St. Louis: Archbp. Burke speak about the Extraordinary Form

The site of  MyFox in St. Louis, MO has a story about the Extraordinary Form of Mass with the 1962 Missale Romanum.  Let’s have a glance with my emphases and comments.   Look past the sloppy terminology "Latin Mass".
   

 

In Good Faith: Latin Mass
Last Edited: Monday, 05 Nov 2007, 5:38 PM CST

by Dan Gray

St. Louis, MO (KTVI – myFOXstl.com)  —

  More Catholics are worshiping at Latin masses in the St. Louis Archdiocese.  St. Francis de Sales Church in South St. Louis has been offering the Latin mass for two years where nearly one-thousand people worship every Sunday.  By the end of this year, three other parishes will be celebrating the old worship.  In July, the pope relaxed restrictions on celebrating the Latin mass.

     In Good Faith on Monday night, in a rare one on one interview St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke shares why he supports the Latin mass.

    The Latin mass is a liturgy laden with mystery, beauty and formality. It is worship form centuries old making a comeback in 2007.  "The worship of the church is organic, in other words its not possible for us to think that the mass that is celebrated today is ruptured from the mass in 1962 or in the 1800s, there is an organic development," Burke said.  [He is perfectly in line with Joseph Ratzinger in this and how he expressed it.] The archbishop celebrates the Latin mass about a half dozen times a year.  In June he ordained two men to the priesthood during a Latin mass.  The extraordinary mass as it’s called by church officials doesn’t replace the new mass, but some Catholics have complained about abuses of the new mass.

   "People have commented that in some places the sacred nature of the Holy Mass for instance was seriously lost.  The perception of it…that it became informal, a lot of the introduction of the personality of the priest into the celebrations and so forth. [Again, this is in harmony with the Holy Father in Sacramentum caritatis.] So the Holy Father is hoping that by having the two forms of the celebration will enrich one another," the Archbishop said.

Gray:  "Is the Latin mass a more reverent celebration?"

Burke: "Not necessarily, I think reverence that way the mass is celebrated by the priest and by the people who participate in the holy mass. it has a tendency to be reverent simply because it was very highly articulated and disciplined and no opportunity for innovation."  [This is what I wrote yesterday here.]

 Gray: "When I talked to some people who prefer worshipping at the Latin liturgy, they say they believe that’s where Heaven meets Earth?"

  Burke: "There is a real sense of Heaven meeting Earth. Its very rich and there’s a lot of symbolism involved in it.  I grew up in it myself until I was a junior in high school.  I love the old form of the mass, but Heaven meets Earth also with the new order of the mass.

   The Archbishop emphasized the heaven meets earth in the new mass as well.  More than 30 priests in the Archdiocese have expressed interest in learning the Latin mass and Kenrick-Glennon Seminary is offering courses to prepare seminarians to celebrate the old worship.  [Behold, the good shepherd.  Look what happens when the bishop doesn’t try to intimidate priests.  Remember, Summorum Pontificum is also very much about priests, who they are in the Church.]

      Tuesday (11/6/07) on Fox 2 News at 5, more of the one on one interview with Archbishop Burke.  He will share his vision of the archdiocese and how he reacts to those he has alienated.

Click here to listen to samples of a Latin Mass.

 

It is so nice to be able to post positive stories.

I think the tide is turning.

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.

39 Responses to St. Louis: Archbp. Burke speak about the Extraordinary Form

  1. TJM says:

    His Grace is one of my personal heroes. Although it would be a great loss to the people of St. Louis, it would be
    wonderful if Archbishop Burke was elevated to Los Angeles so the cleansing of the Augean Stables could begin. Tom

  2. TNCath says:

    I wonder if someone could possibly get His Excellency, Archbishop Burke to offer this as an reflection at the USCCB meeting next week?

  3. Jeff says:

    Father, you say, “the tide is turning”. I think you are right.

    The first commenter mentions Los Angeles. And I am reminded of the recent heartwarming post by John at “The Inn at the End of the World”:

    “Sunday, October 28, 2007
    An Unprecedented Problem

    Unprecedented within the past 37 years, anyway.

    Some of us here in this section of southern California, now have to make decisions as to where to attend the traditional Mass. In a few very short years, our Mass situation has gone from non-existent, to once per month, to one location per diocese each Sunday, to our current situation which includes “choices”.

    The following are available every Sunday:

    6:30 a.m. Ss Peter & Paul Church in Wilmington. This will begin on 2 December 2007, the first Sunday of Advent. In preparation, one of the Norbertine assistant priests will be teaching a 4 week course on the traditional liturgy on the four Sundays of November.

