On the 10th anniversary of Ecclesia Dei adflicta
If actual participation in the actual Tridentine Mass had been the goal of the reform of Vatican II rather than tinkering with revising the Roman Missal altogether in an external way, I don't think there would be the liturgy wars we have today and two forms of the one Roman Rite. We would have the Tridentine Mass in whatever form, low, high, solemn high, with the laity actually participating by vocal demonstration in the parts of the Mass that belong to them, the responses, the chants and even in the PATFOTA when the Mass is chanted. They would be seen as ministers in addition to the altar boys.
Could some vernacular have been easily allowed? Could the lectionary receive some revision as well as the Roman Calendar? Could there have been some noble simplicity? Yes, yes and yes!
Scriptures could have been in the vernacular as well as the changing parts of the Mass, i.e. Propers, Collect, Secret, Preface and Post Communion Prayer and without a wholesale revision of these, although additional prefaces and new Masses are an advancement.
The lectionary as we have it today exposes us to much more Scripture than the one year cycle EF lectionary. This is good and should not be denigrated. This doesn't mean that the new lectionary is above a reform, but it need not be tossed out as some silly EF geeks desire.
The Roman Calendar did not need the radical reorientation that occurred but I do prefer the new names for various types of Masses, that of Solemnity, Feast, Memorial and little "m" memorial (optional). I love the fact that the ordo suggests various Masses for daily Mass that tie into the lectionary readings.
As far as noble simplicity, what the 1965 EF missal did accomplished this and no more was needed. It was minor but it was a detangling of complexity of some aspects of the Mass and the various rites associated with it, such as on Ash Wednesday and Candlemas.
This is what the future Pope Benedict had to say to these Geeks and a challenge it was for them then and for them today. These rigid geeks are the cause of so many dismissing the EF Mass today:
...But there is another question underlying the first: what is the deeper reason for this distrust or even for this rejection of a continuation of the ancient liturgical forms?
It is without doubt possible that, within this area, there exist reasons which go further back than any theology and which have their origin in the character of individuals or in the conflict between different personalities, or indeed a number of other circumstances which are wholly extrinsic. But it is certain that there are also other deeper reasons which explain these problems. The two reasons which are most often heard, are: lack of obedience to the Council which wanted the liturgical books reformed, and the break in unity which must necessarily follow if different liturgical forms are left in use. It is relatively simple to refute these two arguments on the theoretical level.
The Council did not itself reform the liturgical books, but it ordered their revision, and to this end, it established certain fundamental rules. Before anything else, the Council gave a definition of what liturgy is, and this definition gives a valuable yardstick for every liturgical celebration. Were one to shun these essential rules and put to one side the normae generales which one finds in numbers 34 - 36 of the Constitution De Sacra Liturgia (SL), in that case one would indeed be guilty of disobedience to the Council! ...
...Fortunately however, there is also a certain disenchantment with an all too banal rationalism, and with the pragmatism of certain liturgists, whether they be theorists or practitioners, and one can note a return to mystery, to adoration and to the sacred, and to the cosmic and eschatological character of the liturgy, as evidenced in the 1996 "Oxford Declaration on the Liturgy".
On the other hand, it must be admitted that the celebration of the old liturgy had strayed too far into a private individualism, and that communication between priest and people was insufficient. I have great respect for our forefathers who at Low Mass said the "Prayers during Mass" contained in their prayer books, but certainly one cannot consider that as the ideal of liturgical celebration!
Perhaps these reductionist forms of celebration are the real reason that the disappearance of the old liturgical books was of no importance in many countries and caused no sorrow. One was never in contact with the liturgy itself.
On the other hand, in those places where the Liturgical Movement had created a certain love for the liturgy, where the Movement had anticipated the essential ideas of the Council, such as for example, the prayerful participation of all in the liturgical action, it was those places where there was all the more distress when confronted with a liturgical reform undertaken too hastily and often limited to externals.
Where the Liturgical Movement had never existed, the reform initially raised no problems. The problems only appeared in a sporadic fashion, when unchecked creativity caused the sense of the sacred mystery to disappear...
