Slightly off-topic, but any thoughts on the confirmation from PCED that the version of the Motu Proprio signed by the Pope does, in fact, include the word 'stabiliter', not 'continentur'. See Fr Z:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/03/a...n-universities/
This is a little disappointing, particularly in view of the criticisms of those (more liberal-minded prelates) who have insisted that 'stabilier' is the correct word. I hope there is a proper translation of what the word actually means in the context in which the Holy Father intended it, not the type of restrictive interpretation many have put on it.
Joe,
The clarifying document from Ecclesia Dei, which we could see imminently, should hopefully address such matters.
But, let's get back on topic.
There is another aspect I think to the survivors.
In any turbulent change, there can be the casualties, the advocates, and then people caught in between who may find themselves confused, unsure, even questioning. Those people are teetering on the fence, and they can either come to convince themselves why they should accept these things, or be convinced as to why they should.
They can be convinced or convince themselves why things were "bad" before -- even if they did not personally feel things were bad then. But they can convince themselves even that, deep down, "they always felt this way", even if they really didn't. In that way, it can even be called a rationalization.
This is a strong psychological survival mechanism. Therefore, if suddenly they are now presented with the fact that perhaps this wasn't what the Church intended after all; or that some of what they were told was skewed; or that perhaps this hasn't worked out; to now have to potentially re-face that whole internal struggle again can be extremely difficult and can even be rejected very vociferously in reaction.
I think this too enters into this sort of question.
I have known, for example an older priest who would say such things as, "if they hadn't changed the Mass, I would have left the priesthood" -- and yet clearly when they entered the seminary and were ordained to priesthood in the 1950's, there was no sense that the Mass would ever change in a radical way. There was no Council yet in sight and Pius XII was reigning.
If they had such distaste for the liturgy as it was, why would they have endured seminary life and ordination into that liturgical form? It really makes no sense and is to me a clear example of someone taking their position as they have come to adopt it in the now, and applying it back to a time when they in all likelihood thought much differently, but fail to recognize or at least acknowledge that.
Good article.I remember back then and no poll showed that a majority wanted any changes.People accepted under obedience and did not realize what they were getting.The same was true with priests.The older generation (those who did not leave)has come to accept everything and are the most obstinate to the new refrorm.They were hurt once.I thoought when I started a EF high mass that I would see peopel reconciled from private chapels,I was surprised when I also had people coming back from the High episcopalian church.
Well, anecdotal evidence suggests that most of the people who left appeared to have left over Humanae Vitae*, not the liturgical reforms as such. Also over things like the revelation that grave preceptual obligations could change - which reinforced a growing impression that "rules" were arbitrary (and that, given this time context, was a deadly impression to leave).
I was a child when the reforms occurred. I don't recall a single person expressing regret over the 1965 reforms. As for the 1970 reforms, if there was a negative emotion expressed it was simply in having to learn new responses (after learning responses 5 years earlier). Where I grew up (Long Island), parishes with great art or music in their liturgies were the exception (a neighboring parish was a glaring exception, as it was run by Benedictines and was a Liturgical Movement parish), so the reforms did not feel like they were displacing too much in that regard at the time. I do remember that people generally thought the handful of people who were very attached to the preconciliar rite an odd and querulous - which is not really a comment on that handful but on the lack of attachment of the ordinary folk who held that opinion (these were not liturgical radicals - there were the very typical Catholic who felt and still feel that too much fuss over the liturgy is a sign of character flaws of some sort).
* Realize that the idea that Rome was likely to change its stance on contraception was widely anticipated in advance of HV; moreover, it had been increasingly common in confessional practice for "pastoral" priests (the ones with the really long lines...as my mother critically noted repeatedly) to treat those (mostly wives) confessing contraception with great leniency, reinforcing the sense that the definition of what was truly grave matter was shifting.
I find this post very interesting, indeed. I have met many people who are no longer practicing Catholics for whom the changes were too drastic and dramatic. For example, it was reported to me by one of these people that one Sunday the priest was facing the altar and she knelt at the altar rail for Communion, distributed by the priest, and the next Sunday she came in and found a guitar mass, the altar rail gone, a table in the sanctuary with the priest facing the people, and Sr. Mary Pantsuit distributing Communion. This was all too much for her to bear and caused her to lose her faith. (Everyone makes their own choices). I can't imagine that this one example would be unique.
I'd like to paraphrase the late Russian Orthodox theologian, Fr. Alexander Schemann, who observed that the charism of the Orthodox Church is "true worship;" the charism of the Protestant churches is "freedom;" and the charism of the Roman Church is "administration," since it took Rome 6 months to abandon its entire liturgical tradition, but 20 years to reform its canon law. While that may be a little exaggerated and unfair, and granted, he was an Orthodox priest and theologian, I think he hit upon an important point: the changes in the Latin Church were sudden and overnight, with very little catechesis done to explain what was happening and why, but even the most liturgically-revolutionary bishops would worry about getting their diocesan statistics right for their ad limina visits.
Liam,
I have no doubt there were various factors involved from that time, but I don't believe one can remove the liturgical changes from that equation.
Changing habits of prayer and worship is no minor thing. It is generally acknowledged today -- even by proponents of the reform as it happened -- that the liturgical reforms were handled poorly and in a way that scarred the faithful to some greater or lesser extent.
We can likewise read about resistance in various accounts, including from Bugnini, etc.
I think whether sociologically, psychologically or historically, this has to be acknowledged.
When I was in the seminary, a liturgy professor used the terms "minimalist" and "pastorally insensitive" relative to the pre-conciliar liturgy. Minimalist in two ways (said he): theologically and liturgically. Theological minimalism, he said, was expressed, for instance, by reducing the sacraments to "matter and form" (to the neglect of other important aspects). As for liturgical minimalism, he gave the example of the Lavabo rite, wherein the priest's fingertips were washed, but not the hands entirely.
And what about the old rite's "pastoral insensitivity"? That, he said, came across especially in the funeral rites: black vestments ("What about resurrection and eternal life?"), no option for the family to select readings (never mind give eulogies), etc.
Imagine my surprise, then [okay, okay, I'm being sarcastic here], when, after having just celebrated a funeral Mass (in the "ordinary form"), the deceased's family thanked me for such a "beautiful" and "uplifting" Mass. How can that be? I wore black vestments. I did not allow a eulogy (I never do). I did not "canonize" the deceased, though I certainly did emphasize the Resurrection and the promise of eternal life for those who die "in Christ." I (or the cantor) chant(s) the In Paradisum -- in Latin -- at the Final Commendation...
... while I'm in a black cope, I would add. And no one -- I mean, no one -- complained about a thing. Pastorally insensitive? Hmmmmmm.
How about the pastoral insensitivity of subjecting the congregation to seemingly endless, banal (if not outright offensive) eulogies. How about... well, you get the idea. And as for minimalism, isn't it funny (as in curious) how incense is pretty much restricted, in many churches, to funerals and "high" holy days (if even then), even though its use is permitted at any Mass (in the ordinary form). And the cope? Need I go on? Anyway, just venting. And offering a word of encouragement to like-minded priests who want to "reform the reform" in their own parishes. Be not afraid!
I think there are a number of different camps. Here are some groups that I have noticed:
1. Those who didn't like some of the changes (liturgical or otherwise)and decided to abandon the supreme tradition of obedience to the magesterium (schismatics or people who follow the magisterium begrudgingly).