    7:00 a.m. in Yorba Linda at the Pope John Paul II Polish Center

    8:00 a.m. the Serra Chapel at San Juan Capistrano Mission

    1:00 p.m. St Theresa Church in Alahambra (currently on the 3d, 4th, and 5th Sundays of the month; “every Sunday” is the projected goal and will happen when the pastor learns the traditional rite.)

    1:00 p.m. St Peter Chanel Church in Hawaiian Gardens (in the old church for the time being; later in the new church if attendance warrants)

    The “indult rotation” Masses are still available also. The list can be found at the Una Voce Los Angeles site here.

    Even the traditional Mass at St Mary’s by the Sea my reappear at some point. Fr Tran announced that it would a few months ago. And then advised that it would be a while yet. We shall see.

    But in the meantime: wonderful choices.

    posted by John at 6:34 PM”

    http://thesixbells.blogspot.com/2007/10/unprecedented-problem.html

  4. Athelstane says:

    Although some locals think otherwise, I must say that St. Louis is blessed to have Archbishop Burke. I do not think there is a U.S. bishop more supportive of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite than he is.

    As for St. Francis, I attended Sunday mass there for most of the summer. If you are ever in town, it is most definitely worth the trip. These are by far the most magnificently celebrated traditional masses I have ever attended. The community is large, young, and very welcoming (the last is worth noting) – and it is growing. Although St. Francis the building requires repair and renovation, it’s a perfect setting for the traditional mass, with its glorious reredos and German neo-gothic stylings.

  5. Henry Edwards says:

    Athelstane: Although some locals think otherwise, I must say that St. Louis is blessed to have Archbishop Burke.

    Surely you’re not serious? How could any real Catholic think “otherwise”?

  6. Brian Day says:

    “…so the cleansing of the Augean Stables could begin.”

    Yes, a truly Herculean task.

  7. Joe says:

    Terrific article. I thought I would provide this link to an article in The American Spectator about the re-emergence of Latin, both inside and outside of the Traditional Latin Mass.
    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12267

  8. Marilyn says:

    I am blessed to live in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. I have met Archbishop Burke on several occasions, and I am more impressed with him every time I speak with him or hear him speak. He is absolutely in line with Church teachings and never wavers in his positions. He angers people precisely because of this. Many Catholics in the Archdiocese have many negative things to say about the Archbishop; when I am around such people, I simply start asking questions and I generally find that they are uninformed. I try to do a little teaching in those moments in a gentle and loving way. There are many Catholics out there who don’t know their faith–just a few years ago I was among them. I try very hard not to forget that, and to lead those who are open to it to the real teachings of the Church.

    I am a member of a TLM parish in the St. Louis area, Sts. Gregory and Augustine Oratory. In December(we hope!) we will be moving into a chapel at the St. Louis Abbey, where we hope to see our little congregation grow. Our long term plan is eventually to build a Church, and Archbishop Burke has been extraordinarily supportive of all of our efforts.

    I was pleasantly surprised, however, to read in the interview that THREE other parishes would be celebrating the old form by the end of the year in this area. Assuming that our oratory is one of them, what are the other two? Is there anyone out there in our Archdiocese that knows this?

    Marilyn

  9. Tommaso says:

    An example for his brother bishops to imitate.

  10. Malta says:

    Gray: \\\”Is the Latin mass a more reverent celebration?\\\”

    Burke: \\\”Not necessarily, I think reverence that [sic] way the mass is celebrated by the priest and by the people who participate in the holy mass. it has a tendency to be reverent simply because it was very highly articulated and disciplined and no opportunity for innovation.\\\” [This is what I wrote yesterday here.]

    I love Burke, but his response is disingenuous. Maybe in the liberal mind of Paul VI his mass could be just as reverent as the Vetus Ordo, but not in reality. De facto, the Novus Ordo cannot attain the reverence of the Vetus Ordo; it just cannot happen. The rubrics, forms, gestures, etc. are not there. In a practical sense, it does not take a brilliant mind to see how the NO mass has eroded the faith; I have been to NO masses throughout the country, and point to Flagstaff and Sedona, AZ as particular examples of where the \\\’mass\\\’ is almost a new religion, disconnected from the faith of our Fathers.

    Of course, I have no doubt that Burke has prayed the NO Mass very reverently; but imagine that same reverence transferred to the VO mass. That would be reverence indeed, in communion with the great Saints of the Church, through the centuries…

  11. Diane says:

    Fr. Z says: It is so nice to be able to post positive stories.

