"Traditional Mass"? Or "Extraordinary Form," "Tridentine Mass", etc.?

"Traditional Mass"? Or "Extraordinary Form," "Tridentine Mass", etc.?

The following is a reply to a recent comment in my other blog, Willamette Valley Latin Mass Society.  Please refer to that comment before reading this reply.

Since that other blog is mainly intended for the practical purpose of communicating  Mass times for my local area, and since Blogger won't allow me to post such a long reply in the comments section anyway, I am posting it as an independent post here on Ite ad Thomam, where followers can continue the discussion.

Dear Fr. Jaspers,

Thank you for your comment and for your opinion.  Respectfully, here are my two cents as a private person, and a layman.

You are right: I decided to put the WVLMS page together, not to make a theological statement, but just to communicate the times and places of the Masses in question within the Willamette Valley.  But now that you bring it up, I would like to take up this excellent opportunity to think about these issues more deeply together with you.

Of course, aside from any ideological consideration, to communicate Mass times for the ordo antiquus, I have to make a choice as to what to call it.  Without a term, people have no way of knowing what I'm talking about.  Naturally I have to decide on a term according to the custom of those who use the page, who are mostly people who are attached to it and who will travel long distances accross the Willammette Valley to attend these Masses.  And given that I have several names as options, I have to use my theological reasoning and my conscience---which I have striven to inform according to Catholic teaching and sound theological reasoning---to decide which term is the best.

In trying to figure out what term to use, three main options come to mind: (1) "Tridentine Mass," (2) "Extraordinary Form (EF for short)," and (3) "Traditional Mass" or "Traditional Latin Mass (TLM)," and its variants.   But I think the terms "Tridentine Mass" and "Extraordinary Form" are a bit unfortunate, for different reasons, which I will explain.  I will also (4) address your comment that the novus ordo, too, is traditional, and (5) will make some concluding remarks.

(1) I think using the term "Tridentine Mass" is a disservice to the cause, in a way.  One of the marvellous aspects of the ordo antiquus is its patristic origins: it connects us in a living way to our fathers in the faith, to the way they lived it.  It was the Latin Church Fathers who bequeathed this amazing gift to us, and we see their stamp in the way we worship every Sunday in the ordo antiquus (or every day, in some parishes).  But the "Tridentine Mass" terminology blurrs this reality and promotes the erroneous idea that the ordo antiquus can only be traced back to the liturgical reforms after the Council of Trent (16th century), and that before then the Roman Rite was substantially different, and that therefore the current rite that we know as the "Tridentine Mass" has relatively modern origins.  If anything it would have to be called the "Gregorian Mass" to indicate that it is much older and can be traced at least as far back as St. Gregory the Great (6th cent.), just like we say "Gregorian Chant" to indicate the Latin Patristic origins of the music that belongs to that Rite.  That terminology would also mirror our Byzantine brothers and sisters who have the Liturgy of St. Basil, the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, etc.  I would in fact prefer the terminology of the "Gregorian Mass", but alas, it is not a very common or accepted terminology, and it is in fact already used to refer to something else (the 30 Gregorian Masses devotion).

(2) As far as 'Extraordinary Form' (which, of course, is one of Pope Benedict's many terminologies to resolve a canonical problem, never intended to be the single, official name for the rite), I have two issues with it: I am (a) a bit uncomfortable with it, to be frank, and (b) I think it is not broad enough to encompass what we are announcing.  The reason I am (a) uncomfortable with it is not that I think it is wrong, or that it implies something false.  Rather, I am slightly uncomfortable with it because it misses the essence of what it describes.  It is very much a relative term that does not signify its referent on the basis of its own nature but on account of a historical accident: if the antiquus ordo happens to be extraordinary, it is only because at this moment in history the novus ordo is more common or ordinary (and that is accidental to its nature).  For most of Church history it was the ordo antiquus which has been the ordinary form.  And in fact, I pray that someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, it is the antiquus ordo which is considered the ordinary form again, leaving the novus ordo as something very much extraordinary.  If that were to happen, centuries down the road, this century will be but a mere hiccup in the history of the Roman Rite, a strange time when Roman Catholics momentarily forgot how they ordinarily worshipped throughout history. To put it differently, for traditional Catholics to call it the 'Extraordinary Form' would be analogous to starting a political party and calling it the 'Minority Party'.  Not only would it defeat the whole goal of the cause being promoted, but actually the name would fail to capture the essence of the thing named.  I do not usually object to someone using this term (since it comes from the Pope), but I do not prefer it and I do not use it myself normally.

