I hold no brief for nasty Trads, having for a while attended the Dominican rite Masses at the same parish as Mark Shea, I would like to point out one thing. If we who prefer the Mass of Pope Paul VI are made to feel a second class status by those who prefer the Mass of Bl. John XXIII, keep in mind that many who preferred the Old Mass were placed in a de facto second class status for years. It may seem to be payback time, and for some maybe it is, but we humans do, after gaining a hand, sometimes become like our oppressors. Let's all pray for patience and understanding. And any temptation to factionalism requires an occasional perusal of St. Paul's Letters.
I really hope that the motto of many Latin Mass folk doesn't become "It's payback time!"
Nah, it's "OMG TLM ROXORZ TEH BIG ONE111!" 
Is it fair to say the Liturgy Wars have gone from cold to hot now? I can't tell. From online it seems like it absolutely. At the actual parishes it's more like, "Huhh? Wha?" One parishoner noted that the new pastor was more "liturgically fancy" than the former. That was it. No acrimony, no letter-bombs to the bishop. Just a factual statement as if he were describing the weather.
Me? I just wanna chuck that dreadful 60's and 70's mush music. Check out Curt Jester: http://www.splendoroftruth.com/c...ives/
008231.php
Wow...I was stunned to read the following in this post: "Finally - be good post-Modernists - learn how to
* deconstruct the Liberal Pseudo-Catholic narrative - aggressively, analytically and, above all, playfully;
* replace it with our own narrative. First step - nomenclature: in all discourse from now on, replace the term of reference Tridentine Mass" with "The Mass of Blessed John XXIII", or "The 1962 Missal" (ergo "nothing less than the "Mass of Vatican II" itself."
This is exactly what I have brewing in my OP Brain for project for the remainder of my life. It is exactly this PoMo appropriation of the Modernist-Liberal project that will help orthodox believers re-discover and refine the narrative of the ancient faith. There is no "going back." But Going Forward doesn't have to be some lame-ass miming of the Modernist Suicidal Theology of the loonieleft. Just to show you the chokehold that the 70's dissenters still have on the Catholic academy, it is the Reformed Evangelical and Anglican theologians who are exploring ways of stealing from the PoMo's and making their nihilism work for Christians. Theologians like James A.K. Smith and the John Milbank, Graham Ward are showing RC theologians up in this battle. Fr. Robert Barron has sent a shot across the liberal bow in his most recent book, "The Priority of Christ," but most good Catholic responses are out of the analytical Thomism camp (Stump and Leftow). By no mean lightweights, this brand of Thomism doesn't handle the PoMo culture-junk very well. Maybe I am unaware of greater things out there???
I would really like to know how these guys in Toronto are going about doing what they claim to be doing...
Fr. Philip, OP
Ironic that "empowering the laity" - which is what the Revolution seems to be all about - is now backfiring on the revolutionaries. Still, this does not vindicate the "empower the laity" model of church governance. What these Knights are doing is filling in for clerical leadership that is now either absent or destructive. For things to be right, orthodox leadership needs to return to the hierarchy.
Mark, you wrote:
"I have a problem with the tendency of some lovers of the Latin Mass to speak as though a reverently celebrated Paul VI Mass is second class--as are those who celebrate it."
I really don't understand your obsession with this. The reformers thought the TLM was "second class" - that's why they tried to abolish it - and most Catholics today think the same.
Not all liturgies are equal. And there is much more to liturgy than a valid consecration.
I am among those who believe a reverently celebrated Paul VI Mass is second-class (a status that does NOT necessarily extend to those who attend or celebrate it).
If I did not think it was second-class, then I would hold the TLM to be second-class. What should be abundantly clear to anyone paying attention is that the two liturgies are not the same, and that those differences matter.
The reformers certainly believed the differences mattered. The changes were not arbitrary. They were based upon value judgments, and those judgments were either right or they were wrong, the underlying principles true or false, the results good or bad. You can't just pretend not to notice.
