"flouting Pope Francis’ will" - The important thing isn't what's right for a particular situation, it's what Pope Francis' will is. That's how authoritarians speak.
"Rome is essentially offering local bishops the option to pass them the buck and allow the dicastery to be the “bad cop,”". There's a simple word for that - cowardice.
Since I started attending Latin mass, I have come to see how Protestant the new mass is and thereby lacking so much of the worship we are meant to be coming together to offer. I am so worried for the church that it has gotten so far from the point. The Pope needs to come up with something better than telling us to give up an original thing of beauty for a newer ride going the wrong direction. I can worship in either vehicle but can’t help feeling the driver can’t see where he is headed in the newer one.
Call it Protestant or whatever you like, but I find the gutting of the penitential Rite to be troubling. In particular, the removal of the double confiteor (priest and then people), the removal of essentially all petitions of the Saints from the confiteor, and reduction of the beautiful nine-fold Kyrie.
It seems to speak of a certain antinomianism and anti-hieratic feeling that was in the water at the time (and still is). Now, I don't think that makes the NO "Protestant." However, I think it is apparent that as a Rite it suffers from the Spirit of the Age in which it was promulgated.
those seem like some very strange concerns, I am not going to lie. one of your objections is really the fact that priest and people say the confiteor together instead of priest followed by the altar servers/people? the rejection of such simplifications and reductions of duplicated or longer prayers in principle is a rejection of the directions laid down by Sacrosanctum concilium, which called for that very thing.
I'm sorry you're just finding out Catholicism is weird.
So, we're still just whipping out the Vatican II card instead of engaging in substantive conversation? Cool.
Sacrosanctum concilium is speaking in vage terms and principles. It uses the phrase "unnecessary repetitions." Obviously, the key qualifier being "unnecessary." Clearly, I don't think the double confiteor is "unnecessary." It speaks to the hierarchic nature of the sacrifice of the mass. This exact diminishing of the uniqueness of the role of the priest in the sacrifice of the mass is what some might characterize as "Protestant." Hence, my initial response to your question.
talking about Catholicism as weird is a red herring- I said your concerns are strange. it is odd to me that someone would have a serious objection to a prayer being said by priest and people at the same time rather than in succession when the prayer pertains to all and is not a special priestly prayer or a prayer only of the laity. it doesn't at all diminish the role of the priest when he is joined by the laity in saying all the parts of the Ordinary which all say, rather than saying them separately or privately. it does emphasize the common identity shared between priest and faithful, which is by no means a uniquely Protestant idea.
yes, I am whipping out the Vatican II card. it is authoritative, it is what guided the liturgical reform. I'm not sure why bringing it up makes the conversation non-substantive.
it seems to me that the authority that is competent to decide on which repetitions are necessary or unnecessary is neither you nor me, but the bishop of Rome and the other bishops. going back to Trent, the teaching has been that the Church has the power to change rites and prayers according to times and circumstances.
Vatican II is dead, it is of interest only to boomers who have formed an attachment to it. It was aimed at modern man, but it has nothing to say to post modern man. It is a fossil, the best thing we could do with SC is bin it.
I'm not a boomer, I am 20 years old. Vatican II is not dead to me, because the Holy Spirit spoke through its Fathers to the circumstances of our time. And so I take it as the marching orders for the Church in the twenty-first century. I confess belief in the holy Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and will ever observe its decrees.
I would dearly love to know how it is that you come to such a position. I'm not kidding. I'm your age and your comments here first irritated but have more recently fascinated me. You hold such an outlier opinion among the historically and theologically informed young people I know. I know literally no one else who isn't at least quite unenthusiastic about V II, though mostly the people I know seem resigned to it and think the hyper-online trad movement is usually worse. (feels necessary here to spell out that I'm not a trad and I don't exist in a trad bubble). But you think the council speaks helpfully to our time! Which, again, is so out of the ordinary that I've become quite intrigued. If you wrote an essay on this topic I'm sure you could pitch it to a number of publications, and I for one would be an interested reader.
You're use of VII here is also a red herring. Your casual use of it instead of engaging the question is what made your response non-substabtive. The fact remains that SC says almost nothing about the particulars of reforming the rite. It certainly never says "eviscerate the penitential rite."
I agree, in that there's nothing "inherently wrong" with the priest and the people saying the prayer together. That's not the point I'm making at all. That's way too simplistic. I'm speaking in terms of symbol. What is most fitting to convey the truth of our worship of the Most Holy Trinity?
The issue lies in that it was a removal and reduction of a symbolic element that speaks to the truth of the hierarchic nature of Catholicism and our worship. The rejection of that, as such, is and was a core element of Protestantism (hence why I included it as a response to your initial question). Therefore, it seems most unfitting to be removed and conveniently aligns with ideologies of a recent vintage.