2. Those who, for other reasons, don't have any loyalty to the magisterium, and rebelled against all other forms of tradition as well, while still usually remaining within the fold (those who have twisted and abused the liturgy).
3. Those who followed the magisterium faithfully, and implemented the Novus Ordo of the Mass with mixed results. Some have loved the Novus Ordo from the beginning, some have been misled to abusing it, and others have never even witnessed serious liturgical abuse. These latter ones have a difficult time understanding why people would have a devotion to the Old Mass. Others still have followed the magisterium, and love Novus Ordo mass, but believe that it has some serious shortcomings. I fall into this latter camp, and in this group are those who have great hope for the Novus Ordo, knowing that it can be just as full, reverent, and traditional as the Old Mass, although this phenomenon is sadly rare. My opinion is that most Novus Ordo masses are respectful and beautiful things (if not ideal-lacking Latin/beautiful art/ad orientum etc.) Otherwise, why would Novus Ordo priests and laity faithfully attend such masses daily?
It really is a complicated situation. I firmly believe that, as awesome as the Old Liturgy is, if the Novus Ordo were implemented properly, it wouldn't be necessary.
For some Catholics who have fallen away, too, there are other reasons than the liturgy for leaving: schismatics misunderstand the magisterium's outlook on ecumenism, or base their reasons for leaving the Church on conspiracy theories (does the name "Siri" ring a bell?)
I thoought when I started a EF high mass that I would see peopel reconciled from private chapels,I was surprised when I also had people coming back from the High episcopalian church.
f.franklyn mcafee | 03.14.08 | #
To Fr. McAfee's point, does anyone else have anecdotal evidence of people returning in the post-MP era that left the Church after the Mass changed?
I would expect that we'd see quite a few folks in their 70's and 80's "come home" as they look back and evaluate their lives, etc., but have not yet seen it myself.
I remember from my childhood that people were always complaining quietly, always confused about what the rule was, and often confused about whether the principle had changed. Sometime during the eighties, people most gave up saying out loud that things were better when it was in Latin; you got the feeling that people were resigned. Then there was a brief moment when the choir teachers taught us kids how to sing the Agnus Dei, and there was a Mass in Latin once -- and then apparently some boom was lowered, and that went away again.
However, when bits of Latin or old polyphony would pop up, many people would be very happy about it.
Now, in the parish on the other side of town where I live now, the sentiment tends to be the other way -- people mutter about how horrible the old days were. But you can get away with quite a lot of "old" music if you do it at the right Masses.
I went to a npm convention where the keynote speaker said that his first reaction to the reforms was "they cant ban latin for it is the soul of the church." Then he laughed and said how wrong he was. There was a crescendo of polite chuckeling of agreement from the peanut gallery.There is also a progressive bishop who said that they had to ban the old mass because if the people were given an option they would never have embraced the novus ordo changes
I also remember a dialogue on another combox with a priest you describe above. His explination is that he entered seminary with the expectation of liturgical reform.
I found his explination disengenuious at best and a recollection perhaops a bit clouded by the 40 year brainwashing weve all had to endure.
denial is very strong, it would appear, to that generation.
Good Catholic folk went along eagerly--at first. We obeyed, we trusted and even relished the chance to take a more intimate role in public worship. The awakening, for me at least, came very early indeed. All in chapel, especially dear old Fr. Casimir, OSB, knew exactly where i stood when the hand-out with "Kumbaya" and "Michael Rowed the Boat Ashore" was indignantly hurled to the floor. I've been an ardent reformer of the reform ever since, enduring many, many a weekend martrydom.
I am a survivor and I can tell you that Humanae Vitae (uber-Liberal Father Greeley's hypothesis for collapse in Mass attendence) simply does not hold water. Humanae Vitae was promulgated in 1968, whereas, the first "reforms" in the Mass occured in 1964. In the 4 years inbetween the commencement of the reforms and Humanae Vitae people were already voting with their feet in large numbers. In my Catholic family, 2 of my uncles by 1967 were no longer going to Sunday Mass because they were sick of the reforms and thought them silly and puerile, particularly the music.
As Father McAfee has noted, for those of us who remained, we did so because we accepted Church authority, even when we didn't like what they were selling in terms of liturgical reform. I grew up in a Parish where the Missa Recitata or Missa Cantata was the Sunday norm. I could chant 5 different Gregorian ordinaries by the time I was 10 and thought the reforms were largely unnecessary.
If I had been allowed to "vote" on the liturgical changes at the time I would have voted no, at least in the form they were presented. I agree with the comment that the liturgical elite high-jacked the reform and took what could have been a great moment in building on the foundations of liturgical renewal from the earlier part of the 20th century and instead wreaked havoc, destroyed Church art and music in the most totalitarian fashion in the name of the "spirit of Vatican II."
I applaud Pope Benedict and his efforts to revisit the assumptions underlying the Reform in a systematic and studied manner and to those on this website who are dedicated to these efforts.
Tom
As someone who was a child in those days, it was VERY confusing. We were taught that we needed to go to confession on Thursday evenings, to church on Sundays, Sunday school on Sundays and Tuesday, grace was said before every meal. Imagine our surprise when we no longer HAD to eat fish on Friday, that my fathers and uncles no longer went to mass on Sunday, grace was OPTIONAL!!!!!, and grandma would sit for hours and lament missing Latin spoken at mass, replaced with a more folk-oriented gathering.
Those were tough days to get accustomed to after many years of tradition.
A very thoughtful article.
I myself take the viewpoint that the problems of the Paul VI liturgy and sacraments, are not necessarily in how they are celebrated but also within themselves. The words, rubrics and indeed the theology that characterized the liturgical reform of 1970, was a spirit that was alien to the Catholic church.
It is not enough to say that the "reform of the reform" will sort everything out. To borrow a situation from the late Michael Davis: there is a reason why people would rather assist a traditional mass said in an accurate vernacular translation, than a Latin Novus Ordo celebrated ad orientem and in Roman vestments. The gutting out of ceremonies and prayers of ancient use is a very important reason, why good Catholics may respectfully contest against.
I suspect that while the "reform of the reform" crowd has many good intentions that are applaudable, they do not look enough into the question of whether the actual rite itself is wanting.
I am 63 years old. My memories of the pre Vatican II church are wonderful memories. I remember around Easter all the preparation both spiritual and cultural (my parents were both born in Italy).
I left the Church for over thirty years. I could not believe that all that I knew had collapsed.
It appears that the Holy Spirit is at work, I believe that the next generation will rediscover all the liturgical beauty and treasure of the Holy Roman Church.
Deo Gratia
It's important to remember that one of the biggest reasons for negative reaction to Humanae Vitae was that people had developed the expectation that the pope was going to say the opposite of what he ended up saying.
And in what kind of environment did those expectations develop? The chaos of the reforms of the mid-60s. I'm not laying this all at the feet of the reforms, but this timeline alone proves that Dr. McInerny's thesis in his book on this subject (What Went Wrong with Vatican II?) is, at best, incomplete, in my opinion.
My situation is rather opposite. I endured the Novus Ordo for forty years. I always left angry, with a headache abd heartburn. (I never suffer from either otherwise.) I quit going three years ago. I just couldn't stand it anymore. I'm 63. I was in seminary years ago. Because of the MP, perhaps I'll be able to go across the street to the EF when I'm in my eighties. Right now I'll have to settle for the Breviary and the Rosary and unfulfilled desires. Thanks for listening. And thanks for raising this point.
