My personal opinion is that the TLM’s Solemn Sung Pontifical Mass with all the bells and whistles does not do any favors for those promoting the restoration of the pre-Vatican II liturgies of the Church.
While I disagree with how Blase Cardinal Cupich framed what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council desired for the reforms of the Church’s liturgy and that it had anything to do with an exhibitionist attitude toward promoting or feigning poverty in terms of noble simplicity, I do believe that most bishops did not like the highest form of Pontifical Masses in the pre-Vatican II era.
They did not like all the ceremonial stuff prior to the Mass, the gloves, the buskins, the cappa magna. They did not like all the fussiness that certainly must have been designed and promoted by an ancient LGBTQ+++ cabal during the Renaissance or earlier. Maybe they wanted to make the Church's liturgy look ridiculous and over-the-top like what female impersonators do with women?
Who can fault them!
It is fussy!
It is pretentious!
It is bizarre, like the buskins and gloves and other ceremonies borrowed from worldly sources rather than true liturgical organic development.
It is pretentious! Oh, I already wrote that.
With that said, in pre-Vatican II times, how many Catholics ever experienced the kind of Pontifical Mass Cardinal Burke celebrated recently at St. Peter’s. Not many and most would avoid it like a plague.
Keep in mind, in pre-Vatican II times, the Mass most attended on Sundays was the Low Mass with no chanting. And most Catholics went early with multiple early morning Low Masses, some beginning at 5 AM if not earlier.
Why? The Church had a long fast and many people who wanted to receive Holy Communion when they went to Mass went early before breakfast time and to a short Mass. You could not even drink coffee to get the bowels working before you left for Mass! Think about that!
Catholics also wanted to get their obligation over, with a short Sunday morning Mass and then enjoy the Sunday morning with rest, relaxation, a big breakfast and nice family Sunday dinner.
The High Mass, and not even offered every Sunday, was always later in the morning, like at 10 AM or 11 AM—it was long, beautiful in most places and for those who loved chant, ceremony, bells and smells. Very few, though, actually received Holy Communion which made the Mass a bit shorter.
I don’t think the Council Fathers had the normal parish Low or High Mass in mind when it called for noble simplicity. They had in mind the Pontifical Mass. And they certainly did not desire a complete overhaul of the liturgy that would appear to be more Protestant than Protestant or even post-Catholic like the liturgy in Germany recently celebrating Queerdom but without all the drag!
You can watch the video of that Mass, if you can stomach it, available here.
With all of that said, though, there is no reason to suppress the ancient liturgies of the Church or forbid them for the new and “improved”. Both should co-exist and let the Holy Spirit working synodally in the clergy and faithful make the determination which will last for the long-haul.
Just my 2 cents worth, although pennies are no longer made! What a shame!
31 comments:
There is a lot of similarity between the Pontifical High Mass and the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy, which seems to indicate a rather (dare I say it) ancient common ancestor between the two. Given that lengthy history of use, it seems problematic to throw your Pontifical Mass due to "fussiness" or "pretentiousness."
Anyway, I'm not sure those things are necessarily baked into your rite itself. One issue you have is that those Pontifical Masses are so rare these days in your church that they're made to be a spectacle. In my time with the SSPX, Pontifical Masses were somewhat more common and weren't quite the ordeal that they appear in the photo reports.
And now in my time in the Orthodox Church, I've been to a few Hierarchical Divine Liturgies that would probably appear quite "fussy" in photos, but in reality weren't -- because the hierarch is used to this sort of thing (with the vesting rite, etc.).
I suspect that my experience there is maybe similar to what would've routinely happened in the Roman church "back in the day" due to the normality of rites.
St. John XXIII would disagree with you, Father McDonald! He loved all of that pomp and circumstance. He personally did not like much about the 1955 Holy Week Reforms and sometimes used the pre-1955 version!