The thing is, when I read passages mentioning Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen too fast, I read it automatically as Harryhausen. And I think, "how can anyone complain about Harryhausen as a bishop?" Liturgy informed by The Valley of Gwangi? Too cool.
You can't just pretend not to notice.
I didn't say I don't notice. Indeed, as you will recall, my initial reaction to the Tridentine Rite was "Ah! Now I see why they reformed the liturgy."
If I did not think it was second-class, then I would hold the TLM to be second-class.
Thank you for that apt expression of either/or Protestant thinking that has done so much to foster party spirit and factionalism. I refuse to share in it.
Be *happy*, Jeff. You *have* the motu proprio. You are *welcome* to the form of the liturgy you love. *Enjoy* it, man! Don't spend your life fretting over the fact that everybody does not feel about it the same way you do! I don't regard your liturgy as second-class any more than I regard the Ukrainian or Byzantine liturgies as second class. It's not either/or. It's the Mass. It's the gift of God.
"I didn't say I don't notice. Indeed, as you will recall, my initial reaction to the Tridentine Rite was 'Ah! Now I see why they reformed the liturgy.'"
So you think the new liturgy is better? Now we're getting somewhere.
"Thank you for that apt expression of either/or Protestant thinking that has done so much to foster party spirit and factionalism. I refuse to share in it."
Mark, some things really are "either/or". The Catholic "both/and" only works when the principle of non-contradiction is unmolested. Such is not the case with the liturgy.
"Be *happy*, Jeff."
OK.
"I don't regard your liturgy as second-class any more than I regard the Ukrainian or Byzantine liturgies as second class."
But the new liturgy is better in your opinion, right? You said that you can see why the liturgy was reformed. You think the reform was an improvement. Does this not imply that, well, the new liturgy is superior to the old?
Anyway these are false comparisons. The eastern rites are as ancient as the TLM and are therefore equally traditional. They communicate the same things, the same attitudes. The Novus Ordo is not even 40 years old and communicates the Faith very poorly, in ways that conflict directly with the traditional rites. To the extent that reverence is possible with the NO, it is still merely optional.
"It's not either/or."
But sometimes, it is.
"It's the Mass. It's the gift of God."
Deo gratias.
No good can come from deconstruction, playful or not. "Good post-modernists" is an oxymoron.
“We booked and paid for, a year in advance, the 5:30 Mass on the 1st Friday of each month for the intention of Knights of Columbus.”
Money talks.
“This nun has since left her order,”
Bullshit walks.
I didn't say I don't notice. Indeed, as you will recall, my initial reaction to the Tridentine Rite was "Ah! Now I see why they reformed the liturgy."
Considering that the older Missal, in some form or other, was that which nourished many (if not most) of the saints in the Church Triumphant, this is a very unfortunate statement.
Of course, I didn't like the old Mass either, the first three or four times I went to one. Then again, it really wasn't about me, and once I figured that out, I started seeing how beautifully appopriate it was because there was no pretense of it being about me. It was, quite clearly, for God, by God, and about God - on our behalf.
Just the same way the Crucifixion was. Just the way it should be.
I don't regard your liturgy as second-class any more than I regard the Ukrainian or Byzantine liturgies as second class. It's not either/or. It's the Mass. It's the gift of God.
You see the problem with liturgical pluralism? It's not his liturgy or your liturgy - it's the Catholic Church's liturgy. It's the extraordinary (once ordinary) liturgy of the Roman rite. The rite to which you belong. Every Roman Catholic should therefore think of it as their liturgy.
We can't disown our heritage because of aesthetic relativism. There is a hierarchy of beauty, just as there is a hierarchy of truth. Of course, the hierarchy of beauty is harder to quantify, but you know it when you compare Mozart to Megadeth or Bougeureau to Bohl.
When asked how one can judge this, I can only say that at some point, aesthetics are self-evident. I might rather listen to Megadeth than Mozart, but if I am honest with myself, I recognize that I am choosing something more base and less edifying. While one should not let the "better" be the enemy of the "good", one mustn't obfuscate the reality that the "better" exists and is, in fact, better.