Long live Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and his vision for the Liturgy!
29 comments:
Dear Father,
I could not agree with you more. When we examine the legitimate liturgical movement from the restoration by Solesmes of the Gregorian chant and the vision of St. Pius X with Tra le sollecitudini to the Dialogue Mass of the 1920's to Mediator Dei of 1948 to Da Musica Sacra et Sacra Liturgia of 1958 we are left to gasp, "what happened." How did this not get properly implemented. For whatever reason, the true liturgical movement and the "actuoso participatio" so desired by the Holy Pope was distorted. Fundamentally, the Missal of Paul VI was never necessary. All the tools were already there.
Where I help with the EF liturgy, our congregants all have Missals/Hymnals, they follow the Mass and sing the responses, they stand at the Collect, Gloria, Credo, Pater Noster and Postcommunion and kneel and sit as appropriate. They can sing 4 Creeds, the 2 sprinkling chants, the 4 Marian Antiphons and I introduced Mass XV this past Sunday and they can already sing Mass I, III, IV, VIII, IX, XI, XII and XVII!
Yet, I saw in an old Toronto directory from 1920 the Masses at one large parish, St. Peter's on Sunday were at 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11AM! A "Low" Mass and devotional culture, not a liturgical culture lead to the liturgical hell and iconoclasm and corresponding loss of faith because it allowed the dissenters and those with an agenda to point to it as the "problem," which it was, but to offer the wrong solution.
What a disaster it was for the world.
I think Fr Z sums it up well when he says “Active participation” is first and foremost our active receptivity to what Christ is offering through the sacred mysteries of our liturgical worship. He also says it depends on the congregation and also whether there is good singing or not. Nothing worse than a congregation struggling through chant when they can't sing it ...
"Much of this hinges also on what we mean by “active participation”.
“Active participation” applies just as much to participation in the older form of Mass as in the newer. The problem is that the very notion of “active participation” has been distorted beyond recognition by many of the liberal liturgist stripe to mean singing every word, clapping, carrying stuff around, taking liturgical roles that properly belong to the priest, etc. On the other hand, what the Church really means by “active participation” must begin with an interior activity which at proper moments and ways leads to an outward expression.
... In fact, just before the Council in a document on sacred music, there is a description of the most perfect form of “active participation”: reception of Holy Communion in the state of grace. It really all comes together in that, no? “Active participation” is first and foremost our active receptivity to what Christ is offering through the sacred mysteries of our liturgical worship. Reception of Holy Communion requires that the baptized person in harmony with the Body of Christ the Church be properly disposed physically and spiritually to receive. They then physically, that is outwardly, get up, go forward, and in a physical action receive. At other times they engage their will to receive by listening, watching, then inwardly pondering and weighing, etc. I once gave a sermon on this issue of active participation in light of the Magnificat and Mary’s pondering of mysterious things before giving outward expression.
That said, since “active participation” should lead to outward expression, it is hard to find fault with the Catholic who, with the Church’s permission, says “Dominus vobiscum” when sitting in the pews, or even sings it with the choir! At the same time, I cannot find a reason to fault a person who wants to be quiet and even say the Rosary, just being there, as it were, and then receiving Communion… or not. We all have different ways to participate at different moments in our lives.
We also have to consider liturgical decorum. We have to weigh what is aptum et pulchrum, the signs and outward expressions which are fitting for liturgical worship. It may be that bad singing is, after all, not actually apt for liturgical worship. I have had the experience of an entire congregation singing well the whole Gregorian Chant ordinary. It was great. On the other hand, if a congregation isn’t ready to sing things, then it may be good to wait until they can and provide instruction until they can.
This is a complicated question and, frankly, I don’t think there is a single answer for all circumstances. A good deal rests on the sensibilities and abilities of the congregation. I don’t think there should be rigid uniformity in this. Each community is going to have to find their mode of doing things in this regard, always under the prudent and well-informed tutelage of the priest.
Again, remember that this “dialogue”, at different levels, was in fact permitted quite a while before the Council.
...