I do agree, however, that most Catholics would lack the patience to sit through a Pontifical Mass. I grew up in the Midwest and our normative Sunday Mass was a Missa Cantata. Low Masses were very early on Sunday morning for the golfers!
When liturgical practices evolve organically and incrementally, prudence and right reason prevail. Changes made to our sacred rites after Vat. II were abrupt, arbitrary, and imposed. They were largely, if not exclusively, devised and drawn up by one agenda-driven mastermind -- Cardinal Annibale Bugnini.
"Fussiness" and "spectacle" are in the eye of the beholder. Take, for example, the genius Cardinal Cupich, who criticizes the TLM for being too much of a spectacle yet does nothing about some of the absolute nonsense occurring at the Novus Ordo parishes in his diocese. Worse than a spectacle, they beclown the dignity of the liturgy.s
Nick
Our Hierarchical Divine Liturgy is the same as yours and I've experienced it several times over. Agree, there's a fundamental similarity between it and the pontificate high mass. Both would be more closely aligned if the Romans removed the temporal elements that crept into their ceremonial. If kept purely sacred, without buskins and gloves, there is nothing faulty about the missal itself.
The fussiness is an easy target for the "it doesn't measure up crowd". Arguably, buskins, gloves etc serve no liturgical purpose and only create a sense of "more".
That said, if only your NO was under the same microscope....
Nice to see you posting again, Byz. I hope you've been well!
Claiming such things "serve no purpose" often shows smallness of mind, or at least unwillingness to accept what has been handed down. The waving of the aer serves no purpose now that our buildings are reasonably enclosed from insects, and yet Eastern Catholics and Orthodox haven't thrown that out.
Nick
Not small mindedness. Read what I said.
You as well, Marc!
Father McDonald said..."Catholics also wanted to get their obligation over, with a short Sunday morning Mass and then enjoy the Sunday morning with rest, relaxation, a big breakfast and nice family Sunday dinner."
Father, your comments in regard to Sunday prompted me to recall the following oldie but goodie from you: With your permission:
Monday, December 30, 2019
-- WHEREAS POPE FRANICS AND I ARE ON THE SAME PAGE; HOW ABOUT YOU?
https://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2019/12/whereas-pope-franics-and-i-are-on-same.html
I am blessed to have grown up in a time where families did family things together especially on Sunday. Southern culture with its blue laws helped in this as stores were closed and Sunday was truly a day of rest by civil law.
My family went to Mass together in our Sunday best after having all taken a bath on Saturday night. When we got home from Mass, it was a time to prepare for our formal midday Pranzo or dinner with a properly set table and extra special main course.
Later in the day we did family things like going to the movies or taking a ride out into the country or some other kind of recreation like fishing, swimming or going to the lake (Clark Hill).
Pope Francis and I were on the same page for the Solemnity of the Holy Family:
This is what I wrote in my bulletin letter for The Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph:
What makes a family strong? When Jesus Christ is at the center it, as He was in His own Holy Family. That's true of our families but also of every Catholic parish.
Strong families pray together at home and make their parish life and Mass attendance foundation because that makes Jesus foundational to the family. The family that prays together stays together.
Eating together at the family table for at least breakfast and supper is critical to making families strong. And ALL and I mean ALL, electronic devises should be off and banned from the table!!!! I mean it!
Finally keeping holy the Lord's Day each and every Sunday by going to Mass and refraining from servile work and shopping, will go a long way in strengthening families. Sunday should be a family day of worship, rest and relaxation. And Sunday's dinner should be extra special with a nicely, properly set table!
Pope Francis: Mass is for prayers not mobile phones
"I ask myself if you, in your family, know how to communicate or are you like those kids at meal tables where everyone is chatting on their mobile phone ... where there is silence like at a Mass but they don't communicate," the Pope said.
"Fathers, parents, children, grandparents, brothers and sisters, this is a task to undertake today, on the day of the Holy Family," he added.
This is not the first time the Pope - who boasts more than 18 million Twitter followers - has chided his followers for spending too much time glued to their devices, especially during Mass.