And (b), the term 'EF' is too narrow, and not broad enough to encompass the other Latin rites.  In fact, one of the churches that commonly has Massses that are of our interest is Holy Rosary Parish, in Portland, where the Dominicans have several Dominican Rite Masses every month.  These Masses are not technically in the EF, because that term applies exclusively to the Roman Rite, as per Summorum Pontificum.  Rather, the Dominican Rite has no extraordinary form.  The Dominican Rite has only an ordinary form which has remained substantially unchanged throughout its history and has not been touched by the recent liturgical reform.  So if we were to announce only "EF Masses" we would be leaving out these Dominican Rite Masses, which are of interest to the TLM community in our area.

(3) So it is mainly because of these reservations (which I believe are shared by many TLM communities), I naturally lean towards using the term TLM as the normal way to refer to the ordo antiquus.  But besides the fact that the other alternatives are not good choices, I think the primary reason for using this term is that in itself it is clear enough simply because it is the way most people have referred to it in actual practice, at least in my experience in the last 15 years attending the old rite in the USA, Canada, Mexico, and Europe.  It is the term ordinarily given to the ordo antiquus by traditional Catholics.  (And by 'traditional Catholics' I mean those of us who are attached in an exclusive way to the ordo antiquus and the mode of thinking surrounding it, and who are steeped in it enough to let it be the basis of their faith in an exclusive, or nearly exclusive way.) See for example the terminology used in websites such as Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei: Promoting the Traditional Latin Mass as sanctioned by Summorum Pontificum, and its widely-used Directory of Latin Masses, as well as the normal terminology in the popular blog "Rorate Caeli," and specifically its discussion on this very issue of the terminology of the ordo antiquus.  It is the way it is called in the most widely-used Latin-English missalette (see picture above), and it is the way it is called by most members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, and similar orders who are devoted to the ordo antiquus and who celebrate the vast majority of Masses in the ordo antiquus.  So it is safe to say that I can hardly be blamed for doing the same.  In fact, no one who regularly uses the information on the site---which is usually traditinal Catholics who are willing to travel throughout the Willamette Valley to attend one of these Masses---have so much as hinted to me that there might be a problem with the term.  However, in conversation and in print I have become aware of many objections regarding the other terms.

(4) Now, I must confess I was a bit surprised by your comment that the novus ordo, too, is traditional (and not just the ordo antiquus).  I think we must make distinctions here.  In all philosophical objectivity, we have to recognize that the term 'traditional' is very much an analogical term.  It obviously does not mean the same thing when I say that the ordo antiquus is 'traditional' as when you say the novus ordo is 'traditional'.  

The ordo antiquus is traditional because it is the form of worship that Roman Catholics have been 'handing down' from generation to generation for nearly two millenia.  This is the way the vast majority of popes and saints in our calendar have worshipped.  St. Jerome, St. Gregory, St. Leo, St. Isidore, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Francis, St. Thomas, St. Catherine, St. Pius V, St. Ignatius, St. Frances, St. Joan of Arc, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Alphonsus, St. Margaret Mary, St. John Bosco, St. Therese, St. Pius X, St. Josemaria, just to mention a few, all worshipped according to the ordo antiquus (even if in the various Latin rites), and their faith was formed exclusively by it.  Hence, it is in the strong sense that the ordo antiquus can be called the TLM, since it refers to the Mass according to the tradition of the Latin Rites.

But the novus ordo is not 'traditional' in the sense that the ordo antiquus is traditional.  It is quite discontinuous with the tradition of the Latin Rites; a careful comparison of the prayers (and options) illustrates this amply.  So if for the sake of argument we grant that the novus ordo is 'traditional', to make that a true statement we would have to change the meaning of 'traditional'.  But that meaning would definitely not be the normal use of the term, the sense in which most people use it.

To be clear, here I am simply making a descriptive claim, and not a normative one.  I am simply observing that the novus ordo is a significant departure from what has been handed down to us from time immemorial.  So it cannot be called 'traditional' in the sense in which the ordo antiquus is traditional.  I'm not saying that "the present Order of the Mass is an abomination" or anything of the sort.  And I actually admire you for your courage in saying the novus ordo in Latin in this diocese; may God reward you for that.  But obviously, you would agree that if you were to celebrate a novus ordo Mass in Latin and called it the "Traditional Latin Mass," and advertized it as a TLM (without telling people you really mean the novus ordo), you would really be confusing them and even disappointing many, because that is not what everyone understands by that term.

(5) So, to summarize, since the other terms are not satisfactory, and since no one (rightly) thinks of the novus ordo as being traditional, at least not in the strong sense in which the ordo antiquus is traditional, and since most people who really care about it call it the TLM anyway, it seemed to me to be a sufficient and adquate term and to be preferable over all the others.  I do not usually object when people use the other terms, but I myself prefer TLM.