    I think the tide is turning.

    We will see more positive stories as soon as more members of the media see how many young people like the TLM.

    If it’s unpopular – they won’t write nice about it. As it gains popularity, they will write nice about it.

  12. Different says:

    Malta,

    It might be time to update your thinking on this matter. Both Archbishop Burke and Pope Benedict have said the same thing here – that there is no rupture in the history of the Mass. Instead of calling the Archbishop “disingenuous” (a very cheap shot on your part) maybe try opening your mind to the fact that he might be right and you might be wrong. You might have to adjust your opinion!

    Archbishop Burke is 100% correct about reverence. A Mass cannot be reverent in and of itself. The reverence depends largely on the celebrant. It is not the rubrics and gestures that make the TLM reverent, it is the priests who take the care to execute such things. If I may ask, have you ever seen Archbishop Burke celebrate the ordinary Mass? I have seen him celebrate the sung ordinary “high” Mass in his cathedral and there was no deficiency of reverence in any way.

    Your comment about the communion of Great Saints of the Church is just stupid. Do you think that the communion of Saints only celebrate with us in the TLM? Do the Saints not understand the ordinary Mass, so they cannot participate?

    Archbishop Burke is leading the Church into the future; it’s time to get on board. It’s not about one form of the Mass being better, it’s about the salvation of souls and the sacred liturgy.

  13. Malta says:

    Different: \”You might have to adjust your opinion!\”

    No thanks. I stand by what I said: the VO mass IS a more reverent form of worship. The priest acts in Persona Christi at both the NO and VO masses, and must comport himself accordingly. But the same priest praying the VO mass is, ipso facto, going to pray a more reverent mass than the same priest praying the NO mass. The NO mass was created in a liturgical think tank in the span of a few years. The VO mass was created and prayed through the centuries by the living tradition of the Church, in communion with most of the great Saints. The VO and NO masses are both valid, but, hopefully, in time the Bugnini mass will fall into the dust bin of an experiment gone terribly wrong.

    As for Burke; I really do admire him–he is one of the great Bishops in America. Hopefully Summorum Pontificum will change the hearts and minds of our great Bishops in the direction of Tradition, and the restoration of the crumbling Catholic Church in America.

  14. Different says:

    Malta,

    You stand by calling Archbishop Burke “disingenuous”? Do you know what that word means? How very noble of you.

    And thanks for answering the questions I asked you.

  15. Malta says:

    Different,

    Perhaps you are right. Maybe “disingenuous” was a poorly chosen word. Although I don’t see how a brilliant man, such as Archbishop Burke, could really believe that the NO is as objectively reverent as the VO (subjectively, of course, a given priest could muddle either form). So many of the prayers and forms are absent from the NO. The VO mass was the crucible which formed our greatest Saints, since the Mass is the highest form of prayer, and prayer is what creates Saints. But I apologize if my choice of words came off as an attack on a great man. Perhaps Burke really does believe the two forms are equally reverent. That is not an opinion I share.

    God Bless.

  16. Different says:

    Malta,

    You said, “Although I don’t see how a brilliant man, such as Archbishop Burke, could really believe that the NO is as objectively reverent as the VO”

    I find when someone as brilliant as Archbishop Burke holds an opinion that conflicts with one’s own, that is a good time to re-evaluate one’s opinion in light of such wisdom. Sometimes this can be difficult, but it is necessary. You can’t both be right.

    Thank you for your honesty.

    God bless!

  17. RBrown says:

    Perhaps you are right. Maybe “disingenuous” was a poorly chosen word. Although I don’t see how a brilliant man, such as Archbishop Burke, could really believe that the NO is as objectively reverent as the VO (subjectively, of course, a given priest could muddle either form). So many of the prayers and forms are absent from the NO. The VO mass was the crucible which formed our greatest Saints, since the Mass is the highest form of prayer, and prayer is what creates Saints. But I apologize if my choice of words came off as an attack on a great man. Perhaps Burke really does believe the two forms are equally reverent. That is not an opinion I share.
    Comment by Malta

    It’s very simple: By definition Reverence refers to the subject not the object. Rites are not in se reverent (although they can encourage reverence)–people are.

    And Abp Burke never used the word “objective”.

  18. Malta says:

    “Rites are not in se reverent (although they can encourage reverence)—people are.”

    The original question and answer was this:

    Gray: “Is the Latin mass a more reverent celebration?”

