intent of the church is celebration and not sacrifice, therefore rendering the Mass invalid. That’s a bit troubling. Sure, latrian and trinitarian aspects are reduced, as is veneration of the Saints, but the “substance” of the prayers still effects transubstantiation.

    Your ‘because . . . therefore’ does not follow. Fr Scott’s comments are about the distinction between the juridical declaration of ‘two forms or usages, one rite’ (in the motu proprio itself) and, I think, the statement

    There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.

    (from the Letter to the bishops accompanying the motu proprio). I do not know how it is possible to say that there was ‘growth and progress, but no rupture’ between the 1962 and 1969/1970 Missals.

  22. Tinlin says:

    I don’t mean to go off topic, but I will

    When people read the text of the Novus Ordo or the TLM I think they take it for granted that people can understand either of them, solely on the basis of the text, as

    “a true, propitiatory sacrifice, the same sacrifice as the Cross offered in an unbloody way to expiate the crimes of sinners.”

    As an RCIA grad I know that me and my fellow catechumens would be hard pressed to come to that conclusion, for either the Novus Ordo or TLM, without any help.

    I suppose my point is that the problem is not the text of the Mass itself, but how one refers to the Mass.

  23. Mrs. P says:

    Thank you Fr. Z! You have been such a help with your clear writings! :)

  24. You have made an excellent point here, Father, and yet you understand Father Scott’s point of view as nothing to just blithely dismiss. Having experienced the horrific and scariligious things that take place at some Novus Ordo Masses (and nothing has ever been done to stop this anarchy), it is no wonder that one can so easily say that the Novus Ordo is a different rite intirely. Kudos to Pope Benedict. What a pleasure to have a brilliant mind in the Papacy these days. Ad plurimos annos, Sancte Pater!

    William A. Torchia, Esquire

  25. Charles says:

    Would it be an oversimplification to say that a “rite” is not much more than a “custom” or a “usage” that exists in a given religious ceremony?

    If that is true then a question can be asked: Is an English Novus Ordo Mass representative of the Roman rite? I would say that it is, even beyond the merely juridical consideration, simply because its intent is to represent the roman rite. As if one was to dub Gone With The Wind into say Japanese. It would still be Gone With The Wind. Even if one was to insert some additional material that never existed in the original movie, played by Japonese actors. Now, if one was to insert more and more new material, at some point it would no longer be Gone With The Wind. Right?

    By this logic, the Byzantine rite=the Roman rite=the chaldean rite etc.

  26. xathar says:

    Maybe I’m naive here, but isn’t the law supposed to conform to reality (particularly so, canon law)? If, according to the law, there is one one rite of two usages, then this is the case. Period. This is much like how, in Canon Law, if a priest does not get delegation from a pastor to perform a marriage, the marriage is invalid. Yes, a consent took place, but the law states that the marriage did not. In both this case and that of the MP, the law determines reality.

  27. Malta says:

    Fr. Z,

    Your intellectual honesty in posting Fr. Scott\’s piece, as well as your great comments after should be commended. I thought this was the most percipient portion:

    \”However, to say that the New Mass and the traditional Mass are forms of the same Roman rite would mean to say that they are substantially identical, and that the differences are only accidental. To the contrary, some accidental aspects, such as appearances, are similar. The substance is entirely different, for the traditional Mass is a true, propitiatory sacrifice, the same sacrifice as the Cross offered in an unbloody way to expiate the crimes of sinners. The new Mass, to the contrary, is a banquet, a celebration of the community, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, an acknowledgement of Christ’s love for humanity.\”

    Whether that is true in fact, it is true in practice. I have been to innumerable NO masses where the community aspect is amplified by tens above the Sacrificial aspect (if it is even present). The Bugnini mass by its very nature is meant to appeal to protestants–those who broke from Rome–whereas the TLM is a continuation of the mass as it has existed since the very earliest days of Christianity. Of course there is going to be a sea change between a novelty created in a liturgical think-tank (with protestant \”advisors\” ever present) and a mass which organically developed over 1,600 years.

  28. danphunter1 says:

    Malta,
    I find it ironic that it is precisely the Sacrificial beauty and awe of the Tridentine Mass that is attracting many Protestants to the Church.
    There is such a visible emptiness to protestant services and most novus ordo masses that protestants are finding meaning in the Tridentine Mass that fully usurps the blankness of substitutes.
    I certainly cannot bring myself to believe that the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and Father Bugnini could have been so decieved that they thought by stripping the Holy Sacrifice of its numerous Sacrificial aspects and only leaving a remnant, that this would be attractive to Protestants, for it most assuredly is not.

  29. Malta says:

    danphunter1,

    That is a great point. Although it is impossible to transport ourselves into the milieu of those alive in 1965, we can say with some certainty that they lived in a false “peace-and-love” mentality, especially coming on the heels of fascism and WWII. Many in those days thought we were living in a new flowering of humanity, and that the Church could make extremely well with the world.

    New horrors have now presented themselves, and the idea of Vatican II of a shangrii la world of world-Catholicism have proven themselves false. It’s not that VII is “false” or evil or untrue, it is, however, true that VII is a too-optimistic pastoral council, which is now passe. We can rightly move beyond the pastoral precepts of VII, now, since she proclaimed no new dogma.

    But VII shouldn’t be solely accused of the problems in the Church, since the modernist trajectory was well on its way years before VII…

  30. fxavier says:

    Mike in NC: I didn’t cover all my bases here. Perhaps Fr. Scott considers the Novus Ordo valid, but I was latching on the statements I’ve often heard from SSPX members that the N.O. sacrifice is not valid.

    Every transubstantiation is a sacrifice, whether it be Traditional Roman, Novus Ordo, Byzantine, etc. To say that the "substance" is not "sacrifice" is to say that it is not "transubstantiation"

    At to the line from the explanatory letter:

    There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.

    As a side note to start, in Salt of the Earth, he says (and I’m heavily paraphrasing here, because I don’t have the book and haven’t looked at it in 2 years) that "progress" is not the human reality. He is making a nod to the "progressivists" (read: liberals), speaking in their language. But, he says, humanity goes up and down, societies and civilizations go up and down, even though it looks like the sum today is progress. Progressivists (bishops, priests, Sr. Chittister, NCReporter) would say that human civilizations always progress, so that we have an understanding of "women priests", etc., now. But Catholic Truth holds otherwise. It was given once and for all.

    1) The Holy Father cannot say: "The 1962 is traditional and the 1970 is a (complete / partial) rupture." That would cause total rejection and maybe even some schisms. His language must be conciliatory to the progressivists. (sorry for the bad pun.)

    The Novus Ordo is not a complete rupture, because that would mean all instances of it would be invalid. At the last N.O. Mass I went to, the priest still said "This is My Body."

