Showing posts with label tridentine mass. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tridentine mass. Show all posts
I cited Johnny Hixson's quotation of Pius XII on Facebook in the previous post.  I seemed to have elicited some hot responses.  I apologize for having thrown lighter fuel on the fire.  My previous posting was a little more nuanced than my Facebook response.

My dislike for low masses is personal not something I would like to impose. And I would, of course, make exceptions for private masses and extraordinary circumstances. A Chinese priest hoping to say mass before the commissar caught him might, like our Irish and English ancestors, want to be quick and quiet about it. (Think of Tom Day’s Why Catholics Can’t Sing.) I would also like to ban all high masses that are not chanted even though it means no Byrd, no Tallis, no Palestrina, and no, sigh, Mozart. I can love them in the concert hall and on CD, but there is no room for the congregation when the mass becomes a concert.

I still have bitter memories of 15 minute speed masses from the fifties. I am not saying all masses were that way, but a mass production mentality was too easy a temptation. (Sorry about the pun.) When I see younger clergy like Fr. Lies or Bishop James Conley celebrating the liturgy using the Missal of John XXIII with a spirituality nurtured by the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, I can understand how that spirituality then animates their celebration of the Ordinary Form. It is a reflection of the human condition that we needed forty years in the liturgical desert before we were able to rediscover the Roman Rite with fresh eyes and hear it as we chant a new song.

There is no reason why, with a modern, educated laity, that all masses can’t be chanted with the congregation chanting the Gloria, the Credo, the Pater Noster, the responses, etc. whether using the Missal of John XXIII (1962) or that of Paul VI (1970). Indeed the new English Missal will even facilitate the congregation’s chanting the Propers in English! I prefer Latin, of course. There will be no excuse for Marty Haugen or the St. Louis Jesuits, not that I expect to see them banned unfortunately.

Father Jerry Wooten Was the Homalist







The New Liturgical Movement reports on a beautiful mass said on the Feast of the Epiphany (old calendar, i.e., January, 6th, 2009.) This was said according to the Missal of John XXIII or the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (i.e, the Traditional Latin Mass.)

The New Liturgical Movement was "told that several local seminarians from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, and the seminary of St. Charles Borromeo, as well as diocesan priests, who served or sang at the Mass.

The celebrant was Father Gregory Thompson, assistant pastor of All Saints church in Manassas, Va. The deacon was Father Kevin Beres, assistant pastor of Saint Michael's church in Annandale, Va. The subdeacon was Abbe Michael Stein of the Institute of Christ the King. The homilist was Father Jerry Wooten, assistant pastor of the church that hosted the Mass, Holy Trinity in Gainesville, Va.

"The schola consisted of three seminarians (two FSSP and one diocesan deacon) as well as three men from Saint Mary's in D.C. The acolytes consisted of two or three FSSP seminarians as well as men and boys from the parish and surrounding area."




Father Wooten is an excellent priest. Like quite a few in the Arlington diocese he is ex-military. He is a priest most worthy of your prayers. The the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) and the Institute of Christ the King are two new orders created to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

This is significant for two reasons. You have diocesan priests and seminarians joining together with the two priestly orders. This is cross-fertilization at the personal level. This is a great event for Arlington which we left just three years ago. I had not perceived Bishop Loverde as being the sort of bishop who might be caught reading the New Liturgical Movement. Still Arlington is a diocese whose priests gradually remold their boss in their own image. It has a great bunch of priests who will find a way to do the right thing.

Wow a new Church that is pretty!

Father Wooten has found himself a very fine church to be assistant pastor in.

Note the prominence of the tabernacle and the Latin above it and the altar: "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him" (from today's gospel , the Feast of the Baptism of Christ.)

The altar allows them to go around it and celebrate ad orientem and they have used the "Benedictine" candle arrangement. What is ad orientem, you ask? The priest and other celbrants are facing the same direction toward the East or at least toward the liturgical east. If that is not enough of an explaination read on in my litugical postings. (Sorry no continuing ed credits given.)

Father Wooten's parish's has a website which gives its mission statement:

"The Mission of Holy Trinity Church is to lead all parishioners to Heaven and the Beatific Vision of the Holy Trinity."

How's that for getting back to basics?

I might have to think twice about my visceral rejection of parish's having mission statements.

How do you say "Cross Fertilization" in French?


