When discussing issues within Catholicism today, it is helpful to remember that while problems may have a theological element, there is more to the Church than just her theology.
The Ordinaries are not really the same. The Offertory is very different, the prayers at the foot of the Altar are there in one and not in the other. Two readings in the old and three in the new. Not even the Kyrie is the same (3, 3, 3 vs 2, 2, 2) and so on. So, even when the new is entirely in Latin, it is obviously, noticeably different. To be honest, this proposal from Dom Geoffroy strikes me as a solution nobody wants in search of a problem to solve. It is also aimed at 1975 or so, in terms of the serious conversation about liturgy. That has moved on, quite some time ago.
Trads are only asking that the Latin Mass is, as Benedict said, allowed. I remember a priest in my diocese wanting to offer the Latin Mass and was told by the bishop that he could not in spite of Benedict’s decree that a priest doesn’t even need to ask the Bishop. Bishops seem to be all about submission to the pope as long as they like what he is saying. I think Benedict resigned because, as he said, his authority went no further than the door of his office.
The frustrating thing for me is that the good Abbot comes quite close to understanding things when responding to his interviewer:
"
INTERVIEWER: Do you think that young Catholics today look at this "liturgical quarrel" differently? The 18-to-35 generation and the newly baptized, for example, seem far more relaxed on the subject…
ABBOT: Yes, absolutely! We see today how easily they move from one rite to another, with no difficulty in welcoming one another. Most of them pray just as easily at Paray-le-Monial, at Taizé, or on the Chartres Pilgrimage. It is a beautiful example set for us, one that can soften our hearts. I would add that within the Congregation of Solesmes we already live this liturgical diversity — and it is lived in peace and unity. When the abbots of Fontgombault or Triors come to Solesmes, they celebrate according to the Vatican II missal. And conversely… when I go there, I celebrate Mass according to the ancient rite. This unity already exists in seed form within our congregation. We need to share this grace so that it may become a grace for the whole Church.
"
Literally the only thing that needs to be done is to restore the status quo ante 2021, and then let Andrea Grillo continue loudly regurgitating the theology of Gavin Ortlund and Martin Luther to the clouds from the window of a retirement home somewhere. Maybe we can give him internet access to argue with the denizens of the old AngelQueen forum once or twice a year, as a treat.
I find these types of solutions astounding. I think about how they would take if it was the reverse: If we went back to the Latin mass but allowed the NO “options”. It would be funny if it didn’t make me want to cry.
I sort of like the idea of doing the exact opposite of what Abbot Kemlin suggests: keeping the Novus Ordo's Ordinary while using the TLM's Propers, Lectionary, and Calendar. It's the radical--and often pointless--changes in the Lectionary and Calendar that annoy me most about the post-Vatican II changes to the Mass. Why fool around with the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas, for example? Why were the "-gesima Sundays" dropped? Who dumped St. Valentine? Why are the weekday First Readings a disjointed selection of Bible stories that begin and end in medias res (so you have no idea what happened to Queen Esther, for example) and usually have nothing to do with whatever liturgical season it happens to be? And on the other hand, as another commenter has pointed out, the Ordinary seems to have survived into the Novus Ordo relatively intact, with the strange savaging of the Offertory prayers as the major exception. We can still chant the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei in Latin (or Greek), and most of the priests in my Dominican parish use the Roman Canon on Sundays anyway.
I don't know if this makes me a "liturgy nerd," but I do think that most non-nerd Catholics who attend Mass regularly, especially younger ones, aren't so much interested in debates over liturgical fine points as in participating reverently in prayers and seasonal rhythms that partake of the Church's long-lived traditions. Hence the resurgence of interest in Adoration, processions, incense, the Rosary, devotion to the saints, and other practices that were deemed irrelevant to Catholic spiritual life right after Vatican II. The traditional calendar and its feasts and penitences are important. So I think that Abbot Kemlin, even though his proposed solution is the exact opposite of mine, is onto something significant.
Your criticism of Abbot Kemlin for getting himself involved in a discussion that should only be the purview of some 'online liturgy nerds' is ridiculous. If you knew anything about actual Catholic history you would know that the chief vocation of the monastery at Solesmes for the last TWO HUNDRED YEARS has been the liturgy and the various reform projects going back to Dom Guéranger who refounded that monastery in the 1830s.
It is not my problem you are incapable of reading. I did not fault him for injecting himself into a discussion that is the purview of liturgy nerds. Let's read again what I said:
"For a monk, the Abbot is remarkably online, buried deep in a dispute that takes place among a very exclusive group: liturgy nerds online or clerics in periodicals. "
His solution is the product of a discussion of liturgical nerds, that ignores the needs of the median individual. That's something entirely different, and in your eagerness to try and clap back at me, you missed the point entirely.
The liturgy is not about 'the needs of the median individual' whatever that even means. It is not about our needs at all. It is about worshipping God and offering pleasing sacrifice TO HIM according to the ancient rites of the Church which He has made certain were handed down to us.
Okay I get it now. You're not interacting. You're soapboxing in bad faith to be contentious. Its clear you dont understand, and you arent interested in even trying.
Maybe I am confused about what the term means, but is not the Ordinary of the Mass already the same in both rites? The Kyrie/Gloria/Credo/Sanctus/Agnus Dei are the same (albeit translated). Obviously the addition of extra Eucharistic prayers was a big alteration, but was the Canon considered part of the Ordinary?
