Hope this comes to pass:
Universal approval of Latin Missal could be on the way

Vatican City, Mar. 31, 2006 (CNA) - The St. Pius V Missal, which the Catholic Church used until 1962 before it was replaced by the new ordinary following the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, could be approved for universal use, according to sources close to the Vatican.

The decision on the use of the Missal, which was the subject of consultations between Pope Benedict XVI, the cardinals of the Church and the heads of the different Vatican diacasteries, could be announced after another meeting the Pope has scheduled for April 7 with Curia leaders.

The Pius V Missal contains the Mass celebrated in Latin according to the �Tridentine� rite and is currently allowed only with the permission of the local bishop. Universal approval would mean the traditional rite could be celebrated freely throughout the world by priests who wish to do so.

The move is not directly related to the Lefebvrist schism, since as a theologian the Pontiff had always expressed in interest in bringing back the rite. Nevertheless, Vatican sources note that this would be an important step in resolving the schism, as the possibility of freely celebrating the Mass of St Pius V is one of the points of contention with the Lefebvrists.

In July, the Society of St. Pius X�known as the Lefebvrists�will elect a new superior. The group will chose between openness to reconciliation embodied in the current superior Bernard Fellay or the decidedly anti-Vatican stance of Richard Williamson, another of the four bishops illicitly consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Original Story: Catholic News Agency

Thank you for posting this, Vito. I believe this would be a 'breath of fresh air' for many of us, and certainly a step in the right direction for the SSPX and the Roman church....definitely a prayer intention here this coming week!
Simplicity

Very reliable sources have already stated that on Thursday, March 30th, Pope Benedict signed the papal act "freeing" the Tridentine liturgical books (not just the Mass? I don't know). Of course we don't know for sure if this is true.

Some expect it to be announced at or soon after the April 7th meeting the Pope will have with the heads of the various dicasteries. We should all be reminded, however, that these kinds of things move very slow in the Vatican, even after being signed and ready it could take weeks, maybe months, for it to be released, if it's true in the first place.

For those who want more information, go to www.rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/ [rorate-caeli.blogspot.com] and scroll down to the Friday, March 31st entry entitled "Freedom of the TLM" or something along those lines. Also check www.thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/ [thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com]


We should all pray.

Logos Teen

We are truly living in interesting times. I had thought that the Old Mass was available all over the place but I guess by reading between the lines that there have been problems in giving the necessary permissions in some places.

ICXC
NIKA

I think chanting the current liturgy and using lots of incense would do wonders for it! Also, singing traditional Catholic hymns and throwing out all the 'Glory & Praise' songbooks would be of immense value. But what do I know?
-Wolfgang

What no more home on the range hyms! Before many RC priests use incense I would suggest they practice first.

ICXC
NIKA

My sister-in-law is a Presbyterian, who works in a Catholic school. She thinks some of the most beautiful hymns ever composed were for the Catholic Mass and is baffled why Catholics sing the junk they do today.
-Wolfgang

Let us pray this liberalization (in the best sense of the word) of the Traditional Latin Mass happens rapidly.

When it happens (it is no longer a question of "if"), it will be interesting to see who accepts the Holy Father's offer of reconciliation. Let us pray for the entire situation.
FDD

Exactly, the 'Missa Normativa' would be fine even if they would just restore the monophonic Gregorian chant. It would'nt take too much effort to make the Mass dignified and inspiring once again.

+T+
Michael

Hesychios,

But many long for the TLM, over and apart from the "Missa Normativa" even if done with lots of ceremony and chants. After all, the texts of the two Masses are different, the rubrics different, the actions of the celebrant, of the people different, the vestments different, etc. They are two different Masses no matter how much one tries to dress up the Missa Normativa and those who want the Traditional Mass should have access to it, even if they do live in a diocese where every NO Mass is like the one on EWTN.

Logos Teen

Dear Friends,

Well, I hope they allow for the universal use of the TLM . . . but without the Filioque in the Nicene Creed . . .

If they really want to go back to tradition, why stop with the Council of Trent?

Alex the Trouble-Maker

The Council of Trent - isn't that when the rot really set in? :p

Oυτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντιδα | Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus

Dear Kobzar,

O.K., O.K., I hand over to YOU my title of "trouble-maker!"

Alex

Axios!

Incognitus

Alex the Trouble-Maker,

Come on now, you and I both know that the TLM didn't start any century even close to the Council of Trent, but some others may not know this since it's constantly referred to as "Tridentine," etc....so let's not fuel their ignorance with comments such as these!

Man, y'all really are troublemakers! Tsk tsk.

Logos Teen

I'm not holding my breath...with our luck in Los Angeles they will add the 1st Wednesday of the month to the existing 1st Sunday indult...

How do you chant Kumbaya in Latin...?

james

Dear Jakub,

You mean "Kumbaya" isn't already Latin?

"Kumbaya, mei Domine, kumbaya!"

Alex

Dear Teen Logo,

I agree that the Liturgy of St Peter didn't begin with Trent.

That's why the TLM shouldn't have the Filioque in the Nicene Creed . . . it didn't have it for centuries . . .

That was the "trouble" from the beginning . . .

I suppose the next thing you'll say is that "kumbaya" really predates Trent as well!

Alex

Alex,

I'm for letting the Filioque go as well! That heresy with which the Filioque dealt is over, and we have much bigger fish to fry nowadays than people misunderstanding the procession of the Holy Spirit in Spain!

Logos Teen

P.S. I'm a fan of Kum Ba Ya and lots of other Southern and Afro-American gospel songs. I would have a coniption if I ever heard it in a Catholic church (please, I'm not asking for horror stories of those who have), partially because Catholics can't sing to save their lives and they'd probably do irrepairable harm to these songs from my childhood!

It's times like these I get emotional and nostalgic for those Sunday morning services at the UMC with my family. I'll be there Easter Sunday though (after fulfilling my obligation at the Easter Vigil Mass at the Catholic church). I very well might go my whole life without attending an Easter Sunday Mass.

Ok. I will ask you he question I have asked many people, and not yet recived a satisfactory answer.

1. If the "Tridentine mass" is acknowledged as a reform of the Roman Rite(s) in use prior to Trent, how is it different than the reform of the Roman Rite(s) put in place by an equally legitimate council at VII?

2. Surely even if there are issues with this Mass, there should be better reasons for widening the use of the "Tridentine rite" than the placation of those who have either removed themselves from Communion or deny the legitimay of a Church Council or Pontificate (I don't ascribe those views to all who prefer the "Tridentine Mass", but they are held by a percentage). I don't belive that any post VII bishop has said the Trad mass is invaid, while I have heard trad mass priests say that of the "NO Mass" (and those priests weren't lefebrists). ?

3. A Pope or a Council should not be either dismissed or embraced because of ones personal view of what they choose to do regarding a Liturgy or anything else. In the Catholic tradition, faith demands that we attempt to conform ourselves to their decisons rather than follow our own preferences. Of corse the issue is clouded, but can anybody calim there are not elements of personal liturgical preference creeping into the Trad Mass denbate?

For the record, though I dislike intensely the way the Roman rite can be celebrated in many Australian dioceses, I will still attend such masses and regard them as valid, as I will also on occasion attend a Tridentine Mass if neccesary and view it in the same way. I also view the Byz rite (my primary one) positively regardless of the language of celebration and my preferences regarding it.

NW

There are many confusing titles out there...Tridentine vs Novus Ordo etc...actually its the liturgy performed according to The Missal of Pope Pius V(1962) and The Missal of Pope Paul VI...rumor is the reformed rite will have the title The Missal of Pope Benedict XVI...

Brother Shawn Tribe's blog has a lot of info for East & West liturgies...

http://www.thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/

I was baptized, received 1st Holy Communion, confirmed and served as a altar boy according to the old rite, and it will always be part of me...

james

Ned, yes, as Jakub has described, the "Tridentine Rite" is not as static as one might believe. Even after Quo Primum there were variations in Latin liturgical practice.

During the turmoil with the Jansenists some of the liturgical practices were quite variable, to say the least, and not only by the Jansenists but by parish priests who thought they had to "keep up with the Joneses".

Certain monastic orders (Benedictines, Carthusians, etc.) have always enjoyed their own particular monastic rescensions of both the Tridentine and the New Rite.
FDD

To address your first statement, the Roman Mass before Trent was identical to post Trent, the major difference was that instead of French people using a Gallican liturgy, and spainish using Mozarabic, and Milianese using the Ambrosian Liturgy, all the parishes in the West uniformily adopted the Roman Rite.

Point 2, I actualy read an article from a New Enlgand diocese that said that they were debating on the validity of it.

3, though I am sure some might just have a personal preference, the vast majority simply view the new Mass as theologically deficient compared to the old. Ambiguous(sp?) langauge such as "spiritual drink" and so many various abuses that have stemed from it(Pauline rite) that nobody dreamed of occuring in the Roman Rite. Also the Vatican II council did not create the New Mass, one could easily interpurt the documents of the council to mean more active participation of the laity by more interior prayer during the liturgy or even allowing the laity to say the responses that the Altar boys had. There was no need for such a radical "protestantinization" of the Western liturgy.

The Gallican, Mozarabic and Ambrosian were particular ritual usages of the Latin Rite, and were not at all the Tridentine Mass or Mass of Pius V. In fact they are (were in the case of the Gallican Rite) quite different. The latter two still exist, the Mozarabic in Toledo and the Ambrosian in Milan.

To say the "Tridentine Rite" was "identical" before or after is simply not accurate. I don't know of any Latin liturgical historian who has credibly proposed that. Bouyer, Gamber, Gueranger, Daneilou, Jungmann, and many others clearly point out the fact that indeed the "Tridentine Rite" was itself quite fluid and prone to development.

Here is one example. The 1962 Latin Ordo removed the second Confiteor. The Mass of Pius V did not have a second confiteor, but by the 1950s this was an almost universal practice, except by certain monastic communities. That is only one example, and there are many more - but to say the Roman Rite was "identical" before and after Trent is a stretch at best.
FDD

Yes Diak, but can anyone name an indult that doesn't use the second confiteor? If one can believe what is printed on the internet... then after Trent the liturgy again changed rather quickly. The story goes something like post Trent the priest had to say so many prayers, kneel, etc.. before processing into church. That's what I can remember from the reading. This particular custom changed in a short manner. This of course is if what I read was true.
And talk about calender reform. Would you consider the gradual simplification of the Roman calender a Liturgical change as well? Liturgy is fluid and does change. It is important however to maintain the Deposit of Faith.
I can't imagine a Liturgy of St. John 100 years ago praying for those that, "travel by sea, air.."
Oh and everyone has liturgical reform. Look at the pre-Nikonian practices in the Russian recension.
Back on the original point in my post..
The so-called "tridentine mass" is technically the Latin Rite Liturgy celebrated in the 1962ish Missal (depending on if they follow omitting the confiteor and absolution).
And it wouldn't be fair to say that the parishes that used other forms of Liturgy "adopted" the Liturgy that came out of the Latin church council of Trent. I would imagine they had no choice but to switch to what was at the time the new missal..
I know people may say, Pyrohy, you have no business meddling in the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church. However, I am making observations and I guess I'm allowed to.
Another thing that bothers me is the use of the term "novus ordo."
The current 1970 Roman Missal is not the "novus ordo." It is what it is, the Roman Missal. It is the current Liturgical formulation to be carried out in Latin Rite parishes. I cringe when I hear the term "novus ordo" or the "tridentine mass." They are incorrect terms at best.

hmmmmmmmmmmmm. I have in my library a copy of the Maryknoll Missal from 1965, so, exactly where does the Latin liturgy in that text fall? it has the latin as well as the English, by the way.
Much Love,
Jonn

The Gallican Liturgy is not dead. It can still be found by those who know where to look.

Incognitus

When I said Identical I did not mean exactly the same, I ment the same structure. The Roman Rite codified at Trent was the same liturgy used in Rome and had been used in Rome, organically evolving over the years of its existince.
I did not say the Gallican liturgy was a Roman rite, it is a different liturgy that is a little more eastern in its form then the Roman rite to my understanding.

I simply do not understand easterners sometimes, you all wish to perserve your liturgical heritage and Traditions yet the West has lost this heiritage and replaced it with a fabricated Liturgy. SO is going back to traditional liturgical heritage only for easterners and latins are supposed to get the short end of a stick liturgically?

I think the plural needs to be used in reference to the Gallic church and it's various rites.