From Paris and Lourdes, the Lesson of the "Liturgist" Pope

On his trip to France, Benedict XVI did not only defend the ancient rite of the Mass. He also explained and demonstrated repeatedly what he believes to be the authentic meaning of the Catholic liturgy of today and always. And, about sacred music, he said...

by Sandro Magister
ROMA, September 16, 2008 – In the three Masses celebrated during his trip to Paris and Lourdes, Benedict XVI followed the post-conciliar rite. But he intentionally enriched it with elements characteristic of the old rite: the cross at the center of the altar, communion given to the faithful on the tongue, while kneeling, the sacredness of the whole.

The reciprocal "enrichment" between the two rites is the main objective that impelled Benedict XVI to promulgate, in 2007, the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum," which liberalized the use of the ancient rite of the Mass, according to the Roman missal of 1962.


Sandro Magister's analysis is always very valuable. It was just over a year ago, that Benedict freed the old version of the Roman Rite. He chose that aniverary to preach liturgical tolerance to a hierarchy short in that pastoral virtue. Moreover, Benedict used this "teaching moment" to show how the old and new can cross fertilize each other.

Hallelujah!

Is the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite a "New Rite"

Is the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite a "New Rite?" Reading the following paragraph in the English translation of Benedict's letter to the bishops accompanying the motu proprio, you might conclude that:

"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."

That is not how I read the German, which I assume is the controlling text:

"Es gibt keinen Widerspruch zwischen der einen und der anderen Ausgabe des Missale Romanum. In der Liturgiegeschichte gibt es Wachstum und Fortschritt, aber keinen Bruch. Was früheren Generationen heilig war, bleibt auch uns heilig und groß; es kann nicht plötzlich rundum verboten oder gar schädlich sein. Es tut uns allen gut, die Reichtümer zu wahren, die im Glauben und Beten der Kirche gewachsen sind und ihnen ihren rechten Ort zu geben. Um die volle communio zu leben, können die Priester, die den Gemeinschaften des alten Usus zugehören, selbstverständlich die Zelebration nach den neuen liturgischen Büchern im Prinzip nicht ausschließen. Ein völliger Ausschluß wäre nämlich nicht in Übereinstimmung mit der Anerkennung des Wertes und der Heiligkeit des Ritus in seiner erneuerten Form."

Forget the Iowa Caucases and the New Hampshire Primary

Forget the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, the real polls are open already: what do we call the old mass now that that great liturgical liberal, Benedict XVI, has clarified that priests can say the mass as it said at the Second Vatican Council (which used the Missal of 1962.) Fr. Z. is conducting a poll as to what that mass should be called. My first choice lost out in the initial round (the Mass of John XXIII.) In the runoff, the top three choices are:

1) the Tridentine Mass
2) extraordinary form/use (forma extraodinaria)
3) the Traditional Latin Mass or TLM


You can vote on his blog, What Does The Prayer Really Say? The blog is a great resource to find out whether Rome (which speaks in Latin) really said what your local liturgist said Rome said.

I voted for #2. That is what Benedict called it. The "Tridentine Mass" suggests that this form dates back to the Council of Trent which is wrong by at least a thousand years. The "Traditional Latin Mass" is OK but distracts us from the fact that the ordinary form (what we have in almost every parish, every Sunday) is supposed to be in Latin most of the time and should be celebrated in a manner that preserves the tradition of the Latin rite.

The Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross

Today, The Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, is the day Pope Benedict set as the Liberation Day for the Extraordinary Usage of the mass of the Latin Rite (i.e., the mass according to the Missal of John XXIII, sometimes called by the misnomer "the tridentine mass.")

I heard a marvelous mass on EWTN this morning. How better to start the day than with Gregorian chant. I would love to get a podcast of the beautiful homily!

The New Liturgical Movement informs me that there is a DVD of it from EWTN. To find more follow the link. [Added this Sunday morning.]

The mass ended with "Lift High the Cross!" This was neither Latin nor Chant, but a great hymn. You can here it on two sites:

The Oremus Hymnal

and The Cyber Hymnal

I bounced into my classes with more life than all semester!

What About the Missal of 1965?

Adam Barnette makes some interesting arguments for reviving the Missal of 1965. There is a lot here so it will be a while before I absorb it all. You can read what I was thinking before the motu proprio.

Thanks to Jeffrey Tucker on the New Liturgical Movement for the link.

