Card. Burke on “mutual enrichment”. Fr. Z rants.

When Benedict XVI promulgated his “emancipation proclamation” for the older form of the Roman Rite, his Motu Proprio  Summorum Pontificum, he wrote about a “mutual enrichment” between the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms which could take place.  For that to happen, the Extraordinary Form must be established in many places.  The “mutual enrichment” is what I have called a “gravitational pull”.  This is a slow process which we may not see produce concrete fruits in our lifetimes.

The Church’s identity was dealt a massive blow with the sweeping changes to Holy Mass and other rites during and after the Second Vatican Council.  Paul VI permitted the Consilium, the committee set up to execute the changes mandated by the Council Fathers, to go way beyond the Council’s mandates and make a staggering number of changes not actually called for by the Council. The result was the artificially constructed “Novus Ordo”.   Making matters worse, the “spirit” of the times so deeply quaffed by liberals short-circuited even the faithful implementation of the artifically created Novus Ordo.  The results were wide-spread liturgical abuses and illicit experimentation, a  loss of continuity of worship from place to place and with our forebears, and a grave enervation of our Catholic identity.  With the weakening of our Catholic identity, we also became weaker in the eyes of the world at large and therefore easier to drive from the public square.

A “mutual enrichment” is desired by Pope Benedict so that our liturgical worship, a foundational element for any sort of renewal of any aspect of our Catholic lives, can slowly reacquire the process of development which is slow, natural and organic, overcoming the abrupt, artificial and sterile impositions of the 60’s.

With that, I turn your attention now to a piece in the National Catholic Register (the good one), in which His Eminence Raymond Card. Burke speaks about the “mutual enrichment” element of Pope Benedict’s vision.  His Eminence has been a cardinal now for one year.

He touches many topics of interest, but I restrict myself to this:


The tribunal prefect also exercises care for the Church’s liturgy as a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship.

He is grateful to Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for giving the Church “a font of solid direction” regarding worship, based on the Second Vatican Council’s vision of a “God-centered liturgy and not a man-centered liturgy.”

That intention was not always realized, he said, since the Council’s call for liturgical reform coincided with a “cultural revolution.”

Many congregations lost their “fundamental sense that the liturgy is Jesus Christ himself acting, God himself acting in our midst to sanctify us.”

Cardinal Burke said greater access to the traditional Latin Mass, now known as the “extraordinary form” of the Roman rite, has helped to correct the problem.

“The celebration of the Mass in the extraordinary form is now less and less contested,” he noted, “and people are seeing the great beauty of the rite as it was celebrated practically since the time of Pope Gregory the Great” in the sixth century.

Many Catholics now see that the Church’s “ordinary form” of Mass, celebrated in modern languages, “could be enriched by elements of that long tradition.”

In time, Cardinal Burke expects the Western Church’s ancient and modern forms of Mass to be combined in one normative rite, a move he suggests the Pope also favors.

“It seems, to me, that what he has in mind is that this mutual enrichment would seem to naturally produce a new form of the Roman rite — the ‘reform of the reform,’ if we may — all of which I would welcome and look forward to its advent.”


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Brick by Brick, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. haribo says:

    I’m not sure constructing a “new form of the Roman Rite” really solves what wrong with the current state of the Roman liturgy, which is that it’s a complete break with our liturgical tradition. Even if the tertium quid borrows heavily from the traditional liturgy, it would still be an inorganic solution unless the traditional Mass is our starting point.

  2. BV says:

    Asked if he could envision U.S. Catholics ever being arrested for preaching their faith, he replied: “I can see it happening, yes.”

    So can I. So can I.

  3. Tom Esteban says:

    There is simply nothing that the NO can ‘teach’ the Latin Mass. I hope my feeling is correct; that ‘mutual enrichment’ phrasing is a buzzword to appeal to the liberals so that when the NO is finally abrogated and the traditional Mass restored we can say “look, here is an example of mutual enrichment” which is just a shorthand way of saying that whatever good the NO has, it is already in the Latin Mass.

    I see that the only acceptable, and possibly worthwhile, thing that we can take away from the NO is the people saying out loud certain responses along with the server at a Low Mass (for instance, the confiteor). That is about it.