I, however, would be more interested in hearing a defense of the removal of the saints from the confiteor. You seem to have latched onto just one part of my initial question.
Yeah, SC says little about the particulars. But it does have principles and the reform was clearly done in accordance with those principles. "Eviscerate the penitential rite" is your characterization, and I think it is faulty.
What is most fitting to convey the truth of our worship? The Council of Trent said that it was for the authorities of the Church to decide what is most fitting and what is to be used. I think and the Church has taken the view that the separation of people and priest in saying the Confiteor was not the most fitting practice. There can be such a thing as an overemphasis on the distinction between clergy and laity or between priests and other lesser clergy. The hierarchic nature of the Church is retained in the reformed liturgy overall, it just doesn't need to be symbolized in every part.
My defense of the removal of the names of saints? It is just a restoration of the Confiteor to be closer to its original form. The names of the saints are not necessary, nor is it necessary for confession to be addressed to the saints, so they were removed.
To your point, SC is so vague any reform could check some of the boxes. However, I surely don't have to repeat all the principles in SC that the reformed liturgy just ignores when it's convenient.
The amount of simplicity that was sought in the reformed Rite becomes borderline absurd. The Latin Rite has always been a most conservative and subdued liturgical tradition. I can imagine the laugh the Byzantines had about the Latins "simplifying."
I do agree that the competent authority to promulgate liturgical norms is the Church. However, that doesn't then mean that critiques of validly promulgated rites are always out of place. If we wanted to take that stand, the entire existence of the NO would be invalidated. Maybe the every increasing rumblings against elements of the NO are just signs of a New Liturgical Movement that will lead to further reforms?
I do agree that there can be an over emphasis on the role of the priest. However, to claim that is even close to being an issue at this stage is a bit hard to believe. If anything, we should be encouraging a recognition of this hierarchy.
Please provide a citation for this "original form of the confiteor." Such a thing does not exist. Your reasoning here is also very dangerous. Why not just disregard the cult of the saints completely? I could, of course, just pray directly to God. I almost feel like I've heard that argument before....
I don't think the reform of the Roman rite ignored the principles of SC, broadly. There are a few cases in which a change was made without sufficient certainty that it would be useful or edifying.
If the Byzantines and other Eastern Catholics objected to the simplification of the Roman rite, they should have voted against it at Vatican II. I don't think they did, though, and they seem to be fine with it.
There is a place for a liturgical movement. But it should not say the prayers and gestures approved by the Church are Protestant or heretical. In approving them, the Church denies that. The most it should say is that the rite is good or sufficient but could be better.
I agree with your first point. It certainly broadly follows SC, but if some points can be ignored (even by the Consilium just a few years later) then it begs the question of what is the role of SC for us today?
I don't think the Byzantines took a great interest in the reform of the Latin Rite. They were probably just relieved that the Ecclesial apparatus was turning inward and not trying to enforce Latinization on them. I used the comparison to deeply question the need of simplifying what is already a very simple Rite, even in the traditional form.
I agree (Protestantism is heresy so we can just collapse the terms). It is unhelpful to do so and I do not refer to the reformed Rite itself as "Protestant." See my other comments above. My response to your question was to provide an answer for what some may see as Protestant elements. An excessive simplicity which reduces or de-emphasizes the sacerdotal and hierarchic elements of the liturgy (not to mention the cult of the saints) is a commonality between the Protestant reformers and the Liturgical reform of the 60s.
I would still like you to address this "original form" of the confiteor you spoke of. It sounds exactly like the common justification for versus populum (when in reality it is a novelty).
Having come from a Lutheran background, the form of the Lutheran worship service and the Catholic Novus Ordo are almost exactly the same. Take out the incense and the bells (which many places have already done), shorten the Eucharist Prayer to the words of institution, and boom: that's the Lutheran service.
I'm not an expert on the history of the liturgical reform, but isn't much of that due to some Lutherans reforming their services in a similar way to Catholics, not Catholics copying the Lutheran service? and if Catholics have introduced elements like a wide use of vernacular that were originally Protestant concerns, are those elements inherently Protestant, or are they just good ideas that don't require believing in one doctrine or another?
The primary reforms of Lutheran worship over the centuries have been towards reducing the differences between Lutherans. They have never been toward reintroducing Catholic-esque elements of worship that were previously removed or diminished.
The use of vernacular (beyond the already-vernacular homily) would be the smallest of the liturgical reforms. One can argue whether or not it is a good idea, but it does not change the form or meaning of the liturgy itself. Major reforms removed entire prayers and stipped out the most pungently Catholic language and motions, often with the explicit intent of being more akin to the Protestant service or to be more approachable for Protestants. To argue that such things are good ideas would be to either argue that Protestantism is a good idea, or that making ourselves less Catholic to be more palatable to Protestants is a good idea.