    Right from the election, the Holy Father has made many efforts to make it apparent to people that there is no rupture between himself, JP2, and Paul VI. For example, look at the crosier he holds. It is a concept he abhors. However, we are seeing many signs that he is a “restorationist”.

    2) Note that the Holy Father does not positively say that the 1970 is an "organic growth" from previous tradition. A curious point, because "organic" is also V2 lingo. This would be a necessary exercise, if he really did think it was an organic growth. Not being an organic growth implies a partial rupture.

    While he traces the ancient roots of the 1962 Missal, he makes no attempt with the 1970 Missal.

    In the Motu Proprio itself, he says:

    In more recent times, Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and ***partly*** renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church.

    I’ll be among the first to admit that Bugnini, et al, used early sources as their framework, along with original (1960’s "original") compositions. But they whitewashed the historic texts, stripping them of any mention of sacrifice, damnation, etc. That is why Benedict said "partly renewed".

    Also, "partly" may imply a renewal that wasn’t carried out correctly.

    Furthermore, "partly" may have been used because true "renewal" must occur in the V2 mandated context of "organic."

    3) Finally, there is "no contradition". First, note that the Church is not adverse to several rites and uses in a locality. Look at the Mozarabs and Ambrosians, for example, and also to the religious groups.

    Contradiction would only happen if the Novus Ordo could not be construed in a totally orthodox theological interpretation. The logic doesn’t follow that because the 1962 is "traditional" and the 1970 is "Paul VI" that both are therefore contradictory.

    St. John Cantius, as well as many parishes where the 1962 Mass is celebrated, are examples of this non-contradiction. The N.O. Masses there are sane.

    However, the reality is, contradictions do arise where the Novus Ordo is celebrated "creatively".

    All in all, I think that the language of the MP and letter are very well thought out. Many, including liberal clerics, are not familiar with Benedict’s writings. In the end, they must be read in the light of Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings to comprehend them fully.

  31. Mike in NC says:

    fxavier:

    Thank you for the thought you’ve put into addressing my comments.

    If I understand you correctly, Pope Benedict is saying that the 1969/1970 Missal is not a rupture because its use validly confects the sacrament and the Missal is capable of ‘a totally orthodox theological interpretation’. He is not saying that there was no rupture despite a break in organic development between the 1962 and 1969/1970 Missals.

    I also thank you for pointing out some things which the Pope has not said or discussed in the motu proprio and the accompanying letter.

    BTW, I read Michael Davies’ I Am with You Always when it first came out, and it answered what few questions I had about whether the Mass according to the 1969/1970 Missal was valid. What I have read (years ago) of HH’s writings before his election lead me to think that he does believe there was a break in organic development with the 1969/1970 Missal.

  32. fxavier says:

    xathur wrote:
    If, according to the law, there is one one rite of two usages, then this is the case. Period.

    And if tomorrow, the Holy Father says, “as a matter of law, they are two separate rites”, has reality changed? Has an immutable law become mutable?

    xathur wrote:
    Maybe I’m naive here, but isn’t the law supposed to conform to reality (particularly so, canon law)?

    "Law" conforms to "reality" in as much as it reflects "Eternal Law". Man participates in Eternal Law by constantly conforming Human Law (Civil and Canon) to Divine Law and Natural Law. A perfectly just society is one where Human Law conforms to Divine and Natural Law, but then, this would also be a society of angels, not men. Because of free will and original sin, this "conforming" is not always perfect. The end of Human Law, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, is Salvation itself. To this end, not all crimes are punished (i.e. stealing a penny), some laws may even be contrary to Natural Law, and others aren’t relevant to Natural Law. Some laws may even embody "legal fiction", a law giving juridical weight to a fact that may not be true, often done to avoid more complicated procedures or questions. In general, human laws aren’t perfect, and if they were written to be perfect by presupposing everyone was an angel, we’d all be in trouble. Look at the article on bigamy for an example of a legal fiction in Canon Law: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02561a.htm .

    Canon Law is Ecclesiastical Law is Human Law. There is no expectation of a perfect reflection of reality.

    xathur wrote:
    If, according to the law, there is one one rite of two usages, then this is the case. Period.

    Yes, if the Holy Father had authority beyond the scope of Ecclesiastical Law. That is, if he could change how we define common words (such as “rite”, and “usage”), and if he could change history. (This is not to say that the Holy Father could not define legal terms of art.) But even without those superpowers, Canon Law could easily declare: A) that there is a pink elephant in the Sistine Chapel, and B) the N.O. and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom are two usages of the same rite. (Not likely to happen though!)

    That aside, a declaration in law is not necessarily factual. It may be done to shape policy and perceptions, or to give rise to rights, privileges, and duties.

    xathur wrote:
    This is much like how, in Canon Law, if a priest does not get delegation from a pastor to perform a marriage, the marriage is invalid. Yes, a consent took place, but the law states that the marriage did not. In both this case and that of the MP, the law determines reality.

    This is like comparing apples to oranges. One ("marriage") is a matter of Faith and Morals, the other (historical and linguistic construction) is not. The Holy Father does not mean to say, "as a matter of Faith and Morals, all Catholics must hold, subject to the penalty of excommunication (got to throw a little kicker in there), that the 1962 and 1970 Missals are two uses of the same rite."

  33. fxavier says:

    Just a late night thought:

    The *Motu Proprio* rights, duties, and privileges are meant for *all Catholics*.

    The *language* was meant for (progressive) *liberal consumption*.

    (Doesn’t “Missal of John XXIII” sound silly otherwise? Benedict is a genius.)

  34. Greg Smisek says:

    Many have called Cardinal Ratzinger as a witness for discontinuity between the usus antiquior and usus recentior.

    But one can also call him as a witness to the still deeper continuity between them. fxavier quotes the motu proprio on this but then proceeds to explain this away. In Feast of Faith (prior to the 1984 indult), Cardinal Ratzinger said the following:

    \”Fundamentally, the Council sees itself as continuing and deepening the work of earlier councils, in particular those of Trent and Vatican I. … [W]hat we have is a renewed expression of the one faith, not a change in faith. … All the same I must admit that in the wake of the Council a lot of things happened far too quickly and abruptly, with the result that many of the faithful could not see the inner continuity with what had gone before.\” (p. 83)

    \”[T]he way in which the renewed Missal was presented is open to much criticism… [W]ith all its advantages, the new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth process.\” (86)

    \”Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on the weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than with that of continuity within a single liturgical history. In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer.\” (p. 87)

  35. xathar says:

    fxavier,

    Well, I’m no lawyer (thank goodness), so I admit my understanding of law may not be perfect, but I have to ask:
    1. You state, “Yes, if the Holy Father had authority beyond the scope of Ecclesiastical Law.” Doesn’t he, though? After all, we’re not dealing with a legislative body voted in by the populus — we’re talking about the Vicar of Christ on Earth who has the power to bind and loose, teach infallibly, and can, in fact, with a few simple words change reality: see the consecration at Mass.

