Author Topic: Reforming the Irreformable? A priest begins to see the light vis-a-vie the NO  (Read 9348 times)

Offline Parresia

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2374
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Religion: Catholic. Straight, no chaser.
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/02/reforming-irreformable.html

Here is the meat of the article, but there is more worth reading at the link above.

Quote
But let us suppose, practically speaking and perhaps per impossibile, that the ‘reform of the reform’ were to receive substantive institutional support. Even so, I doubt the endeavor would be feasible—if we take that term to mean the reform of the present order of liturgy so as to bring it substantially back into line with the slowly developed tradition it widely displaced. It is not sour grapes about last year’s papal abdication that prompts my saying so. Like any movement, the ‘reform of the reform’ stands or falls on its own principles, not on any one pope or partisan. No: the ‘reform of the reform’ is not realizable because the material discontinuity between the two forms of the Roman rite presently in use is much broader and much deeper than I had first imagined. In the decade that has elapsed since the publication of my book, The Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate (Ignatius Press, 2003), which concerns almost exclusively the rite of Mass, a number of important scholarly studies, most notably those of László Dobszay (†2011)6 and Lauren Pristas,7 have opened my eyes to the hack-job inflicted by Pope Paul VI’s Consilium on the whole liturgical edifice of the Latin Church: the Mass; the Divine Office; the rites of the sacraments, sacramentals, blessings and other services of the Roman Ritual; and so forth.8 Whatever else might be said of the reformed liturgy—its pastoral benefits, its legitimacy, its rootedness in theological ressourcement, its hegemonic status, etc.—the fact remains: it does not represent an organic development of the liturgy which Vatican II (and, four centuries earlier, the Council of Trent) inherited.

There are significant ruptures in content and form that cannot be remedied simply by restoring Gregorian chant to primacy of place as the music of the Roman rite, expanding the use of Latin and improving vernacular translations of the Latin liturgical texts, using the Roman Canon more frequently (if not exclusively),9 reorienting the altar, and rescinding certain permissions. As important as it is to celebrate the reformed rites correctly, reverently, and in ways that make the continuity with tradition more obvious, such measures leave untouched the essential content of the rites. Any future attempt at liturgical reconciliation, or renewal in continuity with tradition, would have to take into account the complete overhaul of the propers of the Mass;10  the replacement of the Offertory prayers with modern compositions; the abandonment of the very ancient annual Roman cycle of Sunday Epistles and Gospels; the radical recasting of the calendar of saints; the abolition of the ancient Octave of Pentecost, the pre-Lenten season of Septuagesima and the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost; the dissolution of the centuries-old structure of the Hours; and so much more. To draw the older and newer forms of the liturgy closer to each other would require much more movement on the part of the latter form, so much so that it seems more honest to speak of a gradual reversal of the reform (to the point where it once again connects with the liturgical tradition received by the Council) rather than a reform of it.

...What is needed is not a ‘reform of the reform’ but rather a cautious adaptation of the Tridentine liturgy in accordance with the principles laid down by Sacrosanctum Concilium (as happened in the immediate aftermath of that document’s promulgation in 1963), using what we have learned from the experience of the past fifty years.11


Some here on SD will probably believe he has not gone far enough.  I for one, am happy to see a diocesan priest who a) has come to this conclusion after publicly writing otherwise in the past; and b) is willing to write about his in a public blog and put his name to it. 
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 10:47:52 AM by Parresia »
 

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20516
  • Thanked: 6165 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
I was astonished Fr Kocik went this far!  I was going to post it when I got to a computer,  but my jaw was dropped the entire time I read it.

That he called the Novus Ordo a hackjob...  very brave.  This priest will likely need our prayers, and God willing may he continue to educate and lead people to the truth.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 

Offline Parresia

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2374
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Religion: Catholic. Straight, no chaser.
I was astonished Fr Kocik went this far!  I was going to post it when I got to a computer,  but my jaw was dropped the entire time I read it.

That he called the Novus Ordo a hackjob...  very brave.  This priest will likely need our prayers, and God willing may he continue to educate and lead people to the truth.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Agreed on all fronts.  The bishop that posted his agreement in the comments is the Apostolic Nuncio to Ukraine.  God bless him as well!
 

Offline Bonaventure

  • Oberstleutnant
  • Hauptmann
  • *****
  • Posts: 9047
  • Thanked: 1638 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Good for him.
 

Offline Parresia

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2374
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Religion: Catholic. Straight, no chaser.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-end-of-reform-of-reform-kociks.html

Some interesting analysis of Fr. Kocik's comments.


