Universal Indult

[Aloysius]

lex orandi, lex credandi. if the faithful were offered good solid liturgies, they'd automatically be better catechised than they are now without any need for classes et cetera. all that would be necessary, then, would be to get the priests in the pulpit driving home the point made by the liturgy and preaching good, solid, orthodox doctrine no matter what.

the answer is not to offer adult catechesis classes on wednesday nights in the parish center; the answer is to offer solid liturgies which are catechetical every sunday so we reach the entirety of the masses of Catholics (and double our efforts on Christmas and Easter for the rest of em). orthodox catechetical classes will be attended by the folks we really don't have to worry about, the folks who are ready and willing to listen to the doctrine of the Church. we need to worry about the average Catholic in the pew, and that average Catholic in the pew will never come around unless he is given proper orthodox liturgical prayer which orients him towards proper orthodox belief.

[Era Might]

Documents are only obscure because they aren't made known.

The local Bishop is responsible for Liturgy in his diocese. He is responsible for educating his Priests and people, and overseeing the faithful celebration of the Liturgy.

But more important are Priests. They are the Bishop's "co-workers", and they are the ones who deal with the Liturgy on a day-to-day basis.

I think maybe the Bishops need to be more real with their Priests. Invite every Priest for a serious conversation about their devotion to Catholic orthodoxy and obedience to the Church in all aspects. If a Priest is not willing to assist the Bishop in his mission, then the Priest needs to seriously reconsider his place in the Catholic Priesthood.

We need to reform locally. That's the only way the universal Church will be renewed.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1089507' date='Oct 11 2006, 07:22 PM']the answer is not to offer adult catechesis classes on wednesday nights in the parish center; the answer is to offer solid liturgies which are catechetical every sunday so we reach the entirety of the masses of Catholics (and double our efforts on Christmas and Easter for the rest of em).[/quote]
Who says we can't do both? The Mass is not self-evident. Ordinary Catholics who go to Mass all their life don't know why we do a lot of things we do at Mass. Catechesis is vital, OUTSIDE of Mass.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

this is good news for me!!!!!!!!

maybe this will heal some schisms.

[Aloysius]

yes, we can do both. but liturgy must come first.

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1089510' date='Oct 11 2006, 06:26 PM']
Ordinary Catholics who go to Mass all their life don't know why we do a lot of things we do at Mass. Catechesis is vital, OUTSIDE of Mass.
[/quote]

How do you suppose we get them Catechesis outside of Mass?

[Maria]

Sorry, but catechesis classes are necessary (I'm not saying that good liturgy isn't). For one thing, one only appreciates the liturgy if one has been properly catechized. But really, the adults need to be properly catechized so that they can teach the children. And that's what my diocese is trying to do.

[Aloysius]

by starting it inside of mass good liturgies and good homilies are the only things that can save the Church.

[quote name='Maria' post='1089522' date='Oct 11 2006, 08:35 PM']
Sorry, but catechesis classes are necessary (I'm not saying that good liturgy isn't). For one thing, one only appreciates the liturgy if one has been properly catechized. But really, the adults need to be properly catechized so that they can teach the children. And that's what my diocese is trying to do.
[/quote]
yeah, but the people who go to those are the people we don't have to worry about. they're the good apples, the ones interested in learning what the Church wants to teach them. to reach the average Catholic, we must begin in the liturgy.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Rick777' post='1089521' date='Oct 11 2006, 07:35 PM']How do you suppose we get them Catechesis outside of Mass?[/quote]
Well in the parish the Priest can do a lot on his own, by offering classes and maybe educating through the parish bulletin and other ways.

But, I think it has to be the Bishop who makes it a priority. He can address the entire Archdiocese, and visit individual parishes and start to teach people what Liturgy is, and why we must respect the norms given by the Pastors of the Church.

[onlygrace08]

I hope that the Latin Mass does become a bit more "common". I would love to go to one although, I am pretty sure that there is no church in my diocese that has the Latin Mass. perhaps I should check that out....

[Socrates]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1089001' date='Oct 11 2006, 10:44 AM']
I would like to see the Latin Mass reinstated, but not at the expense of the Mass in the vernacular. They should co-exist, methinks, and let the parishoners decide which to attend.

