Over the last 43 years of ordination, I have tried to be an apologist for liturgical reform and why Vatican II’s bishops and their theologians felt that it was necessary. Even though there are some elements of what Pope St. Paul VI’s committee who redesigned the Mass based on what they felt, in the most clericalism sort of way, Vatican II “wanted”, which I think were misguided, I have and continue to support the modern Roman Missal when it is celebrated by the “book” and with the options allowed for it along with the styles of music allowed.
But most, not me of course, who promote the reforms of Vatican II simply don’t get why some don’t like those reforms. Why is that? Because progressives who gush over Vatican II and its misinterpretation always promote their ideology from an academic point of view, not a spiritual or mystical point of view.
From a not academic and non-cognitive point of view, the biggest problem with the reforms of Vatican II has to do with the elimination of the mystical aspect of the Mass which then led to the loss of reverence, the two happening almost simultaneously shortly after changes in the Mass began to be introduced in 1965.
In the desire for so many in the Church for the laity to completely understand everything about the Mass from an academic and historical perspective with different theological nuances, it was necessary to denigrate the mystical and reverence qualities of the pre-Vatican II Mass as well as the privileged priestly prayers of the priest prayed quietly.
I would say that mysticism and reverence could be restored even to the Modern Missal without any other changes to the Missal.
1. Vernacular isn’t the problem, but the complete elimination of Latin and Greek is a problem—some parts should be mandated in Latin universally, but definitely not the changing parts.
2. The revised order of the Mass and some of the elimination of so-call useless repetition is not the problem, but a conglomeration of too many options are. The biggest problem is making the chanted or spoken propers of the Mass, meaning the official Introit and Offertory and Communion Antiphons optional. This has led to horrible vernacular music and styles of music, some styles that eat away at mysticism and reverence.
3. Liturgical dance is not necessarily a problem. The old Mass itself is a dance but highly choreographed. The Mass is a dance, not dance added to the Mass. The problem with dance added to the Mass is that it is alien to our liturgy and turns the dancers into entertainers which often leads to applause when they finish their number. That destroys reverence and mysticism.
4. Prayers spoken out loud is not the problem but all prayers out loud and facing the nave confuse to whom the prayer is directed and turns the priest and others who say prayers into commentators who speak to the people before them. This eats away at mysticism and reverence. As well, sacred silence which occurs in prayer quietly prayed enhances mysticism and reverence, such as the low voice Eucharistic Prayer.
5. Holy Communion while standing and on the move simply rushes Holy Communion for the Communicant and destroys leisure mysticism and reverence which occurs when Holy Communion is offered to kneeling communicants at the altar railing. In this case, the priest is on the move, coming t us as we await Him. The priest distributing Holy Communion represents the movement of Christ in the Holy Spirit coming to us in procession. We await Him receive Him in reverence, pause for a mystical experience and return prayerfully devout to our pew renewed by the Gift received, Jesus Christ.
The Mass needs to be cognitively understandable but not to the point of destroying mysticism and reverence. Most celebrations of the modern Missal have little to no mysticism or reverence.
22 comments:
One of your best posts ever, Fr. McDonald.
You say: "...the biggest problem with the reforms of Vatican II has to do with the elimination of the mystical aspect of the Mass which then led to the loss of reverence,..."
In my estimation, this is what the modernists *wanted*. To downplay Christ's Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. (I've read a lot of books on this topic, but this goes down to another topic for discussion.)
Many priests praying the N.O., with its built-in myriad of options, *option out reverence*. It is so distressing. I just came back from an early Mass with maybe 75 folks assisting. Yet, we *had* to have an EMoHC!
No amount of "Eucharistic Coherence" promulgated by the USCCB will have any effect unless reverence and mysticism is brought back and the options are optioned *out* of the N.O.!
When the changes began our youngest priest at the parish expressed the same thoughts as you Father McDonald. The older priests seemed more accepting of the liturgical destruction. The Novus Ordo while valid has been wildly ineffective unless your goal is to destroy the Faith
Fr. McDonald, your views are changing ever so slightly. I should say are being refined. The only thing I would add is the deemphasis of contrition and confession concurrently with the new Mass. No more meatless Fridays or public penance or even imploring Devine help and assistance. A form of the Sin of Omission. We have demoted God to one of the other guests at the Mass as meal.
"I would say that mysticism and reverence could be restored even to the Modern Missal without any other changes to the Missal."
The truly mystical elements of the mass remain regardless of the rite being used.