    Burke: “Not necessarily, I think reverence that way the mass is celebrated by the priest and by the people who participate in the holy mass…”

    I understand what you and Burke are saying, but my argument is that, ipso fact, the “latin mass” is a more reverent celebration than the Novus Ordo Mass. Reverence can be shown at each, but the Vetus Ordo mass, by its very nature, is a more reverent form of worship than the Novus Ordo.

    There are two types of reverence, reverent feelings, and reverent actions. I believe by its act the VO mass expresses an act of more reverence, since at Mass we give to God what is His. If you don’t believe there are differences in degrees of showing reverent acts, then one might as well attend a charismatic renewal, or Benny Hinn service, since the worshippers there are certainly very reverent in their own way.

    I believe the VO mass also instills more reverent feelings on the part of those who attend and pray at these masses. NO masses instill disinterest and a dwindling respect and reverence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So, either by feelings or actions, the VO mass is a superior, more reverent mass.

  19. Different says:

    Malta,

    Is the extraordinary form also more reverent than the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom? What is the objective criteria with which you judge “reverence” without regard to the celebrant? How is one text more reverent than another?

  20. Malta says:

    Different,

    Let’s say instead of BVI, Mahoney was elected Pope, and he convoked Vatican III, and say he decided to concoct a new mass at the end of it, and brought together Troutman and Gumbleton, and sat them down in a room to improvise, on the spot, a new mass.

    Now let’s say the end product contained three parts and the entire mass lasted two minutes.

    First part: Thanks for being here folks, let’s all form a circle and give each other a group hug.

    Second part: The cookies and koolaid we have here today we take as a remembrance of the Great Spirit.

    Third part: Thanks for being here everyone, and remember to smile every second of your life.

    Now, there may be some people in California which would find such a celebration to be the bees knees, but would that be a worthy reverence of God?

    Rites such as Vetus Ordo or Ambrosian rite were developed through the centuries, possibly from the time of the Apostles. The Novus Ordo was an on-the-spot creation. Certainly it contains prayers found in the Vetus Ordo, so it is “reverent” in its own way. I don’t have a reverence-o-meter to list for you, objectively or subjectively what “reverence” is, but I know it when I see it, and I don’t see it in the majority of the Novus Ordo masses I’ve been to.

  21. CarpeNoctem says:

    I have to also agree with \”Different\”. I have been to TLM celebrated sloppily and hastily, and let\’s just say it was far from edifying. Indeed, with all the particularities of the old ritual, as good and wholesome as they can be, I would much rather be at a N.O. Mass celebrated correctly and reverently than a TLM celebrated badly. (It would seem that the impetus for \’reforming\’ the Latin Liturgy was the preponderance of poorly-celebrated Masses due to a spirit of irreverence, ignorance, superstition, routine, and other demons.) I think God is better-honored by a NO Mass celebrated correctly and reverently than a TLM celebrated badly. I think that is a standard which is presumed and mandated by S.P. Art 5 #4.

    To propose that there is an objective difference between TLM and the NO based on a subjective measure such as ‘reverence’ is propose a fundamental discontinuity in the Church… a position in light of the many legitimate, effective, and suprisingly diverse expressions of liturgical unity (case in point: liturgies from the East) is, at best, myopic, or at worst, uninformed and foolish.

    I do agree that the TLM is loaded with language and ritual which subjectively has much more to speak to my heart and mind. As such, it is subjectively a more effective means of my participating in/receiving the merits of the cross of Christ. (And, God-willing, become a saint.) Objectively, I am fed by the fullness of my Savior whether I attend any valid & licit TLM, NO Mass, or Eastern Liturgy, regardless of the particulars. In all of those liturgies we “give God what is his”, and, no, as faithful Catholics we cannot not accept the argument that the relative ‘reverence’ and thus merits of the NO is akin to some of the embarassing examples of ‘charasmatic renewal’ or whatever straw man is being proposed.

    The objective sacramental effectiveness of the Mass is very hard for any priest or music or architecture or the congregation break. Although now a priest, I grew up during the 80’s and 90’s and suffered greatly by many examples of ‘irreverence’… even in the seminary. When possible, I avoided these places (or particular priest celebrants) for my own spiritual welfare. In all but a few rare cases (maybe twice in 30 years) was the Mass ever rendered ‘invalid’ and thus ineffective. Even when I was stuck in a bad situation (where Mass is nonetheless objectively ‘valid’), I knew that even my pain and suffering and my acts of reparation can be incredibly meritorious and redemptive… perhaps even moreso than if I simply got up and left and ran to a place of relative comfort.