"At a certain point the priest leading the ceremony says 'lift up our hearts'. He doesn't say 'lift up our mobile phones to take photographs' - it's a very ugly thing," he said in 2017.
"It's so sad when I'm celebrating mass here or inside the basilica and I see lots of phones held up - not just by the faithful, but also by priests and bishops! Please!"
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Buskins (lace shoes) and gloves are pretentious nonsense and need to be suppressed!
Highlighting that such obsolete things have no practical or liturgical purpose isn’t being pretentious, it’s reality!
And who claims that clerics wearing these ridiculous garments aren’t effeminate?
The following would prove invaluable in regard to the promotion of the TLM:
-- The SSPX'S repudiation of the war that they have long waged against Holy Mother Church...enter into full communion with holy Pope Leo XIV.
-- May such prominent TLM Movement leaders as Peter Kwasniewski, New Catholic (Rorate Caeli), as well as Michael Matt (The Remnant), repudiate their collective war against Holy Mother Church.
As Dennis Knapp acknowledged recently, via his article that Father McDonald had linked:
https://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2025/10/a-great-response-to-mike-lewis-screed.html
"Until traditionalists answer the question “Do you accept the authority of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium?” with an unambiguous “yes”, not through clever equivocation but through genuine religious submission, the hierarchy’s concerns remain justified."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, if you will recall, it was St. John Paul II who, with some controversy at the time, became to beg forgiveness for the harm that the institutional Church had caused to Christianity and in order venues. He acknowledged Rome’s mistakes that led to the Great Schism, as well as the Protestant Reformation and how our missionary efforts forced baptisms on indigenous peoples. He acknowledged the Church’s role in creating Christian division. Today, it might be good for Pope Leo to repent for how Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve was treated as well as Catholics who did not embrace the imposed reforms of the Second VAtican Coucnil and the iconoclasm of the liturgy and various cathedrals, shrines and parish churches. Any monsters created by this environment lies squarely by how the institutional Church handled those who embraced tradition rather than novelty. And do you expect that any reunion of the Church of the West with the Orthodox Churches of the East will be premised on the East accepting Vatican II and post-Conciliar Magisterium???????
Suppressing elements of the TLM rather than making them option is the problem with the post-Vatican II Magisterium. It promotes and either/or rather than a both/and on both sides of any given issue. Your suggestion is the problem not the solution.
Agree. Options, not obligatory. I have nothing against buskins other than if me, I'm not wearing rose colored shoes. The '62 missal, however, I'd follow without exception.
Nick, as well, your description is not the purpose or symbolism of the aer. It symbolizes heaven and earth and here, the calling down of the spirit.
benny pushing the Mass as plain-clothes gathering around the coffee table theory again…
Nick
Fr. Do you know what purpose the gloves serve? Im leaving for a funeral shortly and can't look up, but my recollection is that practice does lead to concerns. Perhaps not.
In sum, just follow the missal and sacred without potentially unnecessary additions and the TLM becomes wholly focused on the divine as it always has been. It should enjoy a pride of place beyond "extraordinary".
Benny,
Seeing as clerics of nationality and views ranging from Cardinals Zuppi to Burke have so vested, as their predecessors did for centuries, and you and Mike Lewis (of the two I have ever seen say so) hold that practice in such boorish derision, I’d say the answer to your question is, normal people who are willing to accept how the Church did things in a window of time broader than their own adulthood.
Nick
Fr. AJM,
Recent research is increasingly “telling the story” of those Catholics who didn’t rush headlong into the maelstrom of liturgical revolution. Rather, they opposed it, and ended up participating in the Church’s liturgies less, or simply walked away because they didn’t trust the Church any more, in unknown numbers, under the ridiculous accusations of disobedience, schism, and (per Pope Paul) spiritual laziness.
