Celebrating the Latin Mass

[Don_Ruggero]

Of course, Father, various elements of the old Mass were made options for the new. I know a liturgical scholar, such as yourself, may not agree, but as a lay man in the pews, an OF celebrated with all the “traditional” options (chanted propers and readings, polyphonic choir, incense, sprinkling rite, ad orientem, Eucharistic Prayer 1, etc.) is almost indistinguishable in look and feel from a sung EF dialogue mass…and completely and utterly alien experience from the OF mass as celebrated in most North American parishes.

If I were a Protestant off the street (which in I was once), and first went to an EF sung dialogue mass, and then went to an OF mass at St. Peter’s in Rome, I would detect few differences. If I went to an OF mass at an average parish in North America, I would assume I was experiencing a completely distinct rite. These are superficial comparisons of course, but I think accurate for the perceptions of the “average Joe”.

I find your comments, frankly, very intriguing. I have been told – and I really have no way of verifying it – that the people of North America were not exposed to (nor do they appreciate) the dialogue Mass in the vetus ordo. You seem to imply the opposite. Is it, therefore, different in western Canada than it is in the United States – and that you have an extensive experience of dialogue Masses prior to the Council? As one whose vocation is so intimately tied to the liturgical movement, I would be gratified to learn that such is so about Canada. I have almost no experience in Canada’s western provinces to draw upon.

Given that I taught Latin and not infrequently celebrate Mass in Latin. Given that I am retired and normally now offer Mass ad absidem since there are no people to face. Given that I use Eucharistic Prayer 1 not infrequently, I still find the use of the novus ordo so distinctive because of the elements the Council Fathers said on the one hand needed to be discarded and on the other hand those elements present which the Council Fathers said had been lost by accident of history and needed to be restored – it is hard for me to imagine that anyone could mistake my novus ordo Mass for a vetus ordo Mass…even when I used every conceivable option that made it have the appearance most closely achievable between the missals of Saint John XXIII and Blessed Paul VI.

I can no longer really assess how the two forms of the Mass could be potentially perceived by lay people in the pew. I am too long in the tooth as a liturgy professor. I would immediately know, personally, from the mere sight of the rubrics being implemented, whether the Mass was being celebrated according to the vetus ordo or the novus ordo. I would know it, to tell the truth, by one very simple criteria: it would be immediately evident to me if the Mass were actually in compliance with what the Council Fathers had mandated or not.

As to your one comment: I celebrated the vetus ordo for years. I have also celebrated innumerable times in Saint Peter’s Basilica and in every language that it is possible for me to do so, with the sole exception thus far of Greek. I suppose, with considerable difficulty actually, that one could happen upon me saying Mass there ad absidem and, if such a person were completely un-conversant with the two forms and I were celebrating in Latin, they might not be able to discern which missal I was using however, given the changes in accoutrements, even in the upper basilica, that were implemented by the Cardinal Archpriest a number of years ago, that is really implausible to me. But beyond all that there are many altars, most especially in the undercroft which I favour, where one would certainly be able to discern and relatively quickly the missal I was using, assuming the person had any liturgical discernment at all.

The page asks that we not compare and contrast the vetus ordo and the novus ordo. I have no idea, actually, if that applies to priests on the page simply explaining why they celebrate the Mass that they celebrate…so I will simply say that I am in agreement with what the Council Fathers wrote in Sacrosanctum Concilium, a document that I both taught and gave freestanding lectures on, and it is the inestimable wisdom of the Council Fathers which has always guided me – both in teaching Vatican II and its documents and in my own celebration of the liturgy…together with the example of those Council Fathers I was privileged to know.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The monastery in question has a quite common altar arrangement for a monastery, that is between the nave and the choir. It is my understanding from a tour of the place, that they had the specific mandate to test versus populum. I know the place quite well, having been 4 times including two stays of a week each. It is a free-standing altar.

That altar you are describing was in the days when Bernhard Kaelin was Abbot Primate. I am pleased that you know this story.

It is important to stress however that the re-orientation of the altar – and Mass celebrated while facing the people – was also known beyond Sant’Anselmo in those years; it was part of the liturgical movement and was present in the minds of the world’s bishops gathered in ecumenical council. That extraordinary movement that spanned the 20th century came to fruition when it helped to inspire the Council Fathers in turn as they wrote Sacrosanctum Concilium.

It was an incredible blessing that the Pontifical Liturgical Institute was existing and was such a short distance from where the Council Fathers were gathering – and, of course, those who were part of the Institute in that moment of the Council were singularly situated to make the most marvelous contributions to the Council’s proceedings as well as to the outcomes which followed upon what the Council Fathers mandated.