Dont forget that in little England alone they used about 1/2 dozen local rites up until the Reformation.

ICXC
NIKA

The "Tridentine" Mass was not changed at Trent, it's use was widened as the normative Rite of Mass for Latin Catholics, excepting those rites which were older than 200 years. That's why the Spanish got to keep their Mozarabic Mass and why the Milanese got to keep their Ambrosian Mass, why the Dominicans kept theirs, etc. Rites under 200 years old were extinguished and the TLM became the norm for Western Catholics.

The Novus Ordo wasn't put in place at Vatican II. If one were looking for that Mass, I'd probably say get yourself a version of the 1965 Mass. The NO was compiled years later, and was not organically developed over decades or centuries but rather written by those who wishes to further, as His Holiness Pope Benedict says, "the hermeneutics of rupture."

There are other reasons, though I don't know if they're "better." Why should we need more reasons to lift the restriction on the TLM than to normalize a very successful Society which is operating outside of its canonical bounds as viewed by the Holy See? In any case, the Mass is being "freed" not just for the SSPX, but for the entire Church. It may or may not affect the SSPX, as the Society demands more than just the freeing of the TLM.

And certainly the TLM was never static, and shouldn't be. Organic development is fine in liturgy. It's expected and welcomed. Non-organic, farced development is not what liturgy is about.

And for everyone's edification, let's see what our Supreme Pontiff says about the the "hermeneutics of rupture" that took place because of the misimplementation of Vatican II:

Logos Teen

Dear Logos Teen,

I hate to pop your bubble on the comment regarding suppression of rites, but what about the Sarum and Gallican Rites that could be traced back to seventh century? Both of these are not heard of in any fashion after Trent. Yet both of these were local usages up to at least the fourteenth century in their respective areas, i.e. England and France. In fact, most of the books pertaining to these rites were destroyed, and only parts of it can be found today.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Father, bless!

You're not popping my bubble because I know what I said to be true.

I can't answer your questions about the Gallican and Sarum Rites. Maybe Trent singled them out, but what I think happened was that the people and/or clergy voluntarily adopted the Roman Rite.

What I do know is that it spoke of the abolition of rites younger than 200 years, so my bubble isn't even deflated.

Logos Teen

The Sarum usage wasn't a different rite, it was a variation of the Roman Rite brought to England by the normans. It was a Romany liturgy though it did have some variations (such as Blue and yellow vestements).

The Sarum Use is neither dead nor extinct. So far as I am aware, there is no parish where it is the exclusive liturgy in possession, so to speak, but there are regularly scheduled celebrations of Mass and other services according to the Sarum Use in Catholic circles in England - usually well sung and well attended. The Society of Saint Osmund is reprinting the Sarum service-books.

Nobody ever suppressed the Sarum Use; Queen Mary Tudor of holy memory had the service-books reprinted and brought back into use when she restored the Faith in England. After Trent the use of the Missal of Saint Pius V gradually became wide-spread, but celebrations according to the Sarum Use continued. Now there is the odd situation that special permission is required for the Roman Mass, but not for the Sarum Mass!

Those who organize the occasional celebrations stress that they are not trying to stage a perfect reproduction of the Liturgy as it was in, say, 1554, but are simply offering public worship according to the medieval Liturgy as it was in England before the Reformation, since this is a part of England's Catholic heritage.

Also, of course, one can find Anglicans who use the Sarum Use (normally in English; at least for now Catholic celebrations seem to be done always in Latin).

Incognitus

They were still trying in the 19th century to get the Tredentine Rite into France in the 19th Century as some places were still hanging on to their own particular Galican Rites. The Sarum as with the rites of Hereford and other rites used in England died out with the Reformation. Priests trained on the Continent brought in the Tredentine Rite. The Cardinal in about 1850 did request the Sarum Rite be restored in England but the Pope of the Day would not permit it. I am pleased that there are groups who have prevented the rite from going all together. I have never ahd the oportunity of attending such a mass and it is great to know I still can.

ICXC
NIKA

Agreed!

I understand that there were translations of this Liturgy in the vernacular prior to the creation of the Pauline Ordo.

My recommendation is that - in the authentic "spirit" of the council - they permit the use of the translated Tridentine Liturgy as well. I'm sure among "traditionalists" I'm in a minority here, but I've never favored the exclusive return to Latin in the worship. Some seem to regard a restoration of Latin as the essence of a full restoration of the tradition. I think if the Pope wants to help "re-evangelize" his Church, he should also permit the vernacular, with some of the sung responses in Latin. That may help mitigate some of the initial negative reaction of those who were not raised with Latin in the Mass, while educating them in the beautiful worship traditions of the Latin Church.

Just a thought...

Gordo

The Benedictines did not have their own rite of Mass but have always had their own rite of the Divine Office. The current usage approved for them has a number of uses of the psalmody. The traditional usage is for the whole psalms to be said in 1 week. The other usage approved was for the psalmody over 2 weeks. The Antiphonale Monasticum has been reprinted although due to the costs many monasteries still use the old ones.

ICXC
NIKA

Dear LT:

I think it is important we differentiate between what Cardinal Josef Ratzinger said and what HH Pope Benedict XVI says; as a cardinal HH was able to express personal views or theological opininons which he has shown he would not do so as Pope.

While I fully subscribe to the criticism of the way the Eucharist is celebrated in many a passage, I really also have an issue with saying these masses are "theologically deficient" (not your quote). The Church has judged there to be liturgical abuses, but still valid masses and it is not for us to quibble with that. The problem is that I see a very thin line betwwen theologically deficeint and invalid, which goes agianst the teachings of the Church we purport to belong to or wish to belong to.

As for the argument that "why should the Eastern rites have their traditonal liturgy" the point is that the Eastern liturgies have always had an emphasis on lay involvement in the liturgy and church governance which the Roman rite did not have post-Trent if not earlier. The Eastern liturgies and tradition did not need to be reformed; and that is the crux of it. VII specifically said that the Tridentine rite was in need of reform. TO dispute that is to dispute the insights of the council. Whether the reforms were carried out in an acceptable way is not my point. My point is that to return to the Tridentine Mass flies in the face of the council. The point could also be made that the Tridentine rite ass celebrated today is nothing like the rite as celebrated in the vast majority of parishes prior to VII (the days of the 14 minute Low Mass). At any rate, it was never envisaged as continuing to be the main missal used after the council; whether the one we got is the one intended is a seperate matter.

In God,

N

I like to add something. Although I'm not against Tridentine Mass, but we must also remember that in some part of the world, Tridentine Mass is not something that the faithful think need to return.

Pauline Mass, while highly critized here and there and reading from this and that forum because plenty of abuses, it may be celebrated differently in other places of the world.

I can testify that in my city, Jakarta in Indonesia, current Mass is always celebrated properly. Except for rare cases, all part of the Mass that can be chanted, from the sign of the cross, opening prayer to the final blessings are chanted by the priest and the faithful.

And to be honest, I thought that was always be the case, until I went to other part of the world and see that it is not the case.

People love the new Liturgy, especially in small vilages. It talks with language people can understand. In those places, you can't expect any choirs since those people probably can't even read. But they are actively involved in the Liturgy and not just as a spectator.

Now, my concern is this.
That some people or groups will start to expand their agenda and try to make this Liturgy 'more Catholic' since they think our current Liturgy is 'less Catholic.'

This will do more harm than good, and I don't like to see that to happen.

In my opinion, current norm to ask for Bishop permision is ideal. In some part of the world probably it is best to have more Tridentine Liturgy, but always with the Bishop consent.

Dear McNabb "Son of the Abbot!"

(I believe that "MacNabb" means "Son of the Abbot" no? And it refers to the time among Celtic Christians when even Abbots were allowed to have wives, and thus, "son of the abbot.")

The Eastern Churches would simply never consider changing their liturgies to suit the "modern world" or "modern times."

That is the one great criticism of the Novus Ordo and reform of the Breviary in the West that I believe can be levelled.

Alex

Dear Friends,

I read about one Latin Catholic professor of liturgy in Spain who has REFUSED to celebrate the Mozarabic Liturgy as he says it cannot be "Novus Ordonized."

The imposition of the Tridentine Liturgy way back when did indeed, as DIAK said, push out other liturgical usages to bring about a ritual conformity throughout the RC Church, even though areas maintained their usages.

The problem with today's issue of Novus Ordo vs Tridentine is what the Tridentine style brought on itself - the Tridentine liturigcal monolith did not allow for other usages and tried to keep everyone the "same." One could argue that this attitude is ultimately at the root of Latinization policy with respecto to EC Churches where the Byzantine and other Rites were seen to be as "Catholic" as far as they approached the praxis of the Latin Tridentine one.

I believe that what is needed in the Latin Church is a liturgical praxis that will allow for the Tridentine AND other liturgical traditions to exist and prosper including the Sarum, Gallican, Mozarabic, Trondheim, and other usages, as the various Local Churches wish. Yes, lip service is paid to this ideal, but practically, many RC bishops would prefer ONE liturgy only.

The difference between the Novus Ordo and ALL other liturgies, East and West, is, if we can be forthright, a large one.

The Novus Ordo is, for all intents and purposes, a true "Protestant Rite" that was created to aid the "bringing back" of the Protestants to the Latin Catholic Church.

It was also created as a way of "aggiornamento" of the Church's liturgy and "modernizing" it (as opposed to "modernism" and I'm not suggesting the latter, please!).

The Tridentine and other Western LIturgical usages could have been translated into national languages, without getting rid of Latin. Somehow, the ritualism was seen as "anti-modern."

This and other issues, from a sociological point of view alone, are really nonsensical and even socially naive.

Again, the laity are never asked what they want or need, they are simply told and are expected to follow. That is also not exactly "modern" is it?

There is no reason why BOTH Latin rites cannot exist side by side in parishes in the form of "biritual" parish units. Such biritualism existed and exists in the Russian Orthodox Church with Old Rite parishes (although there were many more of them prior to the revolution). The ROC has recently affirmed that both the Nikonian and Old Rites are the "two Rites of the one Russian Orthodox Church."

Perhaps the RC Church can take a few pages out of the ROC's history with the Old Believers?

Or perhaps the RC Church can reassess today whether the reasons for the Novus Ordo can stil bear the same sort of scrutiny from new cultural/religious perspectives.

Personally, I think the RC Church, in moving away from the Tridentine Liturgy, made a BIG mistake.

If it truly wanted to update itself, it could have translated, as I said, the liturgy into national languages, without disparaging Latin, it could have decentralized the Roman authority, and done some other things without ripping its liturgical heart out of itself.

My view only . . .

Alex

Dear Friends,

I was watching the consecration of a Tridentine cathedral - in communion with Rome - on EWTN the other week.

Just a question on rubrics . . .

There was a priest who was blessing others who had a beautiful stole-like thing draped over his left arm as he blessed the people.

What is that thing and what is its function in the Tridentine tradition?

Alex

It would have been a maniple.

"A maniple is a liturgical vestment formerly common in the Roman Catholic Church and occasionally used in some Anglican churches. Its use, in the Roman Catholic Church, was discontinued after the Second Vatican Council. It is still seen occasionally in those who practice the Tridentine Rite and in some Anglo-Catholic circles.

A maniple is an embroidered band of silk, about 110 cm long, 8 cm wide and with ends about 12 cm wide. In the same liturgical colours as the other vestments, it is worn upon the left arm of the priest. It is only used during the Mass itself, and not during the administration of other sacraments, Benediction, the sermon or Gospel reading (in a Low Mass). Originally it was only a piece of linen with which the people used to wipe their face and hands�in a word, a handkerchief. It does not seem to have been used in the Roman liturgy before the sixth century. Symbolically the maniple refers to the rope whereby Jesus Christ was led, and the chains which bound His sacred hands. It also became known as an emblem of the tears of penance, the fatigue of the priestly office and its joyful reward in heaven. In the Anglican church the maniple is also a symbol of servanthood.

The maniple is conferred at the ordination of a subdeacon, and is also worn by deacons, priests, and bishops. It is the common garment of the major orders."

ICXC
NIKA

Pavel - I beg to differ a bit on your statement about the Benedictines. The Benedictines do indeed have their own rescension of the Mass adapted to the monastic community, whether in the Tridentine or the New Rite. There are particular rubrics specially appointed for the monastic community that do not appear in the parochial missals. The Carthusians also have their own particular monastic rescension, as do some other monastic orders.