That said, if the Latin Mass is indeed returned, I would like to see:
1. all the pomp and sacredness returned as well...I miss incense and altar servers (not acolytes) that do not wear tennis shoes *grr*
2. the priest should continue to face the congregation...that is the original setup and was only turned around because of the celebration of Mass in the catacombs. Facing the confregation also more fully signifies the participation of the ordinary folks in the sacrifice that is the Mass.
3. a fix of the 'abuses' in the vernacular Mass, especially a return of the holy and sacred trappings
[/quote]
Actually, even in the Novus Ordo, the norm is supposed to be Ad Orientum.
That is the proper form, and recalls the sacrificial nature of the Mass. The priest leads the people in worshipping God. The people are not worshipping the priest nor vise-versa.

Your "original setup" seems to refer to the Last Supper, and using this logic, we should all be reclining around a table at mass.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1089510' date='Oct 11 2006, 08:26 PM']
Documents are only obscure because they aren't made known.

[/quote]
Wrong.

documents are obscure because they are hard to understand unless you study them, and few people have that inclination.
What lay people need is good solid Cliffs Notes for these documents, but we don't get it. We get the 'concept' of the documents. We get the higher theology explained to us without the practical application, or the practical application is almost always explained as "be nice." That gets old. Why do you think we get all excited when the priest actually says something controversial in his homilies??? Because we are actually receiving guidance that is different from that we received in kindergarten.
Bullet points and proscriptions for behavior work on the uneducated...which MOST of us are. When a priest says "It's a sin to have premarital sex," it sounds so much clearer than a long exposition on the sanctity of marriage and its unitive and procreative aspects. And the unwashed masses need clarity, not theological concepts that don't impact their day to day lives.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1089646' date='Oct 11 2006, 11:57 PM']
Your "original setup" seems to refer to the Last Supper, and using this logic, we should all be reclining around a table at mass.
[/quote]
seen it

[Cam42]

[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1089477' date='Oct 11 2006, 05:39 PM']
Some of you have written about the need for bishops to teach the faithful more about the liturgy in order to effect positive change. This is ridiculous. Every time an abuse occurs, or a disciplinary change, or whatever the call is always for "catechesis." What this means for the faithful is that no action is really going to be taken, or that some document is going to produced, in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, which only a theologian could interpret in an orthodox manner, but which also stirs up controversy and rumours amongst the enemies of the Church. "Catechesis," even if it were properly instituted, is generally useless for accomplishing change at all anyway. Rather, catechesis only is effective when a group of people is already wanting/pursuing change, as in RCIA, etc. Otherwise, it is usually outside the scope of most ordinary Catholics' range of time or talent.

If positive changes are going to occur IMO, it must be in the form of concrete action: replacement of bishops, alterations to Canon Law, creation of new disciplines, or, at best, setting up programs for the synods and conferences to enforce on their members. It must be concrete. It must be real. The "catechesis" solution is one which only ever existed in the idealistic notions of the Second Vatican Council Fathers, and one which is really just a way of ordaining theologians to supremacy. It is ridiculous.

If, on the other hand, the strictures of the Mass, including a return to Latin, are observed and enforced, there is little reason why the ideological worms eating at our hierarchical core should not be removed. It worked in Trent, but, just like a toggle switch, was turned back off by the post-Conciliar frenzy, returning us to the worst forms of pettiness and political posturing.
[/quote]

Why is this idea of catechesis ridiculous? What do you think that catechesis is? What it is, is right thinking teaching of the Church to her faithful. That is precisely what catechesis is. When one calls for catechesis, then one is calling for the Church to teach the right thinking methods for her actions.

Is catechesis needed in this matter. Oh yes. Is catechesis needed to promote the Pauline Mass. Oh yes.

When one says, as you have, that catechesis is a scapegoat for non-action, then you are falling into the intended trap of those who seek to undermine the Church and her teaching authority and teaching action. When one actually takes catechesis seriously, then one can actually affect a change. That is the point of catechesis.

It is a good think that Ss. Peter and Paul didn't follow this logic. Their letters in the Bible are to established Churches, so this is precisely what they are doing, btw. (It would be evangelization if they were talking to non-believers.) The Bible is one of the best examples of pure catechesis. Praise God for that.

I am absolutely certain that the Church is not wanting to only minster and teach to those who want change but also to inspire and "recapture" those who have fallen into dispair or less obtrusively into sloth concerning the faith.

