Mixing of Rites
One common comment that I hear, especially from priests, regarding the old rite, is “I don’t agree with the mixing of rites.” I beg to differ. I do agree with the mixing of rites: but only in one direction.
I do not think it is a sensible thing to attempt to enforce upon the SSPX or the FSSP or the ICSP any of the liturgical reforms that have taken place in the wake of Vatican II. The principle is now firmly established that the Classical Roman Rite was not abolished, and it would be difficult to persuade any devotees of the old rite to accept even minor changes introduced during the 60s. There is a live debate in scholarly circles about the wisdom of some of the reforms introduced even before Vatican II, notably in the Breviary and in Holy Week. It makes sense to leave well alone as far as the old Mass is concerned.
However the Novus Ordo does not have any such privileged position. I was interested to read recently that Cardinal Estevez wished to modify the 3rd edition of the Pauline Missale Romanum to allow the use of the old Offertory Prayers. He was thwarted in this but it remains a sensible suggestion. In fact, I know of several priests who use the old prayers when saying the Offertory silently. Some people might wish to say that this is an abuse. I would argue that since these prayers have a venerable antiquity, it would be better simply to allow them officially and to absolve these good and faithful priests of any scruples.
Similarly, Cardinal Ratzinger himself advocated allowing the use of both priestly prayers before Communion, and the recitation of the Canon in silence. Mixing of rites? I would not be worried about this kind of mixing. Would it be such a terrible thing if priests were allowed to genuflect more during the Mass, to make more ceremonial gestures of blessing, to say the Leonine Prayers after Mass, or to recite the Last Gospel? Some of these things could be introduced without officially breaking the rubrics of the Novus Ordo (there is nothing to say that a priest cannot silently recite the Aufer a nobis as he goes up to the altar, and there is nothing to prevent a priest saying some prayers with the people after Mass.) However, official encouragement would again give the initiative to priests who are fully loyal to the Holy See and enable them to provide more devotional food for the faithful.
The Novus Ordo was produced in a hurry less than 40 years ago. It should not be considered immune from “contamination” with elements of the old rite. A “mixed rite” with vernacular readings but many ceremonial elements from the Roman tradition would be welcomed by many faithful priests. That sort of mixing – the introduction of traditional elements into the new rite – would be a great help, especially if it were officially sanctioned, removing any scruples from orthodox clergy who only celebrate the new rite.
However, this will probably only come about if the old rite (without changes) is liberalised and celebrated more freely. Such freedom will immensely help the reverent celebration of the new rite and will reinforce those who have remained resolutely loyal to the Church during difficult times.
18 comments:
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this. It's interesting and enlightening to read, and I appreciate your effort.
Your point at the centre of your second post is something I need to get my head around - I think I will grasp it but I might need to sleep first.
In particular I value this piece about the "mixing" of rites. It is/was my understanding that the rites may not be mixed - that that was one of the conditions of the indult situation that we currently have regarding the celebration of the TLM (perhaps I should refer to the CRR when commenting here).
In my amateur opinion, I believe I should like to see something of a mixed rite. The Masses that shine in my memory as being occasions full of God were celebrated at Buckfast and the Oratories in Oxford and Toronto (I've been to Mass at Brompton but I think I was overwhelmed by the space). It was in Oxford that I met a Latin (NO) Mass for the first time and it blew me away. After a nasty brush elsewhere in Toronto, I sought out the Oratory there upon those memories of Oxford. Buckfast and its liturgy, in English with a sung Latin Ordinary, is dear to me for many reasons, not least the reverence of the celebrating monks. Yet even this summer, when I was visiting my parents in the South West and serving at Mass on the Assumption, I was struck by the devotion with which Fr. M. celebrated Mass, particularly in preparation for his own communion. I had to thank him afterwards for his sacrifice and devotion.
However, the one thing I appreciate about the NO is its lectionary. Of course I'm no expert but I love the large and long cycle of readings from Scripture. As a lay person I don't believe I can fully appreciate the significance of the factors (about the priest's devotion) that you describe in your first post in this mini-series, but receiving Scripture in preparation to receiving Christ is something that seems important to me. Perhaps, if "mixing" were allowed, and a wider use of the TLM/CRR would enable a greater number of priests to learn the older rite and its prayers, then they would be able to incorporate this inherent reverence you speak of into how they celebrate the NO too.