  4. bmadamsberry says:

    @Tom Esteban:
    Having gone to the Ordinary Form 75% of the time, and the Extraordinary Form 25% of the time, I say that there ARE things that the Ordinary Form can “teach” the Extraordinary Form. For example, the use of the vernacular at Mass is a great blessing (and, no, it doesn’t always matter that the missals have Latin on one page and English on the other).
    Furthermore, the cycle of readings for the Ordinary Form are much better than that of the Extraordinary Form, with more readings and more of Scripture covered.
    I would also point to the priest speaking in an audible voice for the entire congregation to hear as a plus. Yes, I know that he’s not talking to me, but in the Ordinary Form he IS leading me in the entire prayer that is the Mass. But when I can’t hear him, I cannot follow (because he isn’t leading me). So, when the priest speaks and the congregation can hear, they are better able to follow along in their hearts, minds, and (when appropriate) with their voice.
    I think what the Extraordinary Form could teach the Ordinary Form is obvious to many on this blog, so I won’t go into them.
    But that’s just my opinion, folks. Take it or leave it.

  5. wmeyer says:

    “…make a staggering number of changes not actually called for by the Council.”

    I know from my study of Sacrosanctum Concilium that the Novus Ordo bears no resemblance to what the Council directed, but where can I find a history of the changes applied, and discussion of where they originated?

    Also, is there a repository of the historic issues of the G.I.R.M.? I’ve looked for such a thing before, without success.

  6. Tom Esteban says:


    In principle I am not opposed to having some vernacular in a Mass using the 1962 Missal. But I don’t think we have that luxury right now – not at a time when people think the Mass is all about them (which has been entrenched by a totally vernacular Mass). If that were done way back in the 60’s that would have been perfectly fine. Right now we’ve lost that luxury, because we need a radical change that once again teaches that the Mass is not about the people or centered towards them. So in principle, I am not opposed to it I suppose. Practically, for any future development I can’t see it doing any good. People would resent it more than a purely Latin Mass. They’d resent the latter too, of course, but that’s something we’re gonna have to pay for.

    As for the cycle of readings, well, I am not 100% sold on that. While there certainly are more readings, we’ve lost many of the readings that contain important doctrine and really solid Christianity – like the times Jesus rebuked others. More scripture is good; more scripture with less focus is bad.

    I am also not in principle opposed to a priest speaking in an audible voice, but my concerns are similar to my concerns with the vernacular mentioned above. The attitude of “I can’t hear it, this sucks, this was meant to be about me” needs to go first.

    In any case, I maintain still that the NO Missae can’t teach the Latin Mass anything – it can’t enrich it…. but perhaps there are a few principles present in the NO that can be applied to the Latin Mass.

    Also just my opinion though, and I know that God’s ways are not my ways, so I put my trust in Him fully.

  7. Andy Milam says:


    I must respectfully disagree with you, here’s why:

    The intelligibility of the Mass isn’t in question. So, the use of language isn’t really an authentic issue. It is part of the facade of the Novus Ordo. Do the Jews have a problem with ancient Hebrew? Do Muslims have a problem with Arabic? Do the Hindi have a problem with Sanskrit? No. However, Catholics have a problem with Latin? Why? Because the Protestant’s don’t like it. Since when should be worried about the Protestant mind, theologically? They are in error.

    With regard to the readings; again, it is a facade of the Novus Ordo. The TLM readings do several things…1) Consistency 2) Specific to the day. 3) Specific to the time of year 4) Saint in question and 5) Sunday of the Year. And if “noble simplicity” is to be taken seriously, then the TLM model is much easier to understand than a 2 year/3 cycle reading system which leaves everyone wondering from week to week, day to day, year to year which reading will be applied. Also the “bracketing of the readings” also makes it thologically ambiguous…I think that the new structure is a train wreck, not to mention that they don’t always apply to the given Saint or the specificity of the day at hand. It is willy nilly.

    Finally, to audible prayer…what difference does it make? If he’s not talking to you, what difference would it make if you heard what he said. Also, if he is speaking out loud the whole time, how are you to enter in to a properly worshipful state? If you’re hanging on his every word, it is distracting to your role in the Mass, which is to offer your prayers to God in conjunction with the priest confecting the sacrifice. Audible prayer of the priest has taken away a very important aspect of the faithful’s participatio actuosa, in favor of the participatio activa. While it is noble to know the Mass and pray it, the mode of prayer isn’t so important as making sure that you worship. Audible prayers at the altar tend to be a distraction, practically, as opposed to a help.

    You’re entitled to your opinion, but commentary on your opinion is warranted. Perhaps my post will help you to question your opinion and seek a more complete answer.