I was referring to changes among Lutherans after Vatican II or because of the liturgical movement, not in previous centuries.
I don't agree that removing prayers to simplify the liturgy makes us less Catholic. The Roman rite has retained its Catholic character and in the reform many of the prayers were altered or removed in order to more effectively express the teaching of the Church.
It's not that removing prayers makes it less Catholic. It's that the aspects of the prayers that were removed where in many cases explicitly indentified as being distinctly Catholic and offensive to Protestants. Or in the case of the new Eucharistic prayers, they were written to include less distinctly Catholic theology, often cribbing directly from Protestant (especially Anglican) prayers. That's not just some kind of banal simplification going on; that's a change in theological emphasis intentionally aimed at being more like Protestants.
As a former Protestant, it sickens me whenever I hear someone describe the form of Mass that brought me into the fullness of truth and all three Sacraments of Initiation as Protestant. It does not look Protestant to me. The grace I received from the Sacraments were not "Protestantized". And when I attended my first Mass, I didn't think to myself how Protestant the Mass looked. It was completely foreign to me.
Thank you Father, I'm glad you're here too. I don't want to be in any other Church than this, because this is the one true Church where I receive Jesus in the Eucharist. There's no where else for me to go, and I'm sure you feel the same.
As another former Protestant, I think you illustrate a key point of why this critique of the NO is unhelpful. The fact is there is no universal Protestant liturgy. They all are in various states of devolution and dissent from Catholicism. A mainstream evangelical in America will find any Catholic liturgy (properly celebrated) radically different. An Anglican or Lutheran wouldn't feel quite as jarred.
As such, the throwaway critique of the NO as "Protestant" is unhelpful because it's a blanket statement using a word that could mean a thousand different things (and hence nothing). The critique also makes hash of what defines a Protestant. Unless we toss out the principle of non-contradition, there can be no "Protestant" Catholic mass.
However, there is an valid point to be made with how the Reformed Rite does take up certain Protestant (specifically Anglican) liturgical practices. That's not a judgment of their merits per se, but the influence is clear. It points to the reality of a certain strain of ecumenism that was prevalent in the Post-WWII world.
It is true that there is no universal Protestant liturgy and that describing anything as Protestant is, more often than not, painting with a very broad brush. And I will say when I had attended a Lutheran church for some time I had noticed the similarities between Mass and the Lutheran service. This did not make me think the Catholic liturgy was Protestant, however. It actually made me realize that the Lutherans had taken their liturgy from the Catholics and how "Catholic" this denomination named after a Protestant reformer was.
The Novus Ordo has as it's guiding principles "active participation" and the "priesthood of all believers." The same underlying principle of equality guides liberal democracy and the Protestant Reformation. It's no surprise that a typical suburban parish looks like the state legislature. Neo-gothic cathedrals look like the Roman courts. Protestant liturgy universally focuses on the Scriptures. Think of the emphasis on the Liturgy of the Word in the new and old just as a matter of form and time. Clearly, there are broader philosophical trends influencing both Western Civilization and how Christians pray. I think if looked at as a matter of fittingness; this claim is uncontroversial.
That is gross hyperbole. I hardly know where to begin. First of all, what Protestant church are you even comparing the Catholic understanding of the priesthood of the baptized to? You do know that there are Protestant denominations that believe in a separate ministerial priesthood that requires ordination, yes? Also, if it looked more "Protestant" in terms of focusing on the Scriptures a la Evangelical Protestantism, the homilies would last way more than 15 minutes (when's the last time you've heard a 45 minute homily or brought your Bible to Mass to follow along with?), nevermind the frankly ridiculous notion that focusing on the Bible -- a book compiled by the Catholic Church that contains in it the very word of God -- is Protestant.
I think many people who think that the NO is "Protestant" are making assumptions about what Protestants are like -- just as many Protestants (not you!) make assumptions about what Catholics are like. We should all calm down, ha ha.
> The Novus Ordo has as it's guiding principles "active participation" and the "priesthood of all believers."
Yes, you're supposed to not take a nap (at least not on purpose) and you're supposed to offer yourself to the Father as a sacrifice in union with Christ who was both priest and victim (and altar). If we did this and meant it, then God would do interesting and terrifying things with all of us, as he is in the habit of doing with saints. It has little to do with equality, and much to do with being (reluctantly or enthusiastically) a part of a crucified (and raised) mystical body.
I agree with you generally. It's interesting how the early Middle Ages were a much more equal time contrary to Reformation caricatures, and the Church was building rood screens. We now live in the most unequal time in all of human history and we emphasize equality in our architecture.