None of this falls outside the scope of the "ordinary Catholic," but rather is readily understandable. All the Mass is, is a representation of the Last Supper and the Sacrifice of Calvary. It really isn't harder than that. The difficulty comes when one is subjected to "personalism." When the priests and "powers-that-be" interject their personalities into the Mass then the trouble starts.

The easiet way to understand this is how it was explained to me years ago (by a liturgist priest and musicologist) and has also been stated in this forum......

Priest does the [color="red"]red[/color] parts, speaks the parts labeled his and the people respond to the parts labeled theirs. There shouldn't be a need for any innovation in this matter. That really isn't how it is done though is it? No. So, there is a need for the bishops to be catechized by the Vatican; the priests to be catechized by the bishops, and the faithful to be catechized by the priests (and bishops when necessary) without the hinderance at ANY GIVEN POINT by "personalism."

The concept is so simple that it is hard.

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1089001' date='Oct 11 2006, 10:44 AM']
I would like to see the Latin Mass reinstated, but not at the expense of the Mass in the vernacular. They should co-exist, methinks, and let the parishoners decide which to attend.

That said, if the Latin Mass is indeed returned, I would like to see:
1. all the pomp and sacredness returned as well...I miss incense and altar servers (not acolytes) that do not wear tennis shoes *grr*
2. the priest should continue to face the congregation...that is the original setup and was only turned around because of the celebration of Mass in the catacombs. Facing the confregation also more fully signifies the participation of the ordinary folks in the sacrifice that is the Mass.
3. a fix of the 'abuses' in the vernacular Mass, especially a return of the holy and sacred trappings
[/quote]


First, the Mass was never intended to be celebrated in the Vernacular completely. Only parts were to be considered IF it were of genuine pastoral need. That has never actually been proven. Go figure.

Now......

1. I agree.

2. That has never been a norm. That has always been the acception. Read the documents. You can also search my screen name and the search string use "ad orientam." I have spoken about this ad infinitum. It is misconception that the Masses were celebrated "versus populum" in the catacombs. I have been to Mass in the catacombs and the altars there were not conviently oriented that way, even the free standing ones......hmmmmmm........Facing the people does NOT "more fully signifies the participation of the ordinary folks in the sacrifice that is the Mass." That is a ludicrous idea.

I posit this for your consideration. The priest when celebrating Mass is in "persona Christi." His role is that of mediator. He is not presiding but celebrating WITH the people, the unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary. In that way it makes little sense that he is separated from the congregation by the mensa of the altar. It makes much more sense that he is leading the people in the mediation of prayer to God the Father as "persona Christi." In that manner, it makes much more sense for him to face the same direction as the faithful for whom he is mediating.

3. That is redundant with #1.

[Donna]

Don't know if the following says any more than previously...it's from the AP (via Detroit Free Press) and differentiates the signing and the making public.

+++

[url="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061012/NEWS07/610120400/1009"]http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article.../610120400/1009[/url]

Published: October 12. 2006 3:00AM
Nation/World
Pope loosens Latin mass restrictions

October 12, 2006

BY VICTOR L. SIMPSON

ASSOCIATED PRESS
VATICAN CITY -- Pope Benedict XVI has decided to loosen restrictions on use of the old Latin mass, making a major concession to ultraconservatives who split with the Vatican to protest liberalizing reforms, a Vatican official said Wednesday.

The pope's intent is to help overcome the schism and help bring the ultraconservatives back to the church, said the official, who asked that his name not be used because the papal document has not yet been released.

It was not immediately clear when the pope will make his decision public, but the official said it was expected soon. The Times of London, in a report Wednesday, said the pope had already signed the order and it could be published in the next few weeks.

The late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the Swiss-based Society of St. Pius X in 1969 in opposition to the reforms of the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, particularly allowing mass to be celebrated in local languages instead of Latin. The Vatican excommunicated Lefebvre in 1988 after he consecrated four bishops without Rome's consent.

Benedict has indicated he wants relations with the St. Pius X group to be normalized. He met last year with the current head of the society, Bishop Bernard Fellay.

The Tridentine mass, the name of the old Latin mass, can now only be celebrated with permission of the local bishop. In addition to the use of Latin, the priest faces the altar -- his back to the worshippers -- and there are no lay readers as in the modern mass.