    2. You don’t like my marriage vs. MP comparison because the former is “faith and morals” and the latter is purely law. The validity of a marriage dependent upon the priest/celebrant having obtained delegation is not a matter of faith and morals. If this were the case, then anytime prior to the advent of this or similar canons, most marriages were invalid. No, the validity of a sacrament here is entirely dependent upon law. In other words, the law determines reality. I would hold that here, in the case of the MP, the law does the same with regard to the “one rite, two forms” rule. To write off this distinction as a “legal fiction” because it doesn’t agree with one’s own personal liturgical philosophy is a bit presumptuous, in my opinion.

    Thanks.

  36. Anthony says:

    Why does S.P. use the term ‘form’ to refer to the two Masses? Anyone who has studied liturgy in any detail knows that this term has no precedence. Liturgical ‘sub-rites’ such as the Sarum liturgy in England and those of the various religious orders have always been referred to as ‘uses’ by liturgical scholars. It is a common mistake to refer to them as separate rites, as Fr. Scott does here. S.P. does not make this mistake, but it does introduce this novel term ‘form’. But why? I don’t see any sense in it. Enough discontinuity, novelty and confusion abounds already in liturgical circles, and S.P. is an attempt to curb some of that. So why introduce of yet another new term and thus contribute to the confusion?

  37. fxavier says:

    xathar,

    The Holy Father’s authority in Ecclesiastical Law is limited by Divine Law. What he can bind and loose are those things which pertain to faith and morals and its discipline. So marriage is a good example. Legislating our rights, duties, and privileges in the Church in terms of Liturgy is another. Telling us what is part of our faith is part of this. But telling us what to think historically and academically is clearly not. Otherwise, the Pope would be Emperor over all the Earth.

    I’m straying off topic, so I’ll leave it at that.

  38. Somerset '76 says:

    One other thing to note here: While obviously in good standing with his superiors in the SSPX, Fr. Scott takes a consistently harder line towards post-Vatican II issues and developments than do most of his confreres who have been in public prominence. If one reads through his archive of Holy Cross Seminary newsletters, one will find lines more rigidly drawn even than that of Bishop Williamson on these topics.

    Those not familiar with the SSPX milieu might be interested in the fact that Fr. Scott, ordained in 1988, previously served a 12-year tenure as the Society’s District Superior in the U.S. (1990-2002), the whole time during which Bp. Williamson was rector of their North American seminary in Winona, Minn. (a 20-year tenure ending in 2003). This will explain why, for example, the SSPX U.S. District Web site [ http://www.sspx.org ] takes more forcefully-worded positions than those heard from Superior General Bp. Fellay in recent years: most of that material was written under Fr. Scott’s tenure, and indeed much of it by himself personally.

  39. Somerset '76 says:

    P.S. Those ready to dismiss Fr. Scott and confreres as “crackpots” at the drop of a hat might do well not to move so fast. The question of a reconciliation between the SSPX and the Holy See is not merely a juridical one, and it doesn’t stop at theology either. The SSPX has, both by dint of circumstance as well as deliberate action, developed an internal subculture that must be carefully considered, regardless of what one may think or feel about its particulars. And it is in the context of that subculture that one must understand Fr. Scott’s hard line, or Bishop Williamson’s old-school mindset on social, political, and cultural topics, or any number of such things local to each country the Society serves.

    I was involved with the SSPX for 20 years (including four as one of its seminarians) and can say without hesitation: that there won’t be an effective regularization of the Society without addressing the underlying theological issues and the subculture that has emerged from holding their positions in a mindframe of resistance to trends in both Church and world society alike.

  40. fxavier says:

    Mr. Smisek wrote:
    Many have called Cardinal Ratzinger as a witness for discontinuity between the usus antiquior and usus recentior.

    For good reason. See below.

    Mr. Smisek wrote:
    But one can also call him as a witness to the still deeper continuity between them. fxavier quotes the motu proprio on this but then proceeds to explain this away. In Feast of Faith (prior to the 1984 indult), Cardinal Ratzinger said the following:

    and his quote from Ratzinger’s Feast of Faith:
    In my view, *****a new edition***** [My emphasis.] will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer.” (p. 87)

    Why does a new edition need to be promulgated? No one doubts the possible enrichment gained by adding new and ancient prefaces and collects. Ratzinger wasn’t saying that there’s a continuity, but that a "Reform of the Reform" has to occur. My intent in this conversation is to point out Ratzinger’s thoughts.

    continuation of Mr. Smisek’s quote:
    “Fundamentally, the Council sees itself as continuing and deepening the work of earlier councils, in particular those of Trent and Vatican I. … [W]hat we have is a renewed expression of the one faith, not a change in faith. … All the same I must admit that in the wake of the Council a lot of things happened far too quickly and abruptly, with the result that many of the faithful could not see the inner continuity with what had gone before.” (p. 83)

    Also, you must separate the issues of "What V2 asked for" and "What Paul VI gave us". They can be two totally similar things, and two totally separate things. Yes, V2 gave a "renewed expression of the one faith." But, *****afterwards***** things "happened far too quickly and abruptly", essentially a discontinuity.

    A reading of V2’s Sacrosanctum Concilium (which liberals hate to directly quote) will shed light on this.

    Finally, please allow me to quote Ratzinger:

    What happened *****after***** the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.
    -Ratzinger’s Preface to Gamber’s Reform of the Roman Liturgy

    But I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal… Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries.  Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. *****There is no such thing as a "Missal of Pius V", created by Pius V himself.*****
    … In this case we cannot speak of the prohibition of a previous missal that had formerly been approved as valid. The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
    … But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision. From this it also follows that we are not to recognise the scholars and the central authority alone as decision makers, but that in the end each and every "community" must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life.
    -Ratzinger, Milestones, starting at p. 146

    I hope these quotes shed some light on the Motu Proprio.

  41. Matthew Robinson says:

    I remember from my liturgy courses that a Rite is defined by its Anaphora. Since the multiple Anaphora of the New Rite(s) are so radically different from the Roman liturgy, there is no question that say that Mass with EPII is a completely different Rite.

    Even EPI has been altered in its content, and in the ceremonies surrounding it, to constitute a radical change, but perhaps in the case where EPI is used, it may be said that it remains a “different use” of the Roman Rite.

    One could argue, say back in 1975, that much of the general culture of the Roman Rite remained implicitly present in Catholic parish life, but in 2007 this would be a stretch. We have effectively instructed two or three generations in a very Protestant understanding of liturgy, so the old superstructure of Roman piety is nolonger there to attenuate the deviations present in the New Mass.