When lay Catholics have been told for decades there is not any difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, should anyone be surprised?
When your average Novus Ordo Mass looks just like a Lutheran service or Evangelical service, should we be surprised that the Evangelicals have picked off our ranks?
Hopefully, Benedict XVI will give us the beginnings of a Catholic rennaisance. I converted to Catholicism because I became convinced that Luther was wrong. We shouldn't be haughty toward Protestants, but we need to be confident about who we are as Catholics.
Take a look at the Zion Lutheran Church website, and you will see an instance when a Protestant church is more Catholic than your typical Novus Ordo parish.
I can attest to being one of those who was disheartened by the liturgical reforms and looking desperately for a Catholic church that held sober, worshipful liturgies. I left the Church and tried going to a Greek Orthodox church, then an Anglican church. Finally, I found out that the Latin Mass had "returned," and I came back to the Roman Catholic Church. To add some statistics to this question, while I was in the Anglican church I met several former Catholics who left the Church because of the liturgy, and were then quite happy being Anglicans.
I'm glad you brought this here (I am assuming partially in response to a poster over at the CMAA boards taking a ride on his favorite hobby horse.)
I had a long post almost written there that vanished into the ether, but I'll reconstruc and post there.
I am also glad that Liam brought up Humane Vitae, which contributed a great deal to what I see as the Perfect Storm of disaffected Catholics, (though not, probably, in the way many think.)
Save the Liturgy, Save the World!
Interesting thesis, well-presented. You id'd the "self-selected" flaw in the survey base.
I agree that those who remained within the Church are those who were largely obedient.
Some suggest that rationalization is also at work, which may be true for a few. I think, instead, that a certain Enlightenment mentality is/was also at play: that we were, after all, so much more Informed than our grandparents (etc.)
Perhaps the two (rationalization and Enlightenment) are effectively identical; but I think the distinction should be maintained.
"To add some statistics to this question, while I was in the Anglican church I met several former Catholics who left the Church because of the liturgy, and were then quite happy being Anglicans.
"
To be clear, these aren't statistics but rather anecdotal. Any Catholic still in the folds of the TEC - by and large - would today be there out of political and theological reasons above and beyond liturgical disaffection with modern Rome. No amount of distaste for the novus ordo implimented in the worst offending parishes could get me to merrily prance over to woman-priest central and run the risk of being under (no pun intended) +Gene Robinson.
Also worth considering is the Eastern Orthodox. They had no such similar reform and loathe as some apologists may be to admit it - most outside of the Greek Archdiocese have largely collapsed in on their old parochial models. The parishes have shrunk sizeably and most priests outside of the GOA have to work full time secular jobs to support their families... Whole diocese of the OCA are now smaller than cathedral parishes used to be!
Opinions are like noses, everyone has them, so mine can be dismissed as just another, but for my money, it wasn't just the change in the liturgy (how many hippies @ Woodstock sharing the peace pipe & free love had grown up altar boys???) but the cultural melee of the time.
Some of the arch-dissidents of our time were firmly formed in the pre-conciar seminary system and photos of Hans Kung celebrating his first Mass - the tridentine Mass - are out there for those who go looking. Abortion became legal in California and parts of Catholic Europe well before the new missal came out. We were already knee deep in some problems.
How many ex-Catholics have told me of their childhood experiences with the common parochial low Masses ("That were mumbled in 15 minutes") I can no longer recall. Contrary to the grand and careful TLMs of today, in days of yore, this wasn't always the average. Maybe if every priest HAD behaved and preached and celebrated the old rite the way the FSSP trains men to do today, things would have been different.
Quote "Otherwise, why would Novus Ordo priests and laity faithfully attend such masses daily?"
Answer: they have no other choice but to stay home!.
"I don't recall a single person expressing regret over the 1965 reforms. As for the 1970 reforms, if there was a negative emotion expressed it was simply in having to learn new responses..."
I'm not being mean or anything Liam, but because one person doesn't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen, and even on your own doorstep. Fr. Gomar DePauw was protesting the changes of '65 and '70 to the rooftops in New York City, and making into articles in Time Magazine on the novelty of Catholics resisting the instructions of the Papacy on Liturgy and the implementation of the Concilium.
Truly the disaster did happen, but it was a different culture then, without instantaneous forums of information like this one, and their efforts to adhere to tradition, and their success in networking and doing so, even to the point of excommunication, are both heroic and all the more remarkable for the limitations of the time.
And it all happened the way it did because the culture of unquestioning obedience was taken advantage of by the members of the Consilium in their heartless zeal, and this point is testified to by Marini by his own hand, and in his own recent book "A Challanging Reform" Hoist by his own petard, I would say, but that's only my opinion. Nevertheless, people did complain, they did do something about it, and the fruits of what they did is helping to facilitate Benedict XVI's efforts to right the listing Barque of Peter. May God give him strength and length of years in his efforts.
Ottaviani-
I see nothing wrong with the rites of the NO. It can and should be a beautiful and reverent reflection of tradition. Are there issues? Yes. But there are also issues with the Old Mass. That is why Vatican II sought reform in the first place! Yet both forms remain perfectly valid and wonderful.
Quote "I would expect that we'd see quite a few folks in their 70's and 80's "come home" as they look back and evaluate their lives, etc., but have not yet seen it myself."
Well since maybe one to three parishes per Diocese offer the TLM, does it really surprise you. Do you think these 70 year olds are going to commute far and wide every Sunday. Until this is implemented in every parish church. At least one TLM per parish, you won't see those older people returning to soon. Unless there is one close by.
a simple sinner,
I am afraid you are right on a number of scores. The lack of care in celebrating the Old Rite did help to bring about its demise in the minds of many of the faithful. I often felt that the interim Missal could have been translated fully inyo the vernacular, and eased the liturgical transition. Your comments about Eastern Orthodox parishes, while relective of many parishes, doesn't adequately address parishes that have made the liturgy the center of parish life. Many are in the category of vibrant,worshipping communities especially ROCOR parishes. What we have witnessed in both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic worlds is the spirit of this world permeating the life of Christians, seducing them to live more secular lives. We need to pray, repent, re-catechize, and be faithful to the ongoing Tradition of the Church.
I think we need a Vatican III. To fix the screw ups of Vatican II. And Vatican III will can not include any liberals at all. They need to stay right at home. Until this mess they caused is fixed up for the future of our church.
"That is why Vatican II sought reform in the first place!"
There is a difference between "Vatican II" and the "Consilium" which revised the rites of 1970. They sought to fabricate, and did fabricate a mandate for the reform of the rite, which then then bullied Paul - and he spinelessly acquiesced - into signing. Marini admits this. The council had no mandate whatsoever to touch the Roman Canon. But the Consilium did, and they did not act in any way shape or form with the authority of the full Church assembled in Ecumenical Council. So the above quoted assertion is a misconception.
But the issue I intended to address above is really Catholic Culture. What I said in my previous entry is really the mechanism by which Catholic Culture in modern society got dumped - as our traditional Catholic Culture stems from the liturgy. Destroy the liturgy, destroy the culture.
But does the culture still exist? I would say yes, because we live in the age of the totality of history. Nothing is lost, it simply waits to be perceived, recommunicated, and manifested. An idea is never dead if it is recorded, only latent. Further, no latent recorded idea is ever "old," if it is being understood by a person for the first time. Fact.