    May God Keep You Close.

  8. ChrisWhittle says:

    I don’t see a combined missal anytime soon. It just won’t work. We should just use the 1962 Missal only. Besides, Quo Primum by Pius V says that only the [Traditional] Roman Missal can be used, unless there is a rite that is more than 200 years older than the Papal Bull (1370).

  9. Andy Milam says:

    @ Fr. Z….

    Your post is spot on. 100% spot on.

  10. leonugent2005 says:

    When Benedict talks about mutual enrichment it’s interesting to see how little anyone is interested in following his wishes. The saints have always taught that is self will that burns in hell. I’m prepared to accept whatever the church does with the liturgy if I like it or not. If they put the 62 missal back I would hate it and I would recognize the church’s right to do it. I would suffer it as best I can and take my failures to confession.

  11. mrose says:

    Tom Esteban,

    Agreed that the novus ordo has nothing to offer to the TLM. The lectionary is disruptive because of its 3-year cycle, and I think you make a very important point about the particular readings gone from the novus ordo and present in the TLM. Maybe, maybe, the only possible thing here would be to keep the yearly cycle but add an O.T. reading (or epistle where the “epistle” is the O.T.). Thus, do not change at all what the first reading has always been (these arrangements often date long into antiquity, like many other aspects of the Mass) but perhaps add one. Perhaps.

    As for the vernacular…well all I have to say is I hope we never see it with the TLM. Latin has such a long, rich tradition as the liturgical language of Western Christendom that messing with it is suspect. In any case, that shouldn’t happen for quite some time until after the crisis passes, which could be awhile.

    I must say I cannot understand this mutual enrichment business. The TLM is perfectly Catholic, perfectly traditional, it is not missing anything that a liberal modernist concoction can enrich.

  12. cpaulitz says:

    Tom, you’re exactly right.

    While we will be labeled as too rigid for this belief, the NO has nothing to enrich the TLM, because the TLM was perfect before it changed, and needed no enriching.

    I pray there is no hybrid and that he Novus Ordo doesn’t improve, this way ensuring it will wither on the vine and dissapear, never sullying the TLM.

  13. anilwang says:

    Andy Milam, actually translation to the vernacular has happened from the earliest days in the Eastern Church, and even the Church of Rome (we aren’t all using Hebrew or Greek, we’re using the vernacular of the Roman Empire). Latin does serve a key purpose in unification…look no further than the Holy Land to see how much simpler it would be if there was only one languages to deal with rather than every language on earth…but other than that there is nothing Protestant about translation into the vernacular.

    As for audible prayers, you are correct that it’s not directed at us. However, they do server as catechesis, so pastorally, they add value.

  14. tzard says:

    Regarding the combining of the two forms of the Mass into one normative rite – see the wording. Card. Burke is always precise in his wording.

    “in time” – in the Church’s mentality – is a long period (imho). I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s in terms of decades at a minimum. I find it comforting that the Church is not responding to the winds of change anymore, and thinking long term.

  15. Andy Milam says:


    With regard to the use of Latin. If you look to the development of Latin as the sacred language of the Mass, you’ll see that at no point in the history of the Church was it ever the vernacular, proper. While in Rome there were Latin speakers, the vast majority of speakers were Greek speakers. As the Mass transitioned from Greek to Latin (which took roughly 100 years or so), the use of Latin in the Mass was never the vulgar Latin. It wasn’t classical Latin either…it was it’s own.

    Moving on, as the Mass spread, Latin was retained for use in Germania, where Latin was never the vernacular, and to Gaul, and to the Iberian Peninsula, and to England. They all had their own languages which were every day used, with Latin being for the educated and the official. Latin was never the vernacular.

    So, I challenge your premise that Latin was a vernacular. No it was not.

    As for there being nothing Protestant in using the vernacular, look to Luther’s quotes on the use of the vernacular in the liturgical action. Yes, it is a Protestant issue. They even attempted a High German, to parallel Latin, but it just never took. There is much disdain in Protestantism regarding Latin.

    Obviously, there are exceptions, but Latin was never normative.

    As for audible prayers…catechesis isn’t simply done through hearing the words, but rather having the words explained and that doesn’t happen during the Mass. That is best served in the classroom. So, breaking down the meaning of the Canon and the parts of the Mass are best studied there, not simply hearing them at Mass….most people don’t understand consubstatial, yet that is what they hear….your point about being audible doesn’t stand.