    I also get irritated at the overuse of the term “Eucharist”. Since this modern usage evolved out of an Ecumenical effort to get around having to use “the Blessed Sacrament”, or “Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar” or any other Traditional Catholic term. “Eucharist” has become a euphemism for “fill in whatever ecumenically-friendly idea you have” into the meaning of this strange Greek term.

  42. Jordan Potter says:

    fxavier said: The Holy Father does not mean to say, “as a matter of Faith and Morals, all Catholics must hold, subject to the penalty of excommunication (got to throw a little kicker in there), that the 1962 and 1970 Missals are two uses of the same rite.”

    No, it’s not subject to the penalty of excommunication. It is, however, a matter of Church law that the post-Vatican II Missal is the Roman Rite, and that the ordinary form and extraordinary form are two uses of one Roman Rite, not two separate rites. That’s inarguable — for if they were separate rites, then Latin Rite priests would have no right to celebrate the pre-Vatican II Mass without an indult. The Pope has decreed that no indlut is needed, because all Latin Rite priests in good standing have a right to celebrate the sacraments of the Roman Rite.

    Whether or not in actual fact and essence they are two separate rites, in law they are two uses of one rite. To say otherwise is to deny priests permission to celebrate Mass according to the pre-Vatican II Missal.

  43. EDG says:

    Somerset:

    That’s an interesting point. I think the Holy Father will have problems on both sides: the sullen, entrenched opposition coming from his modernist bishops on one side, and on the other, the peculiar subculture that informs the SSPX (and many TLM supporters, alas) and is now considered by them to be normative and something that must be part and parcel of any return the TLM.

  44. Bernard says:

    “A banal on-the-spot product” Probably a safe bet that this is, at heart, the Popes view of the Mass of Paul VI. However the MP was meant for laity as well as for priests and surprisingly many Catholics still think the ‘New Mass’ is merely a translation of the Old. The clumsy terms extraordinary form and ordinary form will no doubt be dropped as more people SEE that the Roman Rite and the Pauline Mass are two seperate entities.

  45. Andrew says:

    Anthony:

    Why does S.P. use the term ‘form’ to refer to the two Masses? Anyone who has studied liturgy in any detail knows that this term has no precedence.

    ???????????

    Is that really so?

  46. xathar says:

    fxavier,

    Our Holy Father is not “telling us what to think historically and academically.” Rather, he, as the supreme liturgist and legislator, is stating that the one Roman Rite has two forms. This ability to make this determination is not within the scope of historical or academic inquiry. Only one who holds the titles which the Pope does can state this definitively.
    If, according to our academic usages, the word “rite” doesn’t match up with the Pope’s use of it here, then we have two different definitions of the word. Since it is only within the competence of a Pope, and not academics, to determine of what a Rite is made, we must defer to the Holy Father unless we receive a further clarification on his part. If we don’t, then, as I said earlier, we are being presumptuous to conclude that what the Holy Father legislated is somehow different from the truth.

  47. LCB says:

    Since we’re dealing with some hypothetical possibilities…

    Could the Church decide to put the “genie back in the bottle”, and abandon previous translations entirely, instead returning to the 1962 Missal as normative, and permitting only slavvish translations?

    Or even beyond that, banning the vernacular translations entirely? Or can we no longer go back?

    I ask this not as a proponent of the idea, but out of genuine curiosity.

  48. “‘Two uses of the same rite’ is simply a juridical solution, not a factual statement.”

    That it is the former should be sufficient, and within the Holy Father’s competence. My concern here would be whether this distinction would obscure the larger vision of Pope Benedict in terms of the peaceful co-existence of the two uses of the one Roman Rite (which, again, he is within his power to determine as a matter of law, albeit not of history), as a component of the recovery of the sacred. This subject makes for good academic discussion, but the “reform of the reform” is still on the table. (His idea, remember?)

    Incidentally (if I can mention this here), today the parish of St John the Beloved in McLean, Virginia, had its first celebration of the classical Roman liturgy since the issuance of the papal decree. The Rev Franklyn McAfee was the celebrant for the Missa Cantata, and the setting was the Missa Te Deum Laudamus by Guy Ropartz. I had the unique privilege of serving as First Master of Ceremonies, with the able assistance of Mr Carl Selzer as Second Master, and the fine corps of Knights of the Altar that serve the parish. We ended on yet another Te Deum. And all “ad majorem Dei gloriam!”

  49. So, if I am understanding him correctly, he is saying the Novus Ordo is invalid? I mean, if they are substantially different, and one (the old form) is the Sacrfice of Calvary, then he seems to infer the new form of Mass is not the Sacrifice of Calvary. Now, the Church has said the Novus Ordo is valid and licit. I would think that even with some changes in the Mass (and even the Canon), the validity of the consecration of the species is still clearly shown (This is My Body … This is My Blood), and also because the Church says so.
    Certainly you could argue the form surrounding the Mass in the old form is more beautiful or reverent or catechetical or whatever, but the fact is that the essence is the same. It is still THE Mass, the same Sacrifice of Christ. Otherwise, I would say he doesn’t really believe in the authority of the Church. If the Church has no authority, then we’re all in trouble.

  50. Somerset '76 says:

    “So, if I am understanding him correctly, he is saying the Novus Ordo is invalid? I mean, if they are substantially different, and one (the old form) is the Sacrfice of Calvary, then he seems to infer the new form of Mass is not the Sacrifice of Calvary….”

    Presuming the question refers to Fr. Scott, I can reply that he does not hold for the in se invalidity of Masses offered according to the rite of Paul VI. Rather, it is clear from things he’s written (see the archive link I provided above in comments), that he does not believe the Missal of Paul VI to be one of the legitimate rites of the Catholic Church.

    Moreover, this is arguably the official opinion of the SSPX itself, as seen from this quotation from its landmark position paper The Problem of the Liturgical Reform (2001):

    … Certainly, the reformed missal does not deny Catholic dogma outright, but its authors have so oriented the gestures and the words, they have made such significant omissions and introduced numerous ambiguous expressions, and all in order to make the rite conform to the theology of the Paschal mystery and to give expression to it. Consequently, the new missal no longer propagates the lex credendi of the Church, but rather a doctrine that smacks of heterodoxy. That is why one cannot say that the reformed rite of Mass of 1969 is “orthodox” in the etymological sense of the word: it does not offer “right praise” to God. Equally, one cannot say that the rite of Mass resulting from the reform of 1969 is that of the Church, even if it was conceived by churchmen…. [§122, emphasis added].