Quote
In 1841 the last of the Tracts for our Times, as they were called, was published.  This was the last of a series of 90 tracts dealing with ecclesial issues by a group of Anglicans who wanted the Church of England to return to a more Catholic understanding of the nature of the Church and the Sacraments.  The main writers of these Tracts were Edward Bouverie Pusey, John Keble, and John Henry Newman.  These Tracts caused a sensation in mid-nineteenth century England and were the written foundation of what became known as the Oxford Movement.  The most famous, or infamous, of the Tracts was number 90, written by Newman.  In this Tract, Newman insists that the Articles of Religion of the Church of England could be interpreted in a Catholic way, so that, for example, a member of the Church of England could believe in the Real Presence despite the seeming denial of that doctrine in the Articles.   Tract 90 was the last straw for many in the Established Church, and the Anglican Bishop of Oxford forbade the publication of more Tracts.  As readers of Newman’s Apologia know, the Tracts served as a basis for the understanding of the Anglican Church as the Via Media between the errors of Rome and the errors of Protestantism.  The suppression of the Tracts by the bishop and the furious reaction against them began that process of thought and spiritual discernment in Newman that found its fruit in his entering the Catholic Church.   It also marked the end of the illusory notion of Anglicanism as the Via Media.


The “New Liturgical Movement” that sprang up in the 1990s concerned itself with “the reform of the reform”.  This movement, which was and has always been diffuse, was grounded in dissatisfaction with the Novus Ordo rite of Mass. The sources of this dissatisfaction were many and varied:  the liturgical abuses in the ‘70s and ‘80s, the faulty translations of the Latin into the vernacular; the near disappearance of an ars celebrandi; the disappearance of chant and polyphony and the ubiquity of folksy tunes with sentimental texts, first popularized by the St. Louis Jesuits and then institutionalized by the publishers of Missalettes; the lack of reverence at the typical parish Mass: one could list many more such sources of dissatisfaction.  The purpose of the “Reform of the Reform" movement was to correct the abuses that were the source of dissatisfaction.  But the movement assumed, in the main, that the goal was a reform of the Novus Ordo rite in the direction of Catholic Tradition.  It was assumed that the Novus Ordo was  the proper fruit of the Second Vatican Council and that it was now “the Roman rite”, pure and simple.  The Indult given by Pope John Paul II to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal was understood, again by most if not all, as something not having to do with the Reform of the Reform.


Much has changed since the beginning of the “Reform of the Reform” movement.  Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum forced the movement to reassess its complete acceptance of the Novus Ordo rite as the “continuation” of the Roman rite, as merely a contemporary revision of the Roman rite.  Whatever the logical and theological and liturgical and historical problems within the declaration of Summorum Pontificum that there are now two "forms" of the Roman rite, as contained in the 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII and the 1970 Missal of  Pope Paul VI, the question of the continuity of the two rites, which question had been raised by a number of theologians including Joseph Ratzinger, now came to the fore.  The basic supposition of the Reform of the Reform movement, namely the continuity of the two "forms", was severely threatened.


When one looks back to the beginning of the criticism of the 1970 Missal, one sees the evolution of a thought process that is analogous to that of the Oxford Movement as seen in the Tracts for our Times.  Aidan Nichols, Klaus Gamber, Lauren Pristas, Joseph Ratzinger, and Alcuin Reid, to name only a few, were in their own way authors of “tracts” that dealt with the flaws, weaknesses and discontinuities with Tradition inherent in the 1970 Missal.  These Tracts refused to adopt the “positivist” attitude that whatever happens in the Church is good and is the will of God and cannot be questioned.  The penultimate Tract, which we can call analogously Tract 89, was Alcuin Reid’s forceful exposition, in his address to the Church Music Association of America on October 15, 2013,  of the question of the role and scope of papal authority with respect to the Liturgy, when it is shorn of both positivism and ultramontanism. These contemporary Tractarians used scholarship, empirical data and the historical proceedings of the post-Conciliar Consilium---and common sense—to expose the shaky foundations of the assertion that the 1970 Missal was continuous with the Traditional Roman Rite.


Just this past Sunday, February 9,  Fr. Thomas Kocik published the equivalent of Tract 90 on the New Liturgical Movement website.  Fr. Kocik has been one of the leading lights in the Reform of the Reform movement.  Those who know Fr. Kocik know him to be above all a parish priest whose love for the Liturgy is at the center of his priesthood.  He is a scholar and a man of the Church. His book, The Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate (Ignatius Press, 2003), is a cogent and spirited defense of the Reform of the Reform movement.  This book was certainly one of the important “Tracts” in the evolving understanding of the post-Conciliar Liturgy.  The “Dean” of the Reform of the Reform movement writes as follows in his article of only a few days ago, Reforming the Irreformable?:


There are significant ruptures in content and form that cannot be remedied simply by restoring Gregorian chant to primacy of place as the music of the Roman rite, expanding the use of Latin and improving vernacular translations of the Latin liturgical texts, using the Roman Canon more frequently (if not exclusively), reorienting the altar, and rescinding certain permissions. As important as it is to celebrate the reformed rites correctly, reverently, and in ways that make the continuity with tradition more obvious, such measures leave untouched the essential content of the rites. Any future attempt at liturgical reconciliation, or renewal in continuity with tradition, would have to take into account the complete overhaul of the propers of the Mass;  the replacement of the Offertory prayers with modern compositions; the abandonment of the very ancient annual Roman cycle of Sunday Epistles and Gospels; the radical recasting of the calendar of saints; the abolition of the ancient Octave of Pentecost, the pre-Lenten season of Septuagesima and the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost; the dissolution of the centuries-old structure of the Hours; and so much more. To draw the older and newer forms of the liturgy closer to each other would require much more movement on the part of the latter form, so much so that it seems more honest to speak of a gradual reversal of the reform (to the point where it once again connects with the liturgical tradition received by the Council) rather than a reform of it…


In the meantime, improvements can be made here and there in the ars celebrandi of the Ordinary Form. But the road to achieving a sustainable future for the traditional Roman rite—and to achieving the liturgical vision of Vatican II, which ordered the moderate adaptation of that rite, not its destruction—is the beautiful and proper celebration, in an increasing number of locations, of the Extraordinary Form, with every effort to promote the core principle (properly understood) of “full, conscious and active participation” of the faithful (SC 14).


This is indeed “Tract 90” for the "reform of the reform" and sounds the death knell of any serious attempt to hold onto the fiction of continuity between the 1970 Missal and the Traditional Roman rite.  Just as Tract 90 marked the end of Newman’s attempt to find a Catholic continuity and a Via Media in Anglicanism, so does Fr. Kocik’s public articulation of the abandonment of his attempt to find a liturgical and theological continuity between the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Roman rite mark the end of the Reform of the Reform movement. What must be done now—and this will require much laborandum et orandum—is to make the Extraordinary-----ordinary.


Father Richard G. Cipolla

Hopefully, this is the start of something that will spread.
 

Offline Der Polka-König

  • Inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te.
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 302
  • Thanked: 128 times
  • Ein Maß dunkles, bitte!
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Best part is, this article has even gotten lots of NO Catholics talking about this, and many of my Novus Ordo friends/acquaintances sympathizing with the Reverend Father's view. The TLM is authentically Catholic, the NO is a human fabrication. The more people that come to realize that, the better things will become, I hope.
"The Modernists pass the same judgment on the most holy Fathers of the Church as they pass on tradition; decreeing, with amazing effrontery that, while personally most worthy of all veneration, they were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived. Finally, the Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself by sacrilegiously falsifying its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries."

-- St Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis
 

Offline Parresia

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2374
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Religion: Catholic. Straight, no chaser.
Best part is, this article has even gotten lots of NO Catholics talking about this, and many of my Novus Ordo friends/acquaintances sympathizing with the Reverend Father's view. The TLM is authentically Catholic, the NO is a human fabrication. The more people that come to realize that, the better things will become, I hope.

Same here.  B16 said as much when he called the NO Mass a "Banal on the spot product".  If something was "on the spot" it can hardly be consistent with Sacred Tradition now can it? 
 

Offline Petrie

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1489
  • Thanked: 2 times
Best part is, this article has even gotten lots of NO Catholics talking about this, and many of my Novus Ordo friends/acquaintances sympathizing with the Reverend Father's view. The TLM is authentically Catholic, the NO is a human fabrication. The more people that come to realize that, the better things will become, I hope.

Same here.  B16 said as much when he called the NO Mass a "Banal on the spot product".  If something was "on the spot" it can hardly be consistent with Sacred Tradition now can it?

And yet he did nothing to stop it.  It's banal, but we're going to keep using it AND call it the ordinary form.
Also known as 2Vermont in case you were wondering :-)
 

Offline Parresia

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2374
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Religion: Catholic. Straight, no chaser.
Best part is, this article has even gotten lots of NO Catholics talking about this, and many of my Novus Ordo friends/acquaintances sympathizing with the Reverend Father's view. The TLM is authentically Catholic, the NO is a human fabrication. The more people that come to realize that, the better things will become, I hope.

Same here.  B16 said as much when he called the NO Mass a "Banal on the spot product".  If something was "on the spot" it can hardly be consistent with Sacred Tradition now can it?

And yet he did nothing to stop it.  It's banal, but we're going to keep using it AND call it the ordinary form.

I think we might find in the years to come that SP will have done much to stop it eventually, particularly when combined with his other teachings on the Mass.  Had he tried to completely legislate the end of the NO, it would have caused so many problems in the Church that multiple schisms might have developed as a result.  Therefore, he gave us SP in the hopes that it would bear the proper fruit in the future.  Don't get me wrong. I am not laboring under the impression that B16 is a traditionalist, but I also think we are just now beginning to see what the meaning and implications of SP will be in the years to come. 
 