Proof: None of us has been listening to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony since the day it was written, we heard it for the first time quite some time after that, therefore, whatever music has been written in the intervening period, that Symphony and its ideas are brand new to us. It might as well have been written the day before we heard it. Such are the implications of the technological age in which we live.
The same can be said for the traditional Catholic liturgy, and the culture that stems from it. It simply waits to be manifested. Judging by the increased manifestation the traditional mass is enjoying, and which we may expect to increase exponentially, that is significant cause for hope, I think.
Thank you, Jeffrey, for bringing up an issue that is worth reflecting on. Having grown up post-changes, I don't comment from personal experience.
A few ideas:
As some already wrote, the issue is extremely complicated, and cannot be answered in a generalization. Judging from Pre-60's books, though, the church was constantly reinforcing the idea that the Mass was totally linked with Catholic identity, universality, and the stability of the church. This view was taught to High School students and converts up to at least 1963, with the exception of a few rare places were the liturgical movement had a very strong influence. To deny this is to deny the evidence of the books published at the time.
Also, as previously stated, one can't divorce this issue from the profound cultural upheaval taking place, which likely helped a portion of the church population, (those younger), accept changes.
I believe, (and this is rather inflammatory, I realize), that many events were simultaneously planned by the devil to subvert the faith of many. I am of the opinion that a true revolution took place, which by it's definition attempts to overthrow the old order so completely as to prevent its return. I own many booklets and pamphlets given out after the changes, and they would make any Stalinist happy with their clever propaganda. When I read them, I have a hard time believing in the innocence of someone who would have to resort to psychological manipulation.
Things like that have to be factored in. For catholics who grew up in the 'old church' to have so many parts of their faith (even if they were indifferent to them) suddenly replaced would necessarily be traumatic. These realities belie the simplification 'Catholics were unhappy and repressed in the old days and were relieved with the changes'.
Sorry to have gone on so much....
Ottaviani: As has been well noted on this blog, many people in the "reform of the reform" movement seek more than simply "dressing up" the revised rites (i.e., making them look more traditional). There are structural and other aspects of the preconciliar rites that should be judiciously recovered.
I am a convert, now for 28 years. At first I did not know ant better, it was the Mas. By Divine Providence I came under the influence of a very holy Priest who showed me and my husband (a cradle Catholic)what was wrong in the church and with the new Mass and gently lead us to the Traditional Mass which we now have been attending for 19 years. A Mass that our Bishop set up. As a convert I can not for the life of me understand why any Catholic could or would give this Mass of the Ages up. I can understand why the martyrs shed their blood during the reformation for this Mass, but I just can not understand how so many did not fight to save what they had always known to be true.
When considering people's acceptance of the reforms during the 1960's and early 1970's,it is important for those of you who were not around then to take into account the other, massive changes occuring in society, particularly in the U.S, during those several years. I oubt that the changes that occurred in the liturgy would jave been possible in 1948, or even in 1959... but with the destruction of cultural norms and the challenges to tradition, authority and Institutions in general, the reforms of the liturgy were just "one more thing" for many, and were seen as a "sign of the times". To say that those were "difficult times" is an understatement of epic proportions. The destruction of the old and total replacement by the new and innovative was the norm in nearly every facet of society. Our liturgical reforms are a product of the 1960's cultural revolution. Keep "that" In Mind...
The Tridentine Mass should be imposed on all, as it was Pre Council.
And I shall tell you why.
The Church is not a Democracy, but rather She is a Hierarchy of Salvific sustenance.
Is it wise or prudent to give someone a choice between two sources of nourishment, one being chocolate cake and the other lean meat and vegetables, as a steady diet?
Many would chose the cake, but this would be an unhealthy and misinformed choice.
The more nourishing food, or in the case of the Sacrifice of Holy Mass, the more spiritually, and liturgically rich Mass should be mandated.
I grant that this is a crude analogy, but the mandated Classical Rite of Mass worked for many centuries.
It should be mandated again.
I have spoken with older people who remember the changes in the 1960's and it seems to me that they have a fear and aversion to being batted around and confused by the winds of change in the liturgy and just want orthodox stability, which is what they had before the Council and if the Tridentine Mass was made the norm again all would eventually settle down.
Ut Prosim
Hieromonk Gregory,
Father bless!
To be sure I tried to qualify my comments but did not do so well enough. I know well of some dynamic parishes in the EO world in the US... I also understand that modern life in Greece looks pretty much like the Catholic mediterranean in some respect. Century XX was not easy for any of us - even in the "Free World"!
My point - which you definately got to the heart of - was that there is no "magical perfect liturgy". No special mass that if we just employ we won't "need to pray, repent, re-catechize, and be faithful to the ongoing Tradition of the Church" as you put it. I have seen modern liturgy done well, and "traditional" liturgy (Eastern and Western) done in a fashion that made it look like a burdensome chore. That second hour of church slavonic mispronounced or off key half-dead gregorian chant, really is the hour that can kill ya!
Quote "There is a difference between "Vatican II" and the "Consilium" which revised the rites of 1970. They sought to fabricate, and did fabricate a mandate for the reform of the rite, which then then bullied Paul - and he spinelessly acquiesced - into signing. Marini admits this. The council had no mandate whatsoever to touch the Roman Canon. But the Consilium did, and they did not act in any way shape or form with the authority of the full Church assembled in Ecumenical Council. So the above quoted assertion is a misconception."
Then how does the church fix this mess?. In other words the Pope needs to state in a letter to all Roman Catholics that Paul VI was bullied as you say to changing the Mass, and that this is reason enough to declare this Mass as a flop that needs to be reformed and now not in 20 or so years. And that all Roman Rite Catholics today unfortunately were led astray by the Consilium. So put away your guitars, your contemporary music, Extra Ordinary Eucharistic ministers, altar girls. We will go back to the English Mass the way it was before 1970. A sort of TLM in English.
Dan Hunter,
But take your crude analogy and make it a little more sophisticated. While it is certainly better in the long run for the person to have a diet of lean meat and vegetables, if his digestion is not used to such food, forcing it down his throat will only make him sick.
It would be a pastoral disaster to force the old rite on exceedingly poorly catechized Catholics, as the newer form of the mass was forced on their parents 40 years ago. To return to your analogy, Benedict is a wiser parent (or doctor): he knows that the patient will need a very long recovery, with judicious doses of medicine combined with a gradual change in diet.
John
I know you are not being mean. I wrote my comment specifically *because* I was *NOT* universalizing it, unlike some others here. I was being purely anecdotal, but this is a thread of anecdotes, isn't it. Attempts to universalize the responses to this kind of post (regardless of viewpoint - I've seen Latin-haters do the exact same thing, just from the opposite side) invariably fail.
Actually, my real point was somewhat buried in my aside - that it seems it was and remains common for many Catholics in the pews to be wary of anything that smacks of excessive enthusiasm about the liturgy (either to change it or to maintain it in excellence) - rather, a pragmatic docility seemed to be much more common. Folks like us here are the exception to the more common pattern. So we should be aware we only represent us and like-thinking people - not everyone.