I do have to say I find it so beautiful and enchanting when everyone has a shared understanding and bows at a High Mass as the priest enters in persona Christi with the altar servers as there are angels following them as they enter the sanctuary.
As for the priesthood of all believers being a "guiding principle" of the Mass of Paul VI, and that being somehow a problem, may I quote to you the Roman Canon from before Vatican II, "et omnium circumstantium... pro quibus tibi offeribus: vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis pro se suisque omnibus..." "and all gathered here... for whom we offer you this sacrifice of praise, or they offer it for themselves and all their own..."
The priest is literally saying that the people are offering this sacrifice, even while at the same time in another sense he is offering it. That's not something new from Vatican II. Stop making things up. Maybe if people actively participated (which can be silent!) in the Mass by praying along with a missal, they would know what the Mass actually says and stop mindlessly repeating cliche baseless objections they heard or read somewhere.
I think your objections to the "Novus Ordo" are actually objections to other problems, most likely pastoral practices (or malpractices), not the rite itself.
Interestingly, if memory serves, the newly-written eucharistic prayers in the Mass of Paul VI, however else you may feel about them, don't refer to the people offering the sacrifice for themselves... only the Roman Canon does. Could it be that the "Tridentine" Mass actually emphasized the priesthood of the baptized more exclusively than the NO?
I never said "the priesthood of all believers" was a problem. It's in the Scriptures. I also never objected to the Novus Ordo. There have always been developments in the upward and downward movements, emphasis on the transcendence and immanence of God, in the Mass, art, music, and architecture throughout the Church's history. There are all sorts of reasons why the emphasis changes and develops. My only claim is that it's clear there are broader philosophical changes happening in the world that is affecting how all Christians pray. This is not a controversial claim.
Thank you for responding, Father. It's interesting the Roman Canon has that balance of both the Holy Sacrifice offered by the priest, and the sacrifice of praise of those standing around. It's very beautiful. It's excluded in Eucharistic Prayer III, but III almost has this over-emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Then Eucharistic Prayers II and IV have no mention of sacrifice. I wonder why that is.
It's not Protestant, but it does seem more like Protestant church services than the NO Mass does, especially if one attends Lutheran or Anglican services -- and that resemblance was partly done on purpose. But I appreciate your reminding us that it's not helpful to describe things this way. Protestant and non-denominational services take a huge variety of forms, and the difference between an NO Mass and many of them can be huge. Moreover, as much as some of our fellow Catholics dislike the NO Mass, it IS the Mass. Christ is present in the Eucharist. I have a great deal of sympathy for people wanting the TLM and think it should be offered everywhere. But I think the either-or dichotomy is wrong and forces many people to take a hard-line position they would not otherwise hold.
It's definitely the "bad cop" option. Parkes clearly wanted to kill the TLM in his diocese, but is cravenly endeavoring to pretend that he had no choice in the matter. Pray for him, as the Lord abhors lying lips and false hearts.
I am in the diocese of Savannah and in one of the parishes where it is celebrated and I can tell you that Bishop Parkes in no way wants to 'kill' the TLM. He has been on the altar at several of these Masses himself. He is a good bishop and a man of integrity and you should be ashamed of slandering him when you know nothing about him.
Lumen Gentium: "In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate.
The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called "prelates," heads of the people whom they govern."
I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council(and the Code of Canon Law) and at the same time not accept what is spelled out clearly in the dogmatic constitution of the Church provided by the Council - that the Bishops may exercise the pastoral authority entrusted to them.
The same dogmatic constitution also spells out clearly the supreme and universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. He can indeed make universal laws that affect particular dioceses.
I live in one of the Ga. diocese that will allow the Latin Mass for a while. I have friends who prefer it. I understand why. I grew up in the pre- Vatican II church. You do leave the Latin Mass feeling like you have truly worshiped but it’s what happens after Mass that counts. When we encounter Jesus be it in the old or new form of Mass and are changed by his presence in our lives that’s what really counts. Jesus is truly present in both forms. Unity is the most important thing for us as Catholics. A house divided can not stand. The pope is not asking us to forfeit the holy presence but is trying to prevent disunity. I think we have to be really careful about our motivations for being demanding our own preferences.
This continues to be exasperating. Instead of urging everyone to get along and worship God, Rome continues to pit Catholics against each other. Meanwhile, Catholics are DYING in Nigeria and China and all around the world. Can our prelates not get their priorities straight and concentrate on souls rather than on climate change and putting more synods in our synods? Or will they not?
"flouting Pope Francis’ will" - The important thing isn't what's right for a particular situation, it's what Pope Francis' will is. That's how authoritarians speak.
"Rome is essentially offering local bishops the option to pass them the buck and allow the dicastery to be the “bad cop,”". There's a simple word for that - cowardice.
