Recently an old article from Origins was sent to me.
In October 1984, Origins published an article titled: “Tridentine Mass Permission Criticized.” The article reproduces the resolutions put forward by the Congress of Presidents and Secretaries of National Liturgical Commissions held on Oct 23-28, 1984 at the Vatican. The congress strongly criticized the Congregation for Divine Worship for extending its permission for the limited usage of the “Tridentine Mass.”
At the congress, 32 representatives from the English-speaking episcopal conferences were present and “expressed ‘grave concern, regret and dismay’ regarding the recent permission.” The extension of the “Tridentine Mass,” according to the representatives, “appeared to be a movement away from the ecclesiology of Vatican II.” The representatives also questioned the reason for the expanded permission. They felt it ignored the concerns of the worldwide episcopate, “98 percent of whom responded to a 1980 survey that ‘this was not a problem in the church, but rather only the concern of a tiny minority’ (see Origins, vol. 11, pp. 556ff).”
The congress adopted 7 resolutions:
- They “unanimously resolved” that the CDW should be requested to convoke a plenaria gathered under the norms of Regimini Ecclesiae with the consulta called beforehand. It was also resolved that a yearly plenaria be suggested.
- “It was resolved that the Congregation for Divine Worship be informed of the grave concern, regret and dismay with which news of the letter of Oct. 3, 1984, concerning the concession of the missal of 1962 (“Tridentine Mass”) was received.” The congress gave four reasons for this position:
- “The concession appears to be a movement away from the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council.”
- “The indult seems to give support to those who have resisted the liturgical renewal.”
- Based on the 1980 survey of the episcopate they thought that “the concession seems to violate the collegial sense of the worldwide episcopate.”
- They criticized the ability of a local ordinary to allow the “Tridentine Mass” without “the approbatio of an episcopal conference [or] the confirmatio of the Apostolic See.”
- “It was unanimously resolved that a strong statement reaffirming the work of all those engaged in liturgical renewal according to the principles of Vatican II be respectfully requested of His Holiness Pope John Paul II.”
- “[T]he recent division of the Congregation of the Sacraments and Divine Worship posed a potential threat to the ongoing work of liturgical renewal because of a seeming return to a preconciliar understanding of the sacraments.” (Here it is important to note that between 1984-1988 the newly created Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship was split in two, after having only been merged in 1975. The result was the Congregation for the Sacraments and the Congregation for Divine Worship.)
- The Congress also expressed concern about the lack of liturgical adaptation and inculturation. They advocated three points in this regard:
- The congregation should affirm §37-40 of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
- The congregation should respond to proposals concerning liturgical adaptation.
- The congregation should create “centers of liturgical experimentation and adaptation.”
- The congress also called for a more global body of consultors for the Congregation for Divine Worship.
- Lastly, they desired that the ministries outlined in Ministeria Quaedam “be open to all lay persons, men and women.”
It’s a lot to take in!
Summorum Pontificum and the disagreements surrounding the English translation of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal have shown how much the hierarchy has changed since 1984. The conferences of the English speaking world do not share the same viewpoint as their predecessors in the 1980’s, and current bishops who have similar concerns are not willing to expend their ecclesial-political capital on such controversial matters which have little prospect of success.
Those who want the “Tridentine Mass” surely still represent a minority of the Church; however, their number appears to be on the rise. Or, it might just be that they are more vocal, thanks in part to the number of sympathetic ears they have found in the hierarchy for the past decade.
The congress cut to the heart of the matter when it criticized the retrograde ecclesiology articled by the “Tridentine Mass” and the threat that the liberalizing of what we now call the Extraordinary Form poses to the entire reforming project of the Second Vatican Council.
It is crucial today that the Church and the hierarchy navigate a way out of the liturgical crises caused by the liberalizing of the Extraordinary Form. As we continue to unpack Vatican II, we must gather a myriad of diverse voices around the table. This includes those who hold varying opinions about the Extraordinary Form. Shifting demographics in the Church require us to reassess the direction of the reforms in ways which address the concerns of an increasingly diverse, non-Western, and at times divisive community.
We cannot abandon the reforming project begun at Vatican II. Course corrections are understandable, but not wholesale retrograde movements.
The Church has changed a lot since 1984. It is my hope that Pope Francis will create an ecclesial environment in which productive, honest, loving, and respectful dialogue can occur.
Please leave a reply.