I think, in many ways, the Mass of Pope Paul VI has been abandoned, too. Celebrated reverently, the Novus Ordo is a beautiful and digified rite. And I believe the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass have a place in evangelization (with people with different temperaments being attracted to the different rites). Sacrosanctum Concilium asserted that Latin was to remain the liturgical language. Gregorian chant was supposed to be given "pride of place" in the liturgy. In (then) Cardinal Ratzinger's book "The Spirit of the Liturgy," he stated that the canon of the Novus Ordo mass (after the Sanctus until the final doxology) could be prayed by the priest silently. I love the Tridentine Mass. I don't think I've ever been given a chance to love the Novus Ordo. I don't think the Novus Ordo mass will be celebrated differently or reverently in the future. And, given what I've read and seen, I think the Tridentine Mass will be confined to one or two parishes in each diocese (it seems like so many bishops and priests are very resistant to the old mass and they'll make excuses or play word games with 'stabiliter' versus 'continentur'). I know of people who have actually relocated to Nebraska because of the bishop there and their reverent liturgies.
Fr DePauw, btw, was indeed a novelty and stuck out for that reason. He wasn't alone, to be sure, but those who agreed with him were *relatively* scarce on the ground where I was, not so far away ("relatively", in a diocese that was thick with a couple of million Catholics, can mean more than in other areas).
Quote : "I think, in many ways, the Mass of Pope Paul VI has been abandoned, too. Celebrated reverently, the Novus Ordo is a beautiful and digified rite. And I believe the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass have a place in evangelization (with people with different temperaments being attracted to the different rites). Sacrosanctum Concilium asserted that Latin was to remain the liturgical language. Gregorian chant was supposed to be given "pride of place" in the liturgy. In (then) Cardinal Ratzinger's book "The Spirit of the Liturgy," he stated that the canon of the Novus Ordo mass (after the Sanctus until the final doxology) could be prayed by the priest silently. I love the Tridentine Mass. I don't think I've ever been given a chance to love the Novus Ordo. I don't think the Novus Ordo mass will be celebrated differently or reverently in the future. And, given what I've read and seen, I think the Tridentine Mass will be confined to one or two parishes in each diocese (it seems like so many bishops and priests are very resistant to the old mass and they'll make excuses or play word games with 'stabiliter' versus 'continentur'). I know of people who have actually relocated to Nebraska because of the bishop there and their reverent liturgies."
So I guess I'll be stuck at home on Sundays and feast days for the rest of my life. I'll remember to play my Gregorian Chant cd every Sunday morning and reminise on what Mass could have been like, if their would have been no consilium of the 70's.
What should always be remebered by advocates of the new liturgy of Paul VI (and I mean ALL the followers of all the liturgical innovations of the Second Vatican Council)is this:If one thousand years of liturgical tradition could be abandoned,without so much as a major whimper, within only TEN years....what chance does the Novus Ordo have given it's very limited hold on the affections of most contemporary Catholics - readers of Commonweal/America etc.aside??? It hasn't a hope of long-term survival.
Btw, in the original reforms, I don't think it ever occurred to many chanceries or pastors that there was a serious option to opt out of a new edition of the Roman Missal (particularly one that had been issued in the wake of an ecumenical council). Chanceries and pastors were not normally chosen in those days for their powers of independent thinking....
Thus, the "effective banning" of the preconciliar ritual at the time of the new Missal would more likely seem to have arisen rom the culture of obedience that then obtained - Rome gives you a new Missal, you use the new Missal rather than some palace revolutionary mentality.
It's anachronistic to retroject later indult battles (which occurred with a somewhat different generation of prelates and clergy) into that time period.
The truth is usually for more prosaic and less melodramatic than we'd like.
Another note on the chronology: in the school year 1967-68 I was in 7th grade, and we got a new teacher, who happened to be a nun. She somehow introduced the music of Ray Repp, which we, as gleeful junior-high vandals, delighted in inflicting on the rest of the school. So, at that point, the Great Leap Forward was already in full swing. From the school Masses it rapidly spread to Sunday Masses. I remember my father being furious about it, but like everyone else, I don't remember any conflicts over it - no knock down, drag out fights in the parish council. It seemed like we were all walking willingly into something we didn't understand.
It was a very strange time. As several people have commented, anything old was immediately suspect. Teenagers, of course, will rebel against anything, but it seemed like the young adults were fully behind the revolution also (which would make them 65-75 now: the "Old Guard" we see defending the Ancien Regime).
I must add one more point. Pope Benedict XVI is the breath of fresh air that all Catholic and Orthodox minded persons have needed for a long time. It seems to me that he has a very clear vision of what is needed for true reform to work, centered on a vibrant and traditional liturgy. I see it so clearly whenever I read his theological and liturgical writings. He goes beyond a narrow theological perspective, referring so often to the great Patristic Writers. I do believe that we now are living in a new Patristic age, in large measure ushered in by His Holiness, something that both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can celebrate. May God grant him many more fruitful years!
I only hope your right Hieromonk Gregory!.
A friend of mine lived in a catholic orphanage, conducted by nuns. The old priest didn't change the TLM until his death. A short time later things changed abruptly. Tableaus and statues were remoted. Morning and evening prayers were abrogated. Habits were shortened. In the chapel the walls were painted white and the alcoves were filled up. And- there was a new priest kiddingly during mass; new songs, "suitable for children" were established. But- no one of the children liked it. They were shocked. They loved the former atmosphere. They didn't take this changes earnestly. As adolescents they had nothing to do with our Holy Mother Church. What a shock for a children's soul, being part of these changes 24 h a day.
I believe, (and this is rather inflammatory, I realize), that many events were simultaneously planned by the devil to subvert the faith of many.
Pittsburg, I could not agree more. I believe that this is the reason that this issue is so complex. Satan came at us from every angle, and capatalized on the confusion.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...
I am about to turn 29, so I wasn't even a twinkle in my mother's eye when the changes took place. I am in a bit of a unique situation, since I was an SSPX seminarian for two years in South America, so I got the good ol' days in a furious and intensive injection. I can only say that, having been to "devout" Novus Ordo Masses with Latin, Gregorian chant, and enough incense to make California health authorties crack down on the second hand smoke, they are simply not them same. Indeed, I always feel that Novus Ordo Masses "according to the book" feel a lot like Anglican services with the taste and elan ripped out of them.
I think the reason for this difference has nothing to do with the smells and bells, no matter how "structural" one wants to make the matter. It has to do with an attitude towards liturgy. In any Pauline Mass, it is the celebrant who knows better, in the old Mass, the Eastern liturgies, and even High Church Anglicanism, it is the rubrics, i.e. the tradition, that knows better. That is just the structure of how the New Mass was conceived: the priest always has options, he is always adapting the ceremony towards his own ideas and fancies (orthodox or unorthodox), and no two priests do it the same way. This practice may not be that noxious in and of itself, but the problem is that it introduces into the Catholic mind the idea that all things are mutable, even the most important ones. It creates a vacuum of the sacred, because, when it comes down to brass tacks, the sacred is something you just don't mess with. You can do it sloppily, you can do it begrudgingly, you may hate doing it, but you do it anyway, and you do it just as it is written.
Absent this attitude, is it any wonder that fewer people take the Church seriously? The Mass has various changing parts. Marriage is for life, unless you get an annulment, which is becoming easier and easier to get. Outside the Church there is no salvation, with the mandatory caveat that you can be saved outside of it if you are "invincibly ignorant", which can include most people except Hitler on a bad day, etc. etc. In these circumstances, why not contracept, why should Catholic morality be taken seriously, if everything else is in a hazy shade of gray.