Couldn't agree more.
Since I started attending Latin mass, I have come to see how Protestant the new mass is and thereby lacking so much of the worship we are meant to be coming together to offer. I am so worried for the church that it has gotten so far from the point. The Pope needs to come up with something better than telling us to give up an original thing of beauty for a newer ride going the wrong direction. I can worship in either vehicle but can’t help feeling the driver can’t see where he is headed in the newer one.
what have you seen that is Protestant about the order of Mass currently in use?
Call it Protestant or whatever you like, but I find the gutting of the penitential Rite to be troubling. In particular, the removal of the double confiteor (priest and then people), the removal of essentially all petitions of the Saints from the confiteor, and reduction of the beautiful nine-fold Kyrie.
It seems to speak of a certain antinomianism and anti-hieratic feeling that was in the water at the time (and still is). Now, I don't think that makes the NO "Protestant." However, I think it is apparent that as a Rite it suffers from the Spirit of the Age in which it was promulgated.
those seem like some very strange concerns, I am not going to lie. one of your objections is really the fact that priest and people say the confiteor together instead of priest followed by the altar servers/people? the rejection of such simplifications and reductions of duplicated or longer prayers in principle is a rejection of the directions laid down by Sacrosanctum concilium, which called for that very thing.
I'm sorry you're just finding out Catholicism is weird.
So, we're still just whipping out the Vatican II card instead of engaging in substantive conversation? Cool.
Sacrosanctum concilium is speaking in vage terms and principles. It uses the phrase "unnecessary repetitions." Obviously, the key qualifier being "unnecessary." Clearly, I don't think the double confiteor is "unnecessary." It speaks to the hierarchic nature of the sacrifice of the mass. This exact diminishing of the uniqueness of the role of the priest in the sacrifice of the mass is what some might characterize as "Protestant." Hence, my initial response to your question.
talking about Catholicism as weird is a red herring- I said your concerns are strange. it is odd to me that someone would have a serious objection to a prayer being said by priest and people at the same time rather than in succession when the prayer pertains to all and is not a special priestly prayer or a prayer only of the laity. it doesn't at all diminish the role of the priest when he is joined by the laity in saying all the parts of the Ordinary which all say, rather than saying them separately or privately. it does emphasize the common identity shared between priest and faithful, which is by no means a uniquely Protestant idea.
yes, I am whipping out the Vatican II card. it is authoritative, it is what guided the liturgical reform. I'm not sure why bringing it up makes the conversation non-substantive.
it seems to me that the authority that is competent to decide on which repetitions are necessary or unnecessary is neither you nor me, but the bishop of Rome and the other bishops. going back to Trent, the teaching has been that the Church has the power to change rites and prayers according to times and circumstances.
Vatican II is dead, it is of interest only to boomers who have formed an attachment to it. It was aimed at modern man, but it has nothing to say to post modern man. It is a fossil, the best thing we could do with SC is bin it.
I'm not a boomer, I am 20 years old. Vatican II is not dead to me, because the Holy Spirit spoke through its Fathers to the circumstances of our time. And so I take it as the marching orders for the Church in the twenty-first century. I confess belief in the holy Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and will ever observe its decrees.
I would dearly love to know how it is that you come to such a position. I'm not kidding. I'm your age and your comments here first irritated but have more recently fascinated me. You hold such an outlier opinion among the historically and theologically informed young people I know. I know literally no one else who isn't at least quite unenthusiastic about V II, though mostly the people I know seem resigned to it and think the hyper-online trad movement is usually worse. (feels necessary here to spell out that I'm not a trad and I don't exist in a trad bubble). But you think the council speaks helpfully to our time! Which, again, is so out of the ordinary that I've become quite intrigued. If you wrote an essay on this topic I'm sure you could pitch it to a number of publications, and I for one would be an interested reader.
You're use of VII here is also a red herring. Your casual use of it instead of engaging the question is what made your response non-substabtive. The fact remains that SC says almost nothing about the particulars of reforming the rite. It certainly never says "eviscerate the penitential rite."
I agree, in that there's nothing "inherently wrong" with the priest and the people saying the prayer together. That's not the point I'm making at all. That's way too simplistic. I'm speaking in terms of symbol. What is most fitting to convey the truth of our worship of the Most Holy Trinity?
The issue lies in that it was a removal and reduction of a symbolic element that speaks to the truth of the hierarchic nature of Catholicism and our worship. The rejection of that, as such, is and was a core element of Protestantism (hence why I included it as a response to your initial question). Therefore, it seems most unfitting to be removed and conveniently aligns with ideologies of a recent vintage.
I, however, would be more interested in hearing a defense of the removal of the saints from the confiteor. You seem to have latched onto just one part of my initial question.