  51. Somerset '76 says:

    P.S.: the point being that one can offer Mass according to a ritual, even a self-devised one, that would result in the valid confection of the Sacrament, but the legitimacy of the ritual used is an entirely separate question.

    Needless to say, I have serious difficulty seeing how an SSPX regularization could take place so long as they continue to hold against the legitimacy of the postconciliar version of the Latin Rite.

  52. “Could the Church decide to put the ‘genie back in the bottle,’ and abandon previous translations entirely, instead returning to the 1962 Missal as normative…”

    Conceivably, yes. And Father Aidan Nichols suggests something along these lines in his book Looking at the Liturgy: A Critical View of its Contemporary Form, albeit in the wake of a hypothetical counter-reformation of the traditional liturgy. But back to your scenario, it is a reason why I find the terms “ordinary use” and “extraordinary use” to be problematic. The Pope could decide at some point to reverse their roles.

  53. fxavier says:

    No, it’s not subject to the penalty of excommunication.

    It was giving as an example, and I was being facetious here.

    I wasn’t being clear, and here’s a clarification:

    The Holy Father does not mean to say, “as a matter of Faith and Morals, all Catholics must hold *as historical and academic fact*, subject to the penalty of excommunication (got to throw a little kicker in there), that the 1962 and 1970 Missals are two uses of the same rite.”

    That’s inarguable—for if they were separate rites, then Latin Rite priests would have no right to celebrate the pre-Vatican II Mass without an indult.

    There are many (including Gamber, perhaps Ratzinger) who question whether the Pope has the authority to take away the Church’s Liturgy (no, I’m not counting the SSPX here). Roman priests have always had the right in the last 40 years to celebrate the TLM, at least privately. The indult was only required for public celebrations.

    The authority to celebrate the Trad. Mass comes from 2000 years of history to the Apostles, and reaffirmed and expanded by Popes and Councils.

    The authority to celebrate the New Mass comes from Paul VI.

    Benedict’s “juridical solution” for the recalcitrance in the Church is to unite these two authorities.

    *I am not a canon lawyer, nor a sacramental theologian.

  54. Greg Smisek says:

    fxavier: Ratzinger wasn’t saying that there’s a continuity, but that a \”Reform of the Reform\” has to occur.

    If what you have has no continuity with what preceded, how is a little reform going to make it so? If, on the other hand, what you have has been imposed, presented, and subsequently treated as if it were something out of whole cloth, yet, despite whatever deficiencies, its content actually preserves continuity, then you can reform it.

    Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

    In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history.

    If Ratzinger were to hold that there is no continuity between the 1970 Missal and previous Roman Rite Missals, why on earth would he propose a new edition of it \”to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal\” or claim that \”it brought a real improvement and enrichment\”? Such statements would come from a seriously logically-impaired man or from one with a Hitler complex (who, as with your earlier mentioned emperor, would through propaganda and force \”make it so\”).

  55. Greg Smisek says:

    Could someone point me to the complete text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to Msgr. Gamber’s book–French original and English translation?

    Why wasn’t this preface published in the English edition?

  56. “If Ratzinger were to hold that there is no continuity between the 1970 Missal and previous Roman Rite Missals, why on earth would he propose a new edition of it ‘to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal’ or claim that ‘it brought a real improvement and enrichment’?”

    That’s a very good question. Really, it is. The answer is likely to be found in his voluminous writings on the sacred liturgy and the current state of affairs thereof, as opposed to various corners of the blogosphere. I’d start with the motu proprio itself, and the explanatory letter accompanying it. I always recommend his “Spirit of the Liturgy,” published by Ignatius.

    This could take a while.

  57. Mike in NC says:

    Greg Smisek asked

    Could someone point me to the complete text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to Msgr. Gamber’s book—French original and English translation?

    This page purports to have the English translation: The Infamous Ratzinger Preface: A Serious Critique. AFAIK, it is the only place on the ‘net with an English translation of the entire preface. I would have rather cited another location.

    I say ‘purport’ only because I don’t have the book, so I cannot vouch that the page is accurate.

    I don’t know where, if anywhere, the original French is posted, nor do I know why the preface was reduced to a few lines, when the English version of Msgr Gamber’s book came out in that language.

  58. LeonG says:

    “…et dixit amen dico vobis nisi conversi fueritis et efficiamini sicut parvuli non intrabitis in regnum caelorum.”

    When my children went to their first Latin Mass and then subsequent ones, they could not understand how the same church has two such contrasting forms with their own starkly different sets of norms. My three older children no longer want the Bugnini version. The two younger ones are fairly perplexed too. Having been deeply involved with both liturgies, to comprehend them as two forms of the same rite, I have to suspend my sensus catholicus. We are merely playing with words.

    When we apply rational and existential criteria we arrive at two completely differing understandings. Whether we strain at gnats, swallow the camel or merely turn the other cheek, the observable outcomes are radically dissimilar. The long term consequences for The Roman Catholic Faith applying one form or the other are totally at odds too. Q.E.D.

  59. fxavier says:

    Mr. Smisek said:
    If Ratzinger were to hold that there is no continuity between the 1970 Missal and previous Roman Rite Missals…

    There is “continuity” between 1962 and 1970. Just not organic continuity.

    Tradition = What the Apostles gave us + Rules for Organic change

    Anything that breaks “organic continuity” breaks the maxim “Lex orandi, lex credendi”, and we lose half the Church, like in the 1970’s.

    Vatican II demands organic change. Gamber and Ratzinger were fans of this idea.

    Liturgy is more than the Consecration. It is a prayer that reaches to the heart of a community. The Western post-Enlightenment mind, though, sees Liturgy merely as a collection of words, that suffices if it achieves a Consecration and is rubber-stamped in Rome.

    Vatican II does not support this post-Enlightenment notion. Gamber and Ratzinger were certainly against it.

  60. fxavier says:

    Forgot to answer the question…

    Mr. Smisek asks:
    why on earth would he propose a new edition of it “to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal”[?]

    To make the Paul VI Missal an “organic continuity” to the 1962 Missal.

    A side note: I have studied the Novus Ordo, served (as traditionally as I knew then), been sacristan, Master of Ceremonies numerous times, even for a bishop. I always had a foreboding notion that I was making things up as I was going along. This led me to study TLM rubrics, and finally drew me to the TLM.

    I have served the TLM for 2 years in different capacities. I feel like I have been participating in the same movements the Saints themselves moved through.

  61. Greg Smisek says:

    I was just re-reading Cardinal Ratzinger’s explanation of “rite” in The Spirit of the Liturgy (longer quotation here), p. 166:

    Let us ask the question again: “What does ‘rite‘ mean in the context of Christian liturgy?” The answer is: “It is the expression, that has become form, of ecclesiality and of the Church’s identity as a historically transcendent communion of liturgical prayer and action.”