But ultimately, Father, I think you are right in saying that language matters, and in pointing out that the term "Traditional Latin Mass" is not perfect.  I would agree that it is not totally unambiguous.  And I would even grant that the particular variant "Latin Mass" is indeed very ambiguous.  In fact, given these reflections, I might therefore change the name of the site from "Willamette Valley Latin Mass Society" to "Willamette Valley Traditional Mass Society," or something like it.  I will pray about it.

But these, dear Father, are just my personal convictions.  I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with you, and look forward to your feedback.  I wish you many blessings in your ministry.  I said a memorare for the victims in Roseburg and hope that our readers do the same.  Perhaps you can offer an old requiem Mass for them.  I would be happy to serve.

In Christo rege,

Dr. Francisco Romero Carrasquillo

Cekada's Work of Human Hands: A Critical Book Review by Don Paco

Cekada's Work of Human Hands: A Critical Book Review by Don Paco

Anthony Cekada. Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI.  West Chester, OH: Philothea Press, 2010.  444pp.

Review by Dr. Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo 

This book is a bold, critical study of the ideology underlying the liturgical changes that occurred during the second half of the Twentieth Century in the Roman Rite.  Theologically profound and well-researched, it can be seen as an important contribution to ‘traditionalist’ Catholic scholarship.  Previous full-length monographs on this subject have focused mainly on criticizing the changes to the Ordinary of the Mass and on chronicling the historical circumstances that led up to them.  This study, however, includes not only criticism of the changes to the Propers (variable parts), and in particular an unprecedented account of changes to the Lectionary, but also a ground-breaking theological analysis of the ideological influences that underlie all the changes.  Despite the author’s admittedly sedevacantist background, his critique of the New Mass is based exclusively on sound, traditional Catholic theology and is, thus, independent of (or at least logically prior to) his ecclesiological views on the current status of the Papal See.

The work is divided into fourteen chapters of roughly equal length.  After an introductory chapter that covers the motives and scope of the work, Chapters 2-6 focus on the general history of the recent liturgical changes to the Roman Rite, laying out the ideology behind them.  Chapter 2 focuses on the thought of the scholars who headed the liturgical movement that brought about the reform, with particular emphasis on Josef Jungmann and Louis Bouyer; Chapter 3 identifies the Pre-Conciliar Pian Commission and Holy Week Reforms as being continuous in aim and motivation with the Post-Conciliar liturgical reform; and Chapters 5 and 6 deal separately with the 1969 and 1970 versions of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (or GIRM).[1]  Chapters 7-13 then analyze the new Mass point by point, from art, architecture, furnishings, and introductory rites all the way through the dismissal, including both the Ordinary of the Mass and the Propers.  The author does this by comparing the salient elements of the New Mass with their traditional counterparts, and citing members of the hierarchy, ‘periti’, and other authorities to reveal the motives behind the particular changes.  The book then concludes with a summary of the evidence and a recapitulation of the argument.  Except for this overall summary at the end, every chapter ends with a rather helpful, if unconventional, point-by-point summary of chapter contents that adds clarity and cogency to the general argument. The book’s appendix is also worth mentioning: there, Cekada offers a compelling case for the use of the 1951 (or any pre-1955) Missal, rather than the 1962 Missal, an argument that could be well received by traditionalist groups that currently use the latter. 

            The book’s main thesis is that (A) the Mass of Paul VI, said according to its prescribed rubrics as they are found in the Editio Typica of the Missal, is gravely irreverent and destroys Catholic doctrine in the minds of the faithful.[2]  Cekada also defends two secondary theses that are corollaries of the first: The Mass of Paul VI, said according to prescribed rubrics, represents (B) a rupture with tradition, and (C) a spurious restoration of the ancient liturgy of the Church.  The book can be seen as a 400-page inductive argument to support these three theses.   Whereas I can agree entirely with theses (B) and (C), I believe that thesis (A) needs to be qualified significantly.  I shall deal with (B) and (C) first, then (A). 

