[I revised this post on 11/20 to remove some uncharitable statements. I apologize if they offended anyone. – Funky]

This made me chuckle:

"Some people are making a lot of noise about how disruptive [changes to the English Mass] will be. Perhaps. But what I think we’re seeing is mainly the nostalgic response of older people, for whom the current translations have become ‘traditional’ — even if that tradition goes no further back than a few decades. Maybe they can petition Rome for a special Indult by virtue of which Mass can be said (oh, maybe, in one church in each Province) according to the current translation, for the sake of those who are nostalgic for ‘And also with you.’ Perhaps Rome might even promote Bishop Trautman, and bring him to Rome to oversee the ‘And also with you’ Indult?" – Fr. Jim Tucker

Wouldn’t that be poetic justice? 😉

Wuerl lets Pittsburgh have an indult mass – barely. I think he’s afraid that greater availability would spur greater demand. Perhaps if the rumors of his excellency moving to Rome are true his replacement wouldn’t be so stingy with indults. I can hope. 😉

If Latin masses were more widely available, I’d consider going regularly. It’s not that I have anything against mass in vernacular languages or that the Pittsburgh Oratorians abuse the liturgy. Actually, the Novus Ordo masses that I attend at the Newman Center are solemn and respectful. However, there’s only so much you can do with the raw material. All the fine accoutrements in the world, e.g. bells, incense, and chant, won’t make up for the inadequacies of the current missal. Even the best production values and performances won’t turn an Andrew Lloyd Weber musical into a Puccini opera.

OK, perhaps that’s bit harsh, but the Pauline mass is neither an organic growth from the Tridentine, nor a faithful realization of the conciliar recommendations. In a lot of ways, it’s downright Protestant. I say pitch the Pauline missal and start from the Tridentine again. This time, let’s ONLY make the changes that the council actually called for. Once the liturgy is completed in Latin, keep it very far away from ICEL (I Create Exotic Liturgies) and other "innovative" translation groups.

The "reform of the reform" is a noble idea and I support it. In fact, I participate in it by singing in a schola. However, I see this movement as only a stop-gap. Even if the current mass were translated and celebrated properly, it’d still be sub-standard. The Novus Ordo is not the mass of the Second Vatican Council and to say so is an insult to the participants.

On a related note, at some time in the near future, Edey will publish a post detailing Vatican II’s document on the liturgy, Sacrosantum Concilium, the changes to the missal from 1962 to 1965 and from 1965 to 1970, and why the 1970 (Novus Ordo) missal is defficient.

Addendum: A recent post at Pontifications sums up how I feel pretty well.

"Do not mistake me. I am not romanticizing pre-Vatican II liturgy, nor am I pleading for a return to the Latin Mass. But looking at American Catholic liturgy as it has developed over the past forty years, one simply has to wonder, What in the world were people thinking?! How could anyone think that colloquial liturgical language is to be preferred to a formal, hieratic language? How could anyone think that drastic reduction of ritual gestures would strengthen the mystery of the Mass? How could anyone think that the adoption of sentimental pop-music would not destroy the sense of holiness and awe that is proper to the Eucharist? How could anyone think that the radical mutilation of the rite would not undermine the conviction that the Church has received a holy tradition and is not free to make it all up as she goes along? How could anyone think that by turning the celebrant around to face the people the Mass would be magically transformed into an intimate experience of community? How could anyone think that buildings constructed in the functional architectural style of the twentieth century could ever be appropriate to house the Holy Mysteries? Hindsight, of course, is twenty-twenty; but the liturgical delusion that took hold of the Church in the 60s and 70s is truly breathtaking."