This recent Catholic News service story reports that part of Pope Benedict XVI's decision to make the Tridentine Mass more widely available did indeed have to do with a lack of respect for the norms of the liturgy. Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don, secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, had this to say:
"For years the liturgy suffered too many abuses and many bishops ignored them" despite the efforts of Pope John Paul II, Archbishop Ranjith said."So the problem was not requests for the Tridentine Mass as much as an unlimited abuse of the nobility and dignity of the eucharistic celebration," he said.
Archbishop Ranjith said that although the church's liturgy has developed and changed over the centuries "we must recognize that the liturgy has a particular 'conservative' characteristic" because it is a part of the church's heritage that must be preserved.
"This is a central aspect: We are called to be faithful to something that does not belong to us, but is given to us," he said.
So we can fix the problem of widespread liturgical abuse by cracking down on the abuses, by instilling in the faithful a greater appreciation for the liturgy, and by celebrating the Mass with reverence, dignity, solemnity, and an appreciation for the liturgical history and traditions of this supreme act of worship. As part of the plan to do this, the Pope has allowed the Tridentine Mass to be more widely available; possibly to demonstrate to Catholics long wearied by the problem of the deficiencies of liturgical vision I mentioned below what a reverent and dignified liturgy looks like, and what beauty it is possible to achieve.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Frank, I understand your pain; I feel it myself. Sometimes I think the anti-Rome, politically correct, old ICEL wanted to "protestantize" the N. O. in order to attract Protestants to come see what the "new", welcoming, tolerant, comunity-based Catholicism was all about. That's why, for example, we now have a Protestant ending to the Our Father.
But I gotta side with Susan (did I just type that!?)in her efforts to ease your concern. For what's its worth, here is how I see it: A few years ago JP II finally got fed up with the near-schismatic, lying American Catholic power structure, and B XVI was sent to us by the Holy Spirit to carry out the reform of the reform, i.e., follow through with the written intents of V II, as opposed to the phoney "Spirit of V II".
We have a new ICEL which is doing a good job to bring back beauty, reference and authenticity (e.g., PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS) to the liturgy, and you know that Gregorian Chant will be ours again in the ordinary Mass.
That said, the American power structure is smarting and will drag its feet for years. Nevertheless, the N. O. eventually will be transformed from what is in some places a comunity meal around the table of pleanty, with Here I Am Lord rendered by the local entertainment, into a beautiful prayer and sacrifice as V II intended. In the meantime we have the Tridentine Mass in a few places and the various Eastern Rites.
Cleveland!! Are you OK? Please take your temperature without delay!
If we're to be Roman Catholics, we have to go with the flow. That means, no declaring that everyone who disagrees with you, but is OK with the Ordinary, is wrong and "really" a Protestant. (Or is really engaged in "Protestant spirituality." Or whatever.)
The way we tell Roman Catholics from other people is that Roman Catholics are on the same page with their Ordinary; other people are not. If Frank's Ordinary approves the novis ordo (and Rome approves it) Frank just can't go around saying that we shouldn't do it and if we do we're Protestants. Yes?
(PS I hate "Here I Am Lord.")
"Cleveland!! Are you OK? Please take your temperature without delay!"
I'd be better if I took the time to spell check.
Susan, although I agree with you, Frank is correct that the N. O. has been "Protestantized" in comparison to the Tridentine Mass. So has the music, architecture and former adherence to doctrine; all against Rome's wishes.
Susan, although I agree with you, Frank is correct that the N. O. has been "Protestantized" in comparison to the Tridentine Mass. So has the music, architecture and former adherence to doctrine; all against Rome's wishes.
Once upon a time I had a very long discussion with a very conservative, very orthodox, and very smart young Dominican priest on this concept - that if the local authorities are off base, but Rome is on base, what do we at the bottom level here do about it?
The specifics of our discussion circled around religious habits. Rome had put out some sort of communique to the effect that religious should wear their habits pretty much all the time. American superiors, however, mostly deep-sixed this notion, and gave contrary orders. So the question presented was, "What if the local guys are wrong, the real mind of the Church being otherwise?"
Fr. Michael had two answers to this. First, if the matter is really vital - like, the Ordinary wants you to deny the Trinity - then you have a duty to disobey. Needless to say, this doesn't happen very often. In all other cases, you obey the local authority, and let the higher-ups hash out the differences among themselves. This would be the same in any well-run army - any hierarchical structure really. If you're in the infantry and you're ordered to massacre unarmed civilians, you must disobey. But that doesn't mean that every foot soldier is authorized to conduct an independent examination of every order given by his immediate superior.
Of course one must guard against making the issue at hand, whatever it is, sound more important than it is in order to give oneself license to make one's own law.
Is the novus ordo "Protestantized"? That's a matter of opinion, and of course the word itself is negative and assumes its conclusion. But even if it is, what are we laypeople to do about that? If you prefer the Traditional Mass for whatever reason, and there is one available, certainly you're well within your rights to attend that rather than the novus ordo. But I think we're out of line if we take the position that the novus ordo isn't valid. That runs directly contrary not only to what the Ordinary says, but to what Rome itself says.
Glad to see you're feeling more normal, Cleveland. :)
Susan, again, I agree with you for the most part, but I disagree (Ah, that feels better) with this :
"Is the Novus Ordo "Protestantized"? That's a matter of opinion....".
The plain-to-see truth is that the N. O.'s Our Father, translations from the Latin, dress, attitude, music, and even our architecture, the dumbing down of the people regarding the Faith and practices, and adherence to doctrine and to Rome are results of "Protestantization." I regret, BTW, that has a bad connotation, and I mean no disrespect to Protestants.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.