Maybe the old liturgy wasn't perfect, but that doesn't mean anyone was/is smart enough to have fixed it. Maybe the removal of the old Mass didn't cause anything, but it may have just been one symptom of the death of the sacred in the Western world, a sense of the sacred that even the pagans got right. Maybe there are little things that can be done (celebrating ad orientem and getting rid of the table for example). But the damage is done, and there are no easy fixes.
A wonderful article that asks the question, Were the Catholic people happy about the abandonment of the old Mass?
I have said this many times! I was in Grade School during "the changes."
All the people and our Monsignor (a seminary professor) were "distressed" over the changes that came upon us. These included changes in the Mass, the music, the church architecture, theology (sin, Heaven, Hell, the Devil, Purgatory, prayer), catechesis and much more.
People were confused, saddened, shocked, scandalized and yes - - many did LEAVE. Many nuns and priests left. Slowly, the changes changed us all...one day at a time. And one day we woke up and found we were no longer Catholics anymore, but Protestants.
My Mother said in 1964, "They are going to turn us into Protestants."
And after gutting our Church of statues and paintings and high and side altars...then whitewashing the walls...Msgr. Punke said before his death, "I regretted all I did to destroy that beautiful sanctuary,"
Where is the sanity to turn back the clock?
The people who remained are "accustomed" to the "new ways" now. The people who have left (like myself, have found comfort in an illicit Independent Chapel with an incardinated priest on LOA from his diocese. I am choir director/ organist there. I could no longer provide "unsacred music" to our Catholic people.
I believe Pope Benedict is slowing putting on the brakes and trying to turn things around. Would it have happened 40 years sooner!
what restoration?
to MarkvF: thank you for saying what i also know to be true...that the novus ordo has also been adbandoned. i live in philadelphia and the masses there are all the same...you just sit there while someone shouts at you. there is no real participation by anyone except a handful of people and most of the hymns are low church protestant. there is no chant at all and the priest leads the entire mass from the pulpit without someone holding the book for him. if someone is holding it that someone is not clothed in an alb.
A bit of news just in from Father Z.
"Cardinal Rigali on Introducing Seminarians to the 1962 Missal"
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/03/c...n-philadelphia/
This is a very important and interesting post. Many people in cluding my own family thought they were getting the Old Mass in English. As Mass usualy meant Low Mass within 25 minutes it seemed logical. Of course the readings in English also seemed an obvious change. To this day I am sure most Catholics think the Novus Ordo Mass is the same as the Old Mass but in English. If they knew as I discovered that ancient prefaces were changed. That the loaded committee edited out concepts that modern man might find difficult. That ancient things were altered and new material inserted they would be outraged. Other changes such as Mass facing the people, communion in the hand etc were pased of as ancient things rediscovered.. which they were not. Most Catholics trust and leave things that they are troubled by to the priests. There are just too many contradictions to try and make sense of in life and anyhow "The Pope tells the bishops, the bishops tell the priests and they tell us...what is the use. Either you put up and shut up or just stop going to Mass".
If most Catholics grasped the fraud they would be outraged and it could not go on!
"I think, in many ways, the Mass of Pope Paul VI has been abandoned, too. Celebrated reverently, the Novus Ordo is a beautiful and digified rite.' the problem that bothers me about this..bothers my conscience is that it is still the product of that terrible committee and in itself even ih the latin represent a serious departure from and mutilation of the missal as received...for no good reason apart from modernist ideology. The Book of Common Prayer is beautiful and dignified but it is not the Sarem Rite.
All of us know what the committee did and know it was regretable. So why should I accept the fruit of the committee?
I would rather the 1962 Mass in English.
"The people who remained are "accustomed" to the "new ways" now. The people who have left (like myself, have found comfort in an illicit Independent Chapel with an incardinated priest on LOA from his diocese. I am choir director/ organist there. I could no longer provide "unsacred music" to our Catholic people."
Incardinated?
Incardinated into what jurisdiction exactly? The Diocese of Illicit Chapel?
Once he starts publically celebrating the sacraments in an "independant chapel" not blessed or authorized by the local ordinary, I have news for ya - he isn't just on "LOA" from his diocese... He is on LOA from the Church.
Open your eyes! Mainstream catholics don't want a return to the tridentine rite. Most people these days go to Mass because they want to, not because they feel they have to. Thank God for Vatican 11.
I think a more appropriate name for this site would be 'The New Old Liturgical Movement'. Who cares what the authority decide to impliment, they can have the mass said in a tree, it may even be better, closer to God. It is not the liturgy which is important, it is relationship. If someone has left the church, what was their relationship with God based on? I am in no way an educated person, like many of the readers here, but i can speak God, and if a person finds God in a deeper way somewhere else, good on them, we do not have the monopoly on truth. I am from Sydney, we are under a conservative cardinal here and what we find is a lack of spirituality replaced by rules and regulations. Let us go beyond liturgy, to relationship. Relationship does not come from liturgy. Johnathan, grow up, the devil did not confuse us. That is a very immature faith, im sorry.
Dear Pat. I agree with you. However liturgy is relationship, a very special relationship with Our Saviour in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. People who really understand this attend Mass in whichever form it is offered. The Holy Mass is not a liturgical fantasyland, this praise God is one of the great hallmarks of the liturgical reforms.
"relationship doesnt come from liturgy"
huh!!?
I dont know about you but I dont go to church to have a relationship, I dont go to church because I enjoy it, or get anything out of it or expect a mountaintop handclapping yee-haw experience....
no, I go to church to worship God
I go to the Catholic church to worship God in the way my parents and grandparents worshipped-in authentic catholic worship.
I agree with superfrontel with one thing :"thank God for Vatican II." I only cant wait for it to be truly implimented.
Its truly time to get out of the 70s time warp weve been in for 40 years-dont you agree?
The relationship creates our liturgy. Does that make it clearer?
Pat Mara: "The relationship creates our liturgy. Does that make it clearer?"
Not really.
Though If I understand you, the junky liturgy we generally endure must be indicative of a junky, dysfunctional relationship. The majestic liturgy of the EF or even the OF properly celebrated, however, is surely indicative of the proper and healthy relationship between the God and his creations.
I wish I had saved a copy of a letter I received from my pastor when I wrote to him back around 1968 protesting the lack of Latin and Chant in the liturgy because it was mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium. He wrote back to me and I quote "that document has been superseded by the new missal so that Conciliar document has no legal effect any longer." And that my friends, I believe, captures the spirit and attitude of the times perfectly, and I daresay, still is the attitude of the doubleknit dinosaurs who still think they control the debate. I agree with the comment that the obedience of the Faithful was mercilessly exploited by an evil cabal. Tom
the destruction of the Mass did not begin at vatican II. it began long before that.
records from the kremlin clearly show that the communists infiltrated the church in the 1930s, placing thousands of their agents in the seminary. a good number of those men most assuredly made it to the highest levels of the clergy.
by the time of the council, those efforts of the communists had clearly born fruit. that is not to say that all of the bishops and cardinals present were communist, nor even most of them, but it is clear that the results of the council were in accordance with the desires of worldwide socialism.
the church was horribly weakened by the council, but not destroyed. men, even well intentioned men, can do great damage to an institution, even when they think that they are doing something for its own good. men of bad intention can do even more damage. that said, the church, as the creation of God, cannot be destroyed by men.
we have witnessed tens of millions of catholics leave the faith since vatican II, and tens of millions more have remained but are catholic in name only. catholic liturgy and catechism are a shambles, and catholic architecture was nearly destroyed.
only now are we beginning to come out of the dark ages of the council. i pray daily that God's will continue to guide pope benedict XVI and all of the clergy, in an effort to rebuild the church. i think that those prayers are beginning to be answered, and i am thankful for it, but we have a very long way to go.
unlike many here, i have no working knowledge of latin, either conversationally or liturgically. i would be perfectly content to see the Mass celebrated in english, but according to the old rite.
i am, however, in favor or returning latin to prominence as it serves as a unifying language to a universal church. a catholic here (and it doesn't matter where here is) should be able to follow the Mass anywhere else in the world.
the church has been battered many times during the last 2000 years, the last 40 years is just the most recent assualt on the faith. it will survive, but we must all pray for the church daily, especially the clergy, and most especially for pope benedict XVI.