The author offers strong evidence for his second and third theses, (B) and (C).  The theological foundations of Cekada’s overall argument are found in Chapter 2, a true gem on the theological motives behind the liturgical reform.  There, Cekada shows that the changes were intended to promote the nouvelle theologie (‘new theology’) of men like Pius Parsch, Romano Guardini, Josef Jungmann, and Louis Bouyer.  As operative theological principles of the reform, Cekada specifically singles out the following four: (1) Josef Jungmann’s liturgical “Corruption Theory,” according to which the Roman Rite that was in use in the early 20^th Century represented a departure from, and corruption of, primitive liturgical ideals.  As a result, the liturgical reform—claims Jungmann—must recover this primitive ideal.  Jungmann thus promoted a sort of resourcement in the area of the liturgy.  (2) Jungmann’s “Pastoral Liturgy” view, which advocated refashioning the Mass in order to meet the perceived needs of contemporary man—a position that could also be characterized as a sort of liturgical aggiornamento.  (3) Louis Bouyer’s “Assembly Theology,” according to which the essence of the Mass consists in an assembly of the ‘People of God’ that, together, celebrates the gathering, the priest merely acting as ‘presider’—a Protestantizing view that bypasses the traditional Catholic doctrine of the Mass as essentially a Sacrifice offered by the priest alone to God, to which the people unite themselves.  (4) Bouyer’s theory of “Other ‘Real’ Presences,” which inflates Christ’s presence in the congregation and in Scripture in order to de-emphasize the faith in the Real Presence of Christ under the Eucharistic species—a technique of the reformers that pervades the New Mass and which Cekada calls ‘devaluation-by-inflation’.  Whereas resourcement and aggiornamento characterize Jungmann’s principles, a strong ecumenical motivation is evident behind Bouyer’s views.

Cekada meticulously shows that these principles are at work in the recent liturgical changes.  In Chapters 5 and 6, he shows how Bouyer’s “Assembly Theology” and his theory of “Other ‘Real’ Presences” are the central motifs in the New Missal and the GIRM.  He also shows that, for every change that is a supposed to represent a ‘return to the ancient ideal’ (cf., Jungmann’s “Corruption Theory”), the real motive is not a fidelity to antiquity but a desire to abolish a rubric that is doctrinally unacceptable to ‘modern man’ (or to these new theologians).  Hence the need ‘modernize’ the liturgy and make it acceptable to ‘contemporary sensibilities’ (cf., “Pastoral Liturgy”).  Take, for instance, the “Prayer of the Faithful” or “Universal Prayer”: such prayers did exist in some ancient liturgies, and so the re-establishing of these prayers in the New Mass was presented as a return to antiquity.  Yet the original text of these prayers, which the traditional Missal still prescribes for the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday, is emphatically un-ecumenical and offensive to ‘modern man’ and to new theology; moreover, they are invariable.  The new “Universal Prayer,” on the other hand, is systematically de-Christianized, de-spiritualized, and de-supernaturalized, primarily to placate liturgists who complained that the original prayers had been written “in the direction of a devout and conventional religion, utterly foreign to the pastoral needs of today” (p. 256).  In the end, even the de-supernaturalized prayers became optional, and their content is ultimately de-regularized and left up to the discretion of the priest, commercial liturgical publisher, local liturgical planning committee, or director of worship.  The result is something that superficially resembles an ancient liturgical prayer (cf. “Corruption Theory”), but which was established to meet the ‘needs of contemporary man’ (cf. “Pastoral Liturgy”) and is, as Gamber puts it, “a novelty which stands completely against liturgical tradition” (p. 257). 

Another extensive example of antiquity-as-an-excuse-for-novelty is given in Chapter 10, which concerns the changes to the Lectionary.  Here—Cekada argues—despite the fact that, thanks to its three-year cycle, the New Lectionary contains more Scripture readings than the old Missal, nonetheless, through ‘adroit choices’ some important Scriptural texts—often a verse or two in the middle of a feast day or Sunday Gospel reading—are bracketed off as optional or altogether omitted, because of their ‘negative theology’, i.e., they doctrinally run afoul of the nouvelle theologie or of ecumenism.  Thanks to these omissions, the average Catholic can attend Mass every Sunday for an entire Lectionary Cycle (three years) and never hear theologically ‘negative’ Scriptural passages such as Our Lord’s warnings against hell, St. Paul’s warning against receiving the Body of Our Lord unworthily, his teaching on heresy, heretics and their fate, or his command that women be submissive to their husbands, that they cover their heads, and remain silent in Church.  In practical terms, this chapter is perhaps the most devastating for the defenders of the liturgical reform, and it alone, in my opinion, is worth the price of the entire book.

Now, Cekada’s main thesis (A), in my view, is not sufficiently nuanced.  There are doctrinal problems with the new Missal and GIRM, to be sure; yet, contrary to what Cekada suggests, there is nothing in the Missal or GIRM that could explicitly be identified as heretical.  In the 444 pages of the work, Cekada never successfully points to a single explicit heretical proposition in the text of the New Mass, whether in the Propers or the Ordinary.  All of the doctrinal problems that he points out consist in omissions, ambiguous phrases, ‘devaluation-by-inflation’, or deficiencies in the many rubrics, expressions, and gestures that make up the Missal and GIRM.  Nowhere is a dogma explicitly denied.  As far as I could tell, there are only two places in the book where Cekada tries to identify a specific heresy that he thinks is present in the new liturgical reform.  One of these is his discussion of the GIRM’s doctrine that the Mass is a re-presentation of the Last Supper.  He claims that this is opposed to the Council of Trent’s dogma that the Mass is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross.  Yet Cekada does not sufficiently discuss or explain why these two notions contradict each other or are mutually incompatible.  I do not see why someone who thinks that the Mass is in some sense a representation of the Last Supper must necessarily deny the dogma that the Mass is a representation of the Sacrifice of Calvary.  While I do not defend the idea that the Mass consists in a representation of the Last Supper, I would not go so far as to claim it is necessarily a denial of a Tridentine dogma.  A doctrinal novelty does not ipso facto involve heresy.  There are different levels of theological error—and Cekada is well aware of this—yet he does not discuss whether the doctrinal problems of the new Mass could be categorized as otherwise than heresy. 