Another problem arises from a divided congregation: some want to respond while others do not. Also, sometimes the priest wants no responses but the congregation does, etc. It would probably be a good idea for priests and people to be on the same page with this and, for visitors, make know what is done in some particular place through a note in the bulletin, hand out, etc."
Jan
This post is in error due to its misunderstanding of "actual participation." What you are suggesting is that everyone should participate in the way that you think they should be participating.
On the contrary, one could just as well participate in the Mass by being present and praying a Rosary or by chanting along with the Gloria. I just attended the Mass for today's Feast of St. Dominic -- I didn't say a word and neither did anyone else in the Church. The elderly lady in front of me prayed her Rosary; I watched the priest and prayed along with him during the Propers for the day; others had neither Missal nor Rosary. We all participated in accordance with our disposition.
The flaw in the 1950's thinking of actual participation isn't being open to the graces the Mass offers, but thinking that one can do other things. Certainly we aren't policemen, but this is not right. The laity and this is what we need to obey about Vatican II should not be bumps on a log during Mass or doing their own private thing. This is what Cardinal Ratzinger properly criticizes in his speech.
The laity should understand themselves as an extension of the altar boys and praying aloud the parts they pray aloud and they should see themselves an extension of the choir, cantor or schola, singing aloud what they sing aloud (apart from complicated motets.)
The idea that others do it for me seems to be very haughty and what the rich would want with their servants. The laity should do these parts and that is what Cardinal Ratzinger is decrying in the traditionalist camps.
He makes it clear that in the early 1920's liturgical movement the laity were doing this and those who were actually participating vocally were the ones who were most dismayed about the external reforms of the Mass seeing these as completely unneeded for actual participation because they were doing what Vatican II caught up with!
We don't need nostalgia the laity not taking their proper role in the litugy!
So if the laity's role is so unimportant that they can pray the rosary during Mass, let's say that the altar boys and choir do the same thing--thus making the mass completely silent although these people are present and supposedly doing what is the bare necessity, they are there!
Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, expressed merely his opinion on how he saw participation at Mass. Fr Z also has an opinion: "That said, since “active participation” should lead to outward expression, it is hard to find fault with the Catholic who, with the Church’s permission, says “Dominus vobiscum” when sitting in the pews, or even sings it with the choir! At the same time, I cannot find a reason to fault a person who wants to be quiet and even say the Rosary, just being there, as it were, and then receiving Communion… or not. We all have different ways to participate at different moments in our lives."
We shouldn't be regarded as robots. How the spirit moves in each person is particular to them. Some days a person might prefer to attend a beautiful missa cantata but other days a person may feel the need for silence and attend a low Mass. The Church wonderfully gave that choice.
In this rowdy world it is easy to see why people find silence difficult. I mean it is difficult now to even get exposition of the Blessed Sacrament without someone feeling the need to pop up every 15 minutes or so with a reading. Really, imposing their ideas on other people.
Jan
The altar boys do not remain silent during the Mass because it is their role to speak and assist at the altar (just as the clerics for whom they are standing in would do). It is not the role of the laity to speak during the Mass. It is the role of the laity to assist during the Mass with their prayers.
It is incorrect to say that one praying the Rosary is doing one's own private thing. Such a person is assisting at Mass in one of the many ways that the laity assist. Necessarily, then, that person is participating in the graces to be received from assisting at Mass.
Fr McDonald, the Sacrifice of the Mass occurs regardless of whether the laity are there in attendance or not. It is only the mentality that has developed since the introduction of the OF of the Mass that has led many priests to believe that there is no point in saying Mass unless there are laity at Mass actively participating.
On the other hand those participating in the OF of the Mass normally aren't praying the rosary or meditating in silence or something like that, no, often it is reading the bulletin between checks of the mobile phone and texting and conversation about what is going on in someone's life or commenting about the dress of the lay reader, etc, etc. Some don't even bother responding to the priest at all or singing the banal hymns. So why complain about the attitude of those attending the EF of the Mass. At least they are attempting to commune with Our Lord in some way or other and I imagine that is more important to Him than whether they sing with great gusto or not. I love the Latin chant and I would love to sing with great gusto but my voice has long gone.