    It is far more effective for the person to enjoin his prayer to the action of the priest, while he offers the Mass, as opposed to just hearing him say what he says….with no explanation.

  16. bmadamsberry says:

    I agree that those things do need to be taken into account. But I think they can be done in conjunction. If one waits, for example, for everyone to know that the Mass is about G-d and not about just themselves then one will be waiting a LONG TIME!

    I’m not sure you actually read my comment, or at least not carefully (not because you disagree with me, but because you don’t actually address it). The points you brought up were addressed in my comment.

    Use of the vernacular: The difference between many of the religions you cited and the Catholic Church is that those religions believe that there is a literal, mystical power in those languages that is lost if one puts it in another language. In other words, reciting in Sanskrit is more powerful than in English. This is not the Church’s stance, as far as I’m aware. A prayer in Latin can be as powerful as one in the vernacular. Furthermore, why was Mass celebrated largely in Latin in the first place? Because it was the vernacular! The Mass isn’t just a celebration, it is at the same time (though less so) a teaching moment of what the Church believes. Also, I never mentioned being worried about Protestants. You brought that up, which makes me worried that you are only giving talking points instead of actually addressing my points.

    I don’t know very many people who are wondering day to day what the readings will be. It’s pretty easy to figure out, and doesn’t take a lot of work to find out. Furthermore, most of the time the readings do coincide with the season, and sometimes even the saint.

    As I stated before, I KNOW that the priest is NOT speaking to me when he prays silently at an Extraordinary Form Mass. I think it’s important to hear what he is saying, however, because hearing I can follow. I can pray with the priest as one voice (though his audible, mine silent) instead of hoping and guessing that I’m going along with him. It is not hard to enter into a properly worshipful state as the priest is praying. In fact, praying along with the priest as I listen to him puts one into that worshipful state. It is not a distraction for anyone that I have every encountered at an Ordinary Form Mass. Why must it be an either/or? I think it could be a both/and (I can listen and I can enter into a proper worshipful state).

    Sorry, but your post/comment did not make me question my opinion nor make me seek a more complete answer… mainly because I think I have a good opinion on the matter and a good answer.

  17. Tom Esteban says:

    Some relevant quotes…

    “Today we might ask: Is there a Latin Rite anymore? Certainly there is no awareness of it. To most people the liturgy appears to be rather something for the individual congregation to arrange.”
    J. Ratzinger, Feast of Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), p. 84.

    “Who dreamed on that day that within a few years, far less than a decade, the Latin past of the Church would be all but expunged, that it would be reduced to a memory fading into the middle distance? The thought of it would have horrified us, but it seemed so far beyond the realm of the possible as to be ridiculous. So we laughed it off.”
    Archbishop R. J. Dwyer, Twin Circle, October 26, 1973.

    “Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”
    J. Gelineau, Demain la Liturgie (Paris, 1976), pp. 9-10.

  18. anilwang says:

    Andy Milam, I think we need to make a distinction. First of all, the first Latin Bible was called the Vulgate. Please look up the definition of that word. Of course the vernacular used was not common speech, it was the speech used when speaking to a king, but it was still the common language. From it’s earliest days, the liturgy was translated into the local languages. This was more common in the East than in the West, but the East was (and the non-Eastern/Oriental Orthodox parts) still are part of the pre-Great pre-Schism Church.

    There is nothing wrong with there being one language for the mass, but there is also nothing wrong with there being many languages. But are small-t traditions, not big-T traditions that have their advantages and disadvantages. Who cares what Luther said on the issue? Just because he picked one small-t tradition over another doesn’t make one right and the other wrong, unless you’re willing to say that all Eastern Churches, including the ones united to Rome are heretics and all Popes that allow such a union to take place are heretics as well.

    You wrote, “catechesis isn’t simply done through hearing the words, but rather having the words explained and that doesn’t happen during the Mass. That is best served in the classroom.”

    The problem is, the liturgy itself is the best classroom. Destroy the liturgy and you destroy the faith. Enhance the liturgy and you enhance the faith. lex orandi lex credendi lex vivendi. People forget what they learn in school, and it was the classroom and the homilies where the “Spirit of Vatican II” really took off. Formal catechesis is necessary but only happens once and is often forgotten. Catechesis through the liturgy happens at least once a year and is impossible to forget.