If you say that the Mass had to be changed as much as it was, you are saying, logically, that the church must have been doing something quite far from ideal for a VERY long time.
You are also saying that the worldview/churchview of the canonized saints was mistaken. I am not comfortable with saying either.
Also, liturgy = relationship(whatever that's supposed to mean) is a foreign idea to catholic worship throughout the ages, (barring the 1960's, frankly).
Either the Mass is calvary mystically re-enacted or it isn't....
During the winter, I was talking to my high school English teacher about the wonderful things that are now happening, and she recalled how at weekday Masses in her parish, the priest would peek out of the sacristy, and if a couple of certain people weren't there, he'd tell the altar boy to set up for the old Mass. Apparently he did this for a number of years.
I have heard such things from a good number of people (while from only a few have I heard all the stuff about "the priest with his back to the people")
It seems that much of what happened was a terrible coincidence (not in terms of being random, for it was certainly intended by the forces of evil) of things that would destroy the Faith.
This is a great topic. I have often wondered how many people just couldn't take it and left. And how many of the agitators and indifferent stayed...
The common denominators as I see them are 1- lack of obedience and 2- lack of formation.
When people agitate within the Church and decry real, God-given authority, they deny Jesus' own Gospel mandates and so cannot claim a true relationship with Him. Relationship with God and obeying *competent* authority is a great part of living in harmony with Christ's Church, is it not?
Likewise, when people leave the Church and attend, for example, a beautiful Anglican liturgy, they also have left the Truth. They have not been well-formed if they thought they would be somehow pleasing God more by simply worshiping in a more reverent manner outside His Church.
Now concerning the U.S. and most of the developed world, mix the problems of disobedience and lack of Catholic formation with a consumer approach toward religion. This consumer approach tends to exacerbate both problems, and distorts the search for Truth into a search for the most comfortable.
It is so good to see BXVI moving to address both lack of obedience and lack of formation and turn us toward the Lord. And attending to the Sacred Liturgy is at the heart of all this.
Patrick,
Perhaps I missed it in the 70 plus posts, but I think it's fair to point out that the recent motu proprio refutes your claim that those who stayed with the 1962 Missal in 1970 (mostly those who followed Archbishop Lefebvre) didn't obey the magisterium. In fact, they did. Pope Paul VI was in error if he meant to say that the magisterium had abolished that Mass, that was beyond his authority, as pointed out by Cardinal Ratzinger in the Spirit of the Liturgy, then enshrined in Church Law by Pope Benedict in the motu proprio.
Suzanne,
Stand strong, some Catholics confuse obedience with following orders, no matter how contrary to Church Tradition and tradition. We'll see in good time who is in the Church and who isn't! I shudder to make that judgement.
Patrick wrote:
"Otherwise, why would Novus Ordo priests and laity faithfully attend such masses daily?"
()
Patrick, pardon me, but that is a really silly question. People "faithfully" attend such Masses because:
1. It's their parish.
2. The surrounding parishes are just as crappy.
3. They can't get to another parish.
4. The list is endless "why," but it doesn't necessarily mean they like it.
MarkvF wrote:
"I think, in many ways, the Mass of Pope Paul VI has been abandoned, too. Celebrated reverently, the Novus Ordo is a beautiful and digified rite. And I believe the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass have a place in evangelization (with people with different temperaments being attracted to the different rites). Sacrosanctum Concilium asserted that Latin was to remain the liturgical language. Gregorian chant was supposed to be given "pride of place" in the liturgy. In (then) Cardinal Ratzinger's book "The Spirit of the Liturgy," he stated that the canon of the Novus Ordo mass (after the Sanctus until the final doxology) could be prayed by the priest silently.
I love the Tridentine Mass. I don't think I've ever been given a chance to love the Novus Ordo. I don't think the Novus Ordo mass will be celebrated differently or reverently in the future. And, given what I've read and seen, I think the Tridentine Mass will be confined to one or two parishes in each diocese (it seems like so many bishops and priests are very resistant to the old mass and they'll make excuses or play word games with 'stabiliter' versus 'continentur'). I know of people who have actually relocated to Nebraska because of the bishop there and their reverent liturgies."
()
Mark, you said things in a very clear and straightforward manner. I couldn't have put it more directly.
While the Holy Father himself said as Carindal, the Novus Ordo is theologically poor and hermeneutic rupture with the past, I would like to add that I have been to Novus Ordo Masses which were very well put together and also very reverent. I am not making excuses for the Ordinary Form, other than it is what it is.
I abhor the abuses of the Novus Ordo and the "couldn't care less" attitude of Rome and the various bishops in stopping the abuse. There is this attitude that N. O. is IT and that it's the end-all, be-all. Wrong.
Yes, I, too, love the Tridentine Mass and believe wholeheartedly it needs to become more universal in its use. I am convinced the Holy Father wishes the Tridentine Mass to used and accepted, not just smirked at and carry on without a second thought as to the intentions of the Holy Father.
We'll see what the Clarifications say when it comes out in a few weeks, a few centuries, whatever. Only God knows with Rome nowadays.
Shawn is right about a lot of the older generation: they had to convince themselves that the reforms were desirable, and revisiting that now is not a pleasant idea. This is most especially the case for priests: those ordained in the 1950's spent the prime of their lives undergoing the changes and getting their people to accept them, while those ordained in the late 1960's and the 1970's received a seminary formation that often taught them a perceived need to break with the past. The idea that what they were taught to leave behind is still valuable is a difficult one to accept now.(It goes without saying that there are plenty of exceptions to this, but I think the overall trend is there.)
I disagree with these priests on many things, but I can have great sympathy for what they're going through. Vatican II and its aftermath was the key experience that formed these men's consciousness about the Church, just as the pontificate of John Paul II did for my generation. For many of them, to question anything associated with Vatican II probably feels like questioning the foundations of their faith. For us who didn't live then, while we obviously acknowledge Vatican II's doctrinal authority, we don't have any personal stake in the reform project as a whole, and are quite willing to reconsider aspects of it.
These are good things to bear in mind as we try to pursue authentic liturgical renewal in a spirit of charity towards all. While we may have great ideas, we need to realize that a lot of people, through no fault of their own, will feel personally hurt by the suggestion that the reform needs any reform.