The analogy is imperfect, but I use it only to prove that there are recognizeable distinctions within the hierarchy of aesthetics. Obviously, the two rites (ordinary and extraordinary) are not as divergent as my examples. That said, they still noticeably diverge.
There are so many examples in every day life of things that meet a minimum requirement and exceed it. Aside from art and music, there is always the example of food. You can taste the difference between a fine wine and a bottle of Boone's; between fresh ground coffee that was just roasted last week and pre-ground coffee that sat on the store shelf for a month; between a canned Brie and a fresh cake of Brillat Savarin.
Now a snob likes to know the difference and look down his nose at those who don't. But someone who loves the good wants to share the delights he has found with anyone who will listen. Those who truly love the old Mass see it in stark contrast with the new. It has a freshness, a sweetness, a depth and a savor that the rite of Paul VI cannot compare with. But like good wine, cheese or coffee, it is an aquired taste, particularly to those (like myself) who grew up on the Missal of 1970.
Because we want to share it does not make us snobs. Because others do not apprehend the difference does not mean the difference does not exist.
Mark, I'm truly sorry that you had to deal with the kind of people you describe in your parish. I will make every impassioned plea I can muster to get people to consider what I truly believe to be a more enriching liturgical experience, but I have no interest in attacking their integrity or undermining their love of the Faith.
If I didn't think it was worth it, and that others wouldn't benefit from it, then everything I write would be a waste of time. It's love, not bitterness, that leads guys like Jeff and I to have these discussions.
I hope you can see that.
Can I just ask ... How does one go about "paying for" a Mass? I thought the Reformation took care of that kind of hijinks?
Jeff,
What Mark said. That's been my experience in the deep South too. Formulating the Mass into an "either/or" situation is exactly the opposite of what our Holy Father has asked us to do. And I have to ask, What kind of children don't want to try to obey so good a Father?
This is one of the areas where you and I still match up, Mark.
No "liberal" myself, I still get tired of all the dour-faced "extraordinary rite" folks who take it upon themselves to grumble every chance they get.
It's time for this madness to end. You have your liturgy, I have mine. Good news! We've both got the Body of Christ.
Tired of all the silly liturgical abuses? Good news there, too! A new generation of priests are coming, and we as a rule don't much care for that garbage either.
Recommendation: Go to Mass every day and engage it spiritually. Try not to pay so much attention to the exteriors. Focus on the Eucharist. Before I started this, I used to get all hung up on liturgical abuse also; now I focus on meeting God when I go to Mass, regardless of how silly something might present itself in the process.
Live in joy. There is no other way to live the Christian life.
Can I just ask ... How does one go about "paying for" a Mass? I thought the Reformation took care of that kind of hijinks?
The same way one pays for a wedding or a baptism. 
"Formulating the Mass into an 'either/or' situation is exactly the opposite of what our Holy Father has asked us to do."
GB: I accept the sacramental - and now the juridical - equality of the two forms of the Roman Rite. I don't believe the Holy Father is requiring more than this. He has himself made plenty of statements that contrast the two forms in critical terms. He is not asking us to pretend we don't see the differences, or that the differences don't matter.
Furthermore, the Holy Father is well aware that those who prefer the TLM - those to whom he is specifically reaching out! - do not prefer the TLM for frivolous reasons. If it were simply a matter of personal taste, and not of conscience or principle, there would have been no motu proprio in the first place.
For my part, if it were merely about taste I would suck it up and go to the Novus Ordo for the good of the Church. Unity is better than a liturgical smorgasbord.
See the other thread for my post I still stand by. I'm tired of typing it over and over and reiterating the fact I don't rate Masses like I'm worthy to do so. Shea's explained himself just fine, but you pick apart words of his and twist them to try to show him as intolerant.
