A happy middle?

[ksb1020]

I was wondering (and, to be honest, hoping) that there will be a time in the future where the Church isn’t so strongly broken up into trad, liberal, and people who are staunch centrists when it come to the issues that often heat up between the first two. Would you be happy with a liturgical “middle”? Perhaps if OF Mass universally used more Latin and was celebrated ad orientem, or maybe EF Mass in the vernacular?

I know that there are other things that are hotly debated, how to receive communion, etc. But speaking only of the Mass, would you settle for a middle ground? Do you think that is where we are headed?

 

[StudentMI]

Could be. I doubt we’ll see a total suppression of the EF. It seems to be gaining in popularity.

I would prefer to see the Church more unified but it seems with the synodal path nonsense we’re nowhere near real unity.

 

[ksb1020]

Is there proof that attendance and demand for the EF is indeed growing? Yes, I see many young families at my diocesean EF parish, but I also see more young families at the local parish that celebrates OF only. Some of these OF attending families would at first glance be assumed to be more inclined for the EF. Many children, the father dressed well, and the mother and women veiling, all receiving communion on the tongue. It’s almost like there’s a breed of Catholic laity, I don’t know how big it is or how fast it is growing, that do many “traditional” things, but still choose to attend the local OF mass, even though the EF is being offered 30 minutes away

 

[StudentMI]

That seems to be the case around me as well, at the OF parish I go to. I’ve heard the EF is growing is all. I can’t remember the sources. Could be wrong.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

People can’t really be broken up neatly into factions. Most Catholics, in my experience, like some traditional stuff without going full-bore “traditionalist.”

 

[CTBcin]

Would you be happy with a liturgical “middle”? Perhaps if OF Mass universally used more Latin and was celebrated ad orientem, or maybe EF Mass in the vernacular?

Yes, I would. I doubt we’ll get the EF Mass in the vernacular (although it’d be pretty interesting to see), but I think OF Masses with more use of Latin (at least in the Ordinary) and ad orientem would be great.

 

[1ke]

where the Church isn’t so strongly broken up into trad, liberal, and people who are staunch centrists

These are not Church terms, they are political terms. They really have no place in Church discussions.

Would you be happy with a liturgical “middle”?

Diverse liturgical tradition is part of our patrimony. The Eastern Rites and the Latin Rite, and the forms of the Latin Rite, plus the few other western rites such as Ambrosian.

Perhaps if OF Mass universally used more Latin and was celebrated ad orientem,

This options are available in the OF today.

maybe EF Mass in the vernacular?

That would be an entirely different animal, but of course it is possible but would take many years for approved translations.

I know that there are other things that are hotly debated, how to receive communion,

Only in people’s minds. The Church has no debate or issue with this.

But speaking only of the Mass, would you settle for a middle ground?

I’ll settle for whatever my bishop and my pastor decide.

 

[Mark121359]

I wouldn’t. I love the Tridentine Mass the way it is now. In Latin. I absolutely love it just the way it is. It’s a most beautiful experience!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

People can’t really be broken up neatly into factions. Most Catholics, in my experience, like some traditional stuff without going full-bore “traditionalist.”

Exactly, and the same for modern stuff.

And I think the last thing we want is some kind of a Mass trying to incorporate all different elements. We have the OF Mass and the EF TLM Mass and also other options like more formal OF Masses, charismatic Masses, etc. Each option does fine on its own. I don’t need to hear Latin in my OF Mass any more than I need to receive communion in the hand at my EF Mass.

 

[MNathaniel]

I consider myself sort of ‘middle’ already, but in such a sense that even ‘middle’ feels like too defined a term for it. Like, I wouldn’t want to fall into the fallacy of the golden mean. Which is why I so often just avoid chiming into conversations where ‘camps’ exist, because I can’t precisely articulate my own position.

Basically if I have any ‘position’ at all I’d say its one of (attempted) flexibility? To be able to see goodness wherever there is goodness, and appreciate that there are probably multiple ‘good’ ways many things can be done? And that very little that we’re doing today, as it exists today, is as good as it could be, so regardless of what we’re looking at, some kind of movement is needed? And which kind of movement might depends a lot on the local community and I don’t feel qualified to suggest imposing a single ‘thing’ across all communities.

So there we go, that’s an example of the unhelpful non-contribution I have in my head when such topics come up. Haha. Whatever part of Christ’s body I am right now, I think I’m a flexible part that’s ready to adapt to multiple possible directions my local community might go (while thinking that regardless of what direction it goes, there’ll probably be gentle counterbalancing suggestions and supports we all might need to provide).

PS one good thing I’ll say about the ‘camps’ situation (a silver lining, if you will)… Even from such apparent division or stress, I think God can bring something good. And I think the fact that battle lines exist, and there are people willing to defend both sides (while longing for unity) is a sign that there are things worth defending on both sides, so some kind of eventual synthesis is (in my mind) probable. Synthesis slash mutually respectful mosaic. Eventually.