Then again, perhaps such a situation would not be a "mix" of the two rites, but rather the real and true fulfilment of what the Novus Ordo is really meant to be.
I have waffled, for which my apologies. But I have also learnt more in the last half an hour of reading than in the past few months of occasionally tying my brain in knots - for which, again, my thanks.
Could you clear up a question I have about the 'universal indult'. If it's true that any priest can say the Traditional Rite why do they need an indult?
Well that is a key canonical question. In my opinion, based on the opinion given by the Commission of Cardinals in 1986, together with the expressed opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Ranjith, I'm not sure an "indult" is needed. Perhaps all that is needed is for the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts to say "no permission is needed". That would be a nice reparation for the "permission" for altar girls.
The expression "universal indult" is one used by bloggers and other commentators. The much rumoured Motu proprio might have a different canonical basis all together.
(Puella, many thanks. Glad to be of help - but also grateful for your question which prompted these posts.)
I think the FSSP actually has permission to use the new lectionary which I agree is a good thing (and was actually mandated by Vatican II, which called for expanding the lectionary, unlike all the other liturgical changes.) According to an interesting comment I came across in a comment box but have lost track of, the canonical rule is that when a new practice is introduced, other practices of long standing (I believe 100 years) are not thereby replaced by it unless they are explicitly said to be reprobated. The document in which Paul VI promulgated the NO mass said that this mass was licit, but said nothing about the old mass being reprobated. Its almost universal suppression was thus quite illegal, something that is one of the most surprising things I have ever discovered. When John Paul II consulted the commission of cardinals referred to by Fr. Finigan on this, they unanimously said this was the case, and that every priest had the right to celebrate the Tridentine mass, but their report was suppressed as being liable to cause trouble. The 'indults' of 1984 and 1988 giving permission for the celebration of the Tridentine mass under various conditions provided the bishop approved were thus legal fictions; there is no ground in canon law for bishops insisting on their priests following the conditions in these indults. This deeply bizarre state of affairs seems to unquestionably be the case.
May Our Lord bless you! I thoroughly enjoyed, and was encouraged and educated by, reading through your three-part series titled "How would the old Mass help?" (I was directed to your blog by a recent post on Fr. Z's blog.)
I have been wondering what the value would be of allowing the 1962 Roman Missal to be widely celebrated entirely in the vernacular, e.g. as Low Mass. It seems to me that those sentiments you expressed in Parts I and II of your series would be readily realized even in Joe Catholic's mind if he assisted at the "low key" 8:00am vernacular Novus Ordo Mass one Sunday, and then the next Sunday at 8:00am he assisted at Low Mass according the 1962 Roman Missal said entirely in the vernacular. In other words, it would enable a truly "apples to apples" comparison even in the minds and hearts of the otherwise liturgically uneducated.
In general, how do you feel about permission being granted to celebrate the 1962 Roman Missal in the vernacular? After all, there were at least a hundred different *faithful* vernacular translations of the Tridentine Rite of Mass available in the form of "hand missals" in the decades leading up to Vatican II. It would be fairly simple, if the Pope desired it, for the CDWDS to readily authorize use of one or more those translations for present-day celebration of the 1962 Roman Missal.
Thanks for your feedback.
Watch these: Called By God, Unto The Least.
The only issue I have is that in your 'mixing of rites' post, it only gives optimism to already orthodox priests, to celebrate the TLM or the NO reverently. The real problem is that all this will exist within an environment of 'diversity' which will forever make liberal priests feel they can do what they like in a mass. Surely there needs to be some sort of concrete disciplinary procedure that works effectively. The only way I can see it is re-writing the NO altogether, and making a change in the way priests say mass, as abruptly as it happended in 1965-70. I hope the pope's initiatives after the year of the eucharist synod will bring something about, rather than simply meditating on the central mystery whilst ignoring the form of the mass in the average parish.