I call BS. And I also call that saying it must be either/or sure as heck doesn't make that true.
Chris,
If Aquinas can baptize Aristotle, we can baptize Derrida!
Take a look at James Smith's book, "Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?" I think he makes a decent case...
Fr. Philip, OP
I can appreciate what Jeff and Steve are saying, and to some extent may even agree. There may not be doubt that Morton's makes a better meal than McDonald's, objectively speaking. But some folks just like McDonald's better.
But some folks just like McDonald's better.
Yes, but would you serve McDonald's to a guest you held in high esteem? Perhaps if there was nothing better to be had. And that is Jeff's point I belive. There is something better.
Jarnor,
With all due respect, your assessments of our arguments demand substantiation. Nobody is twisting Mark's words. If we were, I doubt he'd put up with it.
It would be only just for you to bear in mind that those of us who believe we do have a role in evaluating the quality of liturgy we get in an attempt to improve it - according to the guidelines of the Church, not our own tastes - have already explained that our position is not one based on our own authority.
Fortunately for us, the Church writes everything down, so it's easy to look up the way things are supposed to be.
One thing you might find fascinating about traditionally oriented Catholics - "restorationists" as I like to call those of us not stuck in an ossified past - is that we don't believe the Church is a grassroots organization. We agitate for change, but we want it to come from the top, as Christ intended. Fortunately, the Holy Father has put the mechanism in place for us to be a catalyst in this sort of top-down scenario through the release of Summorum Pontificum. It was a very creative solution on his part.
And let's be very clear about something - it wasn't simply a gesture of good will. His Holiness stated that the ancient form of Mass could NOT have been and WAS not abrogated. This means that the claims we have been making all along about its legitimacy have been exonerated. Of course, those claims would have had no basis in reality if they were founded upon personal preference. Instead, they were rooted in careful research about the nature of liturgy and the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
We are not usurpers, Janor. We are obedient to the Magisterium. If we haven't been particularly quiet about our concerns, however, it would appear that the Holy Father has confirmed that they were well founded.
Don't call BS just because you don't like what we're saying. Address the arguments on their merits, please.
C Matt,
Just because you like something better subjectively doesn't mean it's better objectively. Our tastes are formed, and there are times when they are ill-formed.
Crude humor can sometimes strike us as funnier than clean humor. Does that mean it's better, or only that we have allowed our standards to be low?
I ask this bearing in mind that I was chastised by my daughter yesterday for watching (and enjoying thoroughly) my collection of Arrested Development DVDs. We all do this to some extent.
Just because veggies and lean meat are better for you doesn't mean you'd rather eat them than deep fried chicken wings. You get the point..
Josh Miller said, "Tired of all the silly liturgical abuses? Good news there, too! A new generation of priests are coming, and we as a rule don't much care for that garbage either."
Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished!
God bless you as you pursue His call.
And I agree with you and Mark. Sure, the Novus Ordo can be abused; so can any liturgy if the abuser is determined enough. But I think some people have redefined the "bugs" introduced into the Mass by the unscrupulous as "features" of the Paul VI Mass itself, which is manifestly unfair.
I've attended the Paul VI Mass in Latin, and for the life of me I didn't find it in any way inferior to the TLM. In some instances it was actually less "cluttered," easier to follow, and less repetitive since the readings and Gospel were proclaimed only in the vernacular, not in Latin first and then re-read in the vernacular at the beginning of the homily.
Not to hijack the discussion, but Father Richard Rego S.T.L, the author of several excellent books, blogger, and a Pastor of a Latin Mass community has passed away suddenly.
Derrida's work is useless. There is no there there. Roland Barthes, on the other hand, offers us something which can be baptized a la Aquinas/Aristotle.