Are these "rites"? Well, if you use the term as in the Byzantine sense, Byzantine-Ukrainian Rite, Byzantine-Ruthenian Rite, Byzantine-Romanian Rite, yes, it would be a different "rite" as in these senses the term describes different rescensions of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

If you go to a traditional Latin Mass at some place like Fontgamboult or Le Barroux, or even here in the US in Oklahoma, and are present for the communal Mass, you will see distinct differences in the way the Mass is offered than a parochial Tridentine Mass (either 1962 or Pius X Missal).

Obivously when a Benedictine offers Mass for a parish or outside of the community, he follows the standard parochial missal. You are quite right that they do pray the monastic rather than the Roman breviary.
FDD

Dear Pavel,

Thank you!

Alex

Alex,

Are you talking about Archbishop +Burke's consecration of St. Mary's Oratory for the Inst. of Christ the King, Sov. Priest?

Was it called "Gate of Heaven"?

Logos Teen

Yes, sir!

Alex

As I have read, there are various exemptions granted to various orders for liturgical use within their communities(Benedictines,Carmelites,Franciscan etc), such as the Monastic or Cathedral practice of the Divine Office and Missal use...which can be confusing...also I have be told that if one attends the current Roman Mass then you are to use the current Liturgy of the Hours, if one attends the Indult Mass(1962)then you can use the older breviary and ...then again, you have that catch all phrase, "can be used for private prayer practices"... :rolleyes:

james

I agree with a good deal of what you said, I personally would not have any issue bringing back the other various Western rites and usages as well. I simply find that creating a new liturgy for the sole purpose of blurring the line between Catholics and protestants is rediculous!

And as I said, if they think more lay involvement is important, then why not let the lay people say the responses of the altar servers? Language again is not a problem, but even the Vatican II council said that Latin is to remain the official language of the Church, I do not think Bl. John XXIII was imagining the "Pauline rite" when he proposed liturgical reform (and infact the 1962 missal was his reform of the liturgy).

Okay, I'm going to jump in here with a response to Vito's original story, because something about it struck me as suspicious, and I've highlighted the paragraph that bothers me.

I find it highly unlikely that the Catholic Church would allow individual priests to decide for themselves which rite or version of the liturgy they will use! Isn't that a decision that is always up to the bishop of each diocese?

What if an individual parish priest decided he wanted to do all his liturgies in a combination of Slavonic and Latin? Not that there's anything wrong with that ... :rolleyes: ... but don't we all agree that, right or wrong, the main role of a bishop is to make just exactly this type of decision for his own diocese/eparchy?

Dear Theist Girl, I'm not answering your question but merely noting that the quote you used was from Catholic News Agency and not mine personally. Ciao, Vito

Theist Gal,

I thought the main liturgical role for the bishop was to see that the liturgy is safeguarded in his diocese, something which many hierarchs have failed to do.

Logos Teen

Hmm, have you seen the liturgical mess in the Western Church? It pretty much resembles what you just said.

True, but safeguarding the liturgy isn't necessarily the same as choosing for yourself which liturgy you want to use.

So how exactly would giving individual priests the right to disobey a direct order from their bishops help improve the situation?

Well if there is permission granted for all priests to celebrate the TLM, they won't be denying any orders from their bishop because he wouldn't be able to rightfully issue any order prohibiting this Mass from being said.

In the late '80s, JPII asked a group of cardinals, of which Cardinal Ratzinger was one, to determine whether the TLM had ever been abrogated. Their united consensus and reply was "no, the Traditional Mass has not been abrogated."

Logos Teen

Hmm, I think you've been reading some SSPX literature, Teen!

No, the older version of the Mass (aka the Traditional Mass) hasn't been abrogated; however, like it or not, it's been revised and the revised version has been prescribed as the normative version of the Mass. The older version is allowed, with varying degrees of restrictions.

And a lot of people (including me!) agree that the restrictions need to be lifted and the permissions widened, but that's very different from saying (a) the restrictions were never there in the first place and (b) priests should be able to say whatever Rite of the Liturgy they want. The Catholic Church just doesn't work that way.

And speaking of + Pope John Paul II +, he's on record as saying:

Again, currently as it is now it is already a Do it yourself liturgy! Little commitees of lay people decide what they want to do to or what they feel like should go on in Mass in parishes accross the country!

There isn't even certainty that the new Mass can be considered a new version of the Roman Rite, the people at the Latin Mass Society seem to agree that the Pauline rite is not the Roman Rite of the Mass, and they aren't even SSPX. There is no other time in the history of the Church that the Roman rite has been replaced by a new rite. It would be like if the Byzantine church decided to abandon its liturgy for the Roman Rite! Or the Maronites and the Coptics decided to switch.
The only other time in the history of the Church where liturgical reform tore down Tradition instead of perserving it was the Protestant reformation!

Well, I'm sorry, but if the people at the Latin Mass Society are related to the Latin Mass Magazine, then they are pretty close to the SSPX if not already members. A lot of traditional-minded Catholics stopped subscribing to that magazine when that became clear, many years ago - including me.

I just don't get the constant drumbeat for the Tridentine Liturgy and its reinstatement.

But let's say that permission were granted tomorrow for its use throughout the Latin Church.

Now what?

There are no churches in my diocese that have the requisite vestments or other ritual articles to celebrate the Tridentine Liturgy.

But let's say these things could be found.

Now the problem is who is going to use these things and actually celebrate with these ritual articles?

The only priests who have had Latin in their seminary training--from what I'm told--are those who are close to retirement or in retirement. And none express any intereest whatsoever in celebrating with the language or the liturgical rite. Of those who who are younger and might have had a passing brush with it, most say they are too "rusty" to seriously make an attempt at using the Tridentine rite. Beyond that, there aren't any seminarians taking Latin who will be able to use these books in the future.

In reality, what these calls come down to is the same thing that has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread--having someone totally unfamiliar with the ritual specifications of a liturgical tradition try to come "cold" to it and make something out of it that looks like worship. It's akin to telling Father Anthony that he ought to give it a try. The seminaries are NOT teaching the Tridentine liturgy to their students and, from what anyone can tell, they have no intention of doing so in the near future. There is enough other material to teach and the current time period has been reduced from the four years it used to take to three.

Part of the problem with the Liturgy and the way in which it is served/celebrated in the Latin Church in the United States is that so many professors are still in the mode of teaching seminarians that they need to "develop their own style": code for "wing it."

I can think of nothing that would scandalize people more than untrained or poorly trained priests attempting to lead a congregation in a liturgical form with which they are minimally familiar.

Beyond all that, the whole is part of a way of life that has passed. Priests honed their Latin in the past by having their Breviary in Latin. They not only spent eight years learning the language, but they also used it daily in their prayer.

The Latin Church has been in a movement of liturgical reform from the time of Pope St Pius X that culminated in the reforms of Vatican II. There was the "dialogue Mass" of the 1950s where the people were encouraged to make the responses with the altar servers. It wasn't universally adopted. Before that, there was the great simplification of the Missal in 1937.

Actually, if it were up to me when I was much younger, the Liturgy of Trent would have been reformed toward a much earlier age, since the Tridentine useage was actually an attempt to codify the abuses that had crept into medieval practice--abuses that stemmed from parochial abbreviations from the much longer liturgy used in earlier centuries. But the Church is not a study in liturgical archeology. She is a living being, ever moving forward and ever reforming her liturgy--whether Eastern of Western.

The function of liturgy is to draw people into a relationship with Christ wherein they may participate in His Saving Mystery. And this happens despite the shortcomings in the liturgical practice of the priest who stands "in persona Christi." The Latin priest who rushes through the current liturgy, the Orthodox priest who cuts parts of the liturgy because he has to travel to another parish an hour way to serve a second time, the UGCC priest who serves the English, spoken liturgy--I could go on, but the point is made. No one of these fails to make the Lord's Saving Mystery present for the people gathered around him.

To come to a close, have any of you calling for this restoration observed people who attended the past rite? I have. :rolleyes: Aside from those who took along a rosary or had their own missal, the bulk of people were staring ahead toward the altar with a "glazed look" on their faces, putting in their time to get over their obligation. While there are still those who in that mode, it's my experience that there are far more people actively involved in trying to deepen their relationship with Christ thatn there formerly were.

In Christ,

BOB

The point is that there are certainly people who want the "Tridentine" Liturgy, and who deeply resent having been deprived of it. If the Church is true to herself, she is obligated to reach out to these people with love, not to tell them from On High that they are hopelessly out of date.

Will the Tridentine Liturgy survive? Heavens, I don't know, nor am I a fortune-teller or anyone else able to predict the future. But I suspect that it will, because history shows that such cultural survivals often prove remarkably strong.

By the way, conservative seminaries are the ones that are full of seminarians - the places where no one learns anything about the Tridentine Liturgy, or learns Latin, or learns Gregorian Chant, or learns much of anything, are not drawing in very many students.

But it boils down to this - if the wish to have this Liturgy is from God, then it will survive.

Incognitus

I know that here in Australia the fiddle backs have been used to bury priests in as away of getting rid of them. The rest would be in museums as only the best and oldest were kept. personally I never liked them and there were other styles that were mover covering in use at the time is was the norm. One of the Latin Mass Chaplains I know was ordained wearing a full Paenula style of chasuble.

ICXC
NIKA

Fine, and well said, Incognitus! I have no problem with the Tridentine Liturgy being widely available. I just don't think that it's going to be done by giving individual priests the right to their own Rite. I think it'll be promulgated through the bishops, as is the usual manner of promulgation in our beloved and extremely hierarchical Church.

Theophan and Others,

You make good points. Most priests will not use their right to celebrate the TLM. However, the permission itself is what is important and is what is representative of a changing from the mindset of thinking that the TLM should be so heavily restricted.

That said, there are some priests who will, indeed, use their new right to celebrate the TLM, though they will, of course, be in the minority. There are places online to purchase traditional vestments, natrually. Apparently one is allowed to use burses and altar veils in the Novus Ordo, too, anyway.

In fact, there is a very traditional priest at a very traditional parish close to me, about 30 minutes, that would certainly use this right if it were granted. Right now, all he celebrates is the NO. So it would have an affect on me, and if I wanted to go to the TLM (which I would), I wouldn't have to go 30 minutes past this church to the SSPX or 45 to an hour past this church to the FSSP*.

Logos Teen

*When I'm home away from college, the FSSP is the closest. But not here in Athens.

This is my last comment on this topic, after all it's a Eastern Forum...but the current liturgical practice of the Latin/Roman Rite originated in 1969 and was not part of VAT II, nor a organic growth from the previous liturgical practice...study the documents of VAT II and read the comments and books regarding the liturgy by then Cardinal Ratzinger and others closely associated with him...

I'm played out on this one...

james

Jakub, don't go yet... that was such a good post. You are absolutely right - the Pauline Mass was not a product of Vatican II. In fact
Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for "pride of place" of Latin and Gregorian chant. It seems the innovators forgot what the Council said.

A few gems from that constitution:
It seems in their haste to innovate they actually ignored the Council.
FDD

There is plenty of room for the Pian liturgy to exist alongside the Pauline liturgy.

There are several things that persist really need to be corrected.

I express sympathy for those who wish for the Pian Liturgy and have no access or limited or restricted access.

That being said, i am glad for the Pauline Liturgy. I am glad the permenate diaconate was re-instated in the Roman rite.


Diak,
You are correct, the use of Gregorian Chant, Sacred Polyphony, Ancient Sacred hymns should be utilized...in that order. If ANY modern compositions are to be used, they should be done so when people know them and only then as after the aforementioned.

People want the tridentine liturgy and resent being deprived of it...people want women priests in a lot of the west as well as married priests and a lot of other things which they will not get and feel deprived of because they won't. And the reason is because the Church is not a democracy; in much of the liberalised west far more people would want the latter than the former. Pastoral sensitivity is one thing, but repealing decisions of ecumenical councils based on personal desire is something else. Statements like the above quoted give the impression that this is a matter of peronal choice in liturgy, which is just the problem with the liberal majority in many dioceses. Personal preference or emotionalism is not a theological argument; it is a subjective opinion.

N

Ned,

Well, the SSPX would agree with you. They resent the FSSP and Indult TLM's and those who attend them because they see them as having only an emotional attachment to the TLM, preferring the Mass aesthetically. (I disagree).

The SSPX want the TLM because they believe the New one is theologically deficient/Protestantized, not because they think the TLM is "pretty," or whathaveyou.