Nick
Father McDonald, Pope Saint John Paul II, for example, on the Day of Pardon 2000 A.D., requested pardon for "infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium."
Yes, Pope Saint John Paul II did not hesitate to acknowledge the evils that "some of our brethren" had committed throughout the centuries.
Nevertheless, is telling that he refused to recognize any mistreatment of Archbishop Lefebvre via Rome. Pope Saint John Paul II blamed the, if you will, Lefebvre Affair, upon Archbishop Lefebvre.
Via his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, Pope Saint John Paul II declared that "Archbishop Lefebvre had "frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre."
"The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.
"Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.
"There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on.
"These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail."
=======
In addition, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, a key player in the Lefebvre Affair, had rejected the notion that Rome had mistreated Archbishop Lefebvre.
That is very telling as then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in his 1988 A.D. address to Chilean bishops, declared:
"One of the basic discoveries of the theology of ecumenism is that schisms can take place only when certain truths and certain values of the Christian faith are no longer lived and loved within the Church."
Nevertheless, then-Cardinal Ratzinger blamed Archbishop Lefebvre for "the schism of Lefebvre." Via his address in question, then-Cardinal Ratzinger insisted upon the following:
"IN RECENT MONTHS, we have put a lot of work into the case of Lefebvre with the sincere intention of creating for his movement a space within the Church that would be sufficient for it to live.
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger stated that "the Holy See...made truly generous concessions" to Archbishop Lefebvre.
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger declared also that "the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break with the Church...it is absolutely certain the fault cannot be attributed to the Holy See..."
=======
Father McDonald, should Pope Leo XIV "repent for how Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was treated," then we must repudiate Pope Saint John Paul II, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, as well as Pope Saint Paul VI (he had suspended Archbishop Lefevbvre a divinis in 1976 A.D.), for their supposed mistreatment of Archbishop Lefebvre.
For that matter, during his brief reign as Pope, Blessed John Paul I had maintained Pope Saint Paul VI's policy that pertained to Archbishop Lefebvre.
Therefore, Pope Blessed John Paul I had contributed to the supposed mistreatment of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."And do you expect that any reunion of the Church of the West with the Orthodox Churches of the East will be premised on the East accepting Vatican II and post-Conciliar Magisterium???????"
=======
In regard to Vatican II: Pope Leo XIV, at the dawn of his glorious Pontificate, declared the following via his initial address to the Cardinals:
"In this regard, I would like us to renew together today our complete commitment to the path that the universal Church has now followed for decades in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.
"Pope Francis masterfully and concretely set it forth in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium..."
=======
It is full steam ahead in regard to Pope Leo XIV's commitment to the Church's path that is in line with Vatican II. Therefore, during Pope Leo XIV's Pontificate, reunion with the Eastern Orthodox is out of the question.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald, please least at least a few ways in which you believe that Archbishop Lefebvre had been mistreated.
Father, thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Nick,
very few clerics have celebrated a full pontificial mass, with even less using all the regalia like gloves / buskins and Capps. Most, sensibly kept the dressing up to a minimum.
However, it’s only Cardinal Burke who went on the full shopping spree and bought everything they had in every colour!
I think that Cardinal Burke’s position on the TLM would have been better served by a much “simpler Mass”. Less elaborate vestments and a simple low Mass with hymns would have made a better impression on those who have the authority to loosen the chains.
When I attended a Byzantine church, we were taught it was both symbolic (as you describe) and practical—to keep bugs away. Was this incorrect?
Anyway, I didn’t think I was disagreeing with you…
Nick
MT,
You once again trip over the rickety narrative you set up. Pope John Paul II spoke of things principally done in centuries past, not in his pontificate. So for the simple reason of contemporaneity, it is unsurprising that he didn’t so apologize.
Nick
Envious, eh?
Nick
Yes I’ve always wanted pink slippers with matching socks and a vestment set made of my grandma’s old floral curtains. Exactly what the noble simplicity of SC called for!
Post a Comment