Yeah, SC says little about the particulars. But it does have principles and the reform was clearly done in accordance with those principles. "Eviscerate the penitential rite" is your characterization, and I think it is faulty.
What is most fitting to convey the truth of our worship? The Council of Trent said that it was for the authorities of the Church to decide what is most fitting and what is to be used. I think and the Church has taken the view that the separation of people and priest in saying the Confiteor was not the most fitting practice. There can be such a thing as an overemphasis on the distinction between clergy and laity or between priests and other lesser clergy. The hierarchic nature of the Church is retained in the reformed liturgy overall, it just doesn't need to be symbolized in every part.
My defense of the removal of the names of saints? It is just a restoration of the Confiteor to be closer to its original form. The names of the saints are not necessary, nor is it necessary for confession to be addressed to the saints, so they were removed.
To your point, SC is so vague any reform could check some of the boxes. However, I surely don't have to repeat all the principles in SC that the reformed liturgy just ignores when it's convenient.
The amount of simplicity that was sought in the reformed Rite becomes borderline absurd. The Latin Rite has always been a most conservative and subdued liturgical tradition. I can imagine the laugh the Byzantines had about the Latins "simplifying."
I do agree that the competent authority to promulgate liturgical norms is the Church. However, that doesn't then mean that critiques of validly promulgated rites are always out of place. If we wanted to take that stand, the entire existence of the NO would be invalidated. Maybe the every increasing rumblings against elements of the NO are just signs of a New Liturgical Movement that will lead to further reforms?
I do agree that there can be an over emphasis on the role of the priest. However, to claim that is even close to being an issue at this stage is a bit hard to believe. If anything, we should be encouraging a recognition of this hierarchy.
Please provide a citation for this "original form of the confiteor." Such a thing does not exist. Your reasoning here is also very dangerous. Why not just disregard the cult of the saints completely? I could, of course, just pray directly to God. I almost feel like I've heard that argument before....
I don't think the reform of the Roman rite ignored the principles of SC, broadly. There are a few cases in which a change was made without sufficient certainty that it would be useful or edifying.
If the Byzantines and other Eastern Catholics objected to the simplification of the Roman rite, they should have voted against it at Vatican II. I don't think they did, though, and they seem to be fine with it.
There is a place for a liturgical movement. But it should not say the prayers and gestures approved by the Church are Protestant or heretical. In approving them, the Church denies that. The most it should say is that the rite is good or sufficient but could be better.
I agree with your first point. It certainly broadly follows SC, but if some points can be ignored (even by the Consilium just a few years later) then it begs the question of what is the role of SC for us today?
I don't think the Byzantines took a great interest in the reform of the Latin Rite. They were probably just relieved that the Ecclesial apparatus was turning inward and not trying to enforce Latinization on them. I used the comparison to deeply question the need of simplifying what is already a very simple Rite, even in the traditional form.
I agree (Protestantism is heresy so we can just collapse the terms). It is unhelpful to do so and I do not refer to the reformed Rite itself as "Protestant." See my other comments above. My response to your question was to provide an answer for what some may see as Protestant elements. An excessive simplicity which reduces or de-emphasizes the sacerdotal and hierarchic elements of the liturgy (not to mention the cult of the saints) is a commonality between the Protestant reformers and the Liturgical reform of the 60s.
I would still like you to address this "original form" of the confiteor you spoke of. It sounds exactly like the common justification for versus populum (when in reality it is a novelty).
Having come from a Lutheran background, the form of the Lutheran worship service and the Catholic Novus Ordo are almost exactly the same. Take out the incense and the bells (which many places have already done), shorten the Eucharist Prayer to the words of institution, and boom: that's the Lutheran service.
I'm not an expert on the history of the liturgical reform, but isn't much of that due to some Lutherans reforming their services in a similar way to Catholics, not Catholics copying the Lutheran service? and if Catholics have introduced elements like a wide use of vernacular that were originally Protestant concerns, are those elements inherently Protestant, or are they just good ideas that don't require believing in one doctrine or another?
The primary reforms of Lutheran worship over the centuries have been towards reducing the differences between Lutherans. They have never been toward reintroducing Catholic-esque elements of worship that were previously removed or diminished.
The use of vernacular (beyond the already-vernacular homily) would be the smallest of the liturgical reforms. One can argue whether or not it is a good idea, but it does not change the form or meaning of the liturgy itself. Major reforms removed entire prayers and stipped out the most pungently Catholic language and motions, often with the explicit intent of being more akin to the Protestant service or to be more approachable for Protestants. To argue that such things are good ideas would be to either argue that Protestantism is a good idea, or that making ourselves less Catholic to be more palatable to Protestants is a good idea.