To All,

Regarding the dicasterial meeting earlier today with His Holiness and the dicastery heads, Vatican Radio is apparently reporting that the Pope will "very quickly" re-convene a dicastery meeting and will promulgate a motu propio "liberalizing" the Pian Rite. More stuff should come out as the day goes on, what would imagine.

Logos Teen

Friends,

First of all let us dispel the notion that the NO is Protestantized. Yes, six Protestant ministers were part of consultors on the NO. Because they were Protestants does not mean they are not good Liturgists (witness Taize) or incapable of offering insight despite their different beliefs (witness Paul Bradshaw). Second, I have been to many Protestant services and never have I witnessed there the Liturgical foolishness I have witnessed at some NO Massess. Third go read some Evangelical writings on the Roman Mass. They will clearly tell you that despite some minor changes the NO is still rife with the "errors" of sacrifice, purgatory, intercession of the Saints, etc. They certainly do not consider it Protestantized or acceptable despite claims of the SSPX, SSPV, or anyone else. If the NO Mass is bad it because it is served badly not because it is Protestantized.

Second the NO and the Tridentine Mass are not different Massess as anyone who owns a copy of both in Latin can testify. The Latin for 90% of the Mass is identical. Yes, gone are later accretions like the second Confetior, or the prayers that were originally the priest's private prayers: Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel. The only major changes are the additonal Eucharistic Prayers and the new Offertory Prayers. Signs of the Cross over the gifts are reduced is the only major rubrical change. A priest is free to face East if he chooses. Incense is presrcibed in the same places if used.

Both Masses follow the same basic order

Introit
Sign of the Cross
Confiteor
Kyrie
Gloria
Opening Prayer
Epistle
Psalm
Alleluia
Gospel
Creed
Offertory
Offertory Prayer
Preface
Sanctus
Canon
Our Father
Pax
Agnes Dei
Communion
Prayer after Communion
Dismissal


The Tridentine Mass places the Introit before the Kyrie and the Pax after the Agnus Dei. The NO places the Epistle after the Psalm and an OT reading before the Psalm. I think most people would look at these changes as minor.

The changes that I think are major are the attitudes of many celebrating the NO. Lack of reverence, a seeming want to erase the distinction bewteen clergy and laity, bad music, ugly architecture, banal or incorrect translations, failure to follow the text and rubrics. The NO has nothing to with this. The same could be done to the Tridentine. People need to be upset with ICEL, the USCCB, and the liturgists who ignore Rome's directive or actively encourage the above or passively do so by not correting abuses they know are occuring.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

No one is suggesting here (and only someone who is an SSPXer or an SSPX sympathiser really would) that the NO Mass espouses Protestant theology.

As you have shown more than adequately above, it does not and cannot.

What the NO HAS done is adopted a "Protestantized liturgical rite" or a rite that tends toward the liturgical traditions of Protestantism.

And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. It is a fact that the Latin Churches are often in countries where the Reformation has historically made great inroads.

In a sense, Vatican II was an opportunity for the Catholic Church to listen to the most "catholic" criticisms of the Reformers. In other ways, Vatican II observed the ways of the Cyrillo-Methodian heritage of the Eastern Church (i.e. Communion in Both Kinds, liturgical services in the language of the people etc.) and saw that many of these traditions can actually answer the critique of the Reformers.

Additionally, Vatican II faced the challenges of the modern world - and it is here that the liturgical aftermath of the Council may have fallen down - or it may not have.

The change to the liturgy in the NO is not an infallible expression of the Church's Magisterium in the sense that it cannot be changed OR that the Tridentine liturgy has been somehow invalidated.

Where the Latin Church appears not to have changed is in its desire to impose liturgical uniformity - even as it allows for various cultural adaptations to exist in the NO Mass around the world.

This is where a lot of the confusion arises, one could argue, where people in various areas take it upon themselves to do "whatever" even breaking the rubrics as if they felt rubrics are no longer "hard and fast."

I'm not a liturgist and really have no interest in becoming one.

However, from a social perspective alone, one could see that there are a number of rather naive cultural assumptions being made in the reduction of rituals and other matters in the NO tradition that have not only not had the desired effect of "updating" anything, but have had, in a number of areas, a negative impact.

Incognitus' observation that the traditional seminaries are full is an important one. Why is this so? Perhaps because ritual, tradition and a clear understanding of both faith and morals without pandering to modern sensitivities is something that constitutes , for a number of Catholics, an attractive spiritual experience without wavering, with a connection to the great liturgical past of the Roman Church and the "other-worldliness" of a worship experience that totally and most satisfactorily expresses the "Mysterium Tremendum" of the Catholic religion.

Is this not why we have a number of Latin Catholics who wish to join the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches? How frequently did this occur, I wonder, in the days of the Tridentine Liturgy?

Anyway, just some thoughts. You are a great man, Father Deacon, and you witness to Christ so admirably.

I wish I could say the same about myself . . .

Alex

Alex,
I believe the model was the early church.
A RC priest, who was without a doubt, one of the wisest persons I've ever known, once gave a homily on the church through time. He illustrated this by drawing a circle in the middle of a screen and from this circle there was a long, winding line - sort of like concentric circles.
The inner circle represented what the early church believed. Sorry, but I don't know the council it stopped at. The priest stated that Vatican II was an attempt to move the church closer to this circle.
Of course, that would be impossible to do theologically. It must have been an attempt to worship in a manner more like the early church.
-Wolfgang

Alex,

My problem with that is that while it may be valid to describe the simplifications as an adoption of Protestant liturgical principle it is equally valid to see it as a de-Gallicanization with nothing to do with the Protestants at all.

Much of the removed ritual bemoaned by Traditionalists are actually Gallican imports. The Rites of most of the Latin Monastic and Mendicant Orders aren't actually independent Rites at all but uses of the Roman Rite and more primitive uses of the Roman Rite at that. If one looks at the Domincan Missal for example it is shocking to see how much it aligns with the NO. It is devoid of the Tridentine Gallican accretions that the NO also removed. The Orders for the most part retained older purer Roman forms while the cathedrals and parishes added this and that from the Gallican Rite it was supplanting.

But as for the rest of post I agree completely. Mixed signals were sent by VII. By imposing a new missal and encouraging enculturation at the same time they opened the door for nonsense, (i.e. any theme-Mass of your choice) to be passed of as enculturation. Bishop's Conferences which before had no real power were now given the task of picking translator's and liturgists and approving their decisions. And what kind of liturgical training or scholarship did they have? We are still trying to work through that.

As to the seminaries, I certainly believe that traditonalism, even in its NO form is attractive to many. However, I think their seminaries are full because there are so few of them, which concentrates the tradtionalists in a few seminaries. That is not to say that among the younger generation there is not a movement back to traditional practices their hippie generation parents rejected, there certainly is. I just wonder if the numbers are as strong as the Traditionalists would have us believe.

As to your witness of Christ, I think you do a fine job. Many years!

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Wolfgang,

In actual fact, that theory of how the liturgy developed (from simple to more elaborate and longer) has been disproved . . .

The early liturgies of the Christian Church were VERY long and not the short ones that resemble the NO Mass of today.

For example, the Liturgy of St James of Jerusalem is quite long but it predates that of St Basil the Great, who shortened it later. St John Chrysostom shortened St Basil's Liturgy by shortening the prayers of the priest.

There is no doubt that the shortened liturgies came later.

The idea of the liturgy facing the people and not facing East . . . NO defenders sometimes make that quite ridiculous argument.

The NO was really an attempt to adapt the RC Church's liturgical culture to that of Protestantism as a way to get Protestantism to draw closer to it on that level.

The theology didn't change, of course. It was an "adaptation of rite."

Ned made an earlier argument about obedience - and obedience when it comes to liturgy, since liturgy is connected to the whole "lex credendi, lex orandi" issue, isn't the same as obedience in matters of faith and morals.

John Hardon, SJ once mentioned a case in northern Italy where a local bishop outlawed devotion to the Sacred Heart in his diocese.

There was a public uproar, so much so, that the bishop fled his diocese and reported the matter to Rome etc.

Rome investigated it and found the people innocent of any charges of ecclesial revolt or disloyalty.

They were defending a liturgical cult that was approved by the Church and that was that - the bishop was at fault.

When one compares the fruits of the Tridentine liturgy and institutions today (I don't mean the SSPX) and compares them with the NO, well, "by their fruits you will know them!"

As an Eastern Catholic, when I look at the Tridentine liturgical tradition, I feel right at home in it. I can't say the same for the NO Mass and I really feel like a stranger to it.

Perhaps that's just me. It is not my place to criticize the Latin Church, but it isn't as if this hasn't become a bad problem for the Latin Church - all reference to "obedience" notwithstanding.

Perhaps if Rome went back to its Tridentine heritage of the Mass of St Peter, it would appear as if "Rome made a mistake" and perhaps Rome is afraid of this.

But the NO may well have been the great liturgical experiment that failed.

And the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs certainly voiced their view to Rome "Don't do it!"

We meet the challenge of the modern world NOT by trying to adapt to it, its penchant for shortness in everything, and lack of colour, cosmopolitan sameness etc. - but by presenting the antithesis of modernity in our liturgical celebrations that should transport us above the mundane concerns of modernity and to . . . the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit!

Or so say I!

Alex

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

Thank you, Reverend Sir!

The only thing I would still maintain after reading your post above is that there was an "ecclesial" design on the NO to make it more palatable to Protestantism - however this came about.

And I do know former Protestants, including one Pentecostal, who did join the RC Church as a result of the NO reform.

But how can we know if the Protestant clergy that join the RC Church and become Catholic priests do so simply because of the NO liturgy? It could be, but I rather think it is because Protestantism today has become so liberal theologically and so bland liturgically that people set their sights elsewhere.

I have myself come into contact with FIVE now former Lutheran pastors who have become members of the OCA - Protestants also consider Orthodoxy and, in many other ways, Orthodoxy is more palatable to Protestants ecclesially than RCism. For one thing, Orthodoxy doesn't have the Pope!

That the Tridentine tradition added all kinds of "ritual stuff" - so did the Byzantine tradition.

Our Epitaphion tradition isn't older than about 3 centuries ago, as I understand. And those pesky Eastern monastics just love adding more psalms and prayers to the Offices - and then just TRY removing them - as Fr. Taft, the mild-mannered Jesuit liturgist wrote.

The point is that the Tridentine tradition emphasizes the "vertical" relationship to God - as does our liturgy.

It has a tremendous amount of the "mystical" and the "sense of sacred awe" that the simplified NO tradition just doesn't for the most part.

While watching the consecration of that Tridentine Cathedral on EWTN, they opened up the gorgeous triptych of the Immaculate Conception image - so slowly and reverently too! - that I felt overwhelmed and the awe overcame me.

After that, I felt a bit angry - what was wrong with all this that they felt they had to change it?

If I didn't see that EWTN program, Father Deacon, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you right now.

So you can blame it on Mother Angelica . . .

Alex

Alex,
How did they worship in the catacombs? Did the priest face the people? Or, in homes, before churches were built?
I know for the Our Father the faithful raised their hands, which many NO churches do today.
I'm sorry, but I am rather ignorant in these matters.
A` Bientot, Wolfgang

Daer Wolfgang,

As am I, Big Guy!

Raising one's arms in prayer is something that is done in the East and especially by Eastern Christian monastics. Rather than lift up our arms for all to see, it is better to do this in more modest fashion etc.

It would indeed seem from images carved in the catacombs that the normal Christian position for prayer was the lifting up of one's arms - as Tertullian also wrote.

But the entire argument about going back to the Early Church's liturgy - really?

The Apostolic Church of Jerusalem attended the services of the Jewish Temple and observed the Judaic traditions, including circumcision.

When St James was martyred, let's recall that he was so esteemed by the Jewish community in Jerusalem that they actually thought he was a Jew - and a very pious one at that.

They put him up on the Temple roof with the request that he condemn the followers of Jesus, of "the Way." Imagine their surprise when he did the exact opposite - and then they pushed him off to his death.

So if we really want to go back to the early Church - I don't think we really would.

The Ethiopian Church is probably the closest in ritual to the early Church in its observance of Judaic practices.

We do know that the early Church followed a liturgical, pre-set prayer pattern and the word "leitourgoukon" is in the Acts of the Apostles in Greek.

And we know they prayed in vigil all night - Fr. Taft once wrote that North American Catholics are "completely innocent of history" in this regard .

