This really is an Emperor's New Clothes situation where we are supposed to pretend that the liturgy designed after the close of Vatican II was mandated by the council. Fr. Ruff seems to think that if he denies it emphatically enough, no one will notice that Sacrosanctum Concilium says: "Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them." Many priests are no longer able to say in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them!
In my parish the priests generally follow the rubrics in front of them (no bubbles here!). If we simply used Gregorian chant or older Catholic hymns there would be fewer complaints regarding the Novus Ordo. It is the music that brings the pain…
NOTE: if permitted, I would however, suggest scrapping the “Prayers of the Faithful” & “Sharing of the Peace”. Both bring jarring moments to the Mass.
"A European traditionalist told The Pillar that this was also his anecdotal impression."
Who is this? Is there a reason for anonymity? Is he more like a Cardinal or more like a liturgy professor or more like a dude running a YouTube channel out of his basement? What makes him a "traditionalist"? Would/did he describe himself that way? Would you describe everyone who prefers the EF as a traditionalist, or would you make distinctions among the different types of people who prefer the EF? If the latter, what criteria makes someone a traditionalist?
I’ve been tremendously energized by hearing more and more recently that: The Novus Ordo Missae IS NOT the Mass Vatican II asked for. Read Louis Bouyer’s memoirs.
Not a tinfoil hat guy, the point is that most conversations I’m a part of usually end in a sort of stalemate:
“Well I just think the Novus Ordo needs to be done beautifully and faithfully according to what Vatican II actually asked for.”
I used to think this was a point that couldn’t be really departed from. I agree it’s the best option available to most, but the reality is that the 1969 Missal IS NOT what Sacrosanctum Concilium wanted created. There’s a difference between Concilium and Consilium, and it’s high time it becomes common knowledge.
He demanded a pretty strict regimen.... that the Bishops mostly ignored, because after several years of a pandemic, and decades of infighting, most did not have the desire to launch a purge. Yes, now he wants to downplay it, but that was more a response to how little his authority was respected by the global episcopate on this question. (And here, rightly so: what the Pope wanted done would have caused untold damage to the Church, and not just among those who love the Latin Mass.)
It’s exhausting to be continually gaslighted by Mr. Grillo and others. No one under 65 is buying what he’s selling, intellectually or spiritually.
I’m sure the Masses at Saint Anselm have preserved Latin and Gregorian chant, and that all of the innovations emanating from there were genuinely required by the Church, with care taken that any new forms have grown organically from forms already existing.
The so called transitional missal, up to roughly 1968, is the closest to Sacrosanctum Concilium in any clear sense. Even though SC was full of holes, any straightforward understanding suggests the Novus Ordo Missae cannot be be 'unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite' and the 'ritual form' reformed. Obviously the 1962 typical edition is better still. Imagine trying to make this point on 'Pray Tell.' There'd be a catty reply and the thread would be locked.
I appreciate the careful discussion and the assembly of various voices in the article. I know there's more coming. I wonder if you would be willing to dig into the way that love for liturgical reverence and reverence for the Church's tradition (both great goods) have gotten mixed up with so much bitter anger, conspiracy theories, etc. I don't think the stuff that is toxic in the traditionalist movement (at least as experienced in the media and in online fora) is necessarily associated with liturgical reverence and beauty. How can we draw these apart? On another note, as I've read more into the Liturgical Movement, it's clear that much that is claimed to be utterly novel and inappropriate in the Novus Ordo is actually rooted in several generations of Church-authorized study and testing. Although it's cited by another commenter as silly, I do believe that celebrating the Novus Ordo beautifully, reverently, and rubrically is possible, and very very fruitful. My observation is that where the Novus Ordo is celebrated prayerfully and well, there is much less deep hunger for departing from it. (I'm going to put on my flak jacket and helmet now and hunker down in the trench.)
I agree the current situation will not keep Pope Francis awake at night. It doesnt keep me awake either. For, in a few years, Francis and the other elderly men responsible for current power trends will be dead - and I will be attending the Latin Mass.
“Traditionis custodes helpfully reinforced that the Second Vatican Council intended the previous liturgy to be entirely replaced by a reformed one.” But perhaps not **this** reformed one… and thus it is reasonable to cling to our known, tradition. The reform as implemented has been such a failure. Also Fr Ruff fails to mention that notwithstanding his view, only until now has Rome effectively conceded the legitimacy of the use of the traditional Mass.
Great article. At the very least, the fact that there is no enforcement provisions for discipline in the Novus Ordo but there is very harsh enforcement on the TLM is the Achilles heel of TC and deprives it of moral credibility.
Crazy how Grillo, whose arguments are based entirely on sophistry and unsubstantiated claims, has the nerve to contradict Pope Benedict XVI and accuse him of sophistry for allowing the peaceful coexistence of multiple expressions of the Roman Rite(which, to my understanding, was the case for all of Church history prior to Quo Primum).
The sort of mental gymnastics it would require to hold that it is necessary for the unity of the church to have "one" expression of the Roman rite, while that "one" expression is celebrated in a practically infinite number of (often scandalous) ways, while also holding that the six other rites of the Church are equally valid and unthreatening to the unity of the Church, is just mind boggling.