I was referring to changes among Lutherans after Vatican II or because of the liturgical movement, not in previous centuries.
I don't agree that removing prayers to simplify the liturgy makes us less Catholic. The Roman rite has retained its Catholic character and in the reform many of the prayers were altered or removed in order to more effectively express the teaching of the Church.
It's not that removing prayers makes it less Catholic. It's that the aspects of the prayers that were removed where in many cases explicitly indentified as being distinctly Catholic and offensive to Protestants. Or in the case of the new Eucharistic prayers, they were written to include less distinctly Catholic theology, often cribbing directly from Protestant (especially Anglican) prayers. That's not just some kind of banal simplification going on; that's a change in theological emphasis intentionally aimed at being more like Protestants.
As a former Protestant, it sickens me whenever I hear someone describe the form of Mass that brought me into the fullness of truth and all three Sacraments of Initiation as Protestant. It does not look Protestant to me. The grace I received from the Sacraments were not "Protestantized". And when I attended my first Mass, I didn't think to myself how Protestant the Mass looked. It was completely foreign to me.
Thank you Father, I'm glad you're here too. I don't want to be in any other Church than this, because this is the one true Church where I receive Jesus in the Eucharist. There's no where else for me to go, and I'm sure you feel the same.
As another former Protestant, I think you illustrate a key point of why this critique of the NO is unhelpful. The fact is there is no universal Protestant liturgy. They all are in various states of devolution and dissent from Catholicism. A mainstream evangelical in America will find any Catholic liturgy (properly celebrated) radically different. An Anglican or Lutheran wouldn't feel quite as jarred.
As such, the throwaway critique of the NO as "Protestant" is unhelpful because it's a blanket statement using a word that could mean a thousand different things (and hence nothing). The critique also makes hash of what defines a Protestant. Unless we toss out the principle of non-contradition, there can be no "Protestant" Catholic mass.
However, there is an valid point to be made with how the Reformed Rite does take up certain Protestant (specifically Anglican) liturgical practices. That's not a judgment of their merits per se, but the influence is clear. It points to the reality of a certain strain of ecumenism that was prevalent in the Post-WWII world.
It is true that there is no universal Protestant liturgy and that describing anything as Protestant is, more often than not, painting with a very broad brush. And I will say when I had attended a Lutheran church for some time I had noticed the similarities between Mass and the Lutheran service. This did not make me think the Catholic liturgy was Protestant, however. It actually made me realize that the Lutherans had taken their liturgy from the Catholics and how "Catholic" this denomination named after a Protestant reformer was.
The Novus Ordo has as it's guiding principles "active participation" and the "priesthood of all believers." The same underlying principle of equality guides liberal democracy and the Protestant Reformation. It's no surprise that a typical suburban parish looks like the state legislature. Neo-gothic cathedrals look like the Roman courts. Protestant liturgy universally focuses on the Scriptures. Think of the emphasis on the Liturgy of the Word in the new and old just as a matter of form and time. Clearly, there are broader philosophical trends influencing both Western Civilization and how Christians pray. I think if looked at as a matter of fittingness; this claim is uncontroversial.
That is gross hyperbole. I hardly know where to begin. First of all, what Protestant church are you even comparing the Catholic understanding of the priesthood of the baptized to? You do know that there are Protestant denominations that believe in a separate ministerial priesthood that requires ordination, yes? Also, if it looked more "Protestant" in terms of focusing on the Scriptures a la Evangelical Protestantism, the homilies would last way more than 15 minutes (when's the last time you've heard a 45 minute homily or brought your Bible to Mass to follow along with?), nevermind the frankly ridiculous notion that focusing on the Bible -- a book compiled by the Catholic Church that contains in it the very word of God -- is Protestant.
I think many people who think that the NO is "Protestant" are making assumptions about what Protestants are like -- just as many Protestants (not you!) make assumptions about what Catholics are like. We should all calm down, ha ha.
> The Novus Ordo has as it's guiding principles "active participation" and the "priesthood of all believers."
Yes, you're supposed to not take a nap (at least not on purpose) and you're supposed to offer yourself to the Father as a sacrifice in union with Christ who was both priest and victim (and altar). If we did this and meant it, then God would do interesting and terrifying things with all of us, as he is in the habit of doing with saints. It has little to do with equality, and much to do with being (reluctantly or enthusiastically) a part of a crucified (and raised) mystical body.
I agree with you generally. It's interesting how the early Middle Ages were a much more equal time contrary to Reformation caricatures, and the Church was building rood screens. We now live in the most unequal time in all of human history and we emphasize equality in our architecture.
I do have to say I find it so beautiful and enchanting when everyone has a shared understanding and bows at a High Mass as the priest enters in persona Christi with the altar servers as there are angels following them as they enter the sanctuary.