Short services did not characterize those "prayer fanatics" of the early Church, the Apostles, Deacons, Martyrs etc.

It matters not what position the priest took - I don't know, frankly.

They prayed toward the East and that was handed down BY LAW in the Apostolic Canons and later church legislation.

I can't imagine a priest facing west before a congregation facing east in prayer . . . Can you?

Even when priests bless the people, their hand goes from the left to right - following the people's Sign of the Cross from right to left - it was only after Latin faithful followed their priests in what they were doing, that the RC Sign of the Cross went from left to right as well.

And what was wrong with all subsequent liturgical development? Do we need to prune for the sake of liturgical pruning?

It's a question of how much, one would suppose . . .

Alex

Alex,
Your wisdom is truly appreciated!
As for the Lutheran pastors and your comment that Protestants would be more attracted to Orthodoxy, I've often thought the same thing.
I've been to Lutheran churches a couple of times in my life and found their penitential rite - with their complete reliance on God's grace - not dissimilar to some of our prayers (Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner!)

Amities, Wolfgang

The concept that the Church needs to be purified and return to the "Early Church" has been condemned by Pius XII. So is the NO a new Liturgy or is it a return to "early Church", either way it has shown to be a failure. A completely fabricated Liturgy that doesn't even remove several of these "medival" innovations that were so bad. Such as the creed being said during Mass, that never occured in the Roman rite prior to the 11th century. The Liturgy is a living thing and it has grown organically over the centuries. The Protestants also felt like they were "returning to the early Church" and you see how that has worked out for them.

Yes, you are correct, the Church in not a democracy. But the question of the Tridentine Mass is not one which can be paralleled with the "question" of the ordination of women.

The ordination of women to the presbyterate (or, still worse, the episcopate) has not the slightest basis in the tradition of the Church.

The ordination of women to the presbyterate (or, still worse, the episcopate) has been ruled out, by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, and something which the Church is not authorized to do.

Nobody, male or female, has any inherent "right" to be ordained to the presbyterate (or, still worse, the episcopate). Vocations come from God through the Church, which "calls" the candidate to Holy Orders.

The Tridentine Mass (to which I am not attracted and which I have no particular personal wish to attend) was in peaceful possession throughout most of the Western Church for serveral centuries; its place in precedent and tradition is quite secure.

The Second Vatican Council decreed that the existing rites should be maintained.

The Church consistently teaches that it is both a right and an obligation to remain attached to the liturgical tradition in which one was baptised or should have been baptised.

The Church does not permit an abuse of authority which would deprive the faithful of the liturgical tradition to which they belong - or as an Archbishop of my acquaintance (himself in perfectly good standing with the Holy See, and having not the least objection to the Novus Ordo) put it to me in conversation not long ago: "They have a right to the rite!"

For an excellent study, quite friendly to the Eastern liturgical traditions, one cannot do better than to read Msgr. Klaus Gamber's book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background, available from The Foundation for Catholic Reform, P.O. Box 255, Harrison, New York 10528. The original French edition has a preface by - surprise! - Josef Cardinal Ratzinger.

Incognitus

There have been a number of Protestants, both lay and clerical who have converted to Orthodoxy. There is no doubt about that. However, I disagree with the premise of the above statement on two counts.

I have never spoken with someone from a Protestant background about their conversion experience who hadn�t first considered Roman Catholicism as their primary option. The idea that Orthodoxy is a consideration simply because it lacks the office of the Western Papacy I think is simplistic and false, and detracts both from Orthodoxy or those who have chosen it.

There are a number of reasons why I think Roman Catholicism is much easier for Protestants to identify with and adapt to.

Aside from those two points, I think if you looked at the numbers, both as a total or as a percentage, I think you would find the number of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism far outstrips the number who convert to Orthodoxy.

Andrew

Dear Rillian,
I think you're correct in saying that Protestants who convert to Orthodoxy solely because of the lack of a papal center is simplistic. I'm sure the reasons given for conversions are myriad. However, I do believe, from personal experience and observation that many Protestants bring with them to Orthodoxy an anti-Catholicism that is inherent to many of the post-reformation Christian bodies. Does this correspond to what you observe? Vito

No, it doesn�t correspond to what I have seen. Like I said, everyone that I�ve ever talked to decided first they were not going to become Catholic before becoming Orthodox. Once they decided their own tradition was not where they wanted to be, Catholicism was in their immediate frame of reference. The choice was not a matter of bearing prejudice towards Catholicism (because in general I think such people would be hostile to any form of apostolic Christianity), they just don�t accept what the RCC claims about itself. All of that is a side issue though. I have yet to meet a person who didn�t convert because they didn�t feel that Orthodoxy contains the fullness of the faith.

What I do think is a possibility is that some converts adopt the most intransigent components of their adopted faith. It is quite possible that some converts to Orthodoxy tap in to an antipathy to the Roman church that does exist in parts of the Orthodox world. Conversely, the most harsh and negative things I have ever seen written about Orthodoxy have come from Protestant converts to Catholicism. I also find Protestant converts to Catholicism in general have a view of the Papacy that stands in sharp contrast to most cradle Catholics of my acquaintance.

Andrew

When we say that NO is a failed experiment, does that only apply to America?
I mean, what contribution does NO gave up to this point outside America and outside English speaking countries?

Here are some scary remarks from the papal master of ceremonies on liturgy. He explains why a multiplicity of liturgical forms is bad...

The use of the classical Roman missal is, according to this fellow, a concession to "older faithful." Meaning, it was a temporary pastoral measure that would die when the last of the pre-Vatican II Catholics passed onto their eternal reward. Any Orthodox Christian reading this would have to wonder at what a re-union with Rome would do to their liturgical heritage since we're all supposed to pray the same -- I mean the SAME -- way. Unity has become associated with outward ceremonial form in the Roman mind, even if the ceremonial itself does little to dipose the worshipper to union with fellow Catholics through the common petitions put before God and made acceptable by Christ. The part about the praying Church offering up its heart on the divine altar... well, that's just nice prose. We're supposed to pretend that the tumult of the do-it-yourself Roman Mass is all behind us now. The last time I went to a Roman Mass at the local cathedral, I didn't even recognize the Eucharistic prayer and it was read by the "presider" from a little booklet. I'm not sure anymore how many additional anaphoras are allowed now, but I served Mass in college for two years and there were only four. One was based off the one given in the Didache, the other was based on the traditional Roman canon.

Bleh.

We can all swop horror stories about which Church we went to and ..X.. happened and we were shocked, horrified and disgusted etc etc.

I dont think there is anything strange about the Comments of the Archbishop. The Latin Church has been struggling to achive uniformaty for ages and that was just with the Pius V missal. If my memory serves me right this archbishop used to be the late Pope's MC and is now doing something else these days.

As the topic was the RC Mass I dont believe any Orthodox would assume that what the former MC was talking about applied to other church traditions at all.

ICXC
NIKA

Andrew,

Excellent points. In fact, if you read Frank Schaeffer and hear the accounts of his conversion from evangelicalism to Orthodoxy, his initial interest was in Catholicism - but he couldn't stand the state of the average NO in Catholic parishes! (Who could blame him, quite frankly.)

I used to be a teacher at St. Agnes in St. Paul, MN. Msgr. Richard Schuler, who was well known in the liturgical movement, was the pastor at the time. This is the Bavarian parish familiar to any of you Wanderer readers that has the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra and makes use of the Masses of Mozart. Everything about the parish in terms of its celebration of the liturgy looks just as it did pre-Vatican II, but the NO is used - with the Latin. St. Agnes is really a Catholic cultural center, especially for traditionally-minded Catholics. (I heard a few times that then Cardinal Ratzinger had enquired through associates how St. Agnes was doing. He was very supportive of it as you can imagine.)

To my mind, St. Agnes represents the authentic spirit of the liturgical reform. (Evidently Mozart masses were verbotten prior to the Council.) I do not personally favor the exclusive use of Latin, as both Alex and I have mentioned. It should be principally in the vernacular. The chief problem with the NO was clearly in the way it was implemented - including translation. Most churches cast aside the Tridentine liturgical ethos (when done well - not those absurd 14 minute masses) which seemed to be the real strength of Latin Catholic life in favor of the "namby pamby", for lack of a better term.

I sometimes wonder if the loss of the sense of Great and Terrible Mystery that Alex alluded to is one of the reasons why so many young people have turned to the occult these days. (Unlike some, I do not blame the Harry Potter books. )

This is precisely one of the reasons WHY I think that Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy (and once they get back on their liturical feet, Latin Catholicism) have a very relevant mission today, especially in North America. The tired old post-conciliar, flat, personality/ego-centric worship doesn't meet the needs of today. (It hardly met the needs of yesterday, for that matter.)

God bless,

Gordo

Fr. Deacon Lance, thank you for your well-organised and constructed post. As an addendum to my view that we should participate in the Mass given us by our Holy magisterium I offer the follwing quotes:

"After what we have presented concerning the new Roman Missal, we wish in conclusion to INSIST on one point in particular and to make it have its effect. When he promulgated the edition princeps of the Roman Missal, our predecessor St Pius V offered it to the people as the instrument of liturgical UNITY...our own expectation in no way differes from that of our predecessor...that through the new Missal ONE AND THE SAME PRAYER.... will ascend to Our Heavenly Father, through our High Priest, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit." (Apostolic Constitution; Promulgation of the Roman Missal Revised decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council)

"The current norms, laid down on the basis of the intent of Vatican Council II, and the new Missal THAT WILL BE USED HENCEFORTH in the celebration of the Mass by the Church of the ROMAN RITE.." (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 4th. edn., 27 march 1975).

(Capitialisation my own).

And when and if new instructions came/come into force I will accept them in the same spirit.

N

Although I've already read Abp. Marini's point of view that the TLM is a concession to "older faithful," I still find it hilarious because in a just-comepleted study by the French bishops on the "Traditionalist question" in France, they determined fully 59% of Traditionalists there are under the age of 24.

So 3/5 of the Traditionalists in France are no older than college students...wow, yeah talk about the "older faithful."

Well, keep on wishin'!

Seriously, though, to wish is not to demand or to require, and this is a serious shift in papal rhetoric and must be intentional. Things of this nature had been more than wished or insisted upon beforehand.

Logos Teen

Dear Gordo,
Thanks for your posting, and please accept my compliments on your connection with Msgr. Schuler and Saint Agnes Parish - you are truly privileged and I don't mind telling you that I am a trifle envious.

Mozart Masses, however, are not banned from liturgical use - but to do a Mozart Mass well requires resources not usually found except in great Cathedrals where the Bishop, the Administrator, and the Director of Music are willing to invest the time and the money. Those who make that investment then are in for a happy reward - people will come at some personal sacrifice even from a considerable distance, and since most adults realize that such music does not come for free, they will contribute accordingly. Glorious music is still an effective evangelical tool.

(You guessed it - I'm looking forward to hearing the Coronation Mass a week from tomorrow, and wish you the same joy!).

Incognitus

incognitus,

St. Agnes parish was truly a formative experience for me very early on after college. I met some pretty amazing people there - as well as a few fringe extremists. (Every garden has its fruits, no? :p ) I usually attributed the extremism to the suffering they had endured for years as they watched the faith and worship they had grown up with be dismantled piece by piece by individuals who talked softly about diversity and inclusion, but were anything BUT diverse and inclusive.

Msgr. Schuler is a good man who understands the true nature of the reform. He also had the courage the stand up to the archdiocesan officials who were unhappy with his efforts there. He is now retired. It has been 14 years since I taught at the school, but I did stop by before we left Minnesota and saw him. He seemed to be well, although the years are catching up with him. I'm not sure if he conducts the SPO still, but it would not surprise me if he did. (St. Agnes was recently in the news because of Father Robert Altier, who is a friend of mine and was recently silenced in his media apostolate by Archbishop Harry Flynn because of his vocal opposition to the VIRTUS "touching" sex-ed program that the archdiocese is touting.)

If you ever get out to St. Paul, you should definitely stop in!

Pecae,

Gordo

PS: BTW - it was at St. Agnes and Msgr. Schuler's "Tuesday night underground seminary" meetings years ago that I first met Fr. Bryan Eyman who would attend this gathering and offer eastern insights into worship. I then started visiting St. John's BCC in Minneapolis from timeto time. Years later, my family and I joined and the rest is histoire!