I think the offertory prayers of the new rite are just one of the many examples, of how one should question the soundness of those in charge of liturgical reform. I am of the opinion, like Michael Davis, that many ecumenical concessions were made in the liturgical reform - it's hardly suprising considering Archbishop Bugnini said in 1965 about removing "...any Catholic prayers that are a stumbling block to our Protestant bretheren." And the offertory prayers were not suprisingly, the centre of attack in the 16th century Protestant reformation. I believe Luther said, concerning the offertory that it "stinks of sacrifice"
Thank you Father for these three posts. They are well reasoned and balanced. I fully agree with all you have said for the reasons I have given on my own blog and in which I have linked to your three excellent posts. I am also getting a few gentle encouraging pushes from a few parishioners to make the Old Rite available by celebrating it in the parish myself. At present, a visiting priest celebrates the monthly Old Rite Masses here. I think the mixing would be excellent - enriching the New Rite with what has been lost. I do however believe the new Lectionary, with its rich cycle of readings from both Old and New Testaments, is of tremendous benefit. Would not both its use and its proclamation in the vernacular be a mix that could go in the other direction? Once again, many thanks.
"rather than simply meditating on the central mystery whilst ignoring the form of the mass in the average parish"
Well said, Matt. The difficulty here is that in fora like this we do know that there is continuity and we can see the central mystery in all the forms of legitimate liturgy, but to the average Catholic, the mass they see is the only one that is available to them. Therefore, they reckon it's the only one that's licit unless they're a traveler, visiting many places and so on, and most aren't.
Most Catholics give their priest the benefit of any doubt, since they know him and trust him, over and above other higher authorities, because of proximity if nothing else. Therefore his liturgical views, prejudices and peccadillos are the norm for them--they believing that these things are set in cement, the way things are supposed to be done now. If this priest has political views or social views that he inserts (knowingly or not), then they are lumped up with the other and also set in cement for the average Catholic.
So, what we have--with the distortion of the Novus Ordo, the poor education of priests and laity, and the rampantly political atmosphere in which we live--is a situation in which a person can attend mass in a parish for 20 years and subsequently miss the point of Catholicism entirely!!
This is what we must address. Never mind the V2-like preoccupation with whether the parishoner says his rosary in mass, or whether he seems too pious or too old-fashioned or whether we simply "don't like how he looks." Rather, the emphasis needs to be placed on repairing the damage caused by trying to remake the Church, and indeed Christ, into some kind of political/psychological thought society by insisting on a rupture to one side or the other.
Let good regular people say their rosaries and prayers and engage in their devotions. It's only going to do them good. If we are upset that they are not perfect, well, we should look at ourselves once in a while. Only God is perfect.
Father Finigan,
Interesting entry. But isn't the attitude that the Novus Ordo is flexible what got us into this situation in the first place?
Don't get me wrong, I'm pushing for a more preyerful and respectful N.O. liturgy, and as a matter of fact I'm putting in for the inclusion of a chanted Agnus Dei (where the English "Lamb of God" is now).
I have been to a Latin Novus Ordo which was done prayerfully, ad populum and communion was received on your knees at the altar rail. And no indult was required.
I don't know why more traditionalist priests don't do that.
I think this is a very positive suggestion. Presumably the rule about not mixing rites was introduced to prevent priests from re-introducing the old rite by the back door when the deficiencies of the NO first became apparent! I would imagine this consideration still applied when the indult was introduced in the late 1980s.
There is a very different situation today. As the Holy Father recognised in his book "The Spirit of the Liturgy", a whole generation has been reared on the NO. The option of suppressing the NO and reintroducing the old rite is simply not feasible.
What can be done, though, with the mixing of rites is to reintroduce gradually and progressively elements of the old rite into the new. People will then come to appreciate the dignity, beauty and transcendence of the older form of worship, and this will develop their spirituality. Many will want to graduate to the full old rite.
I agree that any mixing of the old rites would need to be tightly ring-fenced, so as not to permit any further desacralisation of the new rite.
This may be a tangential point, but I do recall as a child growing up in the Western U.S. in the 1970s NO that there was always a crucifix on the altar, we knelt at the rail to receive holy communion, and everyone genuflected. We also beat our breasts during the confiteor and the Agnus Dei. This situation remained until the mid-1980s and then eroded to the point it is at now.
Just a couple of points to mention following these three excellent commentaries by Fr Tim and the subsequent bloggers' comments.