This really is an Emperor's New Clothes situation where we are supposed to pretend that the liturgy designed after the close of Vatican II was mandated by the council. Fr. Ruff seems to think that if he denies it emphatically enough, no one will notice that Sacrosanctum Concilium says: "Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them." Many priests are no longer able to say in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them!
In my parish the priests generally follow the rubrics in front of them (no bubbles here!). If we simply used Gregorian chant or older Catholic hymns there would be fewer complaints regarding the Novus Ordo. It is the music that brings the pain…
NOTE: if permitted, I would however, suggest scrapping the “Prayers of the Faithful” & “Sharing of the Peace”. Both bring jarring moments to the Mass.
"A European traditionalist told The Pillar that this was also his anecdotal impression."
Who is this? Is there a reason for anonymity? Is he more like a Cardinal or more like a liturgy professor or more like a dude running a YouTube channel out of his basement? What makes him a "traditionalist"? Would/did he describe himself that way? Would you describe everyone who prefers the EF as a traditionalist, or would you make distinctions among the different types of people who prefer the EF? If the latter, what criteria makes someone a traditionalist?
I’ve been tremendously energized by hearing more and more recently that: The Novus Ordo Missae IS NOT the Mass Vatican II asked for. Read Louis Bouyer’s memoirs.
Not a tinfoil hat guy, the point is that most conversations I’m a part of usually end in a sort of stalemate:
“Well I just think the Novus Ordo needs to be done beautifully and faithfully according to what Vatican II actually asked for.”
I used to think this was a point that couldn’t be really departed from. I agree it’s the best option available to most, but the reality is that the 1969 Missal IS NOT what Sacrosanctum Concilium wanted created. There’s a difference between Concilium and Consilium, and it’s high time it becomes common knowledge.
He demanded a pretty strict regimen.... that the Bishops mostly ignored, because after several years of a pandemic, and decades of infighting, most did not have the desire to launch a purge. Yes, now he wants to downplay it, but that was more a response to how little his authority was respected by the global episcopate on this question. (And here, rightly so: what the Pope wanted done would have caused untold damage to the Church, and not just among those who love the Latin Mass.)
It’s exhausting to be continually gaslighted by Mr. Grillo and others. No one under 65 is buying what he’s selling, intellectually or spiritually.
I’m sure the Masses at Saint Anselm have preserved Latin and Gregorian chant, and that all of the innovations emanating from there were genuinely required by the Church, with care taken that any new forms have grown organically from forms already existing.
The so called transitional missal, up to roughly 1968, is the closest to Sacrosanctum Concilium in any clear sense. Even though SC was full of holes, any straightforward understanding suggests the Novus Ordo Missae cannot be be 'unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite' and the 'ritual form' reformed. Obviously the 1962 typical edition is better still. Imagine trying to make this point on 'Pray Tell.' There'd be a catty reply and the thread would be locked.
I appreciate the careful discussion and the assembly of various voices in the article. I know there's more coming. I wonder if you would be willing to dig into the way that love for liturgical reverence and reverence for the Church's tradition (both great goods) have gotten mixed up with so much bitter anger, conspiracy theories, etc. I don't think the stuff that is toxic in the traditionalist movement (at least as experienced in the media and in online fora) is necessarily associated with liturgical reverence and beauty. How can we draw these apart? On another note, as I've read more into the Liturgical Movement, it's clear that much that is claimed to be utterly novel and inappropriate in the Novus Ordo is actually rooted in several generations of Church-authorized study and testing. Although it's cited by another commenter as silly, I do believe that celebrating the Novus Ordo beautifully, reverently, and rubrically is possible, and very very fruitful. My observation is that where the Novus Ordo is celebrated prayerfully and well, there is much less deep hunger for departing from it. (I'm going to put on my flak jacket and helmet now and hunker down in the trench.)
I agree the current situation will not keep Pope Francis awake at night. It doesnt keep me awake either. For, in a few years, Francis and the other elderly men responsible for current power trends will be dead - and I will be attending the Latin Mass.
All of this 'unique expression' hogwash--there has *never* been a unique expression of the Roman Rite.
“Traditionis custodes helpfully reinforced that the Second Vatican Council intended the previous liturgy to be entirely replaced by a reformed one.” But perhaps not **this** reformed one… and thus it is reasonable to cling to our known, tradition. The reform as implemented has been such a failure. Also Fr Ruff fails to mention that notwithstanding his view, only until now has Rome effectively conceded the legitimacy of the use of the traditional Mass.
Great article. At the very least, the fact that there is no enforcement provisions for discipline in the Novus Ordo but there is very harsh enforcement on the TLM is the Achilles heel of TC and deprives it of moral credibility.
Crazy how Grillo, whose arguments are based entirely on sophistry and unsubstantiated claims, has the nerve to contradict Pope Benedict XVI and accuse him of sophistry for allowing the peaceful coexistence of multiple expressions of the Roman Rite(which, to my understanding, was the case for all of Church history prior to Quo Primum).
The sort of mental gymnastics it would require to hold that it is necessary for the unity of the church to have "one" expression of the Roman rite, while that "one" expression is celebrated in a practically infinite number of (often scandalous) ways, while also holding that the six other rites of the Church are equally valid and unthreatening to the unity of the Church, is just mind boggling.
Most Catholics in the US are not walking forward or backward. They are walking away.
.....and when Jesus came down, he looked at his Church, and said "Really"?