The Old Mass is More Jewish Than the New

Nicholas Frankovich on the First Things blog argues that the Mass of John XXIII is more Jewish than the ordinary form of the mass that we now use. He further argues that the new mass was adapted to allay Protestant opposition to the "Jewishness" of the old mass which corresponded more to the sacrifice offered in the temple than the rabbinical Judaism of the synagogue:

"Protestants were correct that the Mass, in its aspect as a sacrifice, could not be fully understood outside the framework of pre-rabbinic Judaism. By the middle of the twentieth century, when Rome’s wish for some thaw in its cold war with Protestantism was in full bloom, it reformed the Mass such that the visible and audible distinctions between Mass and the worship services of the mainline Protestant churches were now greatly softened. Many Catholics saw it as an appropriate ecumenical gesture. So did many Protestants. Whether that step in the direction of Wittenberg and Geneva was deliberate or unconscious, what it was a step away from was Jerusalem, from the Temple and the daily sacrifice priests used to perform there."

A carful anaysis of the structure, form, and language of the old mass would expose its true Jewishness, an analysis well beyond the scope of Frankovich's article.

Read the Text of Benedict's Document Motu Proprio Data "Summorum Pontificum"

MOTU PROPRIO "SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM"

VATICAN CITY, JUL 7, 2007 (VIS) - Given below is a non-official English- language translation of the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" of Pope Benedict XVI, "Summorum Pontificum," concerning the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The original text is written in Latin.

"Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of supreme pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, 'to the praise and glory of His name,' and 'to the benefit of all His Holy Church.'

"Since time immemorial it has been necessary - as it is also for the future - to maintain the principle according to which 'each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.' (1)

Read on....

The Holy See Press Office'd Explanatory Note on Benedict's Document Motu Proprio Data, "Summorum Pontificum."

EXPLANATORY NOTE ON MOTU PROPRIO "SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM"

VATICAN CITY, JUL 7, 2007 (VIS) - The Holy See Press Office today issued an explanatory note concerning the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum". The most important paragraphs of the note are given below:

"The Motu Proprio 'Summorum Pontificum' lays down new rules for the use of the Roman liturgy that preceded the reform of 1970. The reasons for such provisions are clearly explained in the Holy Father's letter to bishops which accompanies the Motu Proprio (the two documents have been sent to all the presidents of episcopal conferences and to all nuncios, who have arranged to distribute them to all bishops).

"The fundamental provision is as follows: the Roman liturgy will have two forms ('usus'):

Read on ...

Benedict's Letter to His Brother Bishops

LETTER FROM POPE TO BISHOPS ON "SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM"

VATICAN CITY, JUL 7, 2007 (VIS) - Given below is the text of the English- language version of Benedict XVI's Letter to all the bishops of the world concerning his Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum," which was published today:

"With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter 'Motu Proprio data' on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

"News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

"This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

Read on....

Living in the New Liturgical Era

Fr. Martin Fox writes a blog called Bonfire of the Vanities. You can read in his latest posting how one parish priest is responding to Benedict's newest motu proprio freeing the traditional Latin mass. I find in his attitude the true spirit of Vatican II.

In the comments a few practical issues arose:

Do we have to learn Latin?

You will not need to learn much Latin. It was common practice to follow the old mass by using a missal with Latin on one side and English on the other. The Liturgical Movement and Vatican II wanted to emphasize the high or sung mass and reduce the importance of low or said mass. Thus the congregation would again sing its parts of the mass (in Latin.) The Council gave pride of place to Gregorian chant, the music of the people, to accomplish this. You do not need to be a Latin scholar nor do you need to be a great singer to chant the people's parts of the old mass. This is what the Council meant by "full and active participation" in the mass.
We presume that most communication is verbal. Yet the experts tell us that 60-90% of communication is nonverbal. You will find that the non verbal communication of the older form of the Latin rite conveys both an atmosphere and specific messages that will change your understanding of the mass.

What is Benedict trying to accomplish?

The very heart of Benedict's program is allowing the older form of the Roman rite and the newer form cross pollinate. The older use stopped developing in 1962. The motu proprio will allow normal organic change to resume in the traditional Latin mass. As individual priests learn the older mass and Catholics experience the it, the ordinary use of the Latin rite will relearn the reverence, the solemnity, and the trancendance of the traditional Latin mass. This will lead to the ordinary use moving more in line with what the Council fathers approved.

Thus the TLM will lead by example but it will no longer be stuck in 1962.

Do you want to read the motu proprio?

Benedict's motu proprio freeing the traditional mass of the Latin rite will be released 8:00 A.M. Wichita time. You will be able to read it here in Latin and the Benedict's letter here in English.

Oswald Sobrino on his blog Catholic Analysis provides a link to subscribe to the Vatican News Service's email notifications.

Of Bobos, the Spirit, and the Possibility of Liturgy

I am not in the habit of reading homilies on the internet or elsewhere. (If you have a weakness for such things, I strongly recommend Ronal Knox’s homilies.)

Richard Cipolla’s homily on Pentecost is an exception. I do not know why I read it (Did the Spirit move me? Did my guardian angel kick me that one extra time that worked?) I glanced at it a number of times and then I got sucked in.

Two things knocked me over as if I were hit by a two by four:

1) The liturgy is not about me; how I feel; or what I need.

2) Even though there are still strong liturgical traditions among high Anglicans and some Lutherans, the general run of Protestantism in America is so unliturgical and even anti-liturgical that our culture, which reflects that, all but vitiates the possibility of liturgy.

You can find the homily on the web site for The St. Gregory Society of New Haven Connecticut. I found it on The New Liturgical Movement.

You can find it reproduced here in full:

Pentecost 2007 Sermon

Sermon for Pentecost 2007
May 27, 2007
Rev. Richard G. Cipolla

This feast is for all practical purposes the only chance to preach on the Holy Spirit per se. Perhaps the proper thing to do, after hearing the famous and familiar and dramatic reading from the Acts of the Apostles about the pouring forth of the Spirit onto Mary and the apostles, and therefore onto the Church, one should sit down and maintain a respectful and contemplative silence in the face of such an awesome event. For Pentecost is the last in a series of the mighty acts of God: creation hovered over by the Spirit, the creation of man breathed into life by the breath of God, the incarnation of God by the power of the Spirit in the body and soul of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the resurrection of Jesus by the Spirit of life, and today, the outpouring of the very life and substance and power of God onto the Church, making the sacramental life of the Church possible, making salvation itself a reality, making the presence of the immortal, unfathomable God real in this world. The coming of the Holy Spirit is an end to pie in the sky religion. God has tented among his people and blows where he will and dwells in power wherever there is the Catholic Church.

One of the highlights of the liturgical movement of the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century was the publication of a small book by Romano Guardini called The Spirit of the Liturgy. It is not a book of scholarship nor a history of the liturgy. It deals with the fundamental understanding of the liturgy in terms that have never been surpassed. Its importance was noted by the then Cardinal Ratzinger when he published in 1999 his collection of essays on the liturgy and named the book The Spirit of the Liturgy. In the introduction Cardinal Ratzinger marks the importance of Guardini’s book and honors Guardini with choosing the same title: The Spirit of the Liturgy.

It is interesting that in neither book is there a specific chapter or section dedicated to the role of the Holy Spirit in the liturgy. But this is so because both men understood that Christian worship is nothing other than worship in spirit and truth, that the Christian cannot worship God except in the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of truth. Now this phrase: worship in spirit, or more specifically, worship in the Holy Spirit, has been associated in recent times, but there are also similar movements in the past, with a specific type of experience that involves such phenomena as speaking in tongues, great emotional experiences, in which the individual is caught up into an ecstatic state. These signs are then offered as proof that whatever is going on is the work of the Holy Spirit and is therefore worship in spirit and truth.

However we judge this phenomenon, one can say that it has nothing to do with worship of God as the Catholic understands it in the liturgy. For the role of the Holy Spirit in the liturgy is not at all to seize individuals with special fervor; it is not to stir up emotions; it is not to instruct or teach at least in the didactic sense. The Spirit provides the unifying presence of God without which worship degenerates into idolatry, either the worship of the community or the worship of the self. It is only that Spirit bestowed in baptism and confirmation that can forge that unity between people that enables them to offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving that is the essence of worship. This unity can never be achieved by anything we do. It certainly is not the product of speaking the same language. It is certainly is not the product of common tastes, style, upbringing, nationality etc. If this were the basis for this unity we could hardly call ourselves Catholics. The Church at prayer is bound by the Holy Spirit into that body that is the body of Christ, and it is this Spirit that makes possible the overcoming of that individualism that makes worship impossible. That is, the Spirit makes it possible for me as an individual to enter into that place that is the body of Christ, in which I give myself over to this sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Catholic worship demands the sacrifice of the individual, demands the giving over of my likes and dislikes, my mood, my wants and needs; worship demands that I renounce whatever excludes the others in the community at the liturgy, that I give myself over to the other, to the others, as we all do the same thing, participate with our mind, body and soul in the sacrifice of the Mass in the power of the Holy Spirit.

How difficult this is for contemporary Western, affluent man, who assumes that all things are for his own personal benefit. How difficult this is for Catholics brought up to believe that the liturgy must be tailored to their wants and needs and taste and sensibilities. How difficult it is for Catholics who have never heard that humility is the prerequisite of active participation in the Mass, humility by renunciation, humility by the abdication of self-rule and self-sufficiency. And humility, in the words of Romano Guardini, by positive action: “by the acceptance of the spiritual principles which the liturgy offers and which far transcend the little world of individual spiritual existence.”

David Brooks, the author of the now classic Bobos in Paradise which described so well a whole generation of affluent Americans unmoored from tradition and yet longing for something else, had an editorial in the New York Times on Friday about the rise of quasi-Catholics in this country and their contribution to the economic boom: the title is “Bad for Church, good for country. What is a quasi-Catholic? He is someone who remains a Catholic in the sense that he attends Mass often, not always, but often, appreciates family values, is not afraid of hard work, but in the end lives his life as he sees fit, that is, with a healthy American skepticism towards dogma and the official teaching of the Church. He is someone who has followed the quasi-Protestant into a world of lite religion, a world in which religious faith exists in some sort of twilight zone where American enterprise and pride and financial success becomes undistinguishable from religion, a world in which worship as sacrifice is unintelligible. That this has happened comes as no surprise to many of us who understand the ancient dictum: lex orandi, lex credendi, how people worship determines what people believe. The collapse of liturgy in Protestantism almost at its very inception, the denial of liturgical worship and sacraments, the reduction of worship to didactism or pietism, the emphasis on emotion and feeling: all guaranteed the triumph of quasi-Protestantism as the steamroller of secularism flattened most Christian traces of Luther, Calvin and Wesley into a vague ethical program with no foundation in Scripture and Tradition and with no weapons to fight against relativism and individualism.

So too is the situation of quasi-Catholics, and their existence is known to all of us here, their existence is known to priests and bishops even if they wish to deny it. We see them in countless photographs, smiling, as they attend posh dinners for worthy causes, as they smile as they hand over large checks to church leaders for Catholic charities, smiling as their children receive confirmation, smiling not only with pride for their children, but also smiling as they ponder what all of this really means in the end and what it has to do with their lives. The appearance of quasi-Catholics was inevitable in this country as Catholics assimilated to the Protestant way of looking at life and faith as something merely personal. But the past forty years have indeed seen the real rise of this phenomenon, and this has come about because of the fertilizing action of a quasi-liturgy that has set us adrift from the Tradition in which liturgical worship alone can exist: the Tradition whose roots are in the blood of the Cross, whose roots are in the sacrifice of the Cross, whose roots are fed by the Truth himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, and whose power and presence in the world is made manifest by the working of the Holy Spirit.

Alexander Schmemann, the Russian Orthodox theologian, said that at the very time that the world was growing tired of modernism the Catholic Church in the 1960’s decided to embrace it. Indeed, when one looks back, it is remarkable that at that very time in American Catholic history in which Catholics began to really enjoy the fruit of American capitalism, when they began to become educated, when they were let in to the best clubs, that they were given a liturgy that was fabricated, and that is the Pope’s word, not mine, fabricated especially for them, in which creativity and novelty were encouraged, personal liturgies for different groups, in which the priest faced the people as if he were talking to them instead of God, in which active participation became synonymous with getting as many laypeople in the sanctuary to do something that everyone could see like at a high school assembly, a liturgy fabricated for the people of a specific time, whose purpose was to make things clear and people happy. Quasi-liturgy for quasi-Catholics. That is the situation.

Now there are those Catholics, and you may know some of them, who are not satisfied with the present situation and believe that what is at stake here is the Catholic faith itself. There are those who believe that if we continue down this path we will all be sucked up by the quasi-religion of most Americans, which has little to do with what happened at Pentecost. If this is true, what is to be done? Is it possible to go back to the real thing once you have become addicted to aspartame? Is it possible to return to worship that has at its very heart sacrifice, both in the objective sense as the sacrifice of Christ re-presented, and in the subjective sense as the self-sacrifice of the worshipper to enter into the holy of holies with the community formed by the Holy Spirit? That is the question to ask on this Pentecost. And that is what to pray about on this Pentecost in our prayer to the Holy Spirit. O Holy Spirit, who brooded over creation, who gave breath and life to man, whose power shot through the life, death and resurrection of Christ, whose presence in the Church is real and constant, give us the courage and the humility and the willingness to sacrifice ourselves to bring about the renewal of the liturgy of your Church. Deliver us from cynicism and from despondency. Fill us with hope and let us see that with God all things are possible. Amen.


Motu Proprio Watch II

Die Welt, one of Germany's major dailies, reports that "The pope from the land of Luther will restore the old Latin mass."


Paul Badde's story in Die Welt was reported by Catholic World News via The New Liturgical Movement. Catholic World News says this confirms stories that have appeared in French and Italian papers and adds the additional detail that a letter to accompany the motu proprio has already been drafted.

Die Welt reports major opposition in the curia and in the European hierarchy to Benedict's liberation of the ancient mass.


A motu proprio is a special pronouncement made by the pope on his own initiative. It is widely expected that the document will universally permit the old "Latin mass." Thus any priest, anywhere in the world, who wishes to say the mass according to the Mass of John XXIII may then do so without asking permission of his local bishop.

The Mass of John XXIII follows the rubrics as they were in 1962 before the changes made after the Second Vatican Council. This ritual was little changed over the previous four centuries and closely resembles the mass of fourteen centuries ago. While the current liturgy may be said in Latin, it is almost always celebrated in the vernacular. The Mass of John XXIII may only be said in Latin.

The Mass of John XXIII is sometimes referred to as the Tridentine mass, alluding to the Council of Trent which reformed it in the sixteenth century.

Motu proprio watch & Sacramentum Charitatis

Rumors have been rife since last summer that this pope will issue a document that frees priests to offer the holy sacrament of the mass according to the mass of John XXXII, variously known as the Tridentine mass, the mass according to the missal of 1962, or the Latin mass. This last name is unfortunate (see my previous clarification) since the current mass may be offered in Latin and the documents of the Council and from Rome indicate that Latin should be the normal language of the mass.

This rumored document is typically characterized as a motu proprio (Latin for "on my initiative.")

Benedict issued his Apostolic Exhortion, Sacramentum Charitatis on Tuesday. The Latin tittle translates as "Sacrament of Love." Scott Hahn's students might make a case for "Covenant of Love."

Some were disappointed the motu proprio was not issued. None of us should be disappointed in the new Exhortation.

The Mass of John XXIII?

Fox News in St.Louis reports an upsurge in the traditional mass in Latin among younger Catholics. The New Liturgical Movement reports this and provides a link to the actual broadcast.

The broadcast seems to be talking about the pre-1969 Latin liturgy not the current mass (sometimes referred to as the Novus Ordo mass) celebrated in Latin. It is not always 100% clear. The broadcast is pretty good however. Anytime I have been quoted in the media and they got half of it right, I have considered it a victory. The perfunctory "balance" by Fr. Richard McBrien is predictable. Like so many aging "progressives," he is increasingly irrelevant.

That said, there is a real difficulty in nomenclature.

The current mass is based on the missal that was issued in 1969 by Pope Paul VI. It was claimed to be necessary to implement the reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council. It is variously called the Mass of Paul VI, the Novus Ordo mass, or the mass of the Missal of 1969. Fr. Martin Fox (Bonfire of the Vanities) even suggests at one point calling it the Pauline Mass. (Read Fr. Fox's very useful discussion of the issue.)

Referring to the "Latin mass" is ambiguous. The current mass can be celebrated in Latin, in fact that is the clear intent of Vatican II. Certainly the current mass in Latin with both the people and the priest facing God together would be a vast improvement over what many people suffer through in too many parishes today.

Many people want the restoration of the so called "Tridentine mass," typically by reverting to the Missal of 1962. This mass is sometimes called the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), the Pian mass (after Pius V who issued the Missal implementing the reforms of the Council of Trent) or the Tridentine mass. The 1962 Missal was the latest (prior to Vatican II) revision of the mass in the form it took under Pius V's reforms. But do not be deceived. There was not some new rite developed after the Council of Trent. Calling it "Tridentine" is misleading. Pius V modestly and respectfully pared back to basics a 1,000+ year old rite. There was no break with the past. It developed organically from the practices of the Church in Rome in Peter and Paul's time and from the Jewish ritual that preceded it.

After the second Vatican council, a new missal was issued in 1965. One could argue that this Missal issued in 1965 (right after the Council) already met the requirements of the Council. If you hold to this position, you would argue that the very dramatic changes made in 1969, were not necessary.

Traditionalists who argue for going back to "The old Latin mass" typically call for restoring the Missal of 1962. This Missal was promulgated by Pope John XXIII. This was the mass as it was celebrated during Vatican II.

Rather than calling this the "Tridentine Mass," maybe we should refer to it as the Mass of John XXIII!