It's always struck me as odd (maybe even wrong) for the prayers to the Holy Trinity (Suscipe Sancte Trinitas during the Offertory) and Placeat tibi (at end of Mass) to be suppressed, not just because they are good prayers in and of themselves, but also because of the centrality of the Holy Trinity to all liturgical actions. I'm aware of some the nonsense that has been written by Bugnini and his groupies to justify their actions in expunging these prayers from the NO, but remain wholly unconvinced.
Secondly, it's wonderful that the writings of then-Cardinal Ratzinger are getting a thoroughly deserved airing now. I recall a fair amount of hype in the Catholic press in the UK (around the time of the suppression of the cardinals' collective views on the fact that the Old Rite had not been abrogated, but more centred on Cardinal Ratzinger's comments) when a (retired?) English bishop wrote something in the press on the lines of "these comments are merely the private thoughts of Cardinal Ratzinger; he does not reflect the mind of the Church or that there will be a change of teaching". I'm paraphrasing what I recall, but it would interesting to read whether that view has now been modified since the election of Cardinal R to the papacy.
I do however believe the new Lectionary, with its rich cycle of readings from both Old and New Testaments, is of tremendous benefit. Would not both its use and its proclamation in the vernacular be a mix that could go in the other direction?
Is the new lectionary that really great - especially with it's rather loose translations for feasts such as the the Immaculate Conception?
It seems to be that everyone thought that the new lectionary was good because more scripture is read out - which was the opinion I shared until recently. Apart from my reservations over how our new lectionary corresponds so closely to the various non-Catholic lectionaries, I also have one or two points about the new scriputre texts. The whole three year cycle is rather confusing and the fact of the matter is that the avearge Catholic doesn't remember what scripture was read at mass, half an hour after it has ended. It's like saying that a history class will learn more if more is read out to them - without taking into consideration that the attention span of most people at mass is not as long as one may think.
At least in the one year cycle that the old rite uses, people are familiar with the scripture readings after a number of years. Also, the readings in the old rite follow a thematic course on what each Sunday mass must teach -something which is rather vague, at best, in the new rite.
There is an important discussion over the new lectionary but I am not confidently conversant with it yet. As far as I gather so far, the selection of readings in the old missal has many ancient elements that have been over-ridden in the new lectionary. These chime in with patristic commentaries and medieval texts on the Mass which now have no relevance to the texts of our liturgy.
One suggestion (not taken seriously at the time) was to allow the old readings to be used for year A and to be allowed at any time at the priest's discretion.
Pastorally, there is a problem with the amount of scripture and the need for a thorough education in biblical theology before many people can make sense of it.
I have thought that perhaps it would be best if the "Sunday cycle" of readings (and the readings for other solemnities) was restored to the one provided in the Tridentine Rite of Mass. As suggested by others here and elsewhere, this could help restore stability and continuity in the sensus fidelium of the "Sunday-only" Catholics.
Then perhaps the "weekday cycle" in Ordinary Time could be widened out to, say, four years, allowing an equivalent or even greater selection of Sacred Scripture to be heard in the context of the Church's liturgy by those who are a bit more "plugged in" and attending daily Mass.
By the way, this is a different subject, but I think it's high time that the cycle and choice of non-Scriptural readings for the Office of Readings be re-visited and significantly widened. I find myself so often disappointed at the lack of depth in many of the non-Scriptural readings provided both in the Proper of Seasons and the Proper of Saints -- in this age of modern, electronic libraries I think a better job can be done of putting together selections for the OoR that do greater justice to the treasury of supernatural wisdom preserved in the lives and writings of our Catholic saints.
Watch these: Called by God, Unto the Least.
Traditionalist priests don't want to say the NO Mass in Latin because the NO (in whatever language) is intrinsicly so bereft of doctorine, devotion and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.
Furthermore, if they once started saying it in Latin they would be under too much pressure to also say it in the vernacular.
It is not the vernacular in and of itself to which traditionalists object but the total destruction of the true meaning of the SACRIFICE of the Mass which is Novus Ordo.
Well, of course I wouldn't agree - it is possible to say the NO with reverence for the Blessed Sacrament and there are plenty of prayers that emphasise the notion of sacrifice. But I would agree that the Classical Rite emphasises these things much more clearly and repeatedly.
I think that the use of the Classical Rite will help priests to celebrate the NO reverently and will in the long run help to reform the NO itself.
Post a Comment