Last week, various stories in the European press suggested that we’ll see the motu propio regarding the Mass of Pius V (what I’m calling it today!), as well as the Apostolic Exhortation related to the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist in the next month. Who knows!

There were some interesting developments over the weekend though. In both the French and Italian press, leading laity from various academic and cultural fields signed "manifestos" in support of any "freeing" of this Mass.

The French text and signatories are here and the Italian is here.

We don’t want to have a repeat discussion of what we’ve gone over in the past: No, there will not be a huge, immediate demand for this. Yes, it will present complications, factors which I have no doubt the Pope is having his people think through very carefully – part of the problem of the past 40 years was the rapidity of the changes, their top-down nature and the failure to adequately prepare anyone for what was coming. There is a political dimension to this, particularly in the European context. We’ve had this discussion and we’ll have it again.

What’s interesting to me is to contrast this, as well as the general conversation about this matter, with Fr. McBrien’s take:

Make no mistake about it: persistent opposition to the changes in the liturgy that were authorized by the Second Vatican Council and approved by the late Pope Paul VI has had little or nothing to do with the quality of vernacular translations and liturgical music, nor with the sometimes free-wheeling style of some presider-celebrants. It has everything to do with ecclesiology.

The basic changes in the celebration of the Mass came about because theologians, liturgical scholars, and thousands of bishops and priests broadened their vision of the Church from a primarily hierarchical institution to the People of God.

Thus, when the priest was at the altar, with his back to the congregation, while reciting prayers in Latin in a barely audible manner, the message was clear, even if not explicit. The priest is the one who makes the Mass happen (the old textbooks referred to it as "confecting the Eucharist"), while the laity are present essentially as onlookers, fulfilling their weekly obligation to be present for the three main parts of the Mass: the Offertory, the Consecration and Communion.

The altar boys signaled the approach of the Consecration by the ringing of a small bell — at the "Sanctus" (three rings), the "Hanc Igitur" (one ring), and the priest’s genuflections before and after the elevations of the consecrated Host and chalice.

Some Catholics made no special effort to be at church in time for the start of Mass, because they knew that they had some leeway. The Offertory did not begin until the priest removed the chalice veil and the altar boys made a dash for the table containing the cruets filled with wine and water.

And no one left church before Communion, which was the third and last obligatory part of the Mass. Not to be present for all three parts of the Mass was tantamount to not fulfilling one’s weekly obligation to "Keep holy the Sabbath." However, once the tabernacle door was opened and people began coming forward for Holy Communion, some headed for the exits and the parking lot.

The people in the pews were completely silent throughout the Mass, except for the children’s Mass, when the young would be led in prayers and songs whose texts had no direct connection with those of the Eucharist itself.

There was no Offertory procession because the people had no role in presenting the gifts to be consecrated.

With the ringing of the bells, the congregation was stirred from day-dreaming, the perusal of the parish bulletin, or involvement in private devotions (relatively few "followed" the Mass with a missal). Ushers returned from the vestibule or from outside, where some had gone for a quick smoke.

snip

To be sure, this was a completely valid Eucharist, although celebrated in a manner that gave very few people the idea that the congregation had anything essential to do with it. The Church was, for all practical purposes, the hierarchy and the clergy. Laity "belonged" to the Church for three purposes, as one British wag put it: to pray, to obey, and to pay.

It is the fundamental change in ecclesiology that is the real source of distress for opponents of liturgical reform, not simply the changes in words, rituals, and music. And that is why the stakes are so high in these so-called "liturgy wars."

You can take the time to dispute Fr. McBrien’s portrait of the past – but it won’t be the focus of my comments. I have never labored under the illusion that the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Mass was either uniformly idyllic or horrible. When people whom I trust share "negative" memories, I tend to believe them. When people whom I trust share "positive" memories, I believe them, too. A knowledge of history is a useful thing. In fact, as oft discussed here, the problems with music that concen us a great deal actually have deep roots in the way that Mass was ordinarily celebrated in parishes the English-speaking world before Vatican II.

The mother of a bishop that I know was amazed to hear about the Tridentine groups in his diocese. "Why do they want to go back to that?" the 90=year old woman said, "It’s so much better when you can understand it!"

I was struck, a year or so ago, by an article about the indult Mass in my old stomping grounds of Polk County, Florida. It’s in Winter Haven, one town over from Lakeland, at a large parish, at a convenient time. I am pretty sure the article said about fifty folks per week attend the Mass – and this is in a county with and enormous number of retirees.

The response to the changes was pained and complex, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that the majority of the Catholic world is demanding this. (The majority of the Catholic world is actually, fairly indifferent, I’d say. It’s all in the catechesis – how these things are accepted and viewed, that is).

And of course, that is probably not the rationale for any such move anyway, another topic we’ve discussed. But we’ll wait to discuss that further until something is actually issued and, in typical Benedict style, the reasons are clearly and lucidly laid out.

No, the point that I’d like to take on here is one that I’ve made before in relationship to the whole insistence that WHAT THOSE ORTHODOX WANT IS A RETURN TO CLERICALISM, THE OLD RIGID CHURCH AND THE CHURCH OF PRAY, PAY AND OBEY.

What none of those commentors are willling to be honest about besides, er..the purposes and goals of these efforts,  is that whether we’re talking liturgy, apologetics, communications or the New Movements, these are predominatly lay-led and run apostolates and movements.

A simple case in point is rather nicely encapsulated in these "manifestos" of this past weekend, particularly the French.

If….the strongest, most vigorous opposition to a "freeing" of a wider usage of the Mass of Pius V has come from bishops and priests…

and…the vocal support we’re hearing emanates from the laity… 

…how does that fit into the paradigm?

Answer: It doesn’t. So. Time for a new paradigm. Or even better – no paradigm, no presuppositions, no assumptions, no ideological boxes built 40 years ago. They just don’t fit any more.