    Looking at this historically, the Arians used the same liturgy as the Catholics did but since the liturgy said one thing and the homilies and catechesis said something opposite, the Arians were living with a fundamental inconsistency which was obvious to most people. Eventually they had to change their liturgy to match their theology.

    Everything in the liturgy *must* be our classroom. Walk into an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox church. The Church is filled with icons of saints in layers until they reach the central doom at the top where Christ is looking down on the congregation. Without explanation, it’s blatantly obvious that the Eastern Churches believe that Christ is King, and the saints take part in the liturgy and some saints are closer to God than others. The fact that people kiss the icons, even during the liturgy express how deeply people are connected to the saints.

  19. bmadamsberry says: Furthermore, the cycle of readings for the Ordinary Form are much better than that of the Extraordinary Form, with more readings and more of Scripture covered.

    Actually, there is a great disadvantage to more readings that cover more of Scripture, and it is this: the greater selection of Scriptures does not readily take root in the memory. When you hear the same readings year after year, always associated with particular seasons or feasts, you remember them. When you remember them, you think about them and meditate on them, and they become part of you and inform your life. Now, there is too much, and how can those of us who live and work in the world retain it? We have breadth without any depth.

  20. Roguejim says:

    The apparent lack of uniformity in the NO from parish to parish begs a certain question. How would a layman really know if the Mass he is attending is truly faithful to Sancrosanctum Concilium, to what the Council Fathers truly intended? My pastor feels that the Masses (all different in many respects) at his parish are faithful to Sancrosanctum Concilium, at least in the “big things”. His rationale? If the Archbishop doesn’t make any corrections, then things must be okay. The Archbishop in question has celebrated teen guitar Masses at my parish. Nuff said there.

    I would challenge the WDTPRSers to do their own poll. Email all the pastors separately in your area and ask them if the Mass (NO assumed) at their parish conforms faithfully to Sancrosanctum Concilium. Any chance you would ever get a flat “no”? I, for one, would love to hear the responses.

  21. Geoffrey says:

    For the most part I agree with bmadamsberry, however I think Latin should be retained as much as possible in the Extaordinary Form (with the exception of the readings) and greatly added to the average Mass in the Ordinary Form (especially the Ordinary of the Mass, etc.).

    To those who dislike the OF Lectionary, keep in mind that Vatican II did not say specifically how to go about adding more readings to the liturgy, but left the specifics (for good or ill) to the Holy See. More readings can be added to the EF Lectionary without it being the 3-year Sunday cycle, etc. Consequently, the OF Lectionary could be revised further at some point (probably not in our lifetime!).

  22. The almost exclusive use of the vernacular in the Roman Rite never seemed to stop the Saints from communicating with God, nor of really understanding the Mass. Even the Saints who were illiterate and had very little knowledge of Latin did not really advocate for the use of the vernacular as a “help” to the people. So, the arguments offered for the use of the vernacular are more a “sentimental-I-want-to-hear-what-is-being-said” type of argument that, in reality, does not help.

    The practices of the East are a different matter. Even with the use of the vernacular, they never managed to has as many missions and missionaries as we did in the West. Their faithful also do not seem to have a better understanding of Liturgy than those in West (those who really want to). Neither their Priests nor their faithful are more pious based solely on the reason that they get to hear the Liturgy (and Scriptures) in their language.

    New lectionary: Again, people do not become holier just because they hear the Bible read more in church. If anything. Protestants have been claiming to using the whole of Scripture (and even memorizing it) for a couple of centuries … I don’t see the likes of St. Teresa of Avila, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Martin de Porres, etc., among them. The Mass is more about Sacrifice than just Scriptures (they are not mutually exclusive by any means, but more Scripture, especially in the convoluted manner the new lectionary works, will not do the trick).

  23. shane says:

    I completely agree with Ms Anita Moore, O.P.

    Scripture should be kept ‘short and sweet’, both to augment the sense of sacrality and to facilitate internalization. Mass is not supposed to be a Bible Club. Most people after NO Mass do not remember the readings they hear anyway.

  24. disco says:

    Where they differ, the traditional mass is superior in all instances, without exception. A good first step to finding this new roman rite would be to return to the old liturgical year with septuagesima and the last Sunday after Pentecost and so forth for the OF, along with collect prayers and such for more recently canonized saints for the EF.

  25. Jon says:


    I wholeheartedly agree regarding the calendar.

    This would, however, mean not only a rearrangement of N.O. Masses already composed, but also the composition of some new ones. The latter could be done by simply adapting the propers of the ’62 Missal to the N.O. template (took some doing to make myself type that).

