Pope Benedict XVI famously said that those who had the greatest difficulty with the dumbing down of the Mass after Vatican II by Bishop Bugnini, but approved by Pope Paul VI, were those who had invested themselves into the New Liturgical Movement of the early 20th century, particularly in Europe.
They actually prayed the Mass, were involved in chanting the chants and did not allow other devotions to replace their participation in the actual Mass. For these people, the changes to the Mass, especially the dumbing down of the Mass, was a real cross for them.
(Let me add my own pet peeve: It drives me crazy that at the TLM in Savannah and I presume elsewhere that Confessions are being heard at the same time as the Mass is being celebrated. And yes, a lot of people line up, during the Mass, mind you, to go to Confession and in fact they might even be in the Confessional during major parts of the Mass, like the Consecrations. This should be ANATHAMA! When at Mass, fully participate in the Mass, don’t be lining up for Confessions, or praying the Rosary or praying the Stations of the Cross!)
But those Catholics who were not as informed about the nature of the liturgy prior to Vatican II, allowed devotions to replace their actual participation in the Mass and refused to respond in any verbal or sung way at Mass, were pleased as punch with the new Mass, especially its vernacular, easy to sing hymns, relaxed reverence and emphasis on community rather than on God. They may have resisted at the beginning but eventually were won over by the new Mass and its oddities.
Thus the liturgy wars began and rather quickly in the 1960’s. Those who want a conservative approach to the new Mass were a smaller group than those who wanted all the experimentation, especially with casualness, ugly, banal simplicity and new hymns of the folk and Broadway styles.
An even smaller minority in the liturgical wars were those who wanted the old Mass to remain or at least be an option, because they understood it, participated in it in a actual way, both contemplative and active.
I’ve often thought that if the new Mass had been designed and given rubrics for existing churches, meaning no changes to altars and other devotions designed into these older churches, that most people would truly think nothing really changed except that the Mass was now in the vernacular.
There would be liturgical peace in the 1960’s and continuing to this day even if the TLM never had more widespread allowances in local parishes.
40 comments:
How much peace would we have if everyone just had a live and let live attitude.
In the beginning of this century the Vatican clarified that Confession may be heard during Mass as long as it wasn't aroung the altar area.
During the entire transition I was a student at a Benedictine (yeah, them guys, the liturgy guys) college and the younger monks went nuts. They went from a thriving and up-and-coming abbey to a house of barely a handful today. The implementation of Vatican II was an unmitigated disaster from the very beginning. NDAI!
The liturgy wars began with the concilium. They ignored parts of SC to fashion the Mass they wanted. It was furthered by ICEL and the bishops conferences in their implementation.
The bishops failed / they should have been replaced for repudiating in practice, Sacrosanctum Concilium
Father--I must take *strong* exception to your statement that it is inappropriate for confessions to be hearing during mass. Redemptionis Sacramentum No. 76 (2004) explicitly states that while it is impermissible to unite Confession to Mass such that it forms a single liturgical rite, "[t]his does not exclude, however, that Priests other than those celebrating or concelebrating the Mass might hear the confessions of the faithful who so desire, even in the same place where Mass is being celebrated … This should nevertheless be done in an appropriate manner.”
Similarly, St. John Paul II declared in Misericordia Dei No. 2 (2002) "that confessions be especially available before Masses, and even during Mass if there are other priests available, in order to meet the needs of the faithful."
I apologize for the block quotes, as I usually hate them and do not want to come off like a certain other regular poster here who uses them far too frequently, to the annoyance of us all. But I am using them to show just how wrong you are on this matter. I implore you to actually look up what the Church allows and doesn't allow before doing making statements like you did in your post. You run the risk of scandalizing the faithful and misleading them into thinking it's wrong for them to be going to confession during mass. That's no different from telling them they can't receive communion while kneeling, something I know you would never do.
You're doing a great job in your ministry. Please don't lessen it with statements like that.
Although permissible, it is better to go to confession outside of Mass. i would only go to confession during Mass if I felt I had a grave sin demanding immediate absolution
There are many things permissible in the Mass or during Mass but does that mean we should do it? Some places give Holy Communion to those in the choir before Mass or after Mass. Both are permissible but not a good idea. I think the thinking behind going to Confession as the Mass is being celebrated is based upon the idea that laity don’t really need to actually participate in the Mass, simply being in the church totally disengaged from the actions of the Mass and what is proper for the laity’s participation. I would say that Vatican II’s teaching on actual participation applies even to the TLM as a reform of the laity’s participation. No Confessions, no rosaries, no stations of the Cross and no Solemn Exposition and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament when the Mass is in progress. The laity have a role in the Mass as it is being celebrated and should focus their devotion and participation there, not elsewhere as noble as the elsewhere might be.
As a practical matter, with so many parishes having only one priest, confession during Mass is not an issue.
I wonder if confession during Mass was a result of St. Pius X encouraging frequent Holy Communion.
