B
- Status
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
U
Unfinished
Guest
One of my favorites.
R
rayne89
Guest
Oh my gosh - my husband is in that picture. I would be too but someone obscuring the view (guess I get to remain incognito
) Not the Fr Ben one obviously -the picture you linked to.
C
cothrige
Guest
Actually, I think we can make a decent case that many abuses CAN be laid at the door of the NO Mass, at least in a way. Let me say that I am not what most people call a traditionalist, and have never even been to a TLM. However, I think we should be realistic in talking about these things and understanding what has gone on.
I think the natural principle that most people ignore is that you simply cannot have a little tradition. Christianity is a traditional faith. It is founded on traditions. The Bible is written tradition. The liturgy is a ritual tradition. So are our many prayers. Throughout the history of the Church traditions would come and go, and that is natural, and it didn’t generally happen all at once in a single generation. It is generally an organic expression of the faith in which the culture will both absorb and return to the practice and understanding of the faith over a long period of time. People born into or received into that tradition and history will pass it on to those who follow, and there are no breaks to interrupt that natural and organic process. The changes and developments that occur do not generally happen so suddenly as to be disruptive.
When the old Mass was removed it was without any organic or natural foundation and the people individually and culturally felt the loss of that tradition. Even those who liked it still knew that it was an external and rather artificial alteration. The break is impossible to ignore, and as such had to be addressed. That response is found in many places, mostly involving the use of little ‘t’ and big ‘T.’ What this means is that people fundamentally have to accept that something being a tradition is not enough of a reason to keep it or love it. That is a large change and we have intentionally been teaching it to believers. That is why things look so much today like they did during the Reformation, not necessarily because Protestants were involved but rather because the results and causes are so much the same. What we cannot ignore is that the Reformation was driven by just that distinction between the big ‘T’ of the Bible, and the little 't’s of the rituals, orders and so on.
When the people accept and can live with the idea that something with 1500+ years of tradition behind it can be jettisoned without any organic cause, they have no trouble at all rejecting many other ‘traditions.’ Traditions like fidelity to the Pope. Like fidelity to the liturgical rubrics. Like devotions, art, music and literature. Like feeling a need for confession. Or prayer itself. When you can abandon what was the core of the faith for more than a millenium, and do so overnight, there is simply nothing to keep people in any of the other ‘smaller’ things that together have added up to what is effectively the life of a Catholic since the Apostles.
When you think you can have a ‘little tradition’ what you end up with is no tradition at all. And for a revealed and traditional faith like ours that is an ugly and spiritless place to find yourself. The days of little paper cups of grape juice being passed down the pews are right around the corner, and effectively there is nothing to stop it. The only reason we walk up to receive is because we always have, and that just isn’t any reason at all anymore. So, even if we ignore the seemingly paranoid arguments of many traditionalists, I think we are going to have to try to be realistic in understanding just what has happened to our Church and what the future holds for us. Did the Novus Ordo itself cause or invite the many abuses that plague our churches these days? No, not really. But its very existence has almost certainly been the cause of most of them, and I just cannot see around that.
Patrick
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Excellent points! I’ve also thought of the fact that big T tradition is transmitted through small t tradition. In fact, I don’t think there are many cases where big T tradition is transmitted without small t tradition; whether that be the liturgy, art, prayers, architecture, devotional postures, etc. Alter or remove too much of small t tradition and the transmission of the big T tradition will become smudged or nonexistent.
A
AJV
Guest
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I still say that blame lies on the innovators and the times in which they got a hold of what was (and is) a thing of beautiful and noble simplicity. These pictures posted here have little to do with the NO and more to do with the time of the NO. There’s not disconnect aesthetically when the NO is reverently offered in what would be described as more “traditional” edifices (as an example).
D
djrakowski
Guest
Oh my gosh - my husband is in that picture. I would be too but someone obscuring the view (guess I get to remain incognito
Imagine, we go to the same parish, and yet, haven’t met outside of the computer.
Dontcha just love our parish and especially our pastor?
C
cothrige
Guest
But, we simply cannot ignore the reasons behind these things. Of course the innovators actually did this, but then they only did what the Church had taught them to do. We cannot ignore that the creation and institution of the NO Mass required we take a position, and defend it rigorously, that tradition, even extremely ancient ones which are the very center of our ritual, are fundamentally disposable. How can we teach people that and then expect them to retain other traditions which could never be as important as the Mass itself? The NO Mass, whether itself being good or not, has required that we become a Church built on innovation, not tradition, and that is simply going to be the way of our lives for the future.