    Don’t count on it too soon, though. In the English-speaking world, what the heck would we do with all those newly-minted missals?

  26. albinus1 says:

    As for the vernacular…well all I have to say is I hope we never see it with the TLM.

    Unless I’m mistaken, what we had between 1965 and 1970 was essentially the TLM in the vernacular.

    The almost exclusive use of the vernacular in the Roman Rite never seemed to stop the Saints from communicating with God, nor of really understanding the Mass.

    I think you mean, the almost exclusive use of Latin. Until the 1960s, the vernacular was very seldom used in the Roman Rite.

    First of all, the first Latin Bible was called the Vulgate.

    No, the first Latin Bible was the Itala. Jerome’s Vulgate was in many ways a revision of the Itala.

  27. kallman says:

    SO if and when this “normative Mass” is implemented wither the status of the TLM? Burke’s statement does not say anything about its preservation or otherwise, a cause for concern.

  28. Michael J. says:

    I feel the enrichment of the Faithful and to give the most beautiful and proper honor and worship to God, let’s just stay with The Extraordinary Form of Mass, abrogate the N.O., and do a better job of cathecizing the Faithful. We were given the Ordinary Form without a vote on it by the people or our permission, the Hierarchy can implement the Extraordinary Form of Mass upon us and we, as Faithful Catholics, will accept it, just as we accepted what was given to us after Vatican II. I oppose any mixing of these two Rites, they are just so different from each other, I cannot see how any, “mutual enrichment”, is possible. And I do not know what from the Ordinary Form of Mass could enrich the Extraordinary Form of Mass.

  29. Kevin B. says:

    The NO enriches the Extraordinary Form by giving it more and more attendees.

    With respect to His Eminence, when New Coke tanked the executives at Coca Cola got the message and returned to making Coca Cola Classic. They didn’t try to create a blend of the two.

  30. Sam Schmitt says:

    . . . where can I find a history of the changes applied, and discussion of where they orignated?”

    You going to want to read Archbishop Bugnini’s The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975 (The Liturgical Press, 1990), a play-by-play account of the changes as they moved through the Consilium and were approved by Paul VI. It’s very revealing on how the experts on the Consilium understood their mandate to reform the liturgy.

  31. Sam Schmitt says:

    You’re going to want to read . . . .

  32. robtbrown says:

    anilwang says:

    Andy Milam, I think we need to make a distinction. First of all, the first Latin Bible was called the Vulgate. Please look up the definition of that word. Of course the vernacular used was not common speech, it was the speech used when speaking to a king, but it was still the common language.

    That is a common (PI) and erroneous explanation. In fact, Jerome’s work was called the vulgate because it was for common use–by every region. It had nothing to do with the equally erroneous notion that Latin was the vernacular.

    And so it is absurd to maintain, as someone did above, that Latin was the vernacular language of the Roman Empire. There were many vernacular languages within the Empire. Latin was the language of commerce and govt. If after the Council the Church had replicated what had been done in the change from Greek to Latin, then mass now would be in English in Italy, France, Germany, Spain, and S America.

  33. ContraMundum says:

    I think the “mutual enrichment project” is one that will take generations. We can’t expect much to have happened in less than 5 years, but its fruit should be visible after 50 to 100 years.

  34. Speravi says:

    I hope this “normative rite” will not supplant SP…or at least not till after I am long dead. Certainly any reform of the reform will necessitate returning to tradition as its starting point, however, I REALLY hope they will not inflict the experimentation involved in producing this “normative rite” on those who love the Latin Mass.

  35. teaguytom says:

    Indeed, it will be decades or possibly a century before any mutual enrichment takes place. In regards to the made up Novus Ordo, it was not the starting point for the modernists experimentation. Bugnini and his modern posse started with the Holy Week reforms, especially the Palm Sunday and Easter Vigil during the PiusXII years. Blessed John XXIII actually ignored the rubrics and celebrated the old Holy Week rites. He later had Bugnini banished from his position, only to be returned by Paul VI. So the mustard seed was planted in the early 50’s for the liturgical wackiness. There needs to be a review of all of these suppressed rubrics and to whether their “reform” was proper.

  36. Centristian says:

    How I hope to live to see the eventual reform of the liturgy that will be the result of the ordinary form of Mass enriching the extraordinary form, and vice versa. What a splendid liturgy that has the potential to be.