[popestpiusx]

I figured there would be some buzz about this on here.

[popestpiusx]

Here is some additional information for those who doubt the veracity of these reports. For the record, I do not doubt that a document liberalizing the Traditional Latin Mass is imminent. What form it will take, as far as the specific arrangement of said liberalization is concerned, I am most interested to find out. In any case, here are the other articles and links.



From the Italian Bishops Conference (CEI):
[url="http://www.db.avvenire.it/avvenire/edizione_2006_10_12/sfoglia/18.pdf"]http://www.db.avvenire.it/avvenire/edizion.../sfoglia/18.pdf[/url]

From Andrea Tornelli at Il Giornale:
[url="http://www.ilgiornale.it/a.pic1?ID=125241"]http://www.ilgiornale.it/a.pic1?ID=125241[/url]

Fr. Zuhlsdorf's translation of one of Tornelli's articles:
[url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/10/il-giornale-the-mass-in-latin-returns-the-popes-decree-is-ready/"]http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/10/il-giornale...ecree-is-ready/[/url]

La Stampa:
[url="http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezioni/cronache/200610articoli/11957girata.asp"]http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezion...11957girata.asp[/url]

La Republica:
[url="http://www.repubblica.it/news/ired/ultimora/2006/rep_nazionale_n_1805826.html?ref=hpsbdx"]http://www.repubblica.it/news/ired/ultimor...html?ref=hpsbdx[/url]

There are others as well.

French (Interview with Fr. Lageurie (Superior General of the Institute of the Good Shepherd):
[url="http://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.php?num=225678"]http://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.php?num=225678[/url]


Also, the fact that the FrenChurch hierarchy is up in arms is a good sign that this was true. They are used to bullying their way around the Vatican. Let us hope and pray that the Holy Father will have the strength and courage to fight off the wolves who so desire to devour the sheep.

[popestpiusx]

The Possible Future of the Tridentine Liturgy: An Analysis (by Shawn Tribe of [url="http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/"]http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/[/url] )

There is a great deal of speculative journalism going on with regards to the Tridentine document forthcoming, which is perhaps mixing up what we presently know about this document as it may stand, and what are perhaps some of the lobbying and/or debates that are behind the scenes in regard to it.

I should like to break down the matter by looking at the possible end results that might forthcome from all this, if we base it upon what some journalists are suggesting they are hearing, and then analyze these in the light of the liturgical considerations of Benedict.

Let me note, this is not a prediction. It's an attempt to dissect all the stories that are out there that we might think about the issue critically and responsibly.

Possible Liturgical Ends of the Tridentine Document:

1) The Ordinary/Normative Model: Total liberalization of the 1962 Missale Romanum within an ordinary model -- no restrictions at all.

2) The Extraordinary/Normative Model: Near total liberalization within an "extra-ordinary" model. Normative in that sense of full allowance and full membership in the Roman rite, but not the ordinary rite. No permission is required, but with possible guidelines in terms of how much it might be used in a typical diocesan parish setting in relation to the ordinary rite.

3) The Inversed-Indult Model: Permission is a granted norm, excepting at the intervention of the local Ordinary who may choose, within certain defined criterions, to not allow.

4) The Free-upon-local-Conditions Model: Permission is granted, but the local Ordinary may choose to lay down the local diocesan conditions whereby that permission can be exercised in public masses -- e.g. perhaps a numerical matter of 30 or more faithful requesting, etc. -- but where, theoretically at least, if those criterion are filled, the Ordinary is not to deny.


Benedict's Liturgical and Pastoral Thought:

1) Leaven is needed for the reform of the reform, but it must occur in a way which is not an adminstrative tinkering with the Pauline books, as happened at the Council, and which Benedict is steadfast in resisting as an approach. He has long seen the 1962 Missale Romanum as having an answer to this. It's wider celebration, and permeation into the greater parish life of the Roman rite might thereby help kickstart the reform of the reform.

2) Benedict was dismayed at the abolishment of this rite which had grown up through the centuries, something he saw as very damaging and unprecedented.

3) Benedict desires to reach out to groups like the SSPX, for whom the free celebration of this rite, and its non-indult status is an important point.