    As a priest, I am a product of my times and my growing up, and like most of my generation, I am rather fussy about ‘doing things right’. Maybe this is the ‘good’ that the Lord has been working in response to lame efforts of ‘reform’ in our age. Yes, I am about to celebrate the TLM, and yes, I do my best to celebrate the NO well. Right now, without a little more practice I cannot celebrate the TLM reverently, despite my best efforts and the relative merits of the text and rubrics. The only choice is the NO Mass until I can do the TLM right. I expect to see the same Jesus Christ looking back at me and blessing me with his gifts of grace when I stand at the altar of my first TLM… and that’s not because of what I have done or the prayers I said or the way I did it (even this inspiration is a gift of the Spirit which at best makes me nothing more than an ‘instrument’), but it is by virtue of HIS extravagantly gratuitous love for his priest and his people.

  22. Different says:

    Malta,

    You said: “…I don’t see it in the majority of the Novus Ordo masses I’ve been to.”

    Yes, because as Archbishop Burke noted, that has to do with the celebrant and not the form of the Mass.

  23. Henry Edwards says:

    Here might be the point to quote (from memory, perhaps in fairly faithful paraphrase) a statement of Martin Mosebach in “The Heresy of Formlessness”:

    The fact, that — with sufficient effort — the Novus Ordo Mass can be celebrated well, reveals its weakness. The fact, that — with sufficient effort — the Tridentine Mass can be celebrated poorly, reveals its strength.

    I think he’s referring to the fact that the Novus Ordo norms allow the celebrant a great deal of flexibility in the extent that his own personality or manner shows through. Whereas the rigid rubrics of the Tridentine Mass are designed to mask the celebrant’s personality and manner, to the extent that he pretty much has to deliberately violate them in order to do an idiosyncratic job.

    I myself have attended TLM’s off and on for over a half century, and NO Masses daily for years. All in all, I’ve probably seen about the same number of sloppy TLM’s as NO Masses as reverent as Ab. Burke celebrates. Namely, not too many of either.

    But the standards for the TLM are now (reflecting Vatican II?) much higher now than in the old days, and it’s been many years since I’ve seen a single TLM that was hasty or sloppy in any way.

  24. Malta says:

    To propose that there is an objective difference between TLM and the NO based on a subjective measure such as ‘reverence’ is propose a fundamental discontinuity in the Church…”

    Yes, there was a discontinuity in the Church, even though the Nous ordo is valid:

    DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

    THE ORDINARY OF THE TRIDENTINE MASS

    AND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE



    The following ENORMOUS pasted text was edited out by Fr. Z.  It was simply too long. 

    EVERYONE: Learn to summarize.  This blog is not a dumping place for old kitchen sinks.

    “Pope Paul’s New Mass” (Published by The Angelus Press, 1980) by Michael Davies

  25. Different says:

    So, we have Michael Davies claiming there was a rupture between the two forms of the Mass and Pope Benedict and Archbishop Burke claiming there was no rupture.

    Who’s judgement should we trust on this one?

  26. Different says:

    Henry,

    Why on earth should it be any more difficult to celebrate the ordinary form properly than it is to celebrate the extraordinary form properly? That doesn’t make sense to me. Now, the fact that many priests don’t say the ordinary form correctly does not mean it is difficult, it just means those priests are not well-formed. A well-formed priest understands the importance of a reverent liturgy and says Mass according to the rubrics. The abuse epidemic is not caused by a liturgy that magically causes priests to abuse it. The epidemic was caused by thousands of priests receiving horrid formation in tradition and in the importance of their liturgical duties.

  27. Henry Edwards says:

    Different: Why on earth should it be any more difficult to celebrate the ordinary form properly than it is to celebrate the extraordinary form properly?

    You’re asking the wrong person. Because I personally believe (not being a priest myself) that it ought to be considerably easier to celebrate the ordinary form properly than the extraordinary form. For the simple reason that there’s far more for the celebrant to learn — in the way of rubrics, gestures, and ceremonial — for a proper celebration of the extraordinary form of Mass.

    However, I believe the quite different (contrapositive?) point that Mosebach (along with so many others) has made is that it’s much easier to celebrate the newer form improperly — because its norms constrain the priest to propriety much less than do the rubrics of the oder form, which are so detailed and rigid that the priest who follows them conscientiously is rather bound to propriety.