    Interestingly, Ratzinger’s rather dense formula includes the words “expression” and “form,” which figure prominently into the vocabulary of Summorum Pontificum. “That has become form” sounds like it is missing a definite article or something. Does anyone have the German text?

    Just a caution for those who would define “rite” from the Eastern liturgies. I’m all for comparative liturgiology, but Ratzinger gives two distinguishing features of the Western rites: “space for freedom and historical development,” a.k.a “organic development,” and the fact that “the pope more and more clearly took over responsibility for liturgical legislation.” So it may not make any more sense to judge the concept of “rite” from the Eastern perspective than to judge the Roman Canon by the Antiochene-Byzantine anaphora’s structure or role of the Roman Patriarch by the Eastern patriarchal structures.

    Ratzinger also points out that rites are “anchored in time and place” (p. 163) and, furthermore, “[t]hey are forms of the apostolic Tradition and of its unfolding in the great places of the Tradition” (p. 164). That famous phrase, “This town ain’t big enough for the both of us,” would seem to apply here: To have two Roman Rites, you would need two Romes. Since we don’t have that luxury, any liturgy that would be identified as the Roman Rite, would need to be in continuity with the apostolic Tradition of that one Apostolic See. Now there have been many instantiations (forms, expressions, uses) of the one Roman Rite over two millennia, two of which are the 1962/1570 Missal and the 1970/2002 Missal. At least that’s my take on it.

  62. LCB says:

    PLease don’t just post links, but let us know what they contain?

  63. elizabeth mckernan says:

    For those who wish to read the above mentioned preface by Cardinal Ratzinger in the original French it can be found by tapping in: Mgr Gamber reforme de la liturgie. In pdf and html although I can only get html and it appears to be missing the last few sentences for some reason.

  64. musicus says:

    It seems that different rites arose historically from parallel sources.
    In contrast, the Missal of 1970 was intended to arise “sequentially”
    out of the earlier Roman Missal. This is presumably why Pope Paul VI
    intended the revision to be the Roman Rite and why Pope Benedict XVI
    reflects that same intention in seeing them both as the Roman Rite in
    two usages.

  65. Different says:

    I think it makes sense to clarify the two uses of the word “rite”. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

    “We speak of any one such religious function as a rite — the rite of the blessing of palms, the coronation rite, etc. In a slightly different sense we call the whole complex of the services of any Church or group of Churches a rite-thus we speak of the Roman Rite, Byzantine Rite, and various Eastern rites. In the latter sense the word is often considered equivalent to liturgy, which, however, in the older and more proper use of the word is the Eucharistic Service, or Mass; hence for a whole series of religious functions “rite” is preferable.”http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm

    The Random House unabridged dictionary agrees with this:

    “1. a formal or ceremonial act or procedure prescribed or customary in religious or other solemn use: rites of baptism; sacrificial rites.
    2. a particular form or system of religious or other ceremonial practice: the Roman rite.”

    It would seem that we could say that the ordinary form and extraordinary forms of the Mass are different “rites” as in the first meaning. They are different rites of the Mass. But both these rites belong to the Latin Rite.

  66. A question to ask though: Are Fr. Scott’s critcisms with the Mass itself, or with the current problem that very few priests and bishops actually say the Mass as it should be said? Certainly with all the abuses, the Mass can become completely distorted (Pope Benedict even mentions this in his accompanying letter to “Summorum Pontificum.”
    What if you said a Novus Ordo Mass, completely according to the rubrics, with all the proper chant, ad orientem, in as much Latin as possible, with all the proper ministers, and sung? Would the Mass not be much, much more familiar to someone who was only used to the Tridentine Mass?
    It is certainly easy to focus on all the abuses and say that it is the fault of the form of the Mass itself, rather than seeing that it might just be the problem of the individuals saying the Mass.

  67. Henry Edwards says:

    Are Fr. Scott’s critcisms with the Mass itself, or with the current problem that very few priests and bishops actually say the Mass as it should be said?

    It seems clear to me that his criticisms are of the new Mass itself, not of its revelation abuses, nor even merely of its inherent susceptibility to abuse:

    “The substance is entirely different, for the traditional Mass is a true, propitiatory sacrifice, the same sacrifice as the Cross offered in an unbloody way to expiate the crimes of sinners. The new Mass, to the contrary, is a banquet, a celebration of the community, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, an acknowlegement of Christ’s love for humanity.”

    Thus he alleges that one is a propitiatory sacrifice in substance, the other only a banquet — perhaps some vague sort of sacrifice, but not the propitiatory sacrifice of the Cross.

    Since the prayers of oblation have been removed from the offertory (called the preparation of the gifts in the new Mass) it can appear that way, especially if Eucharistic Prayer II is used — as is said to be almost always in some places — in which no synonymn of the word “sacrifice” appears (in either English or Latin).

    Indeed, in today’s generally total absence of catechesis, one could wonder where an ordinary pew Catholic might get the impression that what he is observing is a propitiatory sacrifice, indeed a presentation of the same sacrifice as the Cross.

  68. I see your point, but I guess I don’t understand exactly from where his arguement is coming, and I am very distracted (and concerned) by his saying the “substance is entirely different.” Is it the overall form of the Mass (which I think when done correctly and as reverently and “traditionally” as possible, is not THAT different), or is it something more technical? Because when he states:

    “The substance is entirely different, for the traditional Mass is a true, propitiatory sacrifice, the same sacrifice as the Cross offered in an unbloody way to expiate the crimes of sinners. The new Mass, to the contrary, is a banquet, a celebration of the community, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, an acknowledgement of Christ’s love for humanity.”

    I feel that if he is not implying invalidity, then he is really coming close to saying that the Novus Ordo is invalid. He says that “the traditional Mass is … the same sacrifice as the Cross offered in an unbloody way.” For him to say “the new Mass, to the contrary, is a banquet …” seems to say that the Novus Ordo is not the same sacrifice as the Cross. At that point, if it isn’t THE true, propitiatory sacrifice, then I don’t think you can say the Mass is valid … by his reasoning.

    Maybe I am just focusing too much on that quote, but if that is the angle from which he is coming (and I still don’t see how he isn’t), then from the question of “rites” he seems to say, we don’t want the Novus Ordo to be a part of the Roman rite because it is invalid.

    Like I said, I don’t see how the quote I mentioned can be taken in any other way.

  69. I guess I find his use of the word “substantially” to be rather confusing (my Thomistic vocabulary is probably not as good as it should be).

    I’ll just have to say, I agree with Fr. Z.’s reply to Fr. Scott’s statement.

    Often times posting helps me to collect my thoughts better, and I think I am understanding the various statements (and my misunderstandings) a bit better.