Offline Petrie

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1489
  • Thanked: 2 times
Best part is, this article has even gotten lots of NO Catholics talking about this, and many of my Novus Ordo friends/acquaintances sympathizing with the Reverend Father's view. The TLM is authentically Catholic, the NO is a human fabrication. The more people that come to realize that, the better things will become, I hope.

Same here.  B16 said as much when he called the NO Mass a "Banal on the spot product".  If something was "on the spot" it can hardly be consistent with Sacred Tradition now can it?

And yet he did nothing to stop it.  It's banal, but we're going to keep using it AND call it the ordinary form.

I think we might find in the years to come that SP will have done much to stop it eventually, particularly when combined with his other teachings on the Mass.  Had he tried to completely legislate the end of the NO, it would have caused so many problems in the Church that multiple schisms might have developed as a result.  Therefore, he gave us SP in the hopes that it would bear the proper fruit in the future.  Don't get me wrong. I am not laboring under the impression that B16 is a traditionalist, but I also think we are just now beginning to see what the meaning and implications of SP will be in the years to come.

I don't know if I agree with you.  I see SP as a way to get those traditionalists on board and keep quiet.  As long as the TLM is "allowed" how many folks will really fight for a complete overhaul?
Also known as 2Vermont in case you were wondering :-)
 

Offline Parresia

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2374
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Religion: Catholic. Straight, no chaser.
Best part is, this article has even gotten lots of NO Catholics talking about this, and many of my Novus Ordo friends/acquaintances sympathizing with the Reverend Father's view. The TLM is authentically Catholic, the NO is a human fabrication. The more people that come to realize that, the better things will become, I hope.

Same here.  B16 said as much when he called the NO Mass a "Banal on the spot product".  If something was "on the spot" it can hardly be consistent with Sacred Tradition now can it?

And yet he did nothing to stop it.  It's banal, but we're going to keep using it AND call it the ordinary form.

I think we might find in the years to come that SP will have done much to stop it eventually, particularly when combined with his other teachings on the Mass.  Had he tried to completely legislate the end of the NO, it would have caused so many problems in the Church that multiple schisms might have developed as a result.  Therefore, he gave us SP in the hopes that it would bear the proper fruit in the future.  Don't get me wrong. I am not laboring under the impression that B16 is a traditionalist, but I also think we are just now beginning to see what the meaning and implications of SP will be in the years to come.

I don't know if I agree with you.  I see SP as a way to get those traditionalists on board and keep quiet.  As long as the TLM is "allowed" how many folks will really fight for a complete overhaul?

I understanding why you might feel that way, I really do. 

I would suggest that if no one sees the two rites side by side, then no comparisons between the two are ever going to be made, at least not by anyone in the mainstream of the Church, which is what it is going to take for any real change to be made. 
 

Offline The Harlequin King

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3438
  • Thanked: 1100 times
    • Modern Medievalism
I'm surprised the NLM ran this article. There was a time not long ago when reform-of-the-reform stuff had about equal coverage with the traditional Mass. They seem to be on the verge of throwing in the towel on that idea now.
 

Offline Parresia

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2374
  • Thanked: 354 times
  • Religion: Catholic. Straight, no chaser.
I'm surprised the NLM ran this article. There was a time not long ago when reform-of-the-reform stuff had about equal coverage with the traditional Mass. They seem to be on the verge of throwing in the towel on that idea now.

The more the merrier.  I was in the same boat a year ago myself.  There was nothing really wrong with the NO, it was just the way it is often celebrated that is the problem.  I still believe the rite is valid, merely inferior. 
 

Offline VeraeFidei

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2353
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • Religion: Catholic
I'm surprised the NLM ran this article. There was a time not long ago when reform-of-the-reform stuff had about equal coverage with the traditional Mass. They seem to be on the verge of throwing in the towel on that idea now.
Agreed. That being said, it is notable that Fr. Kocik has hardly posted there in years. During Benedict XVI's papacy, he wrote something about how he could only really continue to write about RotR if juridical changes happened. He seemed frustrated at the time, if I recall correctly.
 

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20516
  • Thanked: 6165 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
I'm surprised the NLM ran this article. There was a time not long ago when reform-of-the-reform stuff had about equal coverage with the traditional Mass. They seem to be on the verge of throwing in the towel on that idea now.

I think we are both surprised, but for different reasons. 

I remember when RotR and TLM were half and half.  Recently, I thought the blog was far, far too RotR.

Then they go and throw this out there.  :lol: 

Anyways, good on them, and good on Fr Kocik (still - I'm shocked!)
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.