    I think this is a reason why — in many localities at least — many or most of the ordinary Masses one attends nowadays appear to be improperly celebrated to one extent or other, while most if not all of the extraordinary Masses seen nowadays appear to be properly celebrated.

    Although another factor may be the selectivity (and expectations) of both TLM celebrants and congregations at present. If in response to Summorum Pontificum the numbers of priests celebrating and people attending the TLM increases considerable, neither of them “trained” so well, we may well fear some relaxation of the generally (though not invariably) pristine standards of the recent past.

  28. Different says:

    Henry,

    Thanks for the clarification. It seems to me the bigger problem is generations of priests who were taught that rubrics are just loose guidelines and not something to be rigorously followed. I would think that any priest who had the right intentions (hopefully that is nearly all of them) and was properly educated would never abuse the liturgy. The epidemic of abuse is sadly caused by many priests who were never properly educated and formed. Thankfully, this is already changing for the better in many places!

  29. CarpeNoctem says:

    I would extend your exercise, Malta, by picking out one of the Eastern Catholic Liturgies… of Chrysostom, for instance. There’s lots of legitimate and powerful options, variations, ‘omissions’ and ‘additions’ which would not stand up well to the scrutiny you (well, Mr. Davies, anyway) are applying to the NO. I don’t think you would want to make the mistake of calling into question the legitimacy of these ancient and holy rites of countless saints.

    I also don’t think that Cramner vs. NO is a valid comparison… apples vs. oranges. Cramner was directly intending to defect from the Catholic faith and start something new. The Concilium was not. Similarities between the two ‘reforms’, while unfortunate, do not prove such a “tainted analogy”.

    The ‘ordinary’ rite of the Latin Church is not beyond respectful critique… I will be the first one to say “Amen!” to that. I am very acutely aware of the differences between the “ordinary” and “extraordinary” liturgies, as well as the amazing variation and legitimate diversity which is found in the Eastern Catholic liturgies. I do have a personal preference for TLM for many of the reasons you have stated elsewhere, but we cannot propose or accept as a Church that one Rite or ritual has an inherent superiority in sacramental efficacy, vis, ‘reverence’ among the many legitimate Rites or rituals (I’m trying to carefully circumscribe the dual Roman ‘uses’ debate here, Fr. Z.).

    Simply stated, I find it irresponsible and unwise make value judgments on the form of Mass based on a subjective measure, i.e. ‘reverence’… unless you are redefining ‘reverence’. I wonder if Malta is confusing ‘reverence’ with ‘honor’ in a Thomistic sense?

    ‘Reverence’ in my book is something deeper which transcends even the words and actions of the liturgy as a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is expressed as an affective attitude of worship, not simply a multiplication of pious words or actions. (The 4-hr Syro-Malabar liturgy I once attended was not objectively holier than any other Sacred Liturgy I have been to.) The words and actions of Sacred Liturgy (Mass) inculcate and promote ‘reverence’ and the true (‘orthodox’) lex credendi, if we are to use B-16’s language from S.P. The Liturgy is not in itself ‘reverent’ or ‘irreverent’. I would propose that for many people, TLM has an edge in the power to instruct in reverence, but that’s an edge in pedagogy, not in ‘reverence’ per se… it doesn’t lead to a different lex credendi. The ordinary and extraordinary uses, along with all the Eastern Liturgies are set parallel to one another as legitimate and effective expressions of the lex orandi, implying that there are many legitimate ways to arrive at the same lex credendi and its fruits, namely ‘reverence’.

  30. Henry Edwards says:

    CarpeNoctem: Cramner was directly intending to defect from the Catholic faith and start something new. The Concilium was not.

    It is probably pointless to argue here — at a distance of 40 years in one case and 400 years in the other case — whether Cramner and the Concilium intended to carry out essentially the same reform, albeit one within the Church of Rome and the other without it.

    However, to me it seems tragically easy to argue that the results of their two liturgical reforms were essentially equivalent in regard to lex credendi.

  31. Malta says:

    “I do have a personal preference for TLM for many of the reasons you have stated elsewhere, but we cannot propose or accept as a Church that one Rite or ritual has an inherent superiority in sacramental efficacy…”

    On the contrary, I would argue that the Vetus Ordo mass does have a superior sacramental efficacy in the sense that it inspires a more worthy reception of the Eucharist, and greater belief in the Real Presence, and thus the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord is not abused as it so often is in a Novus Ordo mass. Of course the consecrations are valid in each. But in the former, you don’t have Eucharistic ministers handing out the Precious Body to standing, often disinterested, parishoners, who often pop the Eucharist into their mouths like a potato chip. It is a known, provable, fact that belief in the Real Presence plummeted after Bugnini’s reform. You can’t hide from facts.

