Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum

[docmattc]

I know of several priests, young enough to be my sons, who are rubbing their hands with glee since the[y] heard of Summorum Pontificum – and good luck to them as they press their lace and brush their birettas. But, in England, ours is not a young Church: so many of us are in our 40s and will find it difficult – if not impossible – to bend with this new wind.

If these youngsters (and I too can think of a few examples) actually follow what the document says, rather than what they would like the document to say, there should be little new wind to bend with. The 1962 'usage' can only be used for 'public' Masses where there already exists within the parish a group who are attached to it and request it. As you rightly point out, ours is not a young church, and there aren't many such groups. Thus if there is no demand for the 1962 'usage' in a parish, the maniples should stay in the cupboard. As Alan pointed out on page 1, in 58 years he's never heard anyone hanker after the old 'usage'. Thus in most parishes, the upshot of the Motu Proprio should be no change. This is certainly what the pope envisages according to his letter to Bps

Of course I'm assuming that the Motu Proprio isn't made to say something it doesn't, and I'm not sure that's a valid assumption. Your fears should be unfounded- but I share them! This is where our bishops need to keep a firm hand on the tiller.

Many (most?) parishes here have a small number of Sunday Masses, probably only 2. Even if there existed in a parish a small group of, say 5%, of the congregation who requested the 1962 usage, would it be good pastoral practice to celebrate 50% of the Sunday Masses in a manner which satisfied the tastes/needs/spirituality of only 5%? I think not.

I was taught that the Liturgy, in particular the Mass is an action of the whole church, and that my particular likes and dislikes just don't come into into it. Does this document then smack of subjectivism?

Yes I think it does, but the reality is that we are all subjective, even though we shouldn't be. My parents go to the 8am Mass because dad hates singing and they don't sing at that Mass. I left one parish because I couldn't stomach a liturgy that was becoming progressively more priest centred and right wing at the same time with sermons of a 'sinners aren't welcome here' theme. Folk travel miles to get to a Mass they feel feeds them, in a community in which they feel at home.

In an ideal world this would not be the case, but its not ideal and because of that if we were to try and make every Mass, in every parish, the same, the result would be a lowest common denominator and a completely souless liturgy which connected with no-one. Different people are at different places in their faith pilgrimage, its the job of every liturgical minister to meet them where they are, but also to move them on.

There is a big problem if the 1962 'usage' is requested because people stubbornly refuse to move on into the post VCII world, or if its preferable precisely because it doesn't challenge or result in spiritual growth. In the same way, there's a problem if people choose a Mass and/or parish celebrating in the 1970 usage because it doesn't make them think. Reginald has very persuasively argued here that the 1962 'usage' and VCII needn't be at loggerheads, but a deal of (rarely observed) sensitivity to the liturgy is needed.

[Petrasancta]

I like the sound of your parents, docmattc! As a very wise man wrote on another thread:

I hope this will not be regarded as offensive in this context but I, along with many other people, go to some lengths to find a Mass with no singing in it at all. These Masses spring up in my area from time to time and attract large numbers of people but they seldom last before someone decides that the people must sing. Is there no room for a more a la carte approach in cities or churches with several Masses so that people who wish to SAY the people's parts of the Mass are not disenfranchised?

(All right it was I).
Personally I like both the "ordinary" and the "extraordinary" forms of the Mass and have never doubted the validity of either BUT I do make for the door when I see a band assembling. My ideal Mass is either fully choral or a Low Mass in either form. I do not imagine my views to be of universal interest but they are not uncommon which is why I throw them into the discussion.

[musicus]

And now I am definitely off topic and expect to be spanked. But I'm off to serve my penance by directing music at Mass without the aid of either band or a keyboard player.

Yes, you are. But it's a legitimate comment (and interesting, as always) so absolvo te!

Meanwhile, back on-topic...

[Petrasancta]

Nick, I apologize - I fully agree with almost everything you wrote. I had something different in mind when I made my snooty remarks about a "band".

[oopsorganist]

I should not post on this thread because I have not understood most of it. Too many polysyllabic words. And personal bits flying around.

I do understand what Alan is saying.

It's the sort of thread that makes me wonder. I always thought there was just one sort of Mass. Well, two sorts, one with singing and one without.

Anyway, you could only get a choir to sing the Sanctus if you had one. Otherwise you would have to get the congregation to do it. Or not do it to music as so often happens here. I am coming to the view that maybe it is better said than sung badly or to 663, at least that is Participation. We did 663 this morning with guitars and it was pretty bad. Doggerel. We are very close to a cathedral, inner city, increasingly multi cultural and struggling musically, although well attended. Anything issued from Rome especially in another language will be centuries before it impacts here. We also have a few articulate converts. A bit of a mix.

Unless the Diocese takes a lead. (unlikely?)

Or we get a new PP with different views.

Which is only to say you can sit in the shadow of a cathedral and be in a different world.

If there start to be Latin Masses as there were in the distant past ( you can see, I have not understood any of the above debates) will women have to cover their heads and be banned from the altar? That is all I remember from the old days. Do you remember when there were no women allowed to do the readings? I definately remember being told that women were not allowed anywhere near the altar although no one ever told us why, that was how it was. Those were the days! Now that is right off topic, send for the Moderator.

[oopsorganist]

Actually I've just remembered what is was i was going to say.
Which is to ask you if just because the Holy Holy is sung by a choir and fancy work, does it mean that you can't join in? It amuses me, that question.

[alan29]

Do you remember when there were no women allowed to do the readings?
____________________________________________________________
Women?????
I remember the Medieval Rite where no laity at all were allowed to read at Mass. Can't remember if the return to the Medieval Rite will bring that back - memory not all it used to be.