Are you saying that when she stood silently at the foot of the cross that Our Lady wasn't participating in Our Lord's sacrifice? That she wasn't suffering and offering herself along with her Son?
Jan
Jan we can speak of the least we can do to get away with a valid Mass and its graces until you are blue in the face, but being properly disposed to these graces requires more than the mere minimum!
Technically the Mass is valid without a congregation, so stay at home, no? Technically a Mass is valid with a priest who has lost his faith but nonetheless tries to celebrate it according to the mind of the Church. Are you really saying you are satisfied with this, that's all that needs to be done?
EF Geeks are killing the EF Mass in terms of it spreading by keeping up this silly bare minimum for anyone but especially for the laity. Get over it. Do the most and what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying and then maybe reticent priests who don't want to go back to the laity being there simply like bumps on a log or praying their rosary or doing something else might be encouraged by the proper attitude of EF Geeks to actual participation as Vatican II envisioned and as Pope Benedict understood obedience to Vatican II as illustrated in his speech as cardinal.
"It is not the role of the laity to speak during the [EF] Mass."
And this is precisely why major reforms were needed and accomplished.
"'It is not the role of the laity to speak during the [EF] Mass.'"
"And this is precisely why major reforms were needed and accomplished."
And this is precisely the misguided understanding of the "reforms," both in development and implementation, that led to the break from the Church's understanding of the Mass and the resulting clericalisation of the laity.
"The flaw in the 1950's thinking of actual participation isn't being open to the graces the Mass offers, but thinking that one can do other things."
Mediator Dei (with emphasis on 107-8)
105. Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the “Roman Missal,” so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant.
106. These methods of participation in the Mass are to be approved and recommended when they are in complete agreement with the precepts of the Church and the rubrics of the liturgy. Their chief aim is to foster and promote the people’s piety and intimate union with Christ and His visible minister and to arouse those internal sentiments and dispositions which should make our hearts become like to that of the High Priest of the New Testament. However, though they show also in an outward manner that the very nature of the sacrifice, as offered by the Mediator between God and men,[102] must be regarded as the act of the whole Mystical Body of Christ, still they are by no means necessary to constitute it a public act or to give it a social character. And besides, a “dialogue” Mass of this kind cannot replace the high Mass, which, as a matter of fact, though it should be offered with only the sacred ministers present, possesses its own special dignity due to the impressive character of its ritual and the magnificence of its ceremonies. The splendor and grandeur of a high Mass, however, are very much increased if, as the Church desires, the people are present in great numbers and with devotion.
107. It is to be observed, also, that they have strayed from the path of truth and right reason who, led away by false opinions, make so much of these accidentals as to presume to assert that without them the Mass cannot fulfill its appointed end.
108. Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men's talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.
Anonymous said...
"It is not the role of the laity to speak during the [EF] Mass."
And this is precisely why major reforms were needed and accomplished.
And the overwhelming majority of Catholics have rejected the aforesaid "major reforms."
Byzantine Catholics are not affected by them, Traditional Roman Rite Catholics avoid them, and the majority of Catholics are at the beach on Sunday mornings.
And many of the few remaining Catholics who go along with the "major reforms" don't believe in the Catholic Faith. See Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Biden, and Anthony Kennedy, typical "Catholics" who make use of the "major reforms," along with Archbishop Weakland and a multitude of other like-minded clergy.
No, thanks.
This morning I was noticing our server and how his movements are so precise. Yes we can speak during Mass, even Low Mass, for the parts we know and can keep up with. Otherwise, there is the reason for the specific passage: prayer for the living, prayer for the dead, intentions, forgiveness, etc. watch the priest as he cleanses himself ritually to touch God and consider your last Confession. We cry with our hearts and it echoes in heaven.
I think that must have been lost, or forgotten, in some way. Yet it is in the form of the EF and can be found easily enough.
As a practical matter, it would be impossible for the laity to "speak" along with the altar server during the Low Mass at my parish. We are in a rather large old building and, at this time, there are numerous large fans throughout the Church in an effort to make the temperature more tolerable. This was also the case at the Low Mass that I went to the in the neighboring archdiocese on Sunday -- large building with fans.