I join with Fr. ALLAN McDonald in suggesting that, while permissible, hearing confessions during mass might not be a desirable practice. Imagine a person coming to Sunday mass and, finding that a confessor is available, spends the entire Liturgy of the Word in the confessional. Or he/she misses receiving communion, or darts into the confessional between the elevation of the bread and the elevation of the cup. Has that person fulfilled his/her obligation?
Just a quick question : is it compulsory to actively participate or does one simply assist ( in the sense) attend? And when did it change?
Yes
David - What if he/she stands in the narthex reading the bulleting during the Liturgy of the Word, or on the front steps of the church during that time? Has a person who, from the presentation of the gifts to the "Go in peace," is making bets on Kalshi on his/her phone? Obligation fulfilled?
Though Confessions during Mass might not be ideal, I think that having it available during Mass might be the only time people might use it. Why be so hard on people who actually go to Confession? Litugical idealism sometimes can be overly legalistic and lack compassion for a person who hasn't been to Confession in ages and is moved by God to go and it is availble. BTW, the reality is that most Americans are one-stop shoppers and will go to Confession if it is available when they are at Mass. St. Peter's in Rome has Confessions during Mass available.
This will give corrupt bishops and priests the sadz:
Pope St. John XXIII expressed this principle with remarkable force in his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia. Latin, he wrote, possesses a dignity, stability, and universality that make it singularly suited to manifest the unity of the Church. It belongs, as it were, to the very nature of the Catholic Church because it belongs to no particular nation while remaining equally accessible to all.
It is worth recalling that the Second Vatican Council never abandoned this conviction. Quite the contrary. Sacrosanctum Concilium explicitly states that "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." At the same time, the Council insisted that seminarians and clergy be sufficiently trained to understand and employ Latin correctly. The Council Fathers never imagined a Church in which bishops and priests would no longer be capable of reading her own official documents in the original language. On the contrary, such competence was simply taken for granted.
Absolutely! Not just SC, but also the first document produced by the Concilium: Musicam Sacram. Pope Paul VI wrote that it should be considered as a document of the council itself. In addition to using Latin (particularly for the people's responses) it also required Mass to be sung in most cases. While a spoken Mass was allowed, it could never be simply for the convenience of the clergy. Another teaching ignored by the Spirit of the 70s.
Probably because these clerics were mendacious or slothful or both
Again, I would say- yes. The assistance at Mass may be below par. Other distractions may have occured but the obligation has been fulfilled.
The story of Vatican II that we have been fed has been a lie. It is time to go back to the documents themselves and read them as an ordinary Catholic would have before the council, without the false extrapolation that came after the council. Read in this light, the TLM is actually closer to what the council intended than what is seen in your typical Novus Ordo parish today.
Father Anthony,
Anyone who says the Novus Ordo is “noble simplicity” in contrast to the TLM is an abject liar.. We have one of those who posts here regularly!
The Consilium, with full authority and approval, directed the reforms of the liturgy. To "go back" to the Council with no reference to the authoritative actions of the Consilium is to ignore reality. Very dangerous and self-serving, that.
Dangerous? Did you write, dangerous??? Did you write self-serving? Please in the name of God and all that is holy, read that new book on the implementation of Vatican II in the Archdiocese of Baltimore between 1966 and 1974–it is eye opening and if you want to write about danger and self-serving, read how quickly during that period of time Mass attendance plummeted, Catholics disengaged from the Church and chaos reigned supreme. Now that is what dangerous is!
K is always good for a laugh!
To "go back" to the Council without recognizing the authority and validity of subsequent implementation documents is dangerous, yes, dangerous.
A person cannot "go back" to the Council and read Nostra Aetate without taking into account the numerous subsequent statements and directives that have come from popes, Roman dicasteries, conferences of bishops, and individual bishops.
The same can be said of Dignitatis Humanae, a major sticking point for the SSPX, Unitatis Redentigratio followed by the Ecumenical Directory from the dicastery for promoting Christian Unity, etc etc.
Chaos reigns when people "overlook" the on-going teaching of the Church.
Being mandated by Vatican II and being authorized by Pope Paul VI are two different things. The lie has been that what had been created by the Consilium was what was called for by Vatican II. Furthermore, how the new Mass is celebrated in the parishes is not what is mandated by the new Mass or envisioned by Pope Paul. He himself called for the retention of Latin, resisted Communion in the hand, never authorized the proliferation of extraordinary ministers or altar girls, etc. Insist that the new Mass was approved by the popes, but stop insisting that it was the product of Vatican II. And stop implying that if someone is opposed to the new Mass, or how the new Mass is routinely celebrated, is opposed to Vatican II. I stand by my statement: the TLM is closer to what was envisioned by Vatican II than the way the new Mass is celebrated in the typical Novus Ordo parish today.
The Consilium carried on the work of the Council and had full authority to do so.
Isn't it amazing that some few people - and they are few - have discovered a terrible, awful error in the way the Church has moved since the Council. One would be tempted to think a veil of neo-gnosticism was settling about those who would be better served if they would disenthrall themselves of their own less than adequate ability to know and do what the popes and bishops should have, according to them, known and done.
This will give K and MT the sadz:
NEWS: Bishop Michael Sis of San Angelo expands the Traditional Latin Mass in his diocese.