Alan

[oopsorganist]

I think in those days the readings were in Latin too. That was in the days before the Reformation wasn't it?

[alan29]

I say, steady on old thing.
Alan

[oopsorganist]

Alan,
But I thought you said you remembered it from Medieval times.

Who did the readings in hanky hat time then? I can remember it all being in Latin. If it had continued I think there would be few left to care about if it was Tridentine or not nowadays. They do say a change is as good as a rest.

1570 isn't Medieval. It's quite modern. A bit of a reactionary period though.

I just read all about it on Wilkepedia. There's such a lot of information I don't want to know. We, it seems have a really low Mass in our parish. And such a lot of hand shaking during the sign of peace! I give them a count of 20 and they are still wandering around. I hope no one tells Fr. about it or tells him to change texts.............. we'll just read what is on the sheet they give us, as long as we can fit "All that I am" in somewhere.

Isn't that papal thingy doc. about subsidiarity then? Or is that only in non liturgical matters?

[musicus]

I am grateful to Nick for starting a new topic ('Oops and the Sanctus'). This present one is for discussion of the Motu Proprio and the accompanying letter to the bishops. Forum members should feel free to start other new threads as necessary.

I think the main points about all this on-topic/off-topic stuff are:

1. so that those who want to can discuss a point or pursue an argument without it being unwittingly hijacked or diverted;
2. so we can use the topic titles to find stuff at a later date without having to trawl through over 4000 posts; and
3. so that threads do not become interminable.

If this makes sense to you, then please think before you post.

Thank you!

[Reginald]

People seem to be rushing into a comfort zone where the Liturgy can no longer challenge us because we don't understand it (most of the OT will not even be heard under the medieval rite, which was one of its many deficiencies) and where we can insult our fellow Christians, safe in the knowledge that we've got it right folks.

Not understanding the liturgy is surely much less of a legitimate argument than it would have been 40 years ago. I know the Ordinary of the Mass off by heart in English - as does virtually every practising Catholic in the country. It could be said/sung in Ancient Estonian and I'd still know what was being said - and it certainly wouldn't stop my interior participation.

Good point on the lack of OT in the extraordinary form - B XVI seems to permit the use of the modern lectionary (several US bishops have interpreted it this way and have expressed the wish that, when the extraordinary form is used in their diocese, they would like the modern lectionary used). I have a friend who is trying to cross match the old and new lectionaries (24th Sunday - Year C = 3rd after Pentecost, that kind of thing (made the example up)) - and some of you thought I was the saddest liturgical anorak around!

Describing the extraordinary form as the medieval Mass, is surely as contentious as Trads claiming that the ordinary form was a construction of the 1960s. Use of Greek Kyrie, not optional in the older form, links us back to earliest times, before Latin became the liturgical language of the Church. The Roman Canon is, substantially, from the 4th century. Many of the collects pre-date the 8th century (in so far as we first find them written then, and they may therefore be considerably older). If we assume that the Medieval period covers 5th to 15th century it's apparent that a large part of the Mass predates this and that the codification of the so-called Tridentine Mass is nearly 100 years after this period. I'm assuming that you aren't using medieval as a pejorative term...

Is it insulting to our fellow Christians to suggest that they've not got it right? Is it not just an uncomfortable statement of the reality of the situation? I believe in the Real Presence, am I wrong just because some other Christians don't? Of course not. Does it mean that I don't think they're Christians, no, but are their ideas as valid as mine? No - and not through any personal arrogance, but because they don't believe what the Church teaches.

A non-Catholic friend's view of the statement from Rome, "It's about time you guys stopped apologizing for being Catholic and got 'out and proud'" - View of the Russian Orthodox Church, much the same according to last week's press. Back to topic, we're in the same territory as the infamous, and frequently inaccurately reported, prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy. Of course we should pray for the conversion of Jews, Muslims, pagans etc, and for the same reason that I pray daily for my own personal conversion - so that I may be drawn closer to God. Are my Methodist friends missing out by not receiving Christ, truly present in the Blessed Sacrament? Of course they are - and what kind of friend would I be if I didn't want them to experience that grace?

And finally...those of you who are old enough to know/remember such things, I thought that use of the Maniple stopped being compulsory in England and Wales prior to any of the Vat II liturgical changes, but that its use remains optional, even in the NO Mass.

[alan29]

Are my Methodist friends missing out by not receiving Christ, truly present in the Blessed Sacrament? Of course they are - and what kind of friend would I be if I didn't want them to experience that grace?
_____________________________________________________________
Doesn't Christ supply when we lack? If not, then we're all stuffed.
Alan

[presbyter]

http://www.zenit.org/article-20136?l=english

there's something to discuss

[nazard]

The writer makes two points that appeal to me.

1) The idea that we should go forward from here in peace rather than arguing with one another.

I was never keen on the changes: I was happy how things were, and didn't at the time see a need to change anything. I have softened a little since. Holding this view has caused a lot of people to insult me and my fellow sticks in the mud ever since. This is pointless: we remember what happened to Christ and it all seems trivial.

2) He points out that further change will come. I am pleased about this. I just hope that it will be done more carefully. For starters, could they fix the silly in the old mass by which at the start the priest walks up to the altar, deposits the chalice, and then goes back to the bottom of the altar steps and prays to be made worthy to approach the altar. I suggest using the new mass method of putting the chalice on the credenza during the preparations and fetching it when it is needed. In a similar vein I think a better text of mass could be written from the two missals without writing any new text, and invite you all to have fun trying it.