4) Aware of the crisis in the Church, liturgically, theologically, etc. and the hermeneutic of rupture, there is a need to draw traditional liturgics, theology, formation and so on very clearly in the heart and centre, and no longer be written off as somehow "fringe" that the voice of the tradition may again be more clearly heard and that a hermeneutic of continuity may be more clearly seen.

5) Pastorally, Benedict is aware that despite the problems with the Pauline reforms, this is also a liturgy that has been around for decades and which many are now used to, or have only known. A radical shift will be harmful in his view just as it was following the Council. He will want to pastorally protect those faithful from this.

6) He will want to respond to the concerns of the bishops and will want to somehow give them some assurance so as not to provoke new schisms, and to help secure their tacit cooperation in the matter so that points 1 and 3 might also be accomplished still.

7) He will want to make clear that this is not a rejection of the Council or the principle of the Conciliar liturgical reform, while balancing this with point 1 and the need for a reform of the reform.

Analysis of these Possible Ends in the light of these Benedictine Considerations:

Model #1: (the ordinary/normative model that sees absolutely no restrictions) seems unlikely as there would be too much opposition from members of the episcopate and parts of the Curia. While it might work out fine, many would critique this, rightly or wrongly, as a rejection of the Council. Benedict, I think, cannot afford the document to be too utterly controversial as it could then backfire and not have the effects desired for the reform of the reform, for groups like the SSPX, etc. As well, he will want to protect consideration #5 in regard to the faithful accustomed to the Pauline rite.

Model #3: (the inversed indult; whereby permission is granted unless explicitly denied by the bishop) seems possible but a little less likely in regards to the SSPX issue on the one hand, and secondarily, perhaps, in Benedict's awareness that there have been trials in applying the existing indult of 1988. The SSPX will likely see this as not being a real shift, since ultimately an arbitrary judgement on the part of the Ordinary could still occur. Moreover, it also has the greater potential to not allow the same leavening effect for the reform of the reform. After model #2, this model does seem to be a very strong contender as a possibiilty with the caveat that it depends upon the nature and conditions of the Bishop's authority to disallow, which could thus also lessen the SSPX's concerns about arbitrary disallowance.

Model #4: faces very similiar issues as #3, but seems even less likely than #3.

Model #2: would seem to meet all the considerations of Benedict the best. The denotation of ordinary vs. extraordinary, and any numerical stipulation about what may or may not happen in non-personal parishes protects the status of the FSSP, etc. while also addressing the pastoral concerns of the typical diocesan parish, and potentially can assauge the concerns of those bishops who simply are concerned with the matter from a pastoral perspective, rather than an ideological opposition to the 1962 Missal. Such a denotation and "caveat" also protects the idea that this is not a rejection of the Council, while allowing for the greatest overall freedom (which the SSPX will want to see) for the 1962 Missal. This in turns bodes the best for it kickstarting a reform of the reform.

Further considerations that could influence the model chosen:

The wildcard in all these considerations comes down to the bishops and the level of their opposition. How will Benedict manage this? Will he be able to do so without compromising his own liturgical vision to date? This is a key question that we cannot answer.

[popestpiusx]

More squirming from the libs:

[url="http://ncrcafe.org/node/546"]http://ncrcafe.org/node/546[/url]

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='popestpiusx' post='1095866' date='Oct 19 2006, 02:16 PM']
More squirming from the libs:

[url="http://ncrcafe.org/node/546"]http://ncrcafe.org/node/546[/url]
[/quote]
wow. it really is sort of annoying to read their hemming and hawing.

[Era Might]

[quote]In the Tridentine rite, we’re saying that the priest is the principal mediator, and the baptized don’t have much of a role. That doesn’t reflect anymore who we are as church, which is the reason the liturgy was reformed in the first place.[/quote]
This is a very ignorant statement, and I think the Eastern Churches would take offense at this as well.

The Liturgy was reformed to better facilitate our attention and experience, not to change "who we are as church". Pope St. Pius X was speaking on the need for reform long before the Council, and put his emphasis on OUR devotion, not on the theology of the Mass, which remains valid:

[quote]Being moved with the most ardent desire to see the true Christian spirit flourish again in every way among all the faithful, the first thing to which We must turn our attention is the holiness and dignity of the temple. [b]There Our people assemble for the purpose of acquiring the Christian spirit from its first and indispensable source, namely the active participation in the most sacred mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church.[/b] It is vain to hope for such copious blessings from Heaven if our worship of the Most High, rather than ascending with an odor of sweetness, again puts into our Lord's hands the scourges with which the unworthy profaners were once driven out of the temple by the Divine Redeemer.