Ahhh... I remember the first and only time I heard the Coronation Mass by Mozart used in church - at the Brompton Oratory in London. The occasion was Corpus Christi, and it was a Novus Ordo Mass entirely in Latin (except for the readings and sermon). The propers were chanted and the full ceremonial observed (including deacon and subdeacon and an army of assisting clergy in cassock and surplices). Roman vestments, one of the best professional choirs in London, bells and smells... Glorious. Utterly glorious.

Having some good experiences of the choirs at Brompton, I'm envious!

Incognitus

Sultan of Suede,

The Roman Rite allows a total 13 Eucharistic Prayers in the US. The original 4, 2 for Reconciliation Masses, 3 for Masses with Children, 4 for Masses for Various Needs.

Bishop's Conferences are free to write others and submit them to Rome for approval. The 4 Eucharistic Prayers for Various Needs are based on one written by the Swiss Bishop's Conference.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Andrew/Rilian,

Aren't you just a bit harsh on me?

I was JOKING when I made my comment about the Orthodox not having the papacy. Please review my original post to see the smiley.

The purpose of that post was not to discuss all the reasons why some Protestants become Orthodox.

Ultimately, that discussion cannot be based solely on how many converts you or I talked to personally in our lives.

Anyway, whatever.

Alex

My apologies for the overreaction.

Andrew

I thought I knew a lot about the Catholic Church, but you guys have blown me away, even Logos Teen who is 11 years younger than me (I think!) I feel like a little fish in a big pond.

I too think that all of the various Western Rites should be allowed greater usage. I also hope that His Holiness will allow for the universal indult. But I like the vernacular better. I just can't stand the liturgical abuses that I have seen in the last 10 years that I have been paying attention! :rolleyes:

Hi guys,

I haven't had time to read over every single post here guys, so forgive me if I duplicate anything that anyone else has said.

I've seen a number of points of discussion as pertains to the Tridentine missal (I'll use that term for the sake of ease).

First off, just quickly, Roman style chasuble's, dalmatics, tunicle's, etc. aren't inherently required for the Tridentine liturgy. It isn't the same as the difference between Byzantine vestments and Latin rite vestments which are unique to a particular rite. Either Roman or Gothic style can be used in either the ancient or modern Roman rite.

Second, as regards the ancient Roman liturgy itself, it isn't about democracy and want in a certain sense -- although, let it be noted that the faithful do have a legitimate, canonical right to express their desires to the pastors of the Church. From there it is up to them to make determinations.

Third, regarding the Council, the modern Roman rite, etc. the are a few issues that need to be highlighted in all this:

- the organic development of the liturgy; someone as profoundly knowledgeable as Cardinal Ratzinger did note there have been problems in the way in which the liturgy had been reformed; it represented a break in organic development and a liturgy formed by committee so to speak. He termed it "fabricated liturgy" in that sense -- not in the sense of not being Catholic, of course, but in terms of the problems in the reform of the Roman liturgy that occurred after the Council. Others, of course, have concluded likewise, even when they have been for the reform.

- the other issue is precisely that of the Council. One of the bases of both the Tridentine movement and the move to "reform the reform" (a reform of the reformed liturgical books) is that if one reads the decree and mandate of the Council Fathers on the question of the liturgy, one will quickly notice the vast discrepancy between what was called for and what actually happened.

These are serious issues and as Ratzinger said, they have done great harm to the Church. They are also why the Roman rite is now in a situation such as we are at present, and thus, not all the normal rules at present apply you might say. We are faced with dealing with the situation.

Ideally, a robust classical liturgy can help the reform of the reform as well.

If anyone wants to discuss this further, or has any questions, please feel free to email me (stribe at rogers dot com) or visit my blog, The New Liturgical Movement.

A blessed holy week to those following the Gregorian Calendar.

Shawn,

Firstly, kudos to all your work and gathering information over at NLM. I check it about four times a today to keep updated, adding a comment every now and again!

Secondly, what you say about vestments is true. We could (theoretically) see TLMs celebrated in dreadful bastardizations of Gothic vestments that so many priests today wear! I guess the only actual concrete difference is the maniple and biretta in terms of a priest celebrating the Mass, and of course the cope in the Asperges rite and the crossing of the stole.

However, I think because the TLM is so closely associated with Roman chasubles, lots of lace, finer vestments, etc. that we will probably not see as many of those tacky polyester TLMs as one could imagine there might possibly be.

After all, we do see normal parish priests celebrate the NO in Roman chasubles, etc.

I also hope and pray that the priests who do decide to celebrate TLMs at their parish are the priests who don't want to bring tackiness and guitar tunes into the TLM. I think the TLM by its very nature is averse to that kind of thing. The fact that it's in Latin and the words of the text itself present a very "otherworldy" situation and feeling, something I think most "liturgically liberal" priests wouldn't be interested in getting into, except to draw people back into the pews.

Is anyone else excited about the prospect of seeing the TLM televised in the Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament of EWTN? It's a gorgeous church, totally traditional in architecture, perfect for a dignified TLM. And I'm sure there are priests at EWTN who would be willing and eager to celebrate it. Fr. Levis, Fr. Shaughnessy, Fr. Trigilio, Fr. Straub, etc. all seem like willing candidates to me!

In fact, it is often bandied about that EWTN has requested to televise the the NO ad orientam before, but the Bishop of Birmingham won't allow it. Oh well, he's turning 75 soon (or he already did)...

Logos Teen

Logos Teen,

Some Gothic vestments are extremely beautiful. The monastic tradition, still continued today at Le Barroux, continues to use gothic vestments.

Until their demise, so too did the Society of St. John.

Also take a peek here:

http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2006/02/crnj-picture.html

"In fact, it is often bandied about that EWTN has requested to televise the the NO ad orientam before, but the Bishop of Birmingham won't allow it. Oh well, he's turning 75 soon (or he already did)..."

How can a Bishop mandate which direction the priest faces when it is not even mentioned specifically in the rubrics for it (as far as I know).

Shawn,

I didn't mean to imply that Gothic vestments can't be beautiful. That lady what's-her-name in Australia makes especially beautiful ones.

Just many priests and bishops today wear weird-looking, cheap, Gothic vestments.

McNabb,

Ummm...I think he won't allow their ad orientam Masses in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel to be televised. I don't think he can tell them not to do it, but he can say that he doesn't want it televised.

Logos Teen

Latin bishops have threatened to suspend priests for celebrating the Pauline Mass ad orientam. I did a Google search and tried to find a particular case I've read about, I believe it was the Birmingham diocese and Bishop Flynn (was he there)? No luck finding the example I'm thinking of. I believe they can forbid the celebration ad orientam although Rome has told them this is wrong. Rome, however, has not intervened to overrule the local bishops in their decisions on this matter, as far as I know.

In regard to EWTN, I believe it is just televising the Mass that has been suppressed, as you say. The reason generally given for these rulings is "pastoral reasons", the usual catchall given for most of the poor decisions concerning liturgical practice. This is currently the loophole Bishop Trautman thinks he's found to keep some of the bad 1970s translations to the Pauline Mass, in his capacity as head of the BCL.

The ordinary of the Dominican Missal:

http://members.aol.com/liturgialatina/dominican/mass_ordinary.htm

For those who wish to compare the Dominican, Tridentine, and Pauline Uses of the Roman Rite.

Please note the correct spelling: ad orientem.

Incognitus

Noted. 26 years since my last Latin class.

It's now about 8:30pm on Holy Thursday in Vatican City. I guess no document about the TLM was issued today.

I don't expect anything before Easter Sunday...likely 4/19...the date of Pope Benedict's election.

james

And I'll go out on a limb and predict that whatever he announces, it won't satisfy everybody.

Many people have duly noted that it would be incongruous for a Pope such as Benedict who calls us to more prayerful liturgy and deep meditation, to issue this kind of thing during the Sacred Triduum. It would not be in keeping with the extremely solemn and penitential spirit of the season.

I think the same is true for Easter Sunday. The sole "theme" for Easter is our Resurrected God and Lord. On Easter Monday, Pope Benedict leaves for a short vacation. I would expect something after that, either on the date of his election, or on the Feast of Pope Saint Pius V (April 30th), or just any old day, perhaps with the letter being dated on Holy Thursday, but not released until whichever day the Pope chooses.

Aside from all that, the two Papal Masses today were marvelous. It seems the Chrism Mass was almost all totally in Latin, all the readings were chanted (not just the Gospel), and none by laymen. The entire Canon was chanted (Eucharistic Prayer III), and actually I think the only non-Latin language that was used was the homily, and maybe something else.

The afternoon Mass of the Lord's Last Supper was similar.

I was watching Archbishop Marini the entire time, imagining the emotional turmoil he must've been undergoing! Though, admittedly, that shouldn't have been one of my focuses!

Logos Teen

LT,

I enjoyed the Greek chanting of the gospel etc as well...I think the fuzzz is coming off the peaches soon...

james

Teen,

Are you sure you heard Eucharistic Prayer III? Granted I heard only the Maundy Thursday Mass at Lateran today, but it was definitely Prayer I (Roman Canon) with the beautiful "hostiam sanctam, hostiam puram, hostiam immaculatam" (strangely missing from the execerable ICEL translation). And yes, I love how Marini always has this deadpan look on his face. He recently went on record talking about how his plans for each mass are always sent back by Benedict marked up with red pen. "Whaaaaah!Whaaaaaah"

The Eucharistic Prayer for the Chrism Mass was Eucharistic Prayer III. The one for the Lord's Last Supper was Prayer I.

Can't we just suppress Eucharistic Prayers II and IV?

I'll give His Holiness some time...he's been working magic so far!

Logos Teen

What's wrong with Eucharistic Prayer II? Isn't it supposed to be used during the week. I'll grant that I and III are better, but I think that the original idea behind the 4 was that the shorter one was for the week so people could go to Mass and then go to work.

Just for the record - the Holy Father used the third Anaphora for the Chrism Mass (in the morning) and the Roman Anaphora (aka Prayer 1) for the Maundy Mass in the evening.

What's wrong with Prayer 2? In far too many places it's the only one in use - and it's a poorly-done adaptation of the Anaphora of Saint Hippolytus anyway.

The fourth Anaphora is actually quite lovely, but one never hears it in use.

Incognitus

A usually reliable source (a priest I know who has friends in low places) just rang to tell me that Pope Benedict XVI has indeed signed the Motu Proprio (a form of Vatican decree indicating that this is done on the personal initiative of the Pope) confirming that every priest of the Roman Rite is at liberty to offer Mass according to the pre-conciliar version. This is to be announced formally before the end of April, God willing.

Sounds good - but seeing is believing.

Incognitus

Beatitude Incognitus interesting news.

The 4th was used a lot here down under but some priests but some could never get it through their head that is was structured differently and they could not mix and match without stuffing it up totally.

Below stairs news is often the best and most reliable.

ICXC
NIKA

How about "His Plenteous Benignitude"?

Incognitus

How about your Emminent Beatitude or Your Beatific Emminence?

Your Prominence!

ICXC
NIKA

ПОДАЙ ГОСПОДИ!

to the Motu Proprio, of course...

and as for titles... I once referred to a liberal RC bishop in his presence as 'His Flatitude'. The bishop in question had no idea what it meant, looked quite flattered (well, I did say 'Flatitude'), beamed at me and thanked me.

O Episcope, si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses!

His righteousness beanyatituded grand-puba of Eastern Ohio and all of the Blue Ridge Mountains, Icognitus the I.

People who didn't like him used to call Franco "The Most General". How about "The Most Incognito"?

Incognitus

Keep on waiting and waiting. It's my personal opinion that this will never happen and if it happens there would be no priests enough prepared to offer the Old Rite correctly and this could lead to a mixture of rites.

The document would only solve the problem of the Divine Liturgy but it would not involve the whole Latin Rite: administration of holy mysteries, vespers, calendar, holy week rites. People would be worshipping according to the modern calendar without many saints and changed dates, they would be induced to receive the holy mysteries in the modern rite that would continue to be the official one and they would no longer know if they have the grace or not.

Do you think it can still happen?

Dear Mexican - my, you seem to specialize in doom and gloom! Here's a poem for you:

Pull, pull, pull your oar
as hard as you can spare;
warily, warily, warily warily,
life is but a snare!