PPS on your exact example, yes, OF celebrated ad orientem (and maybe with more traditional, less hippie-ish music) is exactly one of the happy middles that would please me. I know a parish like that and it’s my favourite. (Maybe we shouldn’t have favourites. But… that one’s my favourite.)

 

[27lw]

I think that some families are encouraged / required to attend a particular parish because the children attend school there. I don’t know if many EF parishes also have a school? Our local FSSP does not.

 

[OKComputer]

I tend to agree with @1ke-these are political terms. But, on the flip side, I know what the OP is saying. Sometimes it does feel that Catholics are splintered into factions. I think it’s more of an internet problem than one in the real world though.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Absolutely agree. Factions really exist primarily on sites like this. In the average parish, the majority probably don’t label themselves or anyone around them in any which way — they’re all simply Catholic (as it should be).

 

[TMC]

Would you be happy with a liturgical “middle”? Perhaps if OF Mass universally used more Latin and was celebrated ad orientem, or maybe EF Mass in the vernacular?

Sure. But I don’t believe that the liturgy is really at the heart of the issue.

The simmering disputes between the more conservative leaning “traditionalists,” and whatever you want to call the rest of us is more reflective of broader stressors in society and culture, including the growing tension between cultural conservatives and the more progressive minded. The liturgical dispute is a handy weapon that each likes to wield against the other - like the couple arguing about whose going to do the dishes when the real problems in the marriage are something else. That is how I see it, anyway.

 

[Crusader13]

I think a middle ground isn’t necessarily a fix to the real issues.

The NO and the TLM have become symbols that represent two ideologies that appears to exist within the Catholic Church. Right or wrong, these two forms of the Mass have come to represent a turning point in the Church’s history. A post Vatican II Church and a pre Vatican II Church.

Taken separately, the issues of lay Eucharistic ministers, altar girls, communion in the hand vs on the tongue, liturgical music, and even the use of Latin vs the vernacular, may not seem problematic.

However, when they are grouped together, the question that is always asked is; “have the changes helped or hurt the Church?” The motive behind the numerous changes is what is in question. Finding a middle ground will simply be a point of neutrality and compromise, the opposing factions will still continue to exist.

 

[Genesis315]

Novelty by its very nature is divisive. Tradition, on the other hand, received by all and applying to all, fosters unity. Novelty, which is introduced by some contrary to the tradition, necessarily causes division from those who came before and those who still adhere to the tradition and wish to maintain such unity. We didn’t have divisions on these points until the novelties were imposed.

Until very recently, the Church was very, very cautious in introducing even acceptable novelties for these reasons (among others). A maxim of Vatican II itself, which was practically instantly forgotten says “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”

The expected good needs to outweigh the damage changing the tradition will inevitably do. And to mitigate this it should be organically drawn out of existing forms and practices. The latter was certainly ignored, and the former seems to have been violated as well, at least in hindsight.

The result was people became divided within the Church–not just the small minority of trads who preserved the older forms (which Vatican II also said was good–see SC 4), but also the large numbers who didn’t recognize the Church in its novel forms and simply stopped showing up (much of my grandparents generation were in this category, sadly).

The divisions caused by the introduction of such broad novelty will take a long time to heal completely. I think the old tradition should stay and be preserved and fostered in very way (cf. SC 4), and the novelty brought organically closer to it little by little (cf. SC 23). A quick abolition of the new forms would cause the same division in those for whom it as become a tradition.

But I don’t believe that the liturgy is really at the heart of the issue.

The liturgy is always at the heart of the issue. As Vatican II itself says “the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows.”

 

[choose_to_love]

Have you ever seen an Anglican Use Mass? That is pretty close to EF in English

 

[27lw]

You mention that your grandparents’ generation just quit going to Mass. Is that what happened, in general? I just wonder how people tolerated certain things. It must have been heart-breaking to the generations that grew up in those churches, then saw them “renovated”, etc.

 

[OraLabora]

Perhaps if OF Mass universally used more Latin and was celebrated ad orientem,

We already have that at our abbey, except for ad orientem which wouldn’t work with the configuration of the sanctuary with concelebration. The propers and ordinary are Latin/Greek Gregorian chant. The rest is vernacular plainchant (French).

It more than fulfills my need for reverent liturgy. At the parish level, our schola brings Gregorian chant once a month.

 

[TK421]

I was wondering (and, to be honest, hoping) that there will be a time in the future where the Church isn’t so strongly broken up into trad, liberal, and people who are staunch centrists when it come to the issues that often heat up between the first two. Would you be happy with a liturgical “middle”? Perhaps if OF Mass universally used more Latin and was celebrated ad orientem, or maybe EF Mass in the vernacular?

I know that there are other things that are hotly debated, how to receive communion, etc. But speaking only of the Mass, would you settle for a middle ground? Do you think that is where we are headed?

This has never at any point been achieved in the history of the Church, including when Sts Peter & Paul were alive, but unity (not merely being in Full Communion, but also having a Church that is at peace within itself) has been the goal from the beginning.