Rather than state that the Mass contains heresies, I would admit that it was clearly motivated by novel doctrines, some of which are obviously dangerous.  One could even admit that, in the context of current theological trends, the New Rite may indirectly promote these novel doctrines, and in the minds of most of the faithful these novel doctrines involve a denial of the traditional faith, yet this in no way means that the new Missal contains any proposition or gesture that inherently asserts heresy.  Take, for example, the changes to the offertory prayers.  The traditional prayers at the offering of the paten and chalice eloquently summarize the Catholic doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass, and offer the bread and wine already under the aspect of an ‘Immaculate Victim’ (Immaculatam Hostiam) that will be sacrificed later on, thus making an allusion to the future Consecration.  The new prayers, however, do not make reference to the ‘Victim’ or to the Sacrifice.  Instead, they are pervaded by a naturalistic tone, as they speak of offering of (mere) bread and wine, which are being considered as the ‘work of human hands’ and which will become ‘bread of life’ and ‘spiritual drink’.  This is where Cekada makes his second accusation of heresy: he suggests that calling the bread and wine ‘the work of human hands’ amounts to stating that the matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist consists in human work, and that this is heretical.  Yet, the New Missal in no way states that the matter of the Holy Eucharist is human work.  That some theologians read the Missal this way is one thing, but that the Mass itself says so explicitly is quite another.  A more reasonable criticism of the new offertory prayers would be that, though not heretical, they simply fail to communicate the Catholic theology of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  Perhaps the change was motivated by a novel theology that differed from the traditional theology of the Sacrifice of the Mass, yet no denial of the traditional doctrine is present in the rite itself.

 Similarly, in the context of current theological trends (e.g., the ecumenical requirement of making the Mass less offensive to Protestants, and the desire of many to abandon the traditional Catholic theology of the Mass), the now-allowed gesture of receiving Holy Communion in the hand may be seen as an indirect attack on our faith in the Real Presence.  Yet it is not inherently wrong or heretical in itself to receive Holy Communion in the Hand.  Even the old De defectibus prescribes it in certain irregular situations.  In itself, this change only amounts to an omitted profession of faith in the Real Presence—an omission that does not in itself imply a denial.  So it is in context only, and not in itself, that this new concession can be seen as doctrinally problematic.

            Interestingly, Cekada also offers two arguments for the invalidity of the New Mass.  First, he gives the well-known ‘pro multis’–‘for all’ argument.  To my disappointment, Cekada never addresses any of the detailed defenses of the validity of the ‘for all’ translation offered by scholars such as John McCarthy and Manfred Hauke, or even as much as mentions the Vatican pronouncement on this issue.  His second argument, however, is more interesting: it is based on one of the criticisms in the Ottaviani Intervention regarding the requisite ministerial intention for saying a valid Mass.  The traditional Mass left no room for the priest to be lacking in his requisite intention to change bread and wine into the Most Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord: the texts made clear what was going on, and what ought to be the intention of the celebrant.  The priest who pronounced those words meaningfully and assertively would automatically have the requisite intention.  The New Mass, however, together with the 1969 GIRM, present what used to be called the ‘Consecration’ as a mere ‘Institution Narrative’,[3] such that a priest is able to pronounce the new ‘Institution Narrative’ as a mere historical account of the Last Supper without the intention of effecting the Transubstantiation.  This would result in an invalid Mass—as Cekada dramatically puts it: “No Body, no Blood, no Mass.”  This, in my view, is a theologically sound criticism of the new ‘Institution Narrative’ terminology.  Yet this criticism should be tempered by one important clarification that Cekada never makes: this argument applies only to individual Masses where the priest lacks the requisite intention—something that is also possible, though significantly more difficult, in the context of the Old Mass.  The criticism does not apply to every Mass said according to the New Missal, for even in the New Rite, a priest who, despite the vague, new ‘Institution Narrative’ language, manages to pronounce the words of consecration meaningfully and assertively, with the requisite intention, bypasses this problem and truly brings about the Transubstantiation.[4]

            Cekada’s research is, overall, scholarly and profound, eye-opening and convincing.  He leaves no room to doubt in the reader’s mind that the creators of the New Mass were seeking to promote doctrines in line with the ecumenical and nouelle theologie movements.  Even though Cekada’s main thesis is not simpliciter warranted, the book successfully shows that the New Mass represents a theological novelty, a doctrinal rupture with tradition and a spurious return to primitive liturgy.  Inevitably, the book will have to be taken seriously by contemporary theology scholars of all camps.