In every mass the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus - a mystery "our senses fail to fathom - a mystery that is made present to us as a gift and as a challenge.
In every mass the saving act of Jesus is revealed to us anew. “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice ... ‘In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner’” (CCC 1367)
In the mass we unite ourselves to the sufferings of Christ. "The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering." (CCC 1368)
In the mass we are offered the grace needed to transform our lives so that through us the kingdom of God which is at hand can become more apparent in the way we live our lives.
The truly mystical elements of the mass are not made more so nor revealed more clearly by cloaking them in the mysterious - languages we don't understand, "privileged" priestly prayers, the canon prayed inaudibly, gestures repeated, etc.
"The truly mystical elements of the mass are not made more so nor revealed more clearly by cloaking them in the mysterious - languages we don't understand, "privileged" priestly prayers, the canon prayed inaudibly, gestures repeated, etc."
Yes, well...
How has that worked out for the Church these last 50+ plus years?
Not so good.
Well, Kev I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the mystical elements of the mass are present in one of the rites run and not the others? Are you saying that the absence in one or the other is responsible for the situation we find ourselves in these last 50 years? Be a little more specific.
The N.O. is not as efficacious as the TLM. Simple as that.
As Fr. Chad Ripperger says, "You get what you pray for."
What are the results of the N.O. these last 50 years? They speak for themselves.
Ck, but, but, FRMJK knows what he is talking about from his vast experience with both forms of the Mass, thus his evaluation is beyond reproach because he knows what he is talking about. Oh, wait, he has never celebrated the TLM and more than likely has no memory of attending it…NEVER MIND! CK, you nailed it!
Catechist Kev,
The empty cassock is a Dem operative masquerading as a Catholic priest. Abortion is “healthcare” so anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
Kev - The assertion that all (or at least most) things bad that have happened in Catholic culture in the West in the last 50 years are attributable to the changes in the mass is, in my estimation, a false analysis. Similar things, some times the same things, such as a decline in attendance, have happened in Protestant culture. In secular culture social service organizations like Sertoma, Jaycees, Lions CLubs, etc., have seen a precipitous drop in membership. Are THESE attributable to the changes in the Catholic mass? Clearly not.
I theorize that there is a larger phenomenon underlying most of the struggles. The radical individualism that began to overtake Western culture from the time of World War II is the root of our cultural struggles with an heavy overlay of wealth as the icing on the cake.
The other problem with the ordinary form, as it is practiced in nearly all parishes, is the lack of silence. Before the Mass there is choir warming up and "howdy-dos" all around. During the Mass every time there could be silence, the choir jumps in with some 1970s special out of the Breaking Bread hymnal. After the Mass, there is more back-slapping and chatting than before. There is never any silence. Contrary to what SC and every Pope prior to Francis repeated lay called for.
While the mystical elements, in the sacramental sense, are present in both forms of the Mass, which one better communicates them to the faithful?
Anthony,
Simple, the TLM. Of those that bother to go to the Novus Ordo only 30% believe in the Real Presence!
monk - In may parish my associate and I always make time for silence. Once, one of our senior members became a bit concerned that I was not starting the Alleluia quickly enough after the second reading. In his louder-than-necessary way, he said to his wife, "Is he asleep? I think he's asleep!"
Anthony - I would say that the mass in which the people are able to understand the prayers being prayed and see the uncluttered actions of the mass is the one that has the better chance of being understood.
"I would say that the mass in which the people are able to understand the prayers being prayed and see the uncluttered actions of the mass is the one that has the better chance of being understood."
That is the theory but given multiple polls about belief in the Real Presence — one shutters what would be the results of a poll about the Mass as a sacrifice — that theory has not held up in practice. By its fruits…
Anthony - Two things.
First, your contention seems to be that of Kev's, that the NO has failed to teach/communicate the truths of the Faith adequately. It seems to that you make two assumptions. One, the vetus ordo did accimplish this, and, two, that the mass in either form is a didactic tool meant to impart learning.
I don't know that we have ways to compare today's poll numbers about what Catholic believe with numbers from, say 100 years ago, let alone 800 years ago when, by your assumptions, everyone was learning correct and complete doctrine by attending mass.
Also, as I said above to Kev, there are many reasons why belief has declined, most of them having nothing to do with the form of the mass or, for that matter, anything to do with liturgy.