As for the priesthood of all believers being a "guiding principle" of the Mass of Paul VI, and that being somehow a problem, may I quote to you the Roman Canon from before Vatican II, "et omnium circumstantium... pro quibus tibi offeribus: vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis pro se suisque omnibus..." "and all gathered here... for whom we offer you this sacrifice of praise, or they offer it for themselves and all their own..."
The priest is literally saying that the people are offering this sacrifice, even while at the same time in another sense he is offering it. That's not something new from Vatican II. Stop making things up. Maybe if people actively participated (which can be silent!) in the Mass by praying along with a missal, they would know what the Mass actually says and stop mindlessly repeating cliche baseless objections they heard or read somewhere.
I think your objections to the "Novus Ordo" are actually objections to other problems, most likely pastoral practices (or malpractices), not the rite itself.
Interestingly, if memory serves, the newly-written eucharistic prayers in the Mass of Paul VI, however else you may feel about them, don't refer to the people offering the sacrifice for themselves... only the Roman Canon does. Could it be that the "Tridentine" Mass actually emphasized the priesthood of the baptized more exclusively than the NO?
I never said "the priesthood of all believers" was a problem. It's in the Scriptures. I also never objected to the Novus Ordo. There have always been developments in the upward and downward movements, emphasis on the transcendence and immanence of God, in the Mass, art, music, and architecture throughout the Church's history. There are all sorts of reasons why the emphasis changes and develops. My only claim is that it's clear there are broader philosophical changes happening in the world that is affecting how all Christians pray. This is not a controversial claim.
Thank you for responding, Father. It's interesting the Roman Canon has that balance of both the Holy Sacrifice offered by the priest, and the sacrifice of praise of those standing around. It's very beautiful. It's excluded in Eucharistic Prayer III, but III almost has this over-emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Then Eucharistic Prayers II and IV have no mention of sacrifice. I wonder why that is.
Right on, Father!
It's not Protestant, but it does seem more like Protestant church services than the NO Mass does, especially if one attends Lutheran or Anglican services -- and that resemblance was partly done on purpose. But I appreciate your reminding us that it's not helpful to describe things this way. Protestant and non-denominational services take a huge variety of forms, and the difference between an NO Mass and many of them can be huge. Moreover, as much as some of our fellow Catholics dislike the NO Mass, it IS the Mass. Christ is present in the Eucharist. I have a great deal of sympathy for people wanting the TLM and think it should be offered everywhere. But I think the either-or dichotomy is wrong and forces many people to take a hard-line position they would not otherwise hold.
Are there any updates on whether or not the Latin text of Traditionis Custodes has been made available?
Never mind, I found it, the Latin text is out there:
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/la/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html
It's definitely the "bad cop" option. Parkes clearly wanted to kill the TLM in his diocese, but is cravenly endeavoring to pretend that he had no choice in the matter. Pray for him, as the Lord abhors lying lips and false hearts.
I am in the diocese of Savannah and in one of the parishes where it is celebrated and I can tell you that Bishop Parkes in no way wants to 'kill' the TLM. He has been on the altar at several of these Masses himself. He is a good bishop and a man of integrity and you should be ashamed of slandering him when you know nothing about him.
Lumen Gentium: "In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate.
The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called "prelates," heads of the people whom they govern."
I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council(and the Code of Canon Law) and at the same time not accept what is spelled out clearly in the dogmatic constitution of the Church provided by the Council - that the Bishops may exercise the pastoral authority entrusted to them.
The same dogmatic constitution also spells out clearly the supreme and universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. He can indeed make universal laws that affect particular dioceses.
I live in one of the Ga. diocese that will allow the Latin Mass for a while. I have friends who prefer it. I understand why. I grew up in the pre- Vatican II church. You do leave the Latin Mass feeling like you have truly worshiped but it’s what happens after Mass that counts. When we encounter Jesus be it in the old or new form of Mass and are changed by his presence in our lives that’s what really counts. Jesus is truly present in both forms. Unity is the most important thing for us as Catholics. A house divided can not stand. The pope is not asking us to forfeit the holy presence but is trying to prevent disunity. I think we have to be really careful about our motivations for being demanding our own preferences.
This continues to be exasperating. Instead of urging everyone to get along and worship God, Rome continues to pit Catholics against each other. Meanwhile, Catholics are DYING in Nigeria and China and all around the world. Can our prelates not get their priorities straight and concentrate on souls rather than on climate change and putting more synods in our synods? Or will they not?
The folks in Rome and some of our US bishops make us suffer now, but they can end up in a permanent place of suffering.
I do not pray for this or encourage others to do so, but it is mentioned in Scripture under scandalizing “little ones.”