I think Derrida's more self-consciously literary efforts--his euologies, e.g.--are possible goldmines. J.D. is definitely more style than substance, but, even so, it's difficult to dismiss him outright. I've been re-reading Gregory of Nyssa and a number of the other apophatic Fathers and I'm constantly noting in the margins how much Derrida sounds like these guys. Huge differences exist, of course, but what does it mean for us to think about God w/o Being, concepts, images, language, or "anything using the human imagination" and then write about this God? It's not a gigantic leap to see how writing about God in this way would need to be under some kind of constant deconstruction...of course, this is about our limitations NOT an imposition on God Himself...anyway, I find it fascinating...
Fr. Philip, OP
Beware of PoMo. Marry the spirit of the age and die with it.
I'm reading a fascinating book, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, (in the small o sense), by Thomas Oden. There's gold in them thar pages. Has a good critique of secular modernist ideologies and how folks are returning to a classical ecumenical Christian and Jewish orthodoxy. (Ecumenical in the sense of consensus Christianity before the divisions started happening--returning to true universality.)
Deconstructionism is crap and deserves to be called out. I changed my career plans once I realized how much my originally chosen field was so thoroughly tainted with it. I lost all respect for it and bolted for the door.
A couple of questions for Jeff and any others who believe that the ordinary form of the Mass is "second class" and not a matter of liturgical taste or preference:
1. Please rank the following liturgies in order from Best to Worst:
A. The ordinary form of the Latin rite
B. The extraordinary form of the Latin rite
C. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
2. Please rank the poetry of the following authors:
A. Shakespeare
B. Milton
C. Eliot
3. Please rank the prose of the following authors:
A. Flannery O'Connor
B. Joyce
C. Waugh
4. Please rank the following composers:
A. Mozart
B. Bach
C. Schubert
Please note these rankings should be done completely objectively with no regard to personal preference.
Thank you.
These rankings are obvious:
1. A. B. C.
2. A. The other two are on the same tier.
3. B. The other two are on the same tier.
4. A. B. C.
Now, if I were to look to personal preferences, the order would be different (for instance, I am a Bach fanatic, although I have to recognize that Mozart was the superior composer), and Eliot would clearly outrank Milton, but we are talking about something that can indeed be measured.
Now, this is not to say that there is no room for debate. Someone might make the case that Milton was superior to Eliot, and they are probably right, but I think I can defend their equal status, certainly enough to mitigate any perception of clearly higher standing on the part of Milton.
It is very fashionable to retreat into a sort of happy equality of ideas and artistic outputs, but the truth is not so simple.
Newsflash: the Truth is always simple, he has a name: Jesus. He's not always easy but he's always simple. Its fallen human nature that likes to spend time splitting hairs. That's what 'fashionable'.
Dear Different,
Good questions.
1 - B. The extraordinary form of the Latin rite
1 - C. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
2 - A. The ordinary form of the Latin rite
If there are serious defects in the venerable liturgies B and C, I'm not aware of them. However, if C is understood to be lacking the Filioque, then it drops to third place.
I have no opinion on Shakespeare vs. Milton because I'm truly unqualified to judge. However, Eliot (and he would admit this himself) is not in their league.
With respect to O'Connor, Joyce, and Waugh, I don't have any idea.
Bach is the greatest composer on many counts. Mozart was possibly more complex but his music has too much ego and is therefore less sublime. I don't know Schubert well enough to comment.
Obviously, my judgments here could be wrong. But that doesn't mean that objective criteria do not exist and should not be examined.
Okay, rank these:
1:
A. Mozart
B. Britney Spears
2:
A. Dinner at a 4 star French restaurant
B. Burger King
3:
A. Shakespeare
B. Spider Man Comics.
Jeff,
Bach made many counterpoint errors. Mozart did not. Not a single one. Only Chopin is in the same league.
Ego in a composition is something that is hard to measure. I have trouble proving its existance on a score (although Mozart never turned the letters of his own name into the subject for a composition, although I certainly cannot fault Bach for doing so, because he has one of those rare names that one can do this with (in the German system there is an H)). On a recording it is a little bit easier, but only on the part of the performer.
In his favor, Bach did set "The Edifying Thoughts of a Tobacco Smoker" to music, which clearly shows a great musical mind.