---

Notes:

[1] Cekada abbreviates it as “GI,” but I shall follow the general convention in abbreviating it as “GIRM.”

[2] It must be noted that Cekada does not intend to criticize mere liturgical ‘abuses’—violations of the New Missal’s rubrics—that frequently take place in the context of the New Mass.  Rather, he explicitly criticizes the new Missal itself as doctrinally problematic. According to Cekada, his view distinguishes him from other traditionalist authors who, he claims, have only criticized ‘abuses’ or who argue in favor of the traditional Mass on the basis of mere aesthetic preference or individual sentiment, and if they ever criticize the New Missal itself, they have merely held it is ‘ambiguous’, instead of acknowledging that it is inherently problematic in its doctrine.  I think Cekada exaggerates a bit, however; there are plenty of other works that are critical of the doctrine contained implicitly and explicitly in the New Mass and the new liturgical laws, and not just its aesthetical problems or its ‘abuses’.  To name a few of these works: Davies’ monumental, three-volume Liturgical Revolution, the SSPX’s The Problem of the Liturgical Reform: A Theological and Liturgical Study, and of course, A Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, commonly known as The Ottavianni Intervention.

[3]  The 1970 GIRM saw itself forced to change the expression to ‘Institution Narrative or Consecration’.

[4] Oddly enough, although Cekada thinks the New Mass is invalid, he still thinks it is a sacrilege!  Yet, if “no Body, no Blood, no Mass,” then how can it be sacrilege?  Cekada appears never to make this connection.

The End of Pope Benedict's Reform of the Reform: A Hybrid Mass?

The End of Pope Benedict's Reform of the Reform: A Hybrid Mass?

Link to New Oxford Review article.

Klaus Gamber on Liturgical Orientation

Klaus Gamber on Liturgical Orientation

Link to: RORATE CÆLI: ...propterea exaltabit caput.:

'via Blog this'

Una Voce Ventura Conference at Thomas Aquinas College

Una Voce Ventura Conference at Thomas Aquinas College

Link to: RORATE CÆLI: Events: Una Voce Ventura Conference at Thomas Aquinas College

Today's Novus Ordo Collect vs. its TLM Counterpart

Today's Novus Ordo Collect vs. its TLM Counterpart

Link to: WDTPRS: 21st Ordinary Sunday: Satan’s smoke and the crack | Fr. Z's Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say?

Alcuin Reid Reviews Fr. Cekada's Work of Human Hands

Alcuin Reid Reviews Fr. Cekada's Work of Human Hands

Maybe old news to you, but news to me...

Link to: "Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI, Anthony Cekada."

Traditional Quotes Against Communion in the Hand

Traditional Quotes Against Communion in the Hand

Link to: Traditional Roman Catholic: Communion In The Hand Is Sacrilege

The Participation of the Faithful During Low Mass

The Participation of the Faithful During Low Mass

Link to: LMS Chairman, "The Spirit of '58"

Why Are Seminaries Afraid of the Extraordinary Form?

Why Are Seminaries Afraid of the Extraordinary Form?

Link to: The Chant Café: Why Are Seminaries Afraid of the Extraordinary Form?

Statistics on the Reception of Summorum pontificum

Statistics on the Reception of Summorum pontificum

Link to New Oxford Review article: "Out of the Liturgical Ghetto."

"Not much difference between a Latin Novus Ordo and the Traditional Mass?" - Part 2

"Not much difference between a Latin Novus Ordo and the Traditional Mass?" - Part 2

Link to LMS Chairman post.

Four-Day Course in Spanish on How to Celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass

Four-Day Course in Spanish on How to Celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass

To be held in Guadalajara, Mexico, July 25-29 @ The Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara
Organized by FSSP México and Una Voce Guadalajara.

Instruction Universae ecclesiae

Instruction Universae ecclesiae

On the Implementation of Summorum Pontificum.

Link to Rorate caeli post.

Ite ad Thomam News: Updates on Universae ecclesiae

Ite ad Thomam News: Updates on Universae ecclesiae

(Letter on the Implementation of Summorum pontificum)

Link to Summorumpontificum.net

Ite ad Thomam News: Instruction on Summorum Pontificum to be Released Friday

Ite ad Thomam News: Instruction on Summorum Pontificum to be Released Friday

The much-awaited instruction on the implementation of Summorum pontificum is titled (i.e,. begins with the words) Universae ecclesiae and will be released on Friday, and then on Saturday will appear in L'Osservatore Romano.  It is significant that it is being made public on May 13 (first apparition of Our Lady at Fatima).  May Our Lady of Fatima use this document ad laudem et gloriam nominis Dei, ad utilitatem quoque nostram, totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae!