Patrick
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I’m sorry, that isn’t sensible. ***If ***the innovators did what the Church taught them to do, then they were taught by a pre-Conciliar, pre-VII, pre-NO Mass. This wasn’t an overnight pheonomenon. I would submit, rather, that this was a result of the Spirit of Vatican II, which was wholly a child of its age rather than the child of the council. The call had been for a mass stripped of the excesses that tended to obscure it in some ways. It’s like ivy on a building. It’s got to be pruned or it can eventually obscure the building. I believe that the NO achieves that call for a “noble simplicity.” I also can see abuses OF that. If any thing, there should have been far fewer options in the rubrics.
As for this thread, the things depicted here were influenced by the world and the times, not by the NO. It is appalling that we have bishops and priests who bought into it (I’m astonished that we don’t have a Frank Geary designed cathedral), but it came from outside sources, not from the NO itself, a completely orthodox liturgical text and rite.
C
cothrige
Guest
I think I can say that in one way this was an overnight phenomenon. When the old Mass was removed it forced a change of thought that could not be reversed. Ever since we have had to accept that traditions are disposable or else we invalidate the most dramatic denial of a tradition in our history, the new Mass. It was this first most astounding act of innovation which all later innovation, including the many liturgical abuses we are beset with these days, have been built upon. That is what I mean when I say that the current innovators are doing what they have been taught. Seriously, you have to admit that if the very liturgy, the “work of the people,” that we had from almost two millenia of traditional growth and development can be ripped out and replaced with a freshly and artificially written ritual there is simply no possible claim of abuse because people don’t use good music. If we can’t treasure the large things we certainly can’t be expected to do so for the lesser ones.
On your last point, I think both the “Spirit of Vatican II” and the “spirit of the times” are red herrings. The first is simply a fiction. The “Spirit of Vatican II” really should be the “Spirit of the Novus Ordo” because it was that change which directed, fuelled and encouraged all the others. And without it the “spirit of the times” would have had no impact. Consider that the these times have come through like a floodgate. Why? Because we have no defense in our traditions. For centuries the times could only slowly affect the Church, and that change was organic and natural, producing wonderful things like the old Mass itself, and all the music and art around it. When we ripped that central tradition out, and then instituted a defense based on the minimization of small ‘t’ tradition, we were left like a man with no immunity.
You say we needed to prune the ivy, and that may be so. You also say that the NO acheives noble simplicity. That also may be so. But, unfortunately, none of that really speaks to the big issue. The new Mass is a massive innovation, sudden and artificial, pushed through on the people without any organic development. People argue about whether it is respectful or worshipful, or even valid, but they never seem to address or consider the much greater concern. If the Church can toss out the ancient Mass then literally nothing is sacred. Until we address or objectively even understand this we are trapped to continue in this way.
Patrick
J
Joysong
Guest
May I remind you that the old Mass was not “removed” but it is still the same sacred sacrifice of the Mass, albeit with changed wording and disciplines.
Do you believe traditional forms are not to be replaced? It may help you to read Acts 15, where the original “Catholics,” the Jews of that day, were upset that the gentile converts did not keep the entire prescriptions of their “tradition.” (Sound familiar?)
Jesus did not teach the apostles all things before His Ascension, but left the direction of the Church to the Holy Spirit and those who were entrusted with His Divine Authority. As a result of the troubling from the original “chosen ones” there came the first Jerusalem Council. Verse 28 states: For the Holy Spirit and we have decided …" The traditional discipline was changed, lawfully!
Again, it is not tossed out, it is changed. I believe your problem lies with the authority of the Magisterium to make these changes, indicating a complete lack of faith in God’s guidance within the Church.
While the internet complaints have been circulating a relatively short time compared with close to 40 years of the Pauline Mass, I am amazed that people are still whining that they are not able to have things their way according to “tradition” — they somewhat resemble the ancient Jews with their complaints. I wonder how many years they carried this antagonism toward the gentiles, AFTER the Council gave dispensations? I’ll bet there were a lot of sour grapes. Yet the new way was lawfully promulgated by the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
C
cothrige
Guest
- Changed vs. discarded is just a semantics argument. The fact is that the Mass that developed organically within the spiritual life of the Church for two thousand years was one day in place, and the next was gone. Whether you call that a change or not is immaterial, but the impact it had on both the minds of the believers and the requisite thinking of the Church are essential. Ultimately it is the entire point of this thread and the general disquietude concerning the lack of traditional art forms within the worship life of the Church.