Then, there is another practical problem, to which I can attest as an altar server. It is very difficult to properly say one's part when there is a chorus of people behind you saying the same or different things at the same or different speeds and with the same or different pronunciation.
I have never been to a traditional parish where there was a dialogue Low Mass. I have been to several traditional parishes where there was an express sentiment in the bulletin that the Low Mass was not a dialogue Mass. Since the priests who run those parishes are formed exclusively in the Traditional Mass and otherwise instructed in the Traditional manner, I will trust their judgment on the matter.
Byzantine and Traditional Roman Catholics do not, by a long shot, constitute the "overwhelming majority" of Catholics.
All the Eastern Catholic Churches combined had, in 2010, 18,775,421 members. There are over a billion Catholics in the world. (source CNEWA)
In the State of Georgia there are three locations where the EF is celebrated regularly, with a total of, maybe, 500 Catholics in attendance. (www.ecclesiadei.org) In Georgia there are well over 1 million Catholics.
Overwhelming Majority? Not by a long shot.
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger..."Perhaps these reductionist forms of celebration are the real reason that the disappearance of the old liturgical books was of no importance in many countries and caused no sorrow. One was never in contact with the liturgy itself."
I wish that then-Cardinal Ratzinger had listed the "many countries" where "the disappearance of the old liturgical books was of no importance...and caused no sorrow."
As soon as the "old liturgical books" had disappeared in virtually every country on earth, tens of millions of Catholics disappeared from the Church.
Perhaps then-Cardinal Ratzinger's statement was wrong.
Mark Thomas
DJR did not say that the "overwhelming majority" of Catholics were Byzantine and Traditional. What he said was, "...and the overwhelming majority of Catholics have rejected the aforesaid 'major reforms.'"
He could very well be right.
The second largest denomination in America is fallen away Catholics. The single biggest force in creating the free-fall away from the Church was the New Mass, lest some of us forget that sad, sad time.
Dear Father, as the 1950s progressed, it was clear that many Cardinals, bishops, and priests were determined to overthrow the TLM. By the mid-1960s, the fix was in among the clergy to destroy the TLM.
At least since the 1960s, Catholics who cherished the TLM — or even the incorporation of Latin and Gregorian Chant into the "reformed liturgy" — have been made by the clergy to feel dirty.
All of the above had transpired long before Traditionalist "geeks" had turned off (supposedly) many rank-and-file clergy to the TLM.
By their having abandoned the TLM decades ago, Cardinals, bishops, and priests had lost control of said Mass and the ability to influence Catholics attached to the TLM.
In many cases, Catholics were forced to turn to so-called "independent" priests and societies to assist at TLMs...or even to read literature associated with the TLM.
The result was that "fringe" groups and leaders controlled the flow of information that had circulated among Traditional Catholics...or Catholics who sympathized with Traditionalists.
Did a great deal of nonsense circulate within today from Traditionalist circles? Yes. Today, particularly within the Catholic Blogosphere, does a great deal of nonsense circulate among Traditionalists? Yes.
The solution to the above is simple: Bishops and priests should learn the TLM...offer the TLM...and that way, they can influence Catholics attached to the TLM.
Some 50-60 years ago, Cardinals, bishops, and priests turned on the holy TLM. They abandoned the TLM. They allowed "fringe" figures and groups to gain practical control of the TLM.
Traditional "geeks" did not plunge the Latin Church into the liturgical chaos that has marred the Church during the past 50 or so years. Rome and our clergy are to blame for the liturgical war that has raged within the Latin Church during the past 50 or so years.
Today, Rome and our bishops could end said war. They could, so to speak, drive the "geeks" out of business. How?
Apply Summorum Pontificum on a "wide and generous" basis (to borrow a 1988 A.D. phrase from Ecclesia Dei).