 

[ProVobis]

The monastery in question has a quite common altar arrangement for a monastery, that is between the nave and the choir. It is my understanding from a tour of the place, that they had the specific mandate to test versus populum. I know the place quite well, having been 4 times including two stays of a week each. It is a free-standing altar.

The reason I asked was that I’ve seen churches whose altars have a 360 degree configuration for the congregation. I suppose the side which is most populated would be considered the “populum.”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The reason I asked was that I’ve seen churches whose altars have a 360 degree configuration for the congregation. I suppose the side which is most populated would be considered the “populum.”

That is not the case at Sant’Anselmo. The choir stalls of the monks are on either side of the altar, in the transepts. The Congregation is in the nave.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The monastery in question has a quite common altar arrangement for a monastery, that is between the nave and the choir. It is my understanding from a tour of the place, that they had the specific mandate to test versus populum. I know the place quite well, having been 4 times including two stays of a week each. It is a free-standing altar.

I am curious. Did they tell you who consecrated that altar? It is all the more special now.

 

[bobballen_18]

…As I write this I have a 1935 “Liturgical Manual and Ceremonial” from France in front of me. The degree of minutiae depending on altar configurations, how to incense them, mind boggling. In a Mass with the altar between the choir and the nave, for instance, turned towards the choir, the Mass would be seen as v. populum for the faithful and ad orientem for the clergy/community seated in the choir. But if the altar is turned the other way, it is the other way around, v. populum for the clergy in the choir and ad orientem for the faithful.

Mass types are divided into:

• Low Mass (without sacred ministers, and no incense)
• Sung Mass (sung by the priest without sacred ministers, incense by indult only)
• Solemn Mass (with sacred ministers and incense)
• Conventual Mass (Mass sung in choir which must conform to the breviary, for cathedrals, colleges and religious communities)
• Mass corresponding with the breviary
• Mass not corresponding with the breviary (e.g. votive Mass)

The amount of minutiae and detail required is unbelievable, to the point of specifying on which step to genuflect, how many swings and pattern to incense an altar. It’s a wonder a Mass was ever celebrated without even a minor error. If the Liturgical Abuse Police of CAF ever got a hold of this book they would have a field day at any EF Mass

Reading this book makes it clear why the Mass reforms of Vatican II happened.

Hmm, I really wonder if it really is “clear why the Mass reforms of Vatican II happened”. It is one thing to “simplify” some rubrics, and another thing to actually change around certain Mass parts. If I’m not mistaken, it was not only the former that was done, but also very obviously the latter.

It is really quite disappointing to me that the “strictness” of the rubrics for the EF Mass is looked down upon as something that was crazy or unnecessary. It is beyond me why one would think that the Liturgy should not be regulated as such.

It just doesn’t seem right to me that we so readily dismiss the old rubrics as extra and/or a burden. No doubt, there is a sense in which they are both of those, but personally, I’m grateful for those who have preserved the 1962 Liturgy and a loving care of these “extra” and “burdensome” rubrics. I understand that obedience played a large role in this (though there’s a lot to be discussed under that topic of obedience to the so-called mandate to throw out the old liturgy with the new), which is fine, but it still seems rather unfortunate that so many clergy readily abandoned the old rubrics instead of learning to love them and pass them on as they learned them.

I guess I better stop there before I start sounding too “heretical” or “schismatic” (or, before I just keep on babbling and babbling since I could definitely go on).

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As I write this I have a 1935 “Liturgical Manual and Ceremonial” from France in front of me. The degree of minutiae depending on altar configurations, how to incense them, mind boggling. /…/

The amount of minutiae and detail required is unbelievable, to the point of specifying on which step to genuflect, how many swings and pattern to incense an altar. It’s a wonder a Mass was ever celebrated without even a minor error. If the Liturgical Abuse Police of CAF ever got a hold of this book they would have a field day at any EF Mass

Reading this book makes it clear why the Mass reforms of Vatican II happened.

It exemplifies but one very good reason. There were many others…books not unlike it as well as reasons in the minds of the Council Fathers.

 

[ProVobis]

I understand that obedience played a large role in this (though there’s a lot to be discussed under that topic of obedience to the so-called mandate to throw out the old liturgy with the new), which is fine, but it still seems rather unfortunate that so many clergy readily abandoned the old rubrics instead of learning to love them and pass them on as they learned them.

No, it’s not fine. The “rupture of continuity” has caused deep divisions that are slowly being realized.