- My faith in God and Holy Mother Church is not for you to speculate on. Perhaps you get in over your head there? And it also does nothing for your position in denying that the current innovations and abuses lie at the door of the new Mass.
We should consider the Orthodox. I was reading somewhere some Catholics pointing out that they often seem to elevate even the tiniest local customs to apostolic decrees. One person said they were afraid of change. That is probably true, and because of it they still celebrate a liturgy that developed and was handed down in a true traditional way. They also still have their art, incense, chants, and so on. They haven’t had to learn to defend all their innovation with arguments about authority and the different 't’s. If we just took a moment and objectively considered why they have such strong traditions and praxis while we are caught in a storm of innovation, trying to dog-paddle against the currents, then maybe we would learn something. Of course, we could always just say that their admission of the value of tradition is nothing but a lack of faith in God’s guidance of the Church, but I doubt that would prove anything.
Patrick
A
AJV
Guest
Absolutely excellent post!
That is so true. One thinks of the Nikonian reforms although possibly there were also deeper issues there. One reason I think is that increasingly in the West, especially since the scholastics, it has always been higher priority for the medium of dogma and things like that, rather than the liturgy, which sometimes has been relegated to a subsidiary role that sometimes fails to take into account it’s true effects. Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi and all that.
U
Unfinished
Guest
You sir, get a gold star.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
The impact it had on this believer still strongly resonates. It is ironic that my cathedral parish was one of the very first to be renovated after V II. Out went the hundred plus year old pipe organ, the choir loft, and the high altar.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
As you can see, the choir loft has been rebuilt and the marble chi rho panel from the original high altar has been incorporated into the facade of the loft. The crucifix is, indeed, a modern work but it is not abstract in the least. The panel behind the BVM is mahogany and is carved with vines - the work of a local artist. What you can’t see is that the candle stand for the Paschal candle is also carved from a trunk of mahoganey into four seraphim - modern, but not abstract.
Last, but not least, we saved for four years and now have a very nice Reuter’s pipe organ to replace the “oh, so modern” electronic organ that actually shorted out and burned during a choir member’s wedding. The organ console was on the right near the cantor’s stand. The choir stood facing the congregation because according to V II, the choir should be seen.
I was never so glad in all my life when we finally got to sing in the choir loft. And from an aesthetic point, we’ve never sounded better. I always felt like we were “on stage”. It is not about us, it is about singing God’s praise.
The banners that are used are not all abstract like this one. One of my fellow tenors is in the clothing business here. He’s actually accomplished in sewing says DW and he devotes many, many, hours for banners appropriate to the season.
When the high altar was taken apart, the statuary was given to local parishoners. I don’t have any pictures to show you, but since 92 when the new choir loft and new organ were built, much of the original marble statuary on the high altar has been returned to the cathedral and is being used in other ways.
So, we have a happy mix of new art suitable for the NO and respectful of pre V II sensibilities and the return of the art of our ancestors.
Got to add this too. There were new candle stands made after V II. Strictly modern bronze affairs - sleek styling. They haven’t been used in years. We use the marble and gold gothic stands which were on the original high altar.
U
Unfinished
Guest
You have a picture of your church back in it’s hayday? I bet is was glorious. (It isn’t too bad now, though).
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
No, none posted on the web. I’ve seen photos in Father’s office and he every now and then posts them in the bulletin - particulary when Mrs. “X” returned the statue of St. Joseph to us that was given to her family by Father “Y” in 1965. I didn’t move to Baton Rouge from New Orleans until 1976.
The pictures show a fairly typical Gothic high altar which would be in keeping with the stained glass and the mosaic Stations which, thanks be to God, were not thrown out during the renovations.
The pictures show a fairly typical Gothic high altar which would be in keeping with the stained glass and the mosaic Stations which, thanks be to God, were not thrown out during the renovations.
A
Aurelio
Guest
Howdy!What just might have been overlooked here so far is this:
What happens when an existing Archdiocesan Cathedral Church, well over a century old, is literally trashed from within?
To the tune of x millions of dollars?
True, I haven’t been back to see it, and maybe by now the final result isn’t so bad, but based on local press releases sent to me by local people still outraged over the whole business, I have to wonder.
Then, too, their new Archbishop is a member of Opus Dei, for whatever magic that might have!
Has this sort oft thing happened elsewhere?
Like maybe in your archdiocese or diocese?
Thanks!
- Status