Incognitus

More seriously, there is a canonical principle that anyone who concedes the greater also concedes the lesser. For that matter, I've never even heard of anyone trying to penalize priest or lay people for using the old Breviary, and I have certainly heard of places serving the old Mass under the existing indult and using the pre-conciliar Holy Week services as well. Places that celebrate the old Mass under the existing indult on a regular basis normally use the pre-conciliar calendar of saints and so on.

My friend who is the chaplain to the old rite Latins in Perth, Western Australia does everything under the old rite. The Arch does not mind crossing the road to pontificate for them or do confirmations the old way.

ICXC
NIKA

I think Incognitus is pretty much correct...though I can't remember if the "Indult" follows the old calendar/ordo...maybe brother Shawn will enlighten us...

james

On top, of that, the few parishes that are "fully" Tridentine use all seven Sacraments, rites, prayers, calendar, etc. from pre-Vatican II.

These are, of course, parishes under the care of groups like the FSSP and ICKSP and not your run-of-the-mill diocesan indult, but one example is the FSSP about an hour from my house. Granted, it's one of the few that that are like unto it in the country, but everything they do is pre-Reform. One could attend that church his entire life and never encounter any semblance of a (so fair badly marred and poorly implemented) liturgical reform.

Logos Teen

Hi,Happy Easter to all.

Last week I was unable to attend the nearest Eastern Rite church so I made the rounds of nearby Catholic churches. Maundy Thursday service was bilingual to include the entire congregation and unfortunately the service was twice as long. (The airconditioning was broken too.)It was then that I thought that Latin Mass would have been better for everyone. (I attended a traditional Latin mass once and it was beautiful)

Now that so many people who do not speak English well are attending services the vernacular services will either segregate everyone or wear you out. In one church there were people from four or five different language groups and had they not spoken English it would've been impossible to worship together.

I admit I know little about Vatican II and reforms as well as the pros and cons of Latin Mass but after Maundy Thursday I could see the advantages. I know Eastern Rite services are often conducted in two languages, but not at the same time,right?

Forgive me if I've hijacked the thread in another direction.

Peace,
Indigo

Dear Indigo,
I'm not quite sure that I understand your question, but I'll make an effort at a response. I speak here only in connection with the Byzantine liturgical tradition (both Eastern Orthodox and Greek-Catholic).
In principle, almost any language may be used for the divine services [the exceptions are, first, those languages which lack the necessary vocabulary, and second, "invented" languages such as Esperanto, the languages devised by J. R R. Tolkien, or computer-languages].
It is not forbidden to use two or more languages in the same service - this is often done on the occasion of international gatherings, or even of stable parishes with several language groups regularly among the congregation. However, this does NOT mean that anything (with the possible exceptions of the Scriptural lessons and the sermon) is repeated, and it certainly does not mean the cacophony of trying to chant in two languages simultaneously.
But, to give an example, it's not particularly uncommon to hear the Deacon or Priest chanting the petitions of a litany in some other language, but hear the responses (Kyrie, eleison - or whatever) chanted in Greek. Sometimes the reason is simply that the music is pleasant. There are a very few things which are invariably sung in Greek ("Axios" at ordinations is an example) and a few more which are often sung in Greek [Since we sing "Christ is Risen" innumerable times on Pascha it's popular in many places to sing this short chant in several languages: Greek, Slavonic, Ukrainian, Arabic, Romanian and whatever else one might enjoy].

It's also popular to proclaim the Gospel on Pascha in several languages.

I hope that's cleared away at least some of the confusion.

Incognitus

So, just wondering - I haven't been around for a few days. When did the Pope make the big announcement?

i agree with the motive of the sspx to not just have the traditional liturgy to be more available but for it to be the norm of the western church. when saying this i am not only refering to the missal of 1962 and mass of pius v but a liturgical mass of beauty, reverence, devotion, one that is owed to God and his presence in the blessed secrament. the tabernacle must be restored, the altar to be sanctified, and temples that give glory to God. as far as the Latin goes, it was a good thing to allow vernacular into the mass, but who said to erase it totally? i believe the main prayers of a tradition mass such as the gloria, agnus dei, and pater noster are what unites catholics. Latin at one time was a language all western catholics could follow and be united to in the mass...now its been forgotten. i hate how from rome all we see is talk and no action. just do what is right. trying to please everyone and their agendas is not the way of the true church, thank God that it will never come to the ordanation of women,etc. but enough is enough, its time to end the madness and restore the holy sacrifice of the mass!

What about the Orthodox objections I have heard of the old Mass.

Mainly the lack of the epiclesis. There was another one but it escapes me at the moment.

Also how about the right of the bishops to change matters of discipline?

I for one love the use of the vernacular. The old Mass for me is anachronistic. I would be for a reform of it with more use of the vernacular and getting rid of the frilly vestments.


David, Byzantine Catholic and Carmelite pre-novice

Dear David the Carmelite,

How are you doing with your Carmelite formation, Big Guy?

Have you been to the mountain yet?

I think the other Orthodox objection is the Filioque. The Epiclesis could also be the prayer of invocation BEFORE the Words of Institution. In any event, the Moscow Patriarchate didn't do many changes at all to the Tridentine Mass before presenting its "Orthodox version" of it for the "Western Rite Orthodox."

Alex

Not a whole lot of formation in the pre-novitiate. Here we finish our degrees and/or get our philosophy requirements filled. There are a couple of workshops on Carmelite Spirituality and the Saints of Carmel but it is more to learn how to live in community while doing or preliminary studies.

No, not to the mountain yet, but I have run into a couple of walls.

No, not the filioque (how could I leave that out after writing a paper on it... duh ). I believe it has something to do with the old Mass being more of a memorial than a paschal liturgy... something like that, let me talk with the guy I had this discussion with.


David, Byzantine Catholic and Carmelite pre-novice

Dear David of Carmel,

O.K., sorry! I'm not a theologian like you, Master David! What do I know?

It would be interesting to find out what the other objection is . . .

Do you get to wear a larger scapular at least?

Alex

Yeah right, me a theologian? Not quite... at least no where near your level.

I get a scapular like everyone else can get.


David, Byzantine Catholic and Carmelite pre-novice

Again a tidbit,

The documents in Vatican II clearly state that Latin & Gregorian Chant should be retained...but to what extent...

I have many doubts regarding the liturgical changes, after all VII was pastoral in nature...I also own a 1959 missal...a all english version so why the change...I guess they wanted to attract protestants...though at a steep cost.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck then...

james

Well, things are looking up anyway.

I suspect that when Pope Benedict frees the TLM, which I hope/think will be soon, and when he further advances the Reform of the Reform, the pace will pick up.

But we do have a generation of new, young priests who are orthodox and orthopraxical (probably not a word), and the attention given to both the TLM and the R of the R is gaining daily. It seems more and more parishes are finding out what it means to employ the "hermeneutics of continuity," judging Vatican II in light of 2000 years of Catholic Tradition and not as something separate or above our traditions.

I think we've crossed a corner, but we still have a long way to go.

Logos Teen

Hmm ... and when was that supposed to happen, again? Seems like that news story that started this whole thread said it would happen over the Easter weekend. Nothing yet.

Maybe on April 19th ... no, that's today, and nothing's happened.

Maybe on Orthodox Easter? We'll just have to wait and see.

I welcome the T.R.F of T.R.F and a free T.L.M...but what are the current odds for both to be available in Los Angeles during the nxt 10 years...

james

Hi,

[QUOTE]I welcome the T.R.F of T.R.F and a free T.L.M...but what are the current odds for both to be available in Los Angeles during the nxt 10 years... /QUOTE]

Actually, if you go to the Archdiocese's website, you'll find several parishes where the TLM is celebrated regularly. In some cases, weekly (a parish in Ventura, at least).

Yes, your commute will be awful but hey, you live in the LA metro area, your commute is awful most of the time.

Shalom,
Memo

Theist Gal,

It was not "supposed to happen" at any time. By far, the most speculative arena of this entire story was/is the date of the promulgation of any such document. Indeed, many people doubted the Holy Thursday/Easter weekend date from the beginning; to do such a thing would be liturgically inappropriate and destroy the somber mood of the Triduum. It would be pastorally inopportune to release it during those days. Again, the date was speculative.

You're funny (kind of). I highly doubt the above, Gal.

I'd recommend checking out www.thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/ [thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com] and www.rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/ [rorate-caeli.blogspot.com] and educating yourself on the matter before posting any more snarky remarks.

I don't understand why you seem to be against this; maybe you're just against the rumors, and you may well end up being right, but all the signs point in the opposite direction and the fact that it hasn't been done yet should be of no surprise to anyone.

Have some hope and pray instead of trying to pick a fight with those who have been told continuously be reliable sources that something along these lines is imminent.

Logos Teen

Brother Memo,

Actually the closest Indult(every Sunday)is Rancho Cucamonga...but alas, I'm a retired semi geezer on the fixed $... been pondering attending at the Benedictine Abbey in Valyermo...but I would then want to be a oblate...so many options have suddenly came available...

How are your deacon classes going ?

Indeed, He is risen !
PAX
james

I was just referring back to the previous posts in this thread which first said, maybe over Easter, then maybe April 19th.

Well, it was [b]intended to be funny, so thanks!

I'd recommend checking out www.thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/ [thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com] and www.rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/ [rorate-caeli.blogspot.com] and educating yourself on the matter before posting any more snarky remarks.

I don't understand why you seem to be against this; maybe you're just against the rumors, and you may well end up being right, but all the signs point in the opposite direction and the fact that it hasn't been done yet should be of no surprise to anyone.[/QB][/QUOTE]

I actually know quite a bit about the subject, but I won't bore you with the details. But if you'll read my previous posts, in this thread and others, you'll see that I am totally in favor of allowing a wider and more generous permission by the bishops to use the traditional version of the Mass.

If I sound snarky, my apologies, but you have to admit there has been a lot of very misleading misinformation on this particular topic floating around, and often those who might be sympathetic to the idea are put off by rhetoric of (for example) the SSPX and other breakaway groups.

It is not particularly unusual for a papal document to be signed and then released a month or so later - this was the case, for example, with John Paul II's Magnum Baptismi Donum for the Millennium of the Baptism of Rus' in 1988 - it was signed at least two months before it was released. So we must be patient.

Nothing is impossible, but I would be amazed if the document is released this coming Sunday, when the Pope will surely wish to congratulate those who used the traditional Paschalion on the Paschal feast.

Incognitus

Hi,

Christ is Risen!

Well, the Abbey is wonderful. The Abbot is my pastor's spiritual director.

Not going yet. We are hoping to start in September, but still waiting for the official approval.

My pastor alrady announced our acceptance to the parish community, though. Maybe he knows something I don't!

Please keep praying for us.

Shalom,
Memo

Theist Gal,
Actually the story started with a date of sometime in early March, then it became late March, then March 30th, then Holy Thursday.

It seems that when a date comes without an announcement they just pick a new date.

As for the comment that the "most speculative arena" is the date made me laugh. I think the most speculative arena in this is the whole thing. There is no credible source saying that this will happen. Every source to date as been listed as "unnamed".

That is unless there is someone working at the Vatican with the last name of Unnamed and if there is he is a very busy man.


David, Byzantine Catholic and Carmelite pre-novice

And the rumors just keep coming:

Vatican and traditionalists: rumors continue [cwnews.com]

DavidB,

I don't remember hearing about any dates in March. The first concrete date I heard of was Maundy Thursday, which many doubted from the beginning given the inappropriateness of the timing.

As for this newest CWN article, this is not a rumor. This is reporting the facts. The article states facts and then mentions the intense speculation surrounding the unknown factors.

Logos Teen

This discussion has been going on since the end of Feburary on other Catholic forums.

"unless there is someone working at the Vatican with the last name of Unnamed and if there is he is a very busy man."

Anyone in the least familiar with the Vatican's unique methods will bear witness that there is indeed such a person - in fact there are quite a few of them - and they manage to keep very busy. To take a simple example, just try to find out who is genuinely responsible for a given episcopal appointment [Since there are well over three thousand episcopal posts in the Catholic Church, and there are at least three candidates for each such post, it is clearly impossible for the Pope to know them all personally.]

Or read both [email]Euntes in Mundum[/email] AND Magnum Baptismi Donum. Since the two documents are a tad inconsistent with each other, are we really supposed to believe that the same person wrote them both, at substantially the same time?

And on, and on.

Incognitus

Haven't these rumors been going on for nearly a decade now?

Honestly, I think it would be help the Roman Rite in the long run if it allowed the use of the older missal on an equal footing with the newer one.