But we have to watch these personal preferences. I play Bach an hour a day. Once in awhile I play Mozart. While I prefer Bach, I more often find myself admired the utter brilliance in Mozart, in the way he resolved certain compositional problems while preserving tremendous grace and elegance.
And, to gb, making distinctions is extremely important (go ask St. Thomas Aquinas) and is not at all fashionable. Being simplistic, as you are being, as opposed to simple, is what is fashionable. The first task for you is to distinguish the simple from the simplistic. When you can wrap around that for awhile, you can come back and talk with the grown ups.
Brennan,
Thanks. The answers are obvious.
The answers in my quiz were not because I deliberately selected choices that many experts agree have objective spiritual, literary, or musical worth. The point is that literary critics would usually not attempt to define O'Connor as objectively superior to Waugh, or Milton objectively superior to Eliot. They could attempt to do so, but ultimately their decision would remain as their critical opinion and not as objective fact.
Those who choose to spend great effort "proving" that the extraordinary form of the Mass is superior to the ordinary form are certainly free to do so. But their opinion is no more objective fact than an opinion that Shakespeare's poems is superior to Keats' poems or vice-versa. That, I believe, is Mr. Shea's point in all of this.
Different,
I think you've hit on a crucial distinction in this whole matter. If the differences between old and new rites were similar to the differences between Milton and Eliot and Waugh and O'Connor I would wholeheartedly agree that choosing between one or the other would be a matter of personal preference as all these authors are pretty much in the same ballpark as far as artistry goes. It would be like me putting up a fit if my local parish decided to build in an orthodox neo-classical style while I preferred gothic.
I used the examples I did simply because I don't think the differences between the old and new rite are congruent with the differences between Waugh and O'Connor or the old rite and the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
Rather, the differences are great enough that even Cardinal Ottaviani in the Ottaviani Intervention felt the need to intervene and cited very serious theological reasons for his concerns. And the same goes for other authors who have written on the liturgy. They aren't bringing up minor quibbles (even if someone disagrees with their conclusions).
Thanks for the reply Brennan.
I wonder though how much of your view of the 2 forms of the Latin Mass is shaped by the way Masses are generally celebrated. When I am speaking of comparing the two, I am speaking of comparing them as they ought to be celebrated - according to the rubrics and with appropriate music (chant).
I disagree that the two liturgies are as far apart as Mozart and Britney Spears. I believe that the forms when properly done are rather like my examples. A properly celebrated ordinary form of the Mass is very beautiful, reverent and deeply spiritual (especially when it is in Latin).
My point in all of this is that there are good, holy theologians and Pope's who see the Masses as being different, but both very valuable and worthy. In fact, given the wording os Summorum Pontificum, I would say that is the official position of the Church.
I don't think folks on either side should be attempting make a case that one form is superior to the other. The Holy Father has seen fit to give us two forms of the latin rite Mass, let's be thankful for that and trusting in his wisdom.
What is lost in all of this, and I think, from many rereadings of the actual documents of the Second Vatican Council, was one of the major concerns of the council fathers, is the pervasiveness of the low mass, especially on Sundays.
Every one of the points on the Constitution on Liturgy points to the restoration of a sung, Latin mass as the norm for Sunday worship. The call for simplifications and the elimination of repetitions (basically what the reformers were charged with doing), was to remove any barriers to that aim. The use of the vernacular was not supposed to be the whole thing at all, but just to readings and selected prayers.
So, if we are to look at the success or failure of the Missal of Paul VI, we have to look at how well the solemn sung Latin Novus Ordo communicates the Faith, and if we are to look to the success or failure of the implementation, we have to see if more and more parishes are adopting a solemn sung Latin liturgy, and we should start looking in a few years, after the generation of confusion really starts to wane.
When I walk into a church on Sunday and it is a casual, spoken, English mass, there is something clearly amiss, as it is when an extraordinary usage parish celebrates a Sunday mass as a low mass.
