Wednesday, 23 April 2008

The real old Mass.

Those who are out and about in the traddy world may well know that to some lovers of the old rites in the UK I am (sometimes bitterly) disapproved of for my defence (ten or more years ago!) of the use of the 1962 missal (as opposed to that of any number of possible dates before this). My point, by the way, is not that the Holy Week (or other) reforms of Pius XII were necessarily an improvement on what went before (I don't think they were) or even that I would rather die than have a Confiteor before Communion (I can think of far more interesting things to die for) but that I believe that, simply, it is good for us to celebrate Mass cum Ecclesia, and the 1962 missal is, as the great Michael Davis asserted, very acceptable, and has the great virtue of being indisputably part of the Church's prayer as Church, now clearly acknowledged by the Holy Father. My comments box has been reinforced for the storm of protests.
But you might be interested to read of the formation of a new group who are bitterly opposed to anything but the most traditional of forms of the Roman Rite. This is the society of St Pius I. H/T The Cafeteria is Closed.


Anonymous said...

Absolutely hilarious!

"So we are currently looking for Greek-speaking priests who may have said the liturgy of St. Justin Martyr in their youth."

Come on, Father, don't leave them in the lurch.

PeterHWright said...

The society of St. Pius I ?!

I have to admit I hadn't thought of Trent as modernist until I read the idea on this website, but after all it did condemn the sale of indulgences, which does sound rather Lutheran.

I have always thought the rot began with the 1955 reforms, when the modernisers hijacked the Liturgical Movement.

From this, it could be argued that there would have been no Liturgical Movement without Gueranger, and that therefore the great liturgical scholar himself bears some moral responsibility.

And who introduced the concept of "actuosa participatio", without seeing what it might lead to ?

As to the papacy itself ..

Should the Holy see have treated with the Fascists to secure the 1929 Lateran Treaty ?

Should Pius IX have lost the Papal States in the first place ?

Was not Pius VII to blame for the decline in papal prestige when he allowed himself to be taken captive by Napoleon ?

What about the renaissance popes ?

The Great Schism ?

I suppose you could say "Unam Sanctam" marked the high water mark of papal power, which means things have been going downhill since the reign of Boniface VIII.

No, it doesn't do to start looking back too far.

Perhaps we should stop at 1962 after all.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately Michael Davis’ thinking was seriously flawed as he always maintained that the Paul VI missal of 1970 (and its subsequent editions) was a new rite and not the Roman rite of mass. Thankfully Pope Benedict has taught us that this is incorrect and that both the Paul VI/2002 missal and the missal of Blessed John XXIII are but two forms of the same one rite.

As it is inevitable that subsequent directives from Rome will seek to ensure greater harmonisation between the two forms such as the calendar and pericope cycles it reassuring to know that Fr. Sean will be cum Ecclesia and support whatever changes come.

Anonymous said...

Does this mean you would no longer support the celebration of the Sarum rite as it is not currently authorised?

Pastor in Monte said...

Old believer: I don't see any harm in occasional celebrations of older rites; however in regular worship it is better sentire cum Ecclesia.
In your citing of the Sarum Use, you are not really comparing like with like. Unlike the Roman Use, there have been no new editions or modifications of the Sarum use since 1555. In an earlier post I went into the legal ramifications of the Sarum use, and you can find my position laid out there.