Believe it or not, when Pope John Paul II allowed the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated but with diocesan bishops making the decision to allow it or not in their diocese and this around 1986, I believe, my then bishop had a staff meeting at the pastoral center of those of us in various diocesan positions. I was the Bishop’s MC, Diocesan Director of Liturgy (I did such a good job, no other priest has held that position since me) and vocation director. Plus I was the Associate Rector of the Cathedral. When the bishop asked if we should allow the Tridentine Mass in our diocese, the staff was very reluctant. And I pushed back too. I said, and I quote, “Why not just celebrate the Vatican II Mass in Latin and Ad orientem?” I was opposed to going back to the Tridentine Mass because I was imbued, as a child, that you don’t eliminate “new and improved” with anything, including the Mass. Could you imagine going back to old Tide after having the new and improved version?But, when priests tried to celebrate the Vatican II Mass, with some Latin and more sobriety, by the book, how novel, they and I got push back from post-Vatican II laity, especially the 1960’s warriors of Vatican II. They called us pre-Vatican II and not because we celebrated the pre-Vatican II Mass but because we celebrated the new Mass in a traditional way.
But that still included lay lectors and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and male and female altar servers. We still had an eclectic mix of music from Latin chant to contemporary. But we were still accused of being pre-Vatican II, the worst insult another Catholic could hurl at a Catholic, clergy of laity!
I no longer see the TLM as problematic given all the problematic ways the Bugnini Mass is celebrated and without any correction by local bishops.
But I prefer that we celebrate the Bugnini Mass in a traditional way, even if all in the vernacular.
But you’ll always have the Vatican II warriors who long for the glory days of the 1960’s. They are my age and older and still hold considerable sway and have indeed influenced some younger clergy and laity.
13 comments:
You were forward thinking, Father McDonald. One "liberal" priest said to me in the 1960s, "are you some kind of 14th century Catholic?" I responded: "is there some better kind?" That shut that arrogant boob up.
The 1960s was a time of overwhelming hubris and so much of what was espoused then we know is simply not true, such as eggs are bad for you, so is butter. Your child should be your friend, your buddy, so stop being a disciplinarian. I always said if V II had happened in another decade, it would have resulted in a far more measured and restrained approach to reform. I still question whether the Church needed reform. There is far more corruption now than there was then.
If the TLM structure and rubrics had been retained, introducing the vernacular while retaining Latin for "universal" parts, then removing baroque elements that while beautiful to some, might not have a basis as organic liturgical development, IMHO as an Easterner, you would have been better off long-term. The RC would have retained its patrimony that people lament having lost. If the NO is so loved, inverting your notion that people dislike it, stripping the churches of fixtures only to put some back, coupled with endless ad-libbing and changes to choreography would likely not have occurred on the scale that it has.
Is the NO traditional as some fervently maintain? At its highest level yes, but once you dig below the surface, it's a perplexing mix of tradition and innovation trying to do too many things at once. To me, that approach diminishes it's overarching objective of being a living and vertical re-enactment of the sacrifice on Calvary which demands our supplication and contrition.
My own reflection: Regarding the TLM, my sense is that people appreciate it more now than perhaps during the 1950's when 20 minute mumbled masses with rosary beads clattering against the backs of pews likely hit its apex. I think there is hunger to "set aside all earthly cares" while reaching for the cosmos which, and to me, the NO struggles to convey definitively and successfully. While feelings are less relevant relative to spiritual matters, they do matter to the extent that otherworldly, transcendent and foretaste are desired attitudes. Romans might not sense this in the same way an Easterner does and it's rattling to us how some NO masses progress in an almost pedestrian way. I think people in the pews are waking up to this, so are some priests, but a perplexing majority are hanging onto a perceived ideal that, and to me, has an ideological component that was never intended to be there.
Without question, and at that time, cultural shift and the sexual revolution hindered, perhaps hijacked reform as too much change, both spiritual and societal, occurred in a too compressed period of time.
Is it fixable? With the right attitudes, it should be. But the Roman hierarchy would likely need to be significantly different in temperament than it is now for such change to have a chance of success. I'm afraid that views within the laity, clergy and hierarchy are too discordant for such change to have a chance of universal acceptance at this point in time.