The Mass according to the 1962 Missal will be offered beginning Sunday 30 August, and thereafter on the last Sunday of each month at St Ann’s Catholic Church in Midland at 3 p.m.
This will give K and MT the sadz:
NEWS: Bishop Michael Sis of San Angelo expands the Traditional Latin Mass in his diocese.
The Mass according to the 1962 Missal will be offered beginning Sunday 30 August, and thereafter on the last Sunday of each month at St Ann’s Catholic Church in Midland at 3 p.m.
Father Ryan Rojo, Vocations Director: “This is just a beginning as the diocese discerns a path forward to provide for our people. Other priests of the diocese will be learning the Mass in the weeks and months ahead.
K maybe you should move to that Diocese to help out!
Full authority does not mean that they were faithful to the vision of Vatican II. Abuse of authority happens often. Your argumentum ab auctoritate is, as always, a logical error. And this is the argument that has been used 60 years to push the false notion that the post Vatican II reform was a product of Vatican II itself. More and more people, including bishops and cardinals (and dare I say the late Pope Benedict), are recognizing the falsehood of the claim. Despite your desire to the contrary, more and more people, especially the young, are coming to this conclusion.
This will give K the sadz! Imagine a Catholic College offering the TLM attracts students to religious life!
“About 1 in 10 graduates of Thomas Aquinas College in California have become Catholic priests or entered religious life. Image: Thomas Aquinas College“
Anthony - I am happy to acknowledge the authority of those church members to whom it is given. I do not, as you do, second guess their authoritative decisions, claiming to have some better or deeper or clearer, or fuller understanding.
My argument is not the logical error "argumentum ab auctoritate" since, in fact, the sources I cited have the authority/expertise/commission to make the decisions entrusted to them.
Just because you disagree with the authoritative sources doesn't mean they are wrong.
Ah, but you do, by prohibiting priests in your parish from taking advantage of legitimate options in the new Mass of which you disapprove. You reject the authority of the Church over the liturgy just as much as the most die-hard traditionalist.
Nor does acceptance of authority mean that one must agree with the decisions of that authority. I have always followed legitimate authority even when I have disagreed with it. If we could not question authority we would not have had the reform and new Mass to start with.
And yes, just appealing to proper authority as a way to halt discussion about the basis and fitness of its decisions is a classic example of argumentum ad auctoritate which is a recognized logical error.
Anthony - If a reasonable number - that's not 5 out of 100 or 10 out of 200 - wanted these "legitimate options" you might have a case. No one in the parish I serve has ever expressed that want.
Given that, yes, I would not allow a priest to come in and impose his preference on the people. That would be an expression of disrespect toward the people and a misuse of the "legitimate options" that exist. It would be clericalism on steroids - "Father X Knows Best. You people are too dumb or uninformed or anti-tradition or whatever to understand what is good for you."
You will note that my appealing to authority has not halted the discussion, so . . . .you wanna try that again?
I remind you that your parish consists of all those living in its geographical boundaries, not just those who are attracted to your style of worship. Of course you are not going to attract anyone interested in a more traditional form of the Novus Ordo if you refuse to offer one. And what of the disrespect that you and others have shown for 60 years for those who want a more traditional form of the Mass by imposing one change after another on them? There was no call among the laity for turning the altars around, eliminating altar rails, Communion standing and in the hand, extraordinary ministers of Communion, etc. These were all imposed on the faithful. Talk about clericalism on steroids. Nor are we just talking about what you allow in your parish. You have made it abundantly clear that you think a more traditional form of the new Mass is illegitimate and should not be tolerated anywhere in the church.
You are the one who can try again. You obviously used the defense of authority to discredit and delegitimize anyone who disagrees with the decisions made by the "full authority" of the Consilium. Ironic since you do not exactly agree with the options that allow for a more traditional form of the Mass.
Anthony - I remind you that no one in this parish - those who attend and those who live in the geographical boundaries - has requested the use of your "legitimate options."
Try again.
I celebrate the traditional mass according to the Novus Ordo. I remind you that the NO mas is 100% traditional, from the entrance antiphon or hymn to the recessional.
Oh, please stop with your nonsense. You know exactly what I meant. And in any case, traditional or not, you still reject the authority of the popes and restrict the legitimate options that you allow other priests to exercise.
Anthony - Yes, I know exactly what you meant. Your understanding of traditional is not the Church's. I'm happy to stand with the Church's, not yours.
Why not address the questions I raise about the prudential pastoral judgment I might make if a traditionalist priest wants to impose his preferences on a congregation that does not want or need them?
Of course, in a synodal way you should consult with your parishioners and seek to listen to them in a synodal way about what they really, really, want. It seems to me to be very hierarchical (i.e. non-synodal), extremely clerical and quite pre-Vatican II to say "a congregation that does not want or need them!" Wow! Wow! Wow! And keep in mind, when you got there in 2016 you had almost 2000 families and now about 300.
Well if K exhibits the same “charm” in his parish as he does here, the shrinkage is understandable. Of course he is totally blameless!
Post a Comment