Mark Thomas
The Low Mass is easy to follow even from a distance when it won't be audible anyway, since the ritual actions of the celebrant and server, even the position of the altar missal, give clear pointers as to what is being said. Many Sunday missals for the laity did not, for reasons of space, give the Latin for the epistle and gospel and in some cases not for the Collect, Secret or Postommunion - people followed in their native language. A daily missal was far more comprehensive but at well over 2000 pages could not be easily slipped into pocket or handbag.
The dialogue Mass didn't really work, not least because the PATFOTA in the Tridentine Mass are very lengthy compared with other Uses (cf the Dominican with no Ps 42 and a very short Confiteor). And, of course, they were never conceived as a dialogue between celebrant and people. Where the people could legitimately join in, namely those parts which would be sung by choir/congregation at High Mass, it was more successful, but they were not allowed to be sung at Low Mass, which would have been better at a Sunday Mass than singing non-liturgical hymns, which paradoxically was allowed.
One thing that drives the priest at our Mass mad at the Ordinary Form is that no one keeps in time with the responses - you have some responding at the rate of knots and others trying to slow them down and some who lag behind even further. He has mentioned this at Mass but of course it makes no difference. He has also complained about the singing of the OF Mass. That hasn't improved either.
And, Father, I am talking about the priest's daily Mass. I have heard that many are not saying daily Mass simply because they don't have a congregation. The point I am making is that the Mass is standalone. The need for the laity, which of course is prefereable, except on Sundays is not a requirement. Many are not bothering to go to daily Mass now, let alone the Sunday Mass so many more priests will give up offering daily Mass and countless blessings will be lost to the world.
Priest and people where I attend the Traditional Mass are quite happy with it. No complaints there. I attend the Traditional Mass in different dioceses and have never run into anyone who complained about the Traditional Mass. They are all just so happy to be there and they are all there because they want to be - not just to satisfy their Sunday obligation.
The only people I hear complaining about the Traditional Mass are those who are really Novus Ordo people at heart. The problem is they are not happy with the Novus Ordo Mass as it is but they are not happy with the Traditional Mass as it is either, and so they are trying to create a hybrid to please themselves. We are there to worship God and that is the important thing. He sees into the hearts of people. He knows their intentions. He knows their faith and belief in Him.
I think that if everybody had their head in a missal at the Novus Ordo Mass it would be far better and more reverent. They would have more of a sense of what the Mass is. Even if everybody was praying a rosary at the Novus Ordo Mass, which I do see from time to time, it would be far more reverent and prayerful. At least it would be clear that people are there praying to God. That is what is missing from the Novus Ordo Mass - prayer - everybody is too busy participating to even know where they're at.
I think the numbers are pretty well settled. Those who want to attend a traditional Mass find one. Numbers will naturally increase over time because these people don't contracept. All the traditional seminaries are full to capacity so that augurs well for the future. By and large, the priests who offer both forms of the Mass are happy with both Masses as they are and in the not-too-distant future priests will be lucky if they have a congregation at all.
Jan
Anonymous said...
Byzantine and Traditional Roman Catholics do not, by a long shot, constitute the "overwhelming majority" of Catholics.
All the Eastern Catholic Churches combined had, in 2010, 18,775,421 members. There are over a billion Catholics in the world. (source CNEWA)
In the State of Georgia there are three locations where the EF is celebrated regularly, with a total of, maybe, 500 Catholics in attendance. (www.ecclesiadei.org) In Georgia there are well over 1 million Catholics.
Overwhelming Majority? Not by a long shot.
You completely misread what I wrote. I never said anything about Byzantine Catholics and Tradtional Catholics being a majority of anything.
Please go back and read, correctly, what I stated.
I said that the overwhelming majority of Catholics have rejected the aforesaid "major reforms."
1 million Catholics in Georgia. How many show up at Mass? #1.
#2. Georgia is not the only place on the planet with Catholics.
The number of Catholics who attend Mass in some European countries falls below 10%.
In the U.S. the statistic hovers around 20%.
Most Catholics have access only to the Novus Ordo Missae, and the majority of those Catholics worldwide have rejected it.
And a huge percentage of Catholics who do accept the Novus Ordo Missae also happen to reject major portions of the Catholic Faith.
