« Prayer Request | Home | Motu Proprio Status »
How is the Motu-proprio different from Vatican II?
Posted June 1, 2007 , By Joshua LeBlanc
Many have been anticipating, for what seems like ages now, the announcement by Pope Benedict XVI of the motu proprio that would allow for the greater expanded use of the pre-vatican II form of the Roman liturgy, often erroneously referred to as the Tridentine liturgy. More properly it should be called the Mass of Pope Pius V, but I digress.
I can’t help but think of the parallel between this great excitement that the Pope would allow greater use of this beautiful and ancient liturgy and that of those who were awaiting the reforms of the second Vatican council. There seem to be some major differences however.
We’ve all heard the horror stories of how parishes removed high altars, got rid of altar rails, began saying Mass versus populum - all things that the council never instructed anyone to do. I might also add, that some of these things were done before the council even ended, because again, these changes were anticipated.
As we anticipate the release of this motu-proprio we aren’t seeing priests going out and replacing novus ordo masses in their parishes with the pre-Vatican II liturgy in anticipation of the coming changes. That would be silly, just as silly as being ordained a priest with the assumption that the Church will change her discipline regarding clerical celibacy.
Maybe its the fact that we’ve learned we can’t just jump ahead and do things in anticipation of what might happen. We are still seeing the damaging effects of people who were told that they could use birth control because Pope Paul VI was going to reverse the Church’s teaching in Humanae Vitae. I would like to think that prudence has set in, but honestly I don’t think that’s the reason. I’ve got my own thouhts, but I’d like my viewers to give their feedback. Its as the old idiom says "Don’t count your chickens, before they’re hatched." We’ve learned that doing things that way gets us into alot of trouble.
Topics: Commentary |
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I enjoyed reading this commentary. I am one of those who await with gleeful anticipation easier access to the Mass of Pope Pius V. (Thank you for correcting me in advance.) It has always struck me as silly that, in our parishes, Mass could be said in Polish or French or Vietnamese, or any other language, without special permission, but not in Latin.
I am also one who misses the communion rail in our parish church and recalls its removal, as well as the day that the priest announced that we were not to kneel for the final blessing. (actually, what the elderly Father Walsh said was that this change had been announced in our diocese and would be implemented in other churches…and that “In St Mary’s, you will always kneel for the final blessing unless you are too infirm to do so.” but I digress.)
I think the fact that the Mass, facing the people, in the vernacular, has been said for some 40 years is why the return of the Latin Mass has not be acted on in advance. Those of us old enough to remember and miss that beautiful Mass are no longer of a hasty, change loving age. Also, for better or worse, the 1960’s and 1970’s were an era of social change in many parts of society. Thus far this century has not shown a like taste for social change.
Cradle Catholics in their 30’s and 40’s now, for the most part, have no memory of the beauty of that Mass. Sadly, they have come to adulthood in a society in which all of life exists in the vernacular and very little sense of Mystery and Majesty survive.