    In the east the Eucharist is often received standing, but very reverently, in the mouth, with paten, etc. I certainly don’t have any qualms with any of the ancient liturgies.

    My truck is with the Bugnini mass, created in a liturgical think tank, by a man who was quite possibly a Mason. Archbishop Bugnin said in 1974 that his new mass was a “major conquest of the Catholic Church.” Puhleez!

  32. CarpeNoctem says:

    The Pope Mahoney and V-3 example above betrays a misunderstanding of the historical power of the ancient rites of the Church and borders on fear-mongering (although it does make for a pretty frightening scenario!)

    How many years did it take to build an airplane? Well, all of human history up to about 100 years ago. There was a long, historical development to the point of achieving controlled flight. Once that happened, once we knew what the critical elements were (wings and empennage and a small enough engine, etc) the die was cast and all of our functioning airplanes look more or less like the form “airplane” developed by the Wright bros.

    What Malta is proposing is to disrupt the form completely. Kool-aid and cookies in honor of the Great Spirit? Give me a break. I am sure that there have been some foolish or even malevolent priests who have tried that, but that would be, without a doubt, invalid and not a living manifestation of the Church. It’s like a new model of an airplane without wings or an engine: it won’t fly.

    It’s been a long time since we built airplanes out of sticks, but as advanced as they are today, they still all have wings of one kind or another. Its been a long time from the ancient liturgy of the apostles, but we still use exclusively bread and wine in honoring God the Father, Son, and Spirit. I suppose that helicopters and parachutes also fly, but they obey the same laws of aerodynamics to achieve their effectiveness as airplanes do. For the sake of my metaphor, let’s call all these other aircraft the other Catholic Rites.

    I admit that I am not comfortable with the questions surrounding the character of Bugnini, and his book on the “Reform of the Liturgy” is creepy, but his group commissioned by the Pope and the Council was not building an airplane from the first time from scratch… they had a model which worked and they were modifying it to serve the needs legitimatly discerned and articulated by an Ecumenical Council of the Church under the presidency of a legitimate pope. The ‘airplane’ of Mass still has ‘wings’ and cannot morph into something it is not, like a submarine. Perhaps we borrowed some airodynamic forms and instrumentation from helicopters to make a better airplane, but it doesn’t compromise the aircraft as an effective flying machine. Because of the specifications and past history given to them, I suppose they could come up with their version of the Mass as quickly as they did. It was ratified by a legitimate pope and we have it today as our Mass, such that it is. Yes, the elements of the ‘ordinary’ Mass can be traced to explicit antecedents. No, it does not have perfect lift with no drag, but it is a respectable flying machine which is (like its predecessor) still a work in progress.

    I think we are living in extraordinary, although not unique, times in the history of the Church and the Roman Liturgy. What we are seeing now in Summorum Pontificum is probably the last adjustment of the V-2 age. Popes and bishops and priests who follow Benedict will pretty much have the distinction of having been exclusively formed in the post-V2 Church. Vatican II is now history and the journey of the Church to its future is now the agenda. The present ‘ordinary’ liturgy had a different R&D cycle from its predecessors. And we are seeing nothing more than a first maintenance cycle in the intrigue of S.P… and it is decidedly post-modern in outlook and post-conciliar in implementation.

    To deny the effectiveness or holiness of the ordinary form of Mass is to disconnect oneself from the legitimate authority of the council and the pope over the Mass (and thus to disconnect oneself from the Church). As I said, I do have a preference for the TLM (for flying in an open cockpit, so to speak), and I do recognize that the planform for the NO is not perfect (and stressing the airframe risks folding a wing and crashing to the ground as it would for any airplane, I suppose), but the objective reality of the presence of Christ when a priest celebrates correctly (flies in the operational envelope) is unquestionable… and that is all that really matters.

    Fr. Z… sorry for all the chatter from me today… I hope it is enlightening or at least interesting. For a time as a youthful, zealous, marginalized layperson I toyed with the idea of sede-vacantism until I realized the problems with such a position and expanded my understanding of the liturgy through the incredible legitimate holy diversity manifiested in the history and liturgy of the Eastern Church. There’s a zeal on this topic which is hard for me to contain. I submit all of my remarks and speculation to the review and correction of higher authority, not the least of which would include you. Thanks for hosting this discussion!