For more details and for the latest breaking news, stay posted to Rorate caeli. 

Link to the official announcement on the Vatican website.

The Guadalajara FSSP Apostolate: Now Raised to 'Quasi-Parish'

The Guadalajara FSSP Apostolate: Now Raised to 'Quasi-Parish'

Link.

Card. Ratzinger: The Novus Ordo Reform was "a Banal On-the-Spot Product"

Card. Ratzinger: The Novus Ordo Reform was "a Banal On-the-Spot Product"

From Cardinal Ratzinger's preface to La Reforme liturgique en question, by Klaus Gamber, Editions Sainte-Madeleine.

Online Source: www.latin-mass-society.org

The Mass Reduced to a Show

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

A Young priest recently told me: "Today we need a new liturgical movement." He was expressing a desire that, these days, only deliberately superficial souls would ignore.

What matters to that priest is not the conquest of new, bolder liberties. For, where is the liberty that we have yet to arrogate ourselves? That priest understood that we need a new beginning born from deep within the liturgy, as liturgical movement intended....

In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.

On the one hand, we have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims.

Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the "doing" becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being....

Therefore, a new spiritual impulse is necessary so that the liturgy becomes a community activity of the Church for us once again and to remove it from the will of parish priests and their liturgical teams.

There can be no "fabricating" a liturgical movement of this kind, just as there can be no "fabricating" something which is alive. But a contribution can be made to its development by seeking to re-assimilate the spirit of the liturgy and by defending publicly that which was received.

The new beginning needs "fathers" who would serve as models, who would not content themselves with just showing the way.... It is difficult to express in just a few words what is important in this diatribe of liturgists and what is not. But perhaps what I have to say will be of use. J.A. Jungman, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, offered his definition of the liturgy of his time, as it was intended in the West, and he represented it in terms of historical research. He described it as "liturgy which is the fruit of development."

This is probably in contrast with the Eastern notion which does not see liturgy as developing or growing in history but as the reflection of eternal liturgy whose light, through the sacred celebration, illumines our changing times with its unchanging beauty and greatness. Both conceptions are legitimate and by definition they are not irreconcilable.

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.

We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced--as if it were a technical production--with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.

How to Pray the Mass: Part 1, The Attitude of Stillness

How to Pray the Mass: Part 1, The Attitude of Stillness

From Msgr. Romano Guardini, Preparing Yourself for Mass, Ch. 1: "Stillness."

WHEN Holy Mass is properly celebrated there are moments in which the voices of both priest and faithful become silent. The priest continues to officiate as the rubrics indicate, speaking very softly or refraining from vocal prayer; the congregation follows in watchful, prayerful participation.[1] What do these intervals of quiet signify? What must we do with them? What does stillness really imply?

It implies above all that speech end and silence prevail, that no other sounds of movements, of turning pages, of coughing and throat-clearing be audible. There is no need to exaggerate. Men live, and living things move; a forced outward conformity is no better than restlessness. Nevertheless, stillness is still, and it comes only if seriously desired. If we value it, it brings us joy; if not, discomfort. People are often heard to say: "But I can't help coughing" or "I can't kneel quietly"; yet once stirred by a concert or lecture they forget all about coughing and fidgeting. That stillness proper to the most beautiful things in existence dominates, a quiet area of attentiveness in which the beautiful and truly important reign. We must earnestly desire stillness and be willing to give something for it; then it will be ours. Once we have experienced it, we will be astounded that we were able to live without it.

Moreover, stillness must not be superficial, as it is when there is neither speaking nor squirming; our thoughts, our feelings, our hearts must also find repose. Then genuine stillness permeates us, spreading ever deeper through the seemingly plumbless world within.

Once we try to achieve such profound stillness, we realize that it cannot be accomplished all at once. The mere desire for it is not enough; we must practice it. The minutes before Holy Mass are best; but in order to have them for genuine preparation we must arrive early. They are not a time for gazing or day-dreaming or for unnecessary thumbing of pages, but for inwardly collecting and calming ourselves.[2] It would be still better to begin on our way to church. After all, we are going to a sacred celebration. Why not let the way there be an exercise in composure, a kind of overture to what is to come? I would even suggest that preparation for holy stillness really begins the day before. Liturgically, Saturday evening already belongs to the Sunday. If for instance, after suitable reading we were to collect ourselves for a brief period of composure, its effects the next day would be evident.