Father Allan – That is great insight on how kneeling at the altar railing allows for a brief pause as one waits for the priest or deacon to approach with Holy Communion. I have found those couple of seconds so helpful in quieting the mind to receive Our Lord. I am grateful that this opportunity is available at Most Holy Trinity.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
Although the Mass is primarily cultic and not didactic, it does have a didactic element; lex orandi, lex credendi after all. Nor is it a question of whether the new Mass fails completely to communicate the Faith, but which one does so better. If this were not true, what was the point in reforming the liturgy in the first place?
As for what Catholics believed a hundred or eight hundred years ago, we do not need polls. There is enough evidence in literature and cultural markers that Catholics were once very serious about their belief in the Real Presence. Regardless of its cause, it is also clear that there has been a major falling off of belief in the past 50 years. One only has to look at the large numbers of those who have left the Faith and the drastic decline in Mass attendance among those who have remained. As for comparing the two forms of the Mass, one need only look at the significant difference in belief among those who do attend the two forms of the Mass. To deny all of this is just whistling past the grave. It is also ignoring the complaints of the lost of a sense of reference that have arisen since the introduction of the new Mass; complaints to which those in authority have continually turned a deaf ear.
"There is enough evidence in literature and cultural markers that Catholics were once very serious about their belief in the Real Presence."
What evidence in literature? What evidence in cultural markers? The pietistical writings of the saints don't generally constitute evidence.
Yes, there has been a major falling off in the last 50 years. Some, wrongly I think, believe it is due to the changes in the liturgy.
"...one need only look at the significant difference in belief among those who do attend the two forms of the Mass>"
No, one also has to look at the variety of influences on a person's faith life including how the faith is taught/lived in the home, catechetical programs, etc.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
You yourself acknowledge that there has been a major falling off of the practice of the Catholic faith in the last 50 years. Prior there were high Mass attendance, frequent confessions, large numbers of vocations to the priesthood and religious life, large numbers of converts, etc. This was a time that belief in the Real Presence was strongly pushed as a central part of Catholic belief and Eucharistic devotions were an important part of Catholic life. Why are we to think, other than wishful denial, that belief in the Real Presence itself was not equally in high numbers?
You are also ignoring the large number of people who have, since its introduction, expressed their concerns about a lack of reverence in the new Mass. While you may say, intellectually, that they should not have experienced that, you cannot deny that that was indeed their experience. Nor have you explained why those who attend the old Mass have a much higher belief in the Real Presence.
"Why are we to think, other than wishful denial, that belief in the Real Presence itself was not equally in high numbers?"
You can "think" whatever you want. But you said, ""There is enough evidence in literature and cultural markers that Catholics were once very serious about their belief in the Real Presence."
I asked what that evidence might be.
The form of the liturgy is not based on what a person may "experience." What is "lack of reverence"? Some say men not wearing coats and ties and women wearing pants not dresses is "irreverent." Some think that no one should be in short pants in church because that is irreverent.
No, I haven't explained why those attending the so-called TLM have a much higher belief in the Real presence. You and others have claimed, without any evidence, that it is the rite that accomplishes this. In another thread the claim is made that the TLM prevents arguing about doctrine among Catholics. When presented with the fact that Martin Luther - and there were many, many others who were TLM-goers yet left the Church over doctrinal disputations - argued, well, then, that's dismissed because it doesn't fit the poster's narrative.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
The form of the liturgy should indeed be based on what the faithful experience. This is the whole point. The liturgy is a form of communication. Communication involves both the transmission and the reception. The intention of the transmission is not enough if its reception does not recognize it. Let us take an example of the difference between the two forms of the Mass. In the old Mass one would genuflect toward the altar every time one passes in front of it. In the new Mass such a genuflection occurs only at the initial entrance into the sanctuary and prior to the departure. While a server at a new Mass may internally be as reverent, or indeed more reverent, than one at an old Mass, which action better communicates that reverence and belief in the Real Presence?
As regard your claim that there is no evidence that the old rite engendered a higher belief in the Real Presence, double blind experiments and scientific surveys are not the only forms of evidence. I have pointed out the higher rate of participation in the faith that existed prior to the reforms and again to the higher rate of participation and belief of those who now attend the old rite compared to the new. This is evidence. While there are clearly other causes, such as the changes in catechesis, the evidence clearly shows a high rate of correlation between the reform of the liturgy and the subsequent loss of faith. To deny this is wishful thinking.
As for your example of Matin Luther, his change in belief caused him to also change the form of worship. This was done in order to foster a change of belief in those who attended such worship, something that could not have been accomplished in the minds of the the general laity without such change in worship.
Post a Comment