ByzRus,
As I recall it was much of the clergy and older Catholics who favored the "deforms." I belonged to a generation of younger Catholics who were taught, starting in Grade School, to sing Gregorian chant, singing even the Propers, and using the Missal. We were actively (actually) participating, so that when the deforms came, many of us were perplexed and jolted. I never accepted the deforms and am pleased that in recent decades scholars and younger clergy are being honest, as to how dishonest and corrupt the whole process was. The proof is in the pudding as they say.
Indeed, proof is in the pudding. But like most here, the time I have left is becoming more limited waiting for the last ideological gasps of an era that in the Roman Church seems to eclipse even the apostolic age. That era, despite the best of intentions of some, is, at least to me, contrived in its execution. The extent to which many, including some here, both cling to and defend notions most reasonable people would recognize as blindness if they stepped out of their circles, is difficult to reconcile. That era wasn't entirely bad, but my sense is that it wasn't positioned and executed such that it could have done its intended good, and done it well.
Byzrus,
Touche! "Liberals have a very hard time accepting they were mistaken.
While I can understand the attraction of novelty, I have never understood the visceral hated that some people have of the historic form of the Mass or why they get so upset if others celebrated it. What skin is it off their nose if someone else celebrates the old Mass?
I think the substance of their reaction is based upon “ecclesiology” meaning they see the old Mass as supporting a more clerical ecclesiology where the laity are second class citizens. By this, they mean that because there is a return to a Mass where only men can enter the sanctuary, i.e. no female servers, no female lectors and no Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. In addition to this, the all Latin Mass encourages a passive participation, only interior, and a spirituality disconnected from the actions of the Mass.
Also, so many of the prayers of the priest are for his personal piety alone, prayed silently. This includes the Roman Canon.
Also, they despise the frilly, lacy vestments (as did Pope Francis). They see the style of architecture, vestments and accouterments for the Mass over the top, expensive and not an image of a poor Church for the poor.
A "poor" Church can help no one. No money, no mission. No schools, no orphanages, no hospitals, no nursing homes. Those espousing this, live very comfortably. We now call them "virtue signalers."
Father Anthony, there is a simple explanation: they're jerks!
Father McDonald,
This is an interesting take on the Novus Ordo from Father Z. I never thought of it quite this way. What say you?
FACT: In the revisions and recreation of new prayers for Novus Ordo we lost most of what could be characterized as “negative” concepts: sin, guilt, penance, propitiation, etc. But these are vital nutrients for Catholics. Grown up Catholics, that is, and growing up Catholics.
Catholics understand that we are sinners, and that one day we are going to die and meet our Maker, who is our Savior and our Judge.
When we deal with very young children we don’t drum on about the Four Last Things. They shouldn’t be ignorant of them, but we shouldn’t stress them to much, either. Let children be children.
But we must not infantilize adults by denying them the sustenance of TRUTH.
“Goo goo ga ga” from the pulpit and in our Mass prayers is not enough for adults. To preach “goo goo here comes the choo choo” to them is precisely the opposite of charity, which seeks to serve the good of others.
But I return to may question. It is one thing for them to prefer the new ways, but why do they object so much if others wish to worship in the old way? Why do they insist on preventing that? And if their objection is that the old Mass was inherently unjust and erroneous, then, since this was the expression of the faith for nearly 2000 years, they are also saying that the faith itself that the old Mass expressed was inherently unjust and erroneous. They are not just rejecting the old Mass but the Catholic faith itself that the old Mass represented.
Agenda politics. Do you really think a Martin has an nth of interest in ancient liturgy? Privately, many think he's far, far, far from alone going right up the chain of command.
I'll be slightly more direct.
TLM adherents are a known minority. Why, therefore would so many prelates be so against such a small part of the whole? Why do they care? To me, the reason is sin.
Demanding liturgy requires that we confront our sins and beg for forgiveness. I'm not trying to be prideful, but through my Eastern lens, the ongoing objections to this liturgy, perhaps driven by fear, is that it forces acknowledgement of one's own sins. Lace, plumes, gold straws and shoe buckles are too easily legislated away.
Formerly, certain sins used to cry for the vengeance of heaven. They actually still do. Then, along came FS. The possibility of providing blessings that are conditional, not outright acceptance, but close. We keep edging closer to acceptance.
I don't wish to judge, but it seems plausible that some would prefer to exist in the current NO world that provides softened language rather than have others worshipping nearby in a way that might make them have to confront their predilictions while being adamant that it's for "unity".
Post a Comment