  70. John Paul says:

    Based upon the extensive commentary, I think I understand what the Holy Father
    had to do based upon the considerable pressure he was under from groups against
    the M.P. However, I too get more confused when I see comments from well-meaning
    priests that the Novus Ordo is the same sacrifice of Calvary. If that really is
    the case, how many priests and faithful really are aware of it? Are people really
    behaving at Mass as if they are at the foot of Calvary? The Ottaviani Intervention
    highlighted that the first edition of the Latin version of the Mass of 1969
    broke with the theology of Mass as codified at the Council of Trent.

    So how can they be considered the same? And who but a few “tradition-minded”
    priests and “conservative” Catholics really think so? JP Virginia Beach

  71. fxavier says:

    Roman Sacristan asked:
    What if you said a Novus Ordo Mass, completely according to the rubrics, with all the proper chant, ad orientem, in as much Latin as possible, with all the proper ministers, and sung? Would the Mass not be much, much more familiar to someone who was only used to the Tridentine Mass?

    Yes and no. Yes, because chant always helps. Yes, because following the rubrics always helps.

    The reason for these "No" responses highlight the fact that the Old and New are two rites, even if juridically, we must treat them as one.

    1. No, because prayers are gone! The propitiatory prayers, those asking for mercy because of our lack of merit, have been substantially reduced, especially in the Offertory.

    As a parallel and example, the focus of the new funeral Mass and burial rite is to celebrate the decedant’s life so as to bring comfort to the living. The old Requiem Mass and funeral rite are a realization that we are worthless but for Christ, asking the Father for mercy, and placing hope in the Sacrifice at Calvary. So, given the choice between the new and old funeral rites, which one would you want said over your body? One of the reasons I started going to the TLM was to have an excuse (hoping that a Motu Proprio would come out) to have the old rites said for me should I be called to judgement. (Of course, there is no substitute for a good, honest Catholic life.)

    2. No, because the idea of “holy fear”, embodied the prayers at the Foot of the Altar, is not in the New Mass.

    In the New Mass, the priest kisses and incenses the Altar before the Penitential Rites. In the Old Mass, the priest kisses and incenses the Altar after the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.

    In the New Mass, one gets the feeling that the Gates of Heaven are flung wide open for everyone to come in. From my past experience, and from reading N.O. rubrical explanations and texts (and perhaps this is only American), one learns that the altar is to be reverenced, but the Blessed Sacrament is to be ignored if the Tabernacle so happens to be on the Altar, because the Holy Sacrifice cannot already be on the Altar as “another” Holy Sacrifice effects itself.

    This "holy fear" component is also gone because there is no "Holy of Holies" in the New rubrics. Gone is the silent Roman Canon (remember, in both East and West in the first 1.5 millenia, curtains were drawn so only the priest and his immediate ministers saw the Altar at Consecration, because it was the “Holy of Holies” of the Mass.) The holiest part of the Mass is now open for eyes and ears to profane, thus the lack of belief in the Real Presence.

    3. No, because the paradigm of the TLM is different from the N.O. The Novus Ordo paradigm, embodied in the rubrics, is that everyone is focused on exactly the same thing all the time. For example, everything stops for the Kyrie, everything stops for the responsorial psalms, etc.

    In the TLM, everyone has a role to perform. In general, the priests and servers have fixed roles. The Chant Schola sings the propers and ordinaries, sometimes even as the priest is focusing and saying the prayers in the Mass. One of the most intense moments I’ve had was upon hearing the Introit and Kyrie chanted as the priest incensed the Altar (but the chants don’t necessarily coincide with the incensing).

    Depending on the TLM community and its customs, the people are generally free to chant, especially the ordinaries, or to focus on the altar, or even to do private prayer. This freedom allows the Mass to be more contemplative and mystical. (The mystical and contemplative aspects are mostly because the Canon is said silently and not profaned by being said aloud, and these aspects are drawn out because of the freedom to pray freely.)

    This Catholic notion of “roles” is foreign to most Catholics. I think it is what Catholics used to the Novus Ordo object to when they forward their objection to silence or participation.

  72. http://sspxasia.com/Newsletters/2007/May-Sep/Editorial.htm

    First of all, it is refreshing to hear, finally, the Successor of Peter confirming a fact which has been denied all these years by the almost absolute majority of the clergy. Even the Commission Ecclesia Dei Adflicta was repeatedly affirming that the only valid grounds for the Old Mass was the Indult of 1984, that it had been truly abrogated in 1969.

    Secondly, since the Tridentine rite was never abrogated, consequently it maintains the legal force it had in 1969 when the new rite was introduced. According to the Code of Canon Law, an existing law loses its force only if a new law is made by which it is abrogated. The New Mass was promulgated in 1969 by the Constitution Missale Romanum, and technically, juridically it was merely a derogation, i.e., a permission, to celebrate the Holy Mass according to a different rite. It did not replace the law in force. The Holy Father has now confirmed this, which is what traditionalists have been saying all these years.

    What legal force the Tridentine Mass had then, in 1969, it therefore still has today. With the Bull Quo Primum, of 1570, St Pius V.

    1) had made it a general (universal) law of the Church,
    2) recognized it as an immemorial custom, and
    3) made it a perpetual privilege.

    It means in short that the Traditional Mass in 2007 is still what it was legally in 1969: the normal, ordinary, universal rite of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, an immemorial custom and a perpetual privilege.

    But when we are told on one hand that it was ‘numquam abrogatam – never abrogated’, and on the other hand that “Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Blessed John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi’…” (Motu Proprio) then, we say: stop! That is a contradiction. It is the other way around: the Traditional Latin Mass is the ordinary form, and the New Mass the extraordinary form [I say this here for the sake of the argument, because in itself, the New Mass is not fully Catholic as \’it departs in its whole as in its details from the Catholic Theology of the Mass\’ (Card. Ottaviani and Bacci) and therefore, strictly speaking should not even be used].

    Moreover, in his letter accompanying the Motu Proprio, the Holy Father insists on this juridical illusion:

    “it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.”

    We have just seen above what are the ‘juridical norms’ of the Traditional Mass, and those of the New Mass (a mere permission, nothing more).

    But to bring the argument of ‘the actual situation of the communities of the faithful’ to make the New Mass the ‘ordinary’ rite of the Church is rather strange, to say the least. If the Church should keep a rite because of the ‘actual situation of the communities of the faithful’, then, why was it changed in the 1960s when the Traditional Mass was indeed the universal rite of the Latin Church?