Thus far we have discussed stillness negatively: no speech, no sound. But it is much more than the absence of these, a mere gap, as it were, between words and sounds: stillness itself is something positive. Of course we must be able to appreciate it as such. There is sometimes a pause in the midst of a lecture or a service or some public function. Almost invariably someone promptly coughs or clears his throat. He is experiencing stillness as a breach in the unwinding road of speech and sound, which he attempts to fill with something, anything. For him the stillness was only a lacuna, a void which gave him a sense of disorder and discomfort. Actually, it is something rich and brimming.

Stillness is the tranquility of the inner life; the quiet at the depths of its hidden stream. It is a collected, total presence, a being "all there," receptive, alert, ready. There is nothing inert or oppressive about it.

Attentiveness that is the clue to the stillness in question, the stillness before God.

What then is a church? It is, to be sure, a building having walls, pillars, space. But these express only part of the word "church," its shell. When we say that Holy Mass is celebrated "in church," we are including something more, the congregation. "Congregation," not merely people. Churchgoers arriving, sitting, or kneeling in pews are not necessarily a congregation; they can be simply a roomful of more or less pious individuals. Congregation is formed only when those individuals are present not only corporally but also spiritually, when they have contacted one another in prayer and step together into the spiritual "space" around them; strictly speaking, when they have first widened and heightened that space by prayer. Then true congregation comes into being, which, along with the building that is its architectural expression, forms the vital church in which the sacred act is accomplished. All this takes place only in stillness; out of stillness grows the real sanctuary. It is important to understand this. Church buildings may be lost or destroyed; then everything depends on whether or not the faithful are capable of forming congregations that erect indestructible "churches" wherever they happen to find themselves, no matter how poor or dreary their quarters. We must learn and practice the art of constructing spiritual cathedrals.

We cannot take stillness too seriously. Not for nothing do these reflections on the liturgy open with it. If someone were to ask me what the liturgical life begins with, I should answer: with learning stillness. Without it, everything remains superficial, vain. Our understanding of stillness is nothing strange or aesthetic. Were we to approach stillness on the level of aesthetics of mere withdrawal into the ego we should spoil everything. What we are striving for is something very grave, very important, and unfortunately sorely neglected; the prerequisite of the liturgical holy act.

1. At this point attention must be drawn to a subject which, though only indirectly related to this chapter, is nevertheless essential to the book as a whole. We mentioned moments of stillness in the continuity of the sacred action; hence the question automatically arises: when do such moments come into being? There are many forms of the liturgy, but we are discussing this question in relation to one particular form: to the spoken (rather than the sung) Mass. But even the spoken Mass has several forms. Thus when we say that at a certain moment there is silence, this is meant as a suggestion as to how such a Mass should be celebrated, and it should be accepted as such, even though it is impossible in a limited space to present the reasons behind the suggestion, which must be left to a future opportunity.

First of all, the opening prayer at the foot of the altar should be prayed silently. In the recited Mass it is usually spoken aloud by the priest and congregation. There are certain advantages to this, but when the practice continues over a long period of time, disadvantages become apparent. Strictly speaking, the prayer at the foot of the altar does not really belong to the Mass at all; it is the priest's personal preparation and formerly was prayed in the sacristy. Its significance seems clearest when it is prayed in genuine silence. A similar silence should also fill the brief interval between each oremus and the formal prayer which follows; there should be a real pause, in which everyone present places his intentions before God, to be gathered up by the priest in the oratio. The Offertory, too, should take place in the profoundest possible stillness. Essentially it is a preparation for the sacred meal and hence should keep in the background. This is mostly simply effected by allowing silence to reign from the Offertory to the Preface, also in the moments after the Agnus Dei and during Communion. Finally, the Last Gospel is similarly best read silently. After the "Ite, Missa est" and blessing, the sacred action is essentially over. The prologue to St. John's Gospel was added later, for more or less incidental historical reasons.

This order shifts in the sung Mass: likewise in the High Mass, in which certain texts are sung by the choir. We cannot go into the question of when silence is best here; but in the sung Mass, too, periods of stillness are an absolute necessity. Lengthy, unbroken singing is objectionable, as is continuous organ music, which drives stillness from its last possible refuge. In the course of these meditations we shall see that the periods of silence are not mere interruptions of speech and song, but something essential to the sacred act as a whole and almost as important as the periods of speech.

2. The importance of stillness can hardly be exaggerated. In my book, Wille und Wahrheit (Mainz, 1938), I attempted to show its significance for our religious life and for all personal existence, as well as to suggest how it may be attained. The book also contains other passages relevant to these meditations.

     

Traditional (Indult) Masses in the US: 1989 vs. 2005

Traditional (Indult) Masses in the US: 1989 vs. 2005