I have a weird question.

If the AOC has a Western Rite Vicariate, why can't an Eastern Catholic Church make a place for Tridentines (the Melkites for example) and allow them to keep parishes with the Tridentine Rite. Could this be a sollution?

This way you don't have to touch the Latin Bishops' authorities and the Tridentine people would have a separated place. If I'm not mistaken there is no explicit legislation forcing an Eastern Catholic Church to use "one rite" exclusively.

Is this technicaly possible?

NO WAY! They are the Latins problem don't wish them on us. Why should the Latins have it easy? How else are they going to get to heaven? If they come our way they abandon all that Latin stuff (all of it & yes we do check pockets) and go Byzantine.

What a terrible thought and just before Easter...I need nice smooth dark chocolates

XB!

Nice, smooth, dark chocolates - what an inspiring thought! Now to go and find some . . . Kali Anastasi!

Incognitus

I don't think it would be right to allow the Old Latin mass be held again. The Second Vatican Council was a VALID, ECUMENICAL Council and its decisions should be respected just as we respected the Council of Trent. I agree the Old Latin mass was beautiful but so is the New Latin mass, which was the reason I converted in to first place.

Armando

The "Old Latin Mass " was never banned so you can't say
What is really needed is that Mass is Celebrated with reverence and due consideration given to the Rubrics.

If that is done then there should be no problem at all

Mass is not a 'Do your own thing ' Liturgy

The mass, as promulgated by Vatican II, was beautiful. It was what Pope Paul VI did to to the mass several years after the council ended, that is the problem. The Novus Ordo was not a work of the council. I think the east has every reason to be leery of giving one man that kind of authority.

Dear Armando - CHRIST IS RISEN!

You write that "The Second Vatican Council was a VALID, ECUMENICAL Council and its decisions should be respected just as we respected the Council of Trent."

I wasn't around at the time of the Council of Trent, so I can't claim to have respected it when it took place nor in its immediate aftermath. Still, my current crop of grey hairs perhaps gives me some claim to be able to say that we read the decrees and decisions of Trent with a certain care, bearing in mind the context in which they were written and elaborated.

I do not dispute the Second Vatican Council - it is an authentic General Council and its documents are still very much worth reading, although a trifle uneven (after a mere 40 years the document on Communications - a topic not subject to infallibility - will bring more than one smile to the face of the reader, because of the remarkable changes in communications since Vatican II).

Vatican II did not in any way "exclude" the Missal in use prior to and during that Council. Vatican II did not exclude the use of Latin, nor the use of Gregorian Chant, nor the celebration of Mass facing the East . . . and so forth. Quite the contrary.

So it is better not to imply that anyone who prefers the form of Mass in use prior to and during Vatican II to the form of Mass later published by Pope Paul VI is therefore defying the Second Vatican Council, or showing disrespect for the Council's decisions.

CHRISTUS RESURREXIT E MORTUIS, MORTE MORTEM CALCAVIT - ET HIS IN SEPULCHRIS, VITAM DONAVIT!

Incognitus

Incognitus,

Amen...I commend you on your Latin usage...I often wonder if in the Orthodox/Eastern communities...are the Old Believers persecuted and frowned upon as the Traditionalists in the Latin Rite ? I really should not use the term "Latin"...there is sparse use in the U.S. and present forms of translations hardly resemble the Latin originals...

PAX
james

Dear James - CHRIST IS RISEN! Thanks for the commendation. I found it necessary to amend that translation slightly. The original translation reads, of all things "et entibus in sepulchris vitam donavit", which is downright barbaric. Possible alternatives include "et his in sepulchris" - which is what I use - "et mortibus in sepulchris", which is an accurate paraphrase, or simply "et in sepulchris", which is linguistically good but makes the chant a bit more difficult.

For those who wonder what this is all about - "ens, entis" is an obscure Latin word which does not occur in the plural in tolerable Latin. "Entibus" is someone's quite unsuccessful effort to translate the Church-Slavonic "сущым" into Latin (but it's really pig latin).

The Old-Ritualist Church-Slavonic text (in other words, the Church-Slavonic text from before the Nikonian reform) is actually more accurate: "и гробным живот дарова", or in Latin "et in sepulchris . . ."


The Old Ritualists have certainly been persecuted, using state power in the Russian Empire until 1905, and again during much of the Soviet period. Now things are at least easier, thanks be to the Risen Lord!
Christ is Risen!

Incognitus

Vatican II did not promulgate any Mass. All it said was that there should be a reform of the Mass.

As for the East nothing giving the pope the authority to make decision for the Church he is patriarch of, I highly doubt that they care. Its when he makes decisions for the whole Church that they have issues.


David, Byzantine Catholic and Carmelite pre-novice

In a sense I would consider you mistaken. I am holding a copy of the Roman Missal containing the English translation approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States, copyright 1964. It contains all the changes mandated by the Council and includes the Council documents calling for those changes. I am old enough to remember using that missal until Pope Paul VI decreed the Novus Ordo in 1969. The changes to the Roman Missal of 1964 are supported by Council documents calling for those specific changes.

ByzanTN,

Yep, you have a copy of the 1965 Missal...many believe that this represents the true intent of V II and should have been retained...

james

Anyone remember during World Youth Day, it was said that Pope Benedict would celebrate the Mass using the older rite live on EWTN. Did I miss that, or did it not happen?

It did not happen. There was a Solemn Pontifical High Mass in the Tridentine Rite during the World Youth Day, but alas, EWTN did not broadcast it. At the time I knew who the Archbishop was who celebrated, but I've forgotten in the interim.

Incognitus

Incognitus,

Are the Missal with copyright 1964 and the Missal of 1965 one and the same?

The hierarchs celebrating the TLM during WYD were Archbishop Haas of Germany, Cardinal Pell of Australia, and Bishop Rifan of Brazil.

Here is +Haas celebrating Pontifical High Mass [Linked Image]

Here is +Pell celebrating Pontifical Vespers [Linked Image]

Here is Rifan celebrating Pontifical High Mass [Linked Image]

There were numerous other Masses, Vespers, and other liturgical functions celebrated by these prelates as well as ordinary priests during WYD.

Logos Teen

I believe they are. The copyright is 1964, and the implementation was for any practical purpose, 1965. The Canon was in Latin, and there was only one of them, not 37+. Much of the Canon was prayed softly, no microphones to pick up every dramatic sigh or tortured moan that Father uttered. At the time, I viewed it as the pre-Vatican II mass with some minor changes, although I didn't particularly like turning the altars around even then. I was 18 years old in 1965, so I remember all this well - still owning the missal reinforces my memory, as well. I think what bothers me most, is that so many people remember nothing other than the Novus Ordo, and mistakenly think it is the mass as reformed by Vatican II.

I've always wondered - for those of you who are knowledgable of the Tridentine/PiusV Mass - why is the priest's vestment being held here:
[Linked Image]

This one is from the Ambrosian Rite, but I've seen a similar posture in the Tridentine: [Linked Image]

But in this image the priest vestments aren't being held: [Linked Image]

What is this posture meant to signify in one instance, and what is the meaning of the difference in the second?

And notice this image of the Sarum Use, why is the celebrant saying the Eucharistic prayers on his knees, as opposed to while standing? [Linked Image]

Michael,

A more knowledgeable friend told me that it is because during the Middle Ages, the priest's chasuble were adorned with lots of jewels (which some still are, albeit rarely) and made of very thick fabric, and the priest could not hold aloft the Victim without the help of holding up his chasuble because of it's weight. Later, more symbolically, the beautiful action represents the grace flowing from the altar and from the Host to the faithful.

And, as for my two cents, the things such as the Last Gospel and the the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar that were either omitted or made optional were great parts of the Mass, even if added later...I don't see what's wrong with them really.

Logos Teen

I saw a photo taken at the Ceremonies at the St Peter the Priest place in Sydney and the celebrant wore a very ancient style of Chasuble that was very long at the back and gathered up on the sides. I would imagine that if he was not careful he could fall over if someone did not enure his feet were clear of garments at the consecration. As this style is older than the sideless models that came in later it may be a continuation of ensuring the priests feets remain clear.

XB! BB!

ICXC
NIKA

I have also heard that the weight of the fabric was the reason for the assistance in holding up the chasuble. A priest friend said some of the older ones were quite heavy, especially for elderly priests. He said cloth of gold, jewels, and ornaments were the norm in ancient times. Wow, no horse blankets. Can you imagine? What were they thinking?

I love how actions in the liturgy that arise out of practical need soon come to acquire a Christian/symbolic meaning, such as this one with the grace flowing from the altar to the faithful.

Logos Teen

You say "when" Pope Benedict frees the TLM. Did he say he was going to? I didn't hear any of the Easter [Pascha] services from Rome on EWTN so I don't know if the Holy Father mentioned it or not. How do you know it will happen?
Thanks. BTW I like your avatar.

I would not be surprised to see/hear something on or about April 30...commemoration day of St. Pius V...

james

I'll believe it when(if) it happens, people keep pushing back the date - it's like the rapturists and apocalyptics who keep predicting the Second Coming again and again.

Which will occur 1st...gas dropping below $3.00 a gallon or the Pius V Missal being reinstated for all to use...

james,remembering 19 cents a gallon regular :rolleyes:

What I saw on Google the Rapture is a very recent concept, 18th century was mentioned and protestant was the source.

American posters are asked not to boast about the cheap price they pay for petrol. In my town we pay just over USA$1.05 approx per litre , never mind gallons. Some people just don't know how well they are off.

ICXC
NIKA

Pardon my posting this...there are a few of us both from the East & West interested in a date that it may/could/really be announced...yesterday I checked my pre Vat II ordo/calendar...and found that St. Pius V memorial is May 5th...

Promise...no more dates from me...

james

Pavel - you think your prices are bad !!!! ??

Today we had to pay USD 1.74 per litre that is I gather 0.26 US Gallons !!!

That is really beginning to hurt

Dear Michael Thomas,

you posted,

"I've always wondered - for those of you who are knowledgable of the Tridentine/PiusV Mass - why is the priest's vestment being held here:"

I think it is, at least in part, because the Priest is about to genuflect. By holding the Chasuble up in the rear, it is held up off the ground during the genuflection.

I really liked the other explantion though. It was awesome. It reminds me of the Chalice Veil being waved during the Creed during Divine Liturgy.

Holy Insanity Batman!

Last Wed I paid about 1USD/liter in Ontario, and I thought that was bad! (I bought just enough to get me to the border, then just had to pay the $3/gallon in New York.)

Reminds me a little of people saying "When the Church approves Medjugorje ..."

Well, I don't think it should, Peter.

Based on Pope Benedict's past writings, he desires the freedom of the TLM (I don't think particularly in and of itself as the be-all and end-all of the liturgical reform, but rather for the advancement of an organic reform).

To have an organic reform, we cannot have as a starting point the New Mass, since it is, as His Holiness has called it, a "fabrication" and a "banal, on-the-spot product."

Organic reform can only come from an organically developed liturgy, i.e. the TLM, but this could also include the 1965 Mass, ISTM.

So it is very little like Medjugorje, unless Benedict has expressed equal zeal in confirming this so-called miracle.

Not to mention, the Traditionalist cause has been gaining steam ever since 1984, and we've made some truly miraculous leaps, and now have a Pontiff who desires the freedom of it. I'd say it's pretty safe to use "when," unless, God forbid, this Pope dies before it is allowed. Even then, I believe this is the only way to salvage the Roman Rite and will inevitable occur as the Traditionalist communities grow by leaps and bounds as they have, and liturgical innovation becomes less and less common, as it is becoming...

Thanks, Irlanda, I like my avatar, too!

Logos Teen

So it's early evening (5:15pm) on May 5th in Rome, anyone have any word on the supposed "declaration" - or are we pushing the date back to the memorial of St. Pius X?

No more dates for me...I seriously doubt that this will occur at all this year...probably a filibuster occured in dealing with the Curia...

Politics are politics...secular or religious.

james

Actually the date has been pushed back to late summer. That is the guess from the of president of Una Voce (hardly an unbiased person).

Here is a link to the article reposted from the Wanderer.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/060501

This whole thing reminds me of those Christians at the end of the 19th century who set a date for the return of Jesus. Didn't they keep changing the date when the previous date came and went without Jesus' return.


David, Byzantine Catholic and Carmelite pre-novice

David,

Well just as long as it doesn't remind you of Medjugorje!

Logos Teen