  33. Henry Edwards says:

    CarpeNoctem: we cannot propose or accept as a Church that one Rite or ritual has an inherent superiority in sacramental efficacy

    I assume that by “sacramental efficacy” you refer not merely to the validity or intrinsic merit of the sacrament, but to the usual meaning of the phrase in terms of external value and effectiveness as a channel of grace to those participating.

    In which case I wonder whether you really want to suggest that any two celebrations either of the same rite or of different rite have the same sacramental efficacy, independent of all the liturgical accidents and external circumstances that so powerfully affect people’s receptivity to the grace the sacrament makes available.

    In these terms, it seems obvious to me that — whereas I am blessed to attend fully proper and reverent celebrations of Holy Mass in both the ordinary and extraordinary forms, and count every daily participation in either form an inestimable blessing — the extraordinary form is plainly more conducive to receptivity of grace in most participants, and therefore normally of greater sacramental efficacy for most.

  34. ThomasMore1535 says:

    CarpeNoctem,

    As someone who loves reading about airplanes as well as the tradition of Holy Mother Church, I must say that your comparrison of the mass to the development of aviation is one of the most original, enjoyable and persuasive arguments I’ve ever read. Well said!

  35. Henry Edwards says:

    CarpeNoctem: Let me add that, for my own part, you hardly need to apologize for \\\”all the chatter\\\”. Your views of where the Church has been, is now, and is going are incisive as well as quite interesting.

    Though on the point of Bugnini as you mention, I believe his \\\”creepy\\\” book suggests in his own words a strong argument that he and his Concilium deliberately did a different job — building an new airplane more from scratch than repairing and tuning up the old one — than the job Pope Paul VI had commissioned them to do.

    My personal belief is that Paul VI most likely was not fully aware of the extent of this discrepancy when he promulgated the Novus Ordo. After all, he could not personally have checked the entire massive job of re-engineering the liturgy, and would quite naturally have accepted the assurance — however unreliable it may later have turned out to be — of qualified \\\”engineers\\\” that they had done properly what he had commissioned.

  36. Malta says:

    Henry, I agree; Carpe, thank you for your insightful comments.

    Also, I want to thank all Priests, whether they pray the NO or VO, for their sacrifices these forty years in the liturgical desert. Although I think the NO is vastly inferior to the VO, I have known many very holy priests who pray only the NO mass (usually because they were barred from praying the VO). The NO mass can certainly be prayed with reverence and devotion by a good priest, and it is certainly a valid rite. I want to thank NO priests, and tell them that in no wise do I judge what they have done with the only rite many of them have known.

  37. RBrown says:

    I understand what you and Burke are saying, but my argument is that, ipso fact, the “latin mass” is a more reverent celebration than the Novus Ordo Mass. Reverence can be shown at each, but the Vetus Ordo mass, by its very nature, is a more reverent form of worship than the Novus Ordo.

    There are two types of reverence, reverent feelings, and reverent actions. I believe by its act the VO mass expresses an act of more reverence, since at Mass we give to God what is His.

    If you’re going to reduce reverence to actions and feelings, then I think we will never agree. Reverence, i.e., worship (the act of religion), is rooted in the will not the emotions–although emotions (and actions) follow.

    If you don’t believe there are differences in degrees of showing reverent acts, then one might as well attend a charismatic renewal, or Benny Hinn service, since the worshippers there are certainly very reverent in their own way.

    I believe the VO mass also instills more reverent feelings on the part of those who attend and pray at these masses. NO masses instill disinterest and a dwindling respect and reverence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So, either by feelings or actions, the VO mass is a superior, more reverent mass.
    Comment by Malta

    To me the two most important components of a reverent mass are Latin and celebration ad orientem. And both are available–at least, juridically–in the Novus Ordo.

    Although I think the NO Offertory is not adequate, nevertheless, I would take a Latin NO ad orientem over a vernacular VO versus populum.

    Some have thought that there are too many rubrics in the Old Mass, that the priest was too occupied with them and not enough with the Eucharistic doctrine. Thus, rubrics needed to be simplified.

    Unfortunately, when the vernacular/versus populum was combined with simplified rubrics, celebrants starting to make up their own rubrics–and the whole thing became a low Church Protestant show, a community celebrating itself.

  38. Michael C. says:

    Archbishop Burke for saint!

  39. Malta says:

    Michael C.

    Burke might be a saint someday, but that is up to God alone. My reading of the Bible is that some who think they will be saints will be damned, and some who think they will be damned will be saints–much has to do, of course, with humility and innocence. Only God knows…