Quote from a news article Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director who converted to Catholicism:
"Unknown to them, workers at such clinics, blinded spiritually, are often under what the former clinic director describes as 'spiritual attack.' At one retreat for seven abortion workers Abby says she noted that three of the seven -- nearly half -- had lost children at a young age (and not by miscarriage). Bad things happen when we are in the vicinity of evil -- and cooperating, to whatever extent, in it. There is certainly the 'shadow of the valley of death.' Blindness? TWO OF THE WORKERS WERE SUNDAY CATHOLIC CHURCHGOERS."
Two guesses as to which "form" of the Mass those "workers" attend.
Just like nuns who advocate for abortion or homosexual priests who say Mass every day. They show up at the "major reforms" Mass, in some cases daily.
Again, no, thanks.
What are "Novus Ordo people?"
It's one thing to "complain," but it is another thing to admit that the 1962 rite isn't perfect. It has, for better or worse, the same reformed-fingerprints that make the Novus Ordo so notorious among traditionalist Catholics.
Certainly, the breviary of 1960 could use some improvement, as could the stripped-down Holy Week of the '62 missal.
DJR - What's the supporting data for your assertion that "the overwhelming majority of Catholics have rejected the aforesaid "major reforms.""?
Anonymous said...
DJR - What's the supporting data for your assertion that "the overwhelming majority of Catholics have rejected the aforesaid "major reforms.""?
It's called Statistics.
Mass attendance began to drop precipitously as soon as the major changes in the Mass began in the middle 60s, culminating in the New Mass in 1970. It's an historical fact.
Anyone who lived through that period can attest to that.
According to CARA, only 24% of baptized U.S. Catholics attend Mass. For the majority of those Catholics, the only Mass they're aware of, or have access to, is the New Mass.
If that's not a rejection, I don't know what would be.
In some European countries, the number is below 10%.
And of those who do bother going to Mass on Sundays, a huge number of them reject major portions of the Catholic Faith.
Jan's point is well made. Singing in unison in a natural activity; speaking in unison is not. That was the main problem with the dialogue Mass and it is even worse in the (low) Novus Ordo which is basically one long dialogue.
If priests, deacons and congregations could be persuaded to sing their parts, using the missal chants for the Ordinary and simple sung Propers, we might get an idea of what many of those who devised the Novus Ordo had in mind.
The ICEL website even shows how the readings should be chanted in the vernacular versions used in both the UK and US.
Had the original preamble of the new Mass been allowed to stand (and but for the Ottaviani intervention it might well have done) it could have been argued that the presence of a congregation was required to validate it. Would it have still been the Mass? Doubtful, actually. Fortunately the preamble in the GIRM removes all doubts. The Church continues to do what she has always done.
So not showing up for Mass is the equivalent of rejecting the reforms of the Mass?
There can be no other reasons for people not going to Mass?
What evidence connects the two?
There are many reasons for the precipitous decline in Mass attendance, and liturgical 'reform' cannot be ruled out on ideological grounds. More than forty years ago a prominent Catholic intellectual observed that if you subject what was regarded as more-or-less immutable with something that can change on a whim from year to year you will inevitably produce a crisis. Also, the obligation to attend Mass, obligations that did not apply to different denominations, presupposed de facto the existence of a single and identifiable rite.
The plethora of options, the babel of vernacular languages, extreme examples of 'inculturation' which in the West meant the uncritical adoption of popular music styles, made the idea of obligation nugatory, even if the whole ethos of the 1960s had not elevated choice over obligation.
The evidence is plain enough. The attribution is still a matter of argument, and it is better not to begin with too many preconceived notions.
Father,
Your use of the term "geek" exposes your prejudice! Pre-Vatican II, these "geeks" packed the churches for all three or four Sunday Masses. What have you now?
As to the "participation", referred to by Vox Cantoris [for whom I have great respect], when does one have time to actually pray, with all this sitting and standing-up, et, al? The prayers of the 1962 Missal are profound and should be sufficient "participation" in following the same.
To bring-back sanity to The [NOM] Mass, it should be ditched and an hybrid TLM utilised with only parts in the vernacular.
Post a Comment