    As one who used to attend the “Tridentine” Mass exclusively for more than a decade, I did marvel that even the readings should be in Latin. I later found it almost absurd that they should be recited in Latin. It made no sense, to me, that the celebrant should read the Epistle and Gospel in Latin, at the altar, only to walk to the pulpit to read them all over again in English. I once attended Mass in the “EF” in Montreal and was shocked when the (SSPX) priest read the Epistle and Gospel, not in Latin at all, but in French! I was delightfully astonished; it seemed so much more sensible to me.

    Beyond the Scripture readings in the vernacular, anything apart from the Canon might also be recited in the vernacular, as I see things, at least. Not that they need always be. When it makes sense to, however (say a celebrant really wants the congregation to hear and understand one or other of the propers), do so.

    I like the way they celebrate the televised Mass on EWTN, with much of the Canon in Latin (why they begin using Latin at the Lord’s Prayer instead of at the Canon’s beginning is beyond me, but it’s refreshing to hear even that much Latin). The Latin coupled with the solemnity that is always employed, the elegance of the vestments, the dignity of the sacred vessels, the chant, the bells, the chalice veil and burse, the reverence shown at all times, the use of acolytes-with-patens at the Communion of the Faithful, and the six-candle-and-cross altar appointment arrangement seen at the EWTN chapel demonstrate nicely how the traditions more commonly associated with the “EF” can have a positive influence on the “OF” there. While all of the things I have listed cannot be said to be proper to the “EF” vs. the “OF” (all of it should obtain at any Mass of the Roman Rite in any form), it can be said that it is the memory and experience of the way the pre-Conciliar form of the Mass was and is celebrated that influences many of today’s more worthy celebrations of the “OF”.

    The picture of a reform of the reform seen at EWTN would be nearly complete with the ad orientem posture of the celebrant. Nearly, but not completely. There are further ways in which the “EF” may enrich the “OF”, such as a more consistent Introductory Rite and Penitential Rite, options being dictated not by the celebrant’s whimsy, but by the type of Mass being celebrated (Recited weekday Mass, Sung Sunday Mass, Solemn Mass, Pontifical Mass, &c).

    The experience of the “OF”, though, likewise enriches the traditions of the “EF” with such good reforms as two epistles rather than one, employment of the vernacular during the Liturgy of the Word (Mass of the Catechumens), the vocal responses of the congregation and their participation in other ways, such as in serving as lectors, or in presenting the gifts in an offertory procession, and in the congregational affirmations of the restored General Intercessions. I think lay participation permitted to that degree is, well, right and just.

    We are not mere observers, after all, and such instances of active participation on the part of the laity do remind us of that without going overboard and tempting us to imagine that we may encroach upon the prerogatives of the ordained. To that end, extraordinary lay ministers should be banned outright from the celebration of Mass (but retained, nonetheless, in order to visit hospitals, shut-ins, and nursing homes). That last reform would be, in my mind, no less a major reform than turning the celebrant back around to face the Lord, again.

    I am not a fan of the way the ordinary form of Mass is TYPICALLY celebrated, and I furthermore do not think that the last word in liturgical reform comes with simply presenting the ordinary form, as it stands, in a more traditional way (although to do so 100o times improves Mass over what most of us have become used to enduring every Sunday).

    On the other hand, I do not think that the answer is simply scrapping every modern reform and declaring the 1962 Missal typical again. That would be an unambitious and inadequate response, I believe, to the liturgical needs of the Church in our time and in the times to come. The extraordinary form, after all, was going to be reformed, even had the Second Vatican Council never transpired.

    Small reforms, here and there, were already being implemented, in fact. The Dialogue Mass was a marvelous early step. The vernacular was beginning to appear, too, with approval, here and there, in the Mass of the Catechumens. Had the unfortunate liturgical disruptions of the 1960s never occurred, the Church would, today, have a liturgy, I am sure, like the one that Cardinal Burke predicts we shall one day see. I cannot believe that, had the Council never happened, our Mass, today, would be just as it was in 1962. I do not imagine that for a minute.

    I think the Mass should be allowed to become what it was hoped it would become by those good and well-intentioned Catholic liturgical reform advocates of yore who envisioned a richer and more complete expression of the Roman Rite but who never called for dismantling the traditions of the Roman Rite in the process! I hope that one day in the not too distant future all their worthy aspirations will one day be realized.

Comments are closed.