Erik,
Good point. There are not NEARLY enough ordinary form "high" Masses. We are fortunate to have them at my parish but still only on Solemnities and "big" feastdays. I know that some seminaries are really beginning to teach the sung Mass (in English).
Just a point of clarification, the wording that SC uses on the vernacular is that it is recommended ESPECIALLY for the readings and common prayers, not ONLY for the readings and common prayers. That being said, I am all for having a good bit of Latin even in a vernacular Mass.
Different,
I did use the two examples of Mozart and Britney Spears to make a point (so I’m not necessarily saying that they are that far apart). And I do agree that something of what I say has to do with how the New Mass is usually celebrated. Completely in the vernacular, Priest facing the people, the ICEL translation, a number of altar girls, the music, the architecture, etc.
However, given that, I do think that the old rite was altered quite a bit. For instance, Cardinal Ottaviani’s Intervention was written prior to the actual implementation of the New Mass, and thus had to do with the changes to the rite itself and not how it is celebrated. And much of what I read is a critique of the actual rite itself (though valid) and not so much the abuses. The removing and altering of many of the prayers, the introduction of three new Eucharistic prayers, etc. are not minor changes.
And I do think the Council Fathers who signed off on Sacrosanctum Concilium did not envisage how drastic the changes would be. One interesting quote came from a Jesuit after the liturgical changes who said in effect, “Try to remember a High Mass with the incense and chant and bells;—il est destruit” (it is destroyed). I think it should be noted that the actual committee, headed by Archbishop Bugnini, does not seem as if it intended to have a liturgy which basically looked like a Tridentine High Mass. Rather their concern, as Bugnini once stated, was to “remove the shaodow of any offense to the Protestants.”
And I agree with the comments about a sung high Mass.
God bless.
Along the lines of the above, which would you rather have:
A. 1970 Missal, Missa Cantata, in Latin, ad orientem, sung by a well-trained priest
B. 1962 Missal, low Mass, mumbled by a priest who carelessly mangles the endings of the Latin words
I've experienced both on more than one occasion, and it makes the 1970 Missal seem pretty appealing. Unfortunately, in my (limited) experience, 1962 Missal Low Masses said somewhat carelessly or by ill-trained priests are more common than 1970 Missal Missa Cantatas said by well-trained priests. Let us pray for more Missa Cantatas and High Masses all around, whichever Missal you prefer.
(Erik, I'd love to see you tell my counterpoint professor that Bach made mistakes in his counterpoint. Bach didn't make mistakes, Bach understood that perfect counterpoint is boring and he needed to add interest--his art is knowing just where to put the deviancies, and when to stop.)
Mark,
Your are absolutely justified in being 'put-off' by Traditionalists. However; I think it may be helpful to realize life in their shoes. You have had ready-access to the Paul VI Mass since your entrance into the Catholic Church. Despite John Paul II's request for a 'wide application' of the TLM in 1988, Traditionally minded Catholics have not had the same luxury. Traditionalists have had to put up with similar garbage. I'm not saying they are better for it, but there is most certainly a tougher battle to fight when it is done so against anti-traditional bishops and clergy. You don't have to fight for anything to recieve the Mass of Paul VI. Traditionalists have not been able to stop fighting, and even after Summorum Pontificum was released, bishops now pretend they have the right to refuse their priests to celebrate the Mass of 1962. In light of this, I do hope you understand the true plight of Traditional Catholics. I'm not saying they are martyrs, but most certainly they can be considered to be limited in their culpability regarding their overzealous actions I would think.
Consider if the Paul VI Mass was suppressed illegally for 40 years by men who are supposed to be the living example of the Apostles. Picturing this scenario may give you some sympathy for the attitudes of Traditionalists who had an invented, not a reformed liturgy forced upon them.
Peace.
I'd take B as one can still follow along and pray the Mass with one's missal. The old rite is not very dependent on the performance of the Priest.