--"Tra le sollicitudini"[/quote]
The Priest [i]is[/i] the "principle mediator", because he represents us before God, as the Second Vatican Council teaches:

[quote]Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present.

--"Sacrosanctum Concilium"[/quote]
"Active participation" has nothing to do with being busy-bodies, but with fully understanding our participation in the Mass, and entering into it each and every moment. St. Pius X also encourages us, "Don't pray at Holy Mass, but pray the Holy Mass".

The reform of the Mass did not involve a change in Catholic doctrine concerning what Liturgy is or who the Priest is. If it did, then that would present a serious problem for the Eastern Churches, whose Liturgies remain the same (for example, they continue to face East). The reforms were intended to give a fuller precision to the Roman Liturgy. It's evident how far we have strayed from the authentic spirit of the Council when we are deathly afraid of the Liturgical heritage of the Latin Church before 1969. Sacrosanctum Concilium was VERY cautious about introducing any changes:

[quote]That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.[/quote]
The focus was always on genuine and measured progress, not repudiating what came before.

[quote]Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.[/quote]
Among those lawfully acknowledged rites so esteemed by the Second Vatican Council is the Tridentine Missal. It's not a relic for old people, but a living tradition of the Church, and has its place alongside many other Liturgical traditions, including the reformed Mass of Pope Paul VI. Whether the Holy Father issues a new indult or not, his intent is always to foster the legitimate heritage of the Church, and not to appease political factions.

[popestpiusx]

Can the existence of two rites fracture unity?
Cardinal Ratzinger explains why not

"It is good to remember ... what Cardinal Newman affirmed when he said that the Church in all her history has never abolished or prohibited orthodox liturgical forms (forms which express the true faith) which would be totally foreign, to the spirit of the Church.

The authority of the Church can define and limit the use of rites in different historical situations. She never prohibits them purely and simply! The Council, therefore, ordered a reform of the liturgical books, but it never forbade the previous books. The criterion which the Council enunciated is both vaster and more demanding. It invites everyone to self-criticism! ...

One must examine the other argument which pretends that the existence of two rites can fracture unity. One must distinguish, here, the [1] theological from the [2] practical side of the question.

[1] Theologically and fundamentally one has to realize that several forms of the Latin Rite have always existed and that they retreated but slowly only as Europe was unified. Up to the Council, there existed along side the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite of Toledo, the Rite of Braga, the Rite of the Carthusians and the Carmelites and the best know the Dominican Rite; and perhaps other ones which I do not know. Nobody was ever scandalized that the Dominicans, often when present in parishes, did not celebrate like parish priests but rather had their own rite. We had no doubt that their rite was both Catholic and Roman. We were proud of the richness of having several rites.

[2] The free space which the new order of Mass gives to creativity, it must be admitted, is often excessively enlarged. The difference between the liturgy with the new liturgical books, as it is actually practiced and celebrated in various places is often much greater than the difference between the old and new liturgies when celebrated according to the rubrics of the liturgical books.

An average Christian without special liturgical formation would be hard-pressed to distinguish a Sung Mass in Latin according to the Old Missal from a Sung Mass in Latin celebrated according to the New Missal. The difference, by contrast, can be enormous between a liturgy faithfully celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI and the concrete forms and celebrations in the vernacular with all the possible freedom and creativity! With these considerations we have already crossed the threshold between theory and practice where matters are naturally more complex since the question of human relationships arises.
...

If the unity of the faith and the unicity of the mystery appear clearly in the two forms of celebration, this can only be a reason for all to rejoice and thank God. In so far as we believe, live and act on these motives, we can also persuade the bishops that the presence of the ancient liturgy does not disorder or injure the unity of their diocese, but rather it is a gift destined to build up the Body of Christ of which we are all servants.
So, my dear friends, I would like to encourage you not to lose patience - to remain confident- and to exercise in the liturgy the necessary courage to bear witness for the Lord in our times."




Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Conference on the Tenth Anniversary of the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei
Rome, October 24, 1998.

from [url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/"]http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/[/url]