The “treasures of the Church” which include art and music and sacredness have been rediscovered, thanks to Popes JPII and Benedict XVI.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, the Pian commission started in the '40s under Annibale Bugnini.

The same person who was dismissed after the 1962 Missal was promulgated.

 

[OraLabora]

I am curious. Did they tell you who consecrated that altar? It is all the more special now.

They might of but I’ve forgotten, it was in 2009 during the World Oblate Congress. I also returned there at the 2013 Congress, and in November of both 2014 and 2015 stayed there a week each time, but didn’t broach the subject the latter times.

 

[OraLabora]

It is really quite disappointing to me that the “strictness” of the rubrics for the EF Mass is looked down upon as something that was crazy or unnecessary. It is beyond me why one would think that the Liturgy should not be regulated as such.

I recently read a very good book on the liturgy (in French) that I borrowed from the library at the abbey. I forget the title & author but it was a very good explanation of the OF liturgy and how the liturgy is supposed to work.

One of the things that struck me is the necessity for the liturgy to flow naturally from element to element. Having been born on the very edge of the pre-Conciliar period (1958) my memory of the vetus ordo is necessarily deficient, but having some experience in public speaking and leading workshops I kind of suspect that too much attention to too much minutiae might be disruptive to that flow. A busy, overly detailed Powerpoint presentation can be misery to sit through, and a simple clean one that focuses on the essentials is the opposite.

I do know as well from my practice of chanting the Liturgy of the Hours each day that when I use the simpler Roman Office compared to the much busier Monastic Office, my personal liturgy flows much better, and seems much more like an organic whole with nicely spaced psalmody, silences, etc. I feel less rushed, better disposed, and less likely to make stupid mistakes like forgetting a Gospel canticle or using the wrong antiphon for it. Part of it is perhaps the books I use for chant; using the Roman Office I can say the whole Office out of one book, but for the Monastic I must juggle books. I have a pre-Conciliar Monastic Breviary and it is no wonder that monks needed lay brothers to do the manual labour of the abbey, totally out of keeping with St. Benedict’s intentions in his Rule. One of the products of the post-Conciliar simplifications to the liturgy was enabling monastics to return to the original charisms of their founders that said that only the order of entry into the monastery establishes rank regardless of the priestly ministry -or not- of the individual. Our abbey completed this transition in the early '80s when all lay brothers were entered as fully-professed monks with voice in chapter.

It’s not, to me then, just a matter of obedience. It is a notion that liturgy is much more than just obedience to rubrics, it is prayer, in fact in the case of liturgy, the public prayer of the Church, even when offered privately. Beauty and justness to the rubrics enhances prayer… up to a point. Beyond a certain point, it becomes a distraction (keeping in mind that the liturgy is not just prayer for the faithful, it is prayer for the celebrant(s) as well!). Rubrics for rubrics’ sake loses its meaning, IMHO. That seems to me to be what I am getting out of that old ceremonial. Rubrics that enhance the beauty of the liturgy are of course very welcome and necessary and the OF Missal has a just measure of them. Because they are not always fully observed is not the fault of the Mass itself!

If you attend the OF Mass at our abbey, you’d be impressed about how well it all flows together. How the Latin chant complements the vernacular parts, and how the vernacular parts involve the faithful. From the entrance procession to the exit procession it is all one gorgeous flowing act, chanted almost every moment along the way (except for the homily), with appropriately positioned sacred silences, with each gesture being very measured. And yet this is with the simpler OF rubrics. Perhaps it is blasphemous to say that the liturgy is well choreographed, because liturgy is not about show. However, it is so well done that it becomes an organically whole act that transcends our earthly existence.

It is perhaps too much to expect that every Mass is like this; I’m sure in the pre-Conciliar days there were sloppily-done Masses; we’ve all heard of a Mass sped through in 20 minutes. Humans were still human prior to Vatican II. However I’ve also been to some very reverent entirely spoken OF Masses, at the other end of the spectrum, and that kind of simplicity is often very welcome in itself (as it was in the EF Low Mass).

I may be out to lunch since I never attended a current EF Mass nor do I have much memory of the pre-conciliar Mass (I was 4 years old at the start of the Council). But I can say this with some assurance: there is absolutely nothing, and I really mean nothing, inherently wrong with the Ordinary Form Liturgy.

 

[OraLabora]

No, it’s not fine. The “rupture of continuity” has caused deep divisions that are slowly being realized.

The “treasures of the Church” which include art and music and sacredness have been rediscovered, thanks to