The Ordinaries are not really the same. The Offertory is very different, the prayers at the foot of the Altar are there in one and not in the other. Two readings in the old and three in the new. Not even the Kyrie is the same (3, 3, 3 vs 2, 2, 2) and so on. So, even when the new is entirely in Latin, it is obviously, noticeably different. To be honest, this proposal from Dom Geoffroy strikes me as a solution nobody wants in search of a problem to solve. It is also aimed at 1975 or so, in terms of the serious conversation about liturgy. That has moved on, quite some time ago.
Trads are only asking that the Latin Mass is, as Benedict said, allowed. I remember a priest in my diocese wanting to offer the Latin Mass and was told by the bishop that he could not in spite of Benedict’s decree that a priest doesn’t even need to ask the Bishop. Bishops seem to be all about submission to the pope as long as they like what he is saying. I think Benedict resigned because, as he said, his authority went no further than the door of his office.
The frustrating thing for me is that the good Abbot comes quite close to understanding things when responding to his interviewer:
"
INTERVIEWER: Do you think that young Catholics today look at this "liturgical quarrel" differently? The 18-to-35 generation and the newly baptized, for example, seem far more relaxed on the subject…
ABBOT: Yes, absolutely! We see today how easily they move from one rite to another, with no difficulty in welcoming one another. Most of them pray just as easily at Paray-le-Monial, at Taizé, or on the Chartres Pilgrimage. It is a beautiful example set for us, one that can soften our hearts. I would add that within the Congregation of Solesmes we already live this liturgical diversity — and it is lived in peace and unity. When the abbots of Fontgombault or Triors come to Solesmes, they celebrate according to the Vatican II missal. And conversely… when I go there, I celebrate Mass according to the ancient rite. This unity already exists in seed form within our congregation. We need to share this grace so that it may become a grace for the whole Church.
"
Literally the only thing that needs to be done is to restore the status quo ante 2021, and then let Andrea Grillo continue loudly regurgitating the theology of Gavin Ortlund and Martin Luther to the clouds from the window of a retirement home somewhere. Maybe we can give him internet access to argue with the denizens of the old AngelQueen forum once or twice a year, as a treat.
I find these types of solutions astounding. I think about how they would take if it was the reverse: If we went back to the Latin mass but allowed the NO “options”. It would be funny if it didn’t make me want to cry.
I sort of like the idea of doing the exact opposite of what Abbot Kemlin suggests: keeping the Novus Ordo's Ordinary while using the TLM's Propers, Lectionary, and Calendar. It's the radical--and often pointless--changes in the Lectionary and Calendar that annoy me most about the post-Vatican II changes to the Mass. Why fool around with the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas, for example? Why were the "-gesima Sundays" dropped? Who dumped St. Valentine? Why are the weekday First Readings a disjointed selection of Bible stories that begin and end in medias res (so you have no idea what happened to Queen Esther, for example) and usually have nothing to do with whatever liturgical season it happens to be? And on the other hand, as another commenter has pointed out, the Ordinary seems to have survived into the Novus Ordo relatively intact, with the strange savaging of the Offertory prayers as the major exception. We can still chant the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei in Latin (or Greek), and most of the priests in my Dominican parish use the Roman Canon on Sundays anyway.
I don't know if this makes me a "liturgy nerd," but I do think that most non-nerd Catholics who attend Mass regularly, especially younger ones, aren't so much interested in debates over liturgical fine points as in participating reverently in prayers and seasonal rhythms that partake of the Church's long-lived traditions. Hence the resurgence of interest in Adoration, processions, incense, the Rosary, devotion to the saints, and other practices that were deemed irrelevant to Catholic spiritual life right after Vatican II. The traditional calendar and its feasts and penitences are important. So I think that Abbot Kemlin, even though his proposed solution is the exact opposite of mine, is onto something significant.
Your criticism of Abbot Kemlin for getting himself involved in a discussion that should only be the purview of some 'online liturgy nerds' is ridiculous. If you knew anything about actual Catholic history you would know that the chief vocation of the monastery at Solesmes for the last TWO HUNDRED YEARS has been the liturgy and the various reform projects going back to Dom Guéranger who refounded that monastery in the 1830s.
It is not my problem you are incapable of reading. I did not fault him for injecting himself into a discussion that is the purview of liturgy nerds. Let's read again what I said:
"For a monk, the Abbot is remarkably online, buried deep in a dispute that takes place among a very exclusive group: liturgy nerds online or clerics in periodicals. "
His solution is the product of a discussion of liturgical nerds, that ignores the needs of the median individual. That's something entirely different, and in your eagerness to try and clap back at me, you missed the point entirely.
The liturgy is not about 'the needs of the median individual' whatever that even means. It is not about our needs at all. It is about worshipping God and offering pleasing sacrifice TO HIM according to the ancient rites of the Church which He has made certain were handed down to us.
Okay I get it now. You're not interacting. You're soapboxing in bad faith to be contentious. Its clear you dont understand, and you arent interested in even trying.
Thanks for saving me the time
Maybe I am confused about what the term means, but is not the Ordinary of the Mass already the same in both rites? The Kyrie/Gloria/Credo/Sanctus/Agnus Dei are the same (albeit translated). Obviously the addition of extra Eucharistic prayers was a big alteration, but was the Canon considered part of the Ordinary?
Sometimes people refer to the entire Ordo Missae as “the Ordinary of the Mass.”