It's also the case that some people have rather mixed feelings about the whole period: a very devout older person I know has a lot of fond memories of the Mass as it was, but her feelings don't extend to the old funeral customs. She was rather surprised to hear that black vestments, which she considered "depressing," were gaining popularity among seminarians.
First of all, Liam, I'm glad you didn't take offence.
"Celebrated reverently, the Novus Ordo is a beautiful and digified rite. And I believe the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass have a place in evangelization (with people with different temperaments being attracted to the different rites)."
I can mostly accept that, albiet with the caveat "Celebrated reverently" printed in BOLD letters, and which to me means "in conformity to tradition, and without pandering to democratizing egalitarianism." Ad Orientem, with Gregorian chant, using Latin (and some Vernacular, too - in fact I could even stand some Vernacular in the Tridentine, though I wouldn't prefer it so), the Novus Ordo is indeed capable of great beauty. My point here being that I'm a reasonable man - a head banging traditionalist by preference, but realistic as well. I can accept change, if it's organic, but there are limits.
The state of the vernacular liturgy at present is beyond reason, often invalid, and is actually destructive to the doctrines of the church it pretends to serve. Much of the church is in no way Catholic...or even catholic. What are we to do about it? Follow Benedict XVI, and pray for length of his years.
Oh, and someone above wrote that as teenagers in '67 - '68 it seemed that your rebellion enjoyed full support of the young adults...have you really never made the connection between the Youth Cadres of Mao's Cultural Revolution, and the Youth Movement of today? Mao set them off to circumvent his own politbureau, then couldn't control them and fled to the hill while they wreaked destruction on society (read about it in the autobiography of his own Doctor). "Everything that hinted at age was suspect." Well, quite.
It may seem shocking if you've never considered the golbal implications of that sociological movement, but it has had and continues to have a massive effect in western societies. In my opinion, the '60 youth movement - politically (and until the Clintons, that is) - got as far as Kent State University. After that, it became clear that the upheaval would be confined to pop-media sub-culture, and would not be allowed to overturn the social order any further. The government put their foot on it's neck that day, and have largely kept it there ever since (Bill Clinton being the most prominant exception).
Our Government resisted on behalf of the social order a little more effectively than the Papacy did on behalf of the liturgy, and the culture that stems from it. Now as a church we are beginning to emerge from the purple-haze of youth for youth's sake (an empty premise if ever there was one), and novelty for the sake of novelty, even as the United States runs the risk of handing the government of the country back into the hands of the superannuated teenagers who ran the youth movement in the '60's. I think you can figure out who I'm talking about.
And if they inherit the mantle of power, the Church in it's weakened state is particularly vulnerable to oppression, because its culture has been diluted and is too much at odds with itself to withstand the withering onslaught to come. Think of the Archbishop of Mosul and imagine if it can't happen here.
So. Can a strong enough sense of Catholic identity be recovered in time...again. Follow Benedict XVI, and pray for his length of years.
Oh, and Liam, if I come off a bit strong sometimes, I have to admit, it's because I do like a good bellowing say-what-you-mean kind of no-holds-barred argy-bargy from time to time. It's the best thing about the blogosphere. It's the one place still free from political correctness!
John
If being free from political correctness is simply another way of saying free to overargue our points, I can only point out that is often the best way to become the chief enemy (by way of subversion) of one's own goals. Bellowing is best as a rare condiment - I don't eschew it rigorously but only generally, else it loses its effect and therefore value. I find this applies to liturgical discussion as much as any other, possibly even more. (Btw, in that light, by roughly what percentage do you mean "often invalid"? invalid Masses are scandalous enough without having the general run of Masses imputed with that suspicion - that accusation may itself prove quite scandalous and it confounds me why some who profess to love the Mass would traffic so eagerly in suggesting such et cet.)
Oh, and a trivia tidbit: opposition to the Vietnam War reached a plurality among the parental generation *before* the youth generation. But that doesn't fit everyone's favorite impressions of that decade.... Real history is funny like that.
In the 10 parishes that I have belonged to since I was a small child, not to mention the dozens I have worshipped in while vacationing or visiting relatives, I have only been to ONE parish in which the Novus Ordo Mass that was celebrated really well.
That parish was very, very lucky to have a priest who took great care to celebrate Mass in a reverent and dignified manner.
I hope that in the years since I have last attended Mass there, that parish hasn't gone to Hell in a handbasket like all too many parishes in the USA.
I well remember the intoduction of the changes to the Liturgy starting in 1964/5. I strongly favoured them. I subscribed through my teen age years to Worship Magazine and bought anything that was published by the Liturgical Press and I was criticised for my liberal views.
I was also in a parish with above average LIturgical standards. We had an Auxiliary bishop as pastor and I served Pontifical Masses (which I loved) frequently. We had a better than average hhoir and good instructive priests.
But by about 1966 I began to wonder if I had bet on the wrong horse. The books from the LIturgical Press never spoke about the destruction which came. Yes it's true, the people who were jostled about by changes in the Mass, in nuns' habits, in the Friday laws etc. were indeed set up to expect that the birth control rules were going to change and when they were disappointed on that score there were plenty of modern theologians there to tell them that hey should follow their own consciences.
As to the health of the Church, a cover story in Life Magazine in the summer of 1964 talked about the American Church being healthier than ever and it backed this up with a lot of facts. Included in the article was a quote by Church historian Msgr. Tracy Ellis warning that there was no guarantee that things would always be that good. Ironically, the article included a reference to the fact that in American churches, a significant portion of the Mass would go into the vernacular come December.
No! The people did not call for change. They obeyed and then drifted. And in my experience it is mostly older people who go to weekday Mass. Churches now seem to schedule their one weekday Mass at about 9:30 AM which means that school children and working people are automatically leftout.
Finally, regarding reform of the reform, forget it! Anyone who favours that option seems to be speaking of making the Novus Ordo look and sound like the Old Rite. The London Oratory even uses two deacons so that they will look like a deacon and subdeacon. I am tired of hearing about the abuses in the Novus Ordo. The truly wild things are never met by most congregations, On the contrary what they experience is mainly banal.
A writer above says that the problem is not in the externals but in the rite itself and he is right. Get two missals, one in the OF and one in the EF and compare them. Let me close by giving just one example, not from the Missl as such but from the Pontifical.
In the Old Rite, as the bishop was conferring the Instruments (chalice, purificator and paten with a large host and wine) on the newly ordained priest he said, "Receive the power to celebrate Mass and to offer sacrifice both for the living and for the dead in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
In the new Pontifical he says, "Receive the gifts of the people of God." No amount of Latin or external solemnities can make the new formula even begin to compare to the Old one.
I grew up the the physical shadow of the Catholic Church in the sixties - a 50% Catholic neighborhood. The effect of the implementation of the Council was to protestantize and Americanize the Catholic subculture. Most of the collapse in Mass attendance is simply a matter of people believing that attending Mass every Sunday is just not important. So when they conclude that the Mass doesn't meet their spiritual needs, they sleep in or go to a more exciting church.
Most of these people retain a sentimental attachment to the Catholic subculture but they do not impart the faith to their children nor does their Catholicism have any effect on their daily lives. Many of the people who do attend Mass and participate in parish life do so because they are attached to the parish community and/or because the degraded, semi-Christian sentimentality of the typical Novus Ordo Mass in their parish makes them feel close to God.
The restoration of authentic liturgy in our churches will cut Mass attendance by at least another 50%.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