JaneC,
I don't buy it. Mozart did what you described, but did it so logically and for good reason that we speak of a Mozartian fifth because it just makes sense. When I speak of errors in Bach (you will find several in the 371 Chorales), I am talking about when he simply exhausted his options and could not find a way out, even though the violation hurt the independence of the voices, and this is not even getting into some of his rather odd melodic lines that were odd simply to make the counterpoint work.
Of course I say this as one who has made MANY counterpoint errors, so I understand what he was up against. In the words of my introductory music history professor (read in a thick Russian accent):
"for those of you who are going to be music majors, you will do your share of two, three and four part counterpoint, with inversions and retrogrades and so forth. For the rest of you, all you need to know is that, well, music is a very complicated matter."
Brennan,
Thanks for the reply.
As JaneC shows in her example, it's difficult to think of the liturgy apart from perhaps the way it is sometimes abused. But we really must think of the correct expressions of these liturgies when comparing them.
I realize that some think the prayers of the extraordinary form are superior and they are certainly entitled to that opinion. There are also some who believe that the dialogue and parts of the Mass in the vernacular are superior and they are certainly entitled to that opinion. These debates can roll back and forth, but just as an argument between Bach and Mozart, we'll never really get anywhere.
Instead, let's focus on what is in common - working to have Mass said correctly, beautifully and reverently whether it is ordinary or extraordinary. I have been to high sung ordinary Masses in English with some Latin chant, incense, 12 altar boys, beautiful vestments, periods of silence, celebrated versus populem, and they absolutely stunning and prayerful Masses. Let's set aside one liturgy "being superior" than the other and work towards making sure that all liturgies are done in a way that gives glory to God.
Different,
I certainly can agree with people attempting to have the liturgy said as reverently as possible. I really don’t think it’s a comparison between Bach and Mozart, though. If it was, I don’t think anyone would have had a problem with the liturgy after Vatican II. The reasons for preferring the traditional Latin Mass are still weighty in my mind. Dietrich von Hildebrand writes on the liturgy at my Hompage link. God bless.
Steve, I think it's you that doesn't get my point, and as near as I can tell, Shea's as well.
Good for you that you have the extraordinary form. I said it about 3-4 times in the last thread alone. I am glad you can enjoy Mass in that format.
However, we don't have to, nor do we have to give a fig, and it doesn't make us less Catholic for it.
Jarnor23,
Quite simply, to treat the extraordinary right as something you don't "give a fig" about when the Holy Father has made it quite clear that its re-introduction to the Roman Rite is for the purpose of mutual benefit between ordinary and extraordinary forms does, in fact, make you less orthodox.
If there were a way to define degrees of Catholicism, one might say it makes you "less Catholic" but I don't think that there is. So I'll have to settle for "less orthodox" instead.
Again, your personal preference argument doesn't hold water, as several of us have been attempting to establish. Simply re-asserting it doesn't make it any more effective.
Gosh, that's funny. Given that the ordinary form is the primarily acceptable one, if we were going by your twisted logic, you would be the one less orthodox.
However, they're both fine options and the Holy Father didn't require us to choose one or the other. Hence you being wrong as all hell. I do think each form has something people who go to the other form can learn from. I'm looking forward to learning things from the extraordinary form. I'm not looking forward to the people who go there if this is typical.
Janor 23,
Pure sophistry. You would do well in our corrupted political system. The point stands, to not 'give a fig' about the matter does indeed seem to make you less orthodox.
No good can come from deconstruction, playful or not. "Good post-modernists" is an oxymoron.
I agree with this, with one caution. Like any stopped clock postmodernism is right about one thing: positivism is nonsense. And most modern people raised in the scientific age have a tendency to believe unreflectively that positivism is the opposite of postmodernism. In reality they are both wrong: indeed, postmodernism is in one sense merely the realization that positivism is nonsense. It is in that sense and that sense only that, with delicious irony, postmodernism speaks the absolute truth.
Commenting by HaloScan