    A third question arises in reading the following: “the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970” (Motu Proprio, art. 2). In was in 1969 and not in 1970 that the Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated. The Apostolic Constitution ‘Missale Romanum’ is dated April 3, 1969, and it stipulated that the new rite would come in effect on the following First Sunday of Advent, Nov. 30, 1969. Of course, between April 3 and Nov. 30, there were the intervention of eminent Cardinals and others pointing out to Paul VI the errors in whole and in detail of the new rite, in particular the heresy of the infamous article 7 giving a Protestant definition of the Mass. “The widespread indignation provoked by the Instructio Generalis was such that Pope Paul VI felt bound to have corrections made when the new Roman Missal was published on March 26, 1970”. (Pope Paul’s New Mass, M. Davies, Angelus Press, p.284). Nothing less than 15 pages of amendments to the original Instructio Generalis — without touching the actual text of the Novus Ordo Missae — appeared in Notitiae, No. 54.

    So, why mention 1970 and not 1969? Is there a will to forget the original and legal faulty text, which was supposed to have abrogated the Tridentine Mass?

    Finally, a fourth element of reflection can be drawn from these two papal words, this time in relation to the sanctions imposed on Archbishop Lefebvre and on the Society of St Pius X.

    The Archbishop, in his historical sermon of June 29, 1976, summed up the pressure which had been continuously put on him, especially in the previous days, to abstain from giving any priestly ordinations on that day.

    “They put a new missal in my hands, saying, ‘Here is the Mass that you must celebrate and that you shall celebrate henceforth on all your houses’. They told me as well that if on this date, this June 29th, before your entire assembly, we celebrated a mass according to the new rite, all would be straightened out henceforth between ourselves and Rome. Thus it is clear, it is obvious that it is on the problem of the Mass that the whole drama between Ecône and Rome depends.” (Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Angelus Press, vol. 1, p. 207)

    He continued in his sermon showing how the two rites actually are expression of two faiths—the traditional rite expression of the traditional faith, the new rite expression of a new modernistic faith.

    But the point I come to is this:

    if the Traditional Latin Mass was not abrogated in 1969 and was thus still the ordinary rite of the Catholic Church,

    and if Archbishop Lefebvre was sanctioned in 1976 for ordaining priests, and later in 1988 for consecrating bishops— if both acts were done explicitly in relation to this Traditional Mass and for refusing to accept a rite which was only a derogation to the Tridentine Mass,
    then, by stating that it was ‘never abrogated’ the Holy Father is implicitly declaring that all the grounds for the sanctions against Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society of St Pius X are non-existant…

    As Bishop Fellay wrote, time will tell if the Pope truly means what he wrote, that is, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. ” (Letter to the Bishops)

  73. Greg Smisek says:

    Let me apologize up front for the long post, but fxavier’s third point is something I’ve been mulling over for a long time.

    I agree with fxavier that in the zeal for full and actual participation, we have tended toward a somewhat flattened liturgy, consisting of a rationally ordered, almost didactic, sequence of single-focus actions, which minimizes theaters for specialized action, even as it often multiplies roles. But this didn’t start with the new Mass.

    In the older form of Low Mass, all clerical roles had collapsed upon the priest (with a few still performed by the servers). You have a distinction of roles and theaters of action, but only a priest, servers, and faithful, with minimal external interaction between priest and faithful. (A lady once complained to me when I was MC for a solemn Novus Ordo Mass that the deacons, lectors, and acolytes were usurping the role of the priest!)

    In the Dialogue Mass, people were encouraged to follow everything the priest did, and say all the responses and Ordinary, which allowed greater external interaction, but in the process the distinction of roles and theaters of priest and people was blurred.

    In the older form of the Solemn High Mass you have priest, deacon, subdeacon, possibly lector, other clerics, several acolytes with distinctive tasks, choir/schola, and the people. This is the heart of the richness of our liturgical tradition as fxavier describes it. Like a symphony, persons and groups participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass according to their role and abilities.

    But whereas the less solemn forms of the newer Mass share in, and even accentuate the flatness and rationality of the Dialogue Mass, the more solemn forms of the newer Mass still have the Introit over the entrance and incensation, the Gospel procession with diaconal blessing, the offertory antiphon over the offertory prayers and incensation (plus an offertory procession), the Agnus Dei over the preparation for Holy Communion, and the Communion antiphon over the Communion procession. The people have their proper responses. The choir has its role. The priest still has private prayers (though fewer in number). And because of the principle of progressive solemnity, the newer usage actually permits the use of incense and the assistance of deacons and lectors more often than the older usage, even if the typical implementation tends toward minimalism.

    Besides the Dialogue Mass, what was the other major impetus toward flattening the sacred liturgy? The 1955 reformed Holy Week rites, which required that everything be done in plain sight of the people in the sanctuary, and radically simplified the prayers and actions and altered the look and feel of the rites, including names of days, color of vestments, and wholesale replacement of the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday (and everyone is happy to forget the commentators). The 1970 reform actually corrects some of these excessive mutations.

  74. Different says:

    The Hymn Selector,

    I think you have highlighted a few reasons why the reconciliation will indeed be difficult.

    A couple of points…The novus ordo is now the ordinary form no matter what transpired in 1969 because it has been declared as such by the Holy Father. With this most recent Motu Proprio he has defined the two forms of the same Latin Rite.

    Also, your point about the sanctions against Archbishop Lefebvre does not hold. The Archbishop was not excommunicated for refusing to accept this new rite of the Mass, he was excommunicated for consecrating bishops without papal mandate. The fact that the old Mass was not abrogated, and perhaps remained “the ordinary rite” does not change the fact that he acted without papal mandate which constituted a schismatic act and resulted in his excommunication.

  75. John Adams says:

    This is also the language that was deployed with the creation of
    the “Anglican Use” of the Latin Rite. Not the Anglican Rite…

    I don’t believe special faculties are required to say the Anglican
    Use Rite either…

    This arrangement took shape under Cardinal Ratzinger when he was
    at the CDF…

  76. Different,

    Before the excommunications of 1988, remember the Archbishop was suspended ‘a divinis’ first in 1976 for ordaining priests according to the Old Rite. Crux of the matter is, the question does indeed revolve around the Missal.

  77. Jordan Potter says:

    The Hymn Selector claimed: Before the excommunications of 1988, remember the Archbishop was suspended ‘a divinis’ first in 1976 for ordaining priests according to the Old Rite.

    Again you are mistaken. Msgr. Lefebvre was suspended a divinis for refusing to seek the Pope’s pardon for ordaining priests without permission of the local bishop, in violation of canon law (prior to the a divinis suspension, he was merely suspended a collatione ordinum (forbidden from ordaining priests)). He was not suspended for using the pre-Vatican II Ordinal. Despite his suspension, however, he continued to ordain priests illicitly and to celebrate Mass, and finally capped his disobedience to the Church by schismatically consecrating bishops without papal approval.

  78. That was the official reason given, as usual.