Saturday, May 26, 2007

benedict to restore latin mass

It was one of the most radical reforms to emerge from the Second Vatican Council. The Mass, root of Roman Catholic worship, would be celebrated in the local language and not in Latin. Now, little more than a generation later, Pope Benedict XVI is poised to revive the 16th-century Tridentine Mass.

In doing so, he will be overriding objections from some cardinals, bishops and Jews — whose complaints range from the text of the old Mass to the symbolic sweeping aside of the council's work from 1962-65. Many in the church regard Vatican II as a moment of badly needed reform and a new beginning, a view at odds with Benedict, who sees it as a renewal of church tradition.
A Vatican official, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, confirmed earlier this month that Benedict would soon relax the restrictions on celebrating the Tridentine Mass because of a "new and renewed interest" in the celebration — especially among younger Catholics.

Read the whole thing from Yahoo.

First of all, props to the young Catholics. Keep the Faith. Second, props to the Pope for leading on the way of 'conservative regression.' Apparently Catholic priests can currently only celebrate in Latin with their bishop's permission; Pope Benedict would ease these restrictions and allow them to celebrate that way whenever they want, but would stop short of requiring all Catholics to worship in Latin.

Third and most interesting for the Anglican situation, especially given the recent focus on irregular consecrations because of Lambeth non-invitations, take a look at this paragraph to see how Rome handles ecclesiastical anomalies:

Benedict also was acting, Castrillon Hoyos told bishops in Brazil, to reach out to an ultratraditionalist and schismatic group, the Society of St. Pius X, and bring it back into the Vatican's fold. The late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the society in 1969 in Switzerland, opposed to Vatican II's reforms, particularly its liturgical reforms. The Vatican excommunicated Lefebvre in 1988 after he consecrated four bishops without Rome's consent. The bishops were excommunicated as well. Benedict has been keen to reconcile with the group, which has demanded freer use of the old Mass as a precondition for normalizing relations.

We Anglicans should take a lesson: even though irregularity of ordination or consecration does not mean automatic invalidity, it is within the church's power and responsibility to then create invalidity through excommunication, lest the flock be led astray. If TEC had been faithful to do with with Spong and the first womens' and gay ordinations, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

9 comments:

The young fogey said...

Yes, the rumoured motu proprio. It's becoming a kind of urban legend among traditionalists. At least Castrillón is saying it's a matter of when not if. Still I'll believe it when I see it: you better believe the American RC bishops will drag their feet implementing it as they would any conservative reforms of the Novus Ordo.

A correction: as I often say 'it's not about Latin'. Priests need their bishop's permission to use the traditional Missal (right now the 1962 one is the option allowed - except Clear Creek Monastery in Oklahoma, which uses the 1965 one). AFAIK you don't need anybody's permission to do the NO in Latin, eastward-facing with birettas etc. The Brompton Oratory in London's been doing that for decades. (You can find high church in England even at RC churches if you're looking for it.)

The young fogey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The young fogey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The young fogey said...

If TEC had been faithful to do with with Spong and the first womens' and gay ordinations, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

If then-PECUSA had been faithful and deposed James Pike for apostasy 41 years ago it wouldn't be in the mess it's in today. Maybe a different mess but not this one.

Right, there's the whole dog's dinner about WO, or 'tradition and canon law matter except when they, you know, don't'. Broken and cheered on by the same people now screaming because overseas Anglican bishops are picking up conservative congregations fleeing TEC. A favourite quotation on this hypocrisy comes from Christopher Johnson at MCJ: if you are Protestant (and WO as pushed through PECUSA was an un-Catholic act) you don't get to invoke the authority of Nicæa, ever.

wyclif said...

The Young Fogey wrote:

if you are Protestant (and WO as pushed through PECUSA was an un-Catholic act) you don't get to invoke the authority of Nicæa, ever.

I love Chris and MCJ, but that needs amendment. I'm a Protestant and I invoke the authority of Nicaea all the time. To say that I cannot because of what TEC does is absurd. My communion has never engaged in WO or SS. So if there is no hypocrisy, citing Nicaea is fair game, and I teach that to my congregation accordingly.

father thorpus said...

Fogey, can you explicate that for us a little? Why can't Protestants invoke the authority of Nicea?

The young fogey said...

I think Johnson is referring to liberal Episcopalians' complaints, appealing to tradition, about overseas bishops setting up parishes in America. The point is you can't change the faith on one hand then appeal to tradition to defend yourself on the other. Essentially the Archbishop of Abuja's answer IIRC.

wyclif said...

Yes, Young Fogey. It is the height of hypocrisy for TEC to cry foul over the "ancient integrity" of Episcopal boundary and canon law while they have eviscerated Scripture, Tradition, and Canon alike.

I wrote a piece some time ago demonstrating that Athanasius (and other Bishops) ordained in Arian dioceses. Another example is The Church of England in Scotland...another example of overlapping national boundaries. So Anglican history would seem to pose some difficult revisionist tasks for the Universalists now running TEC.

father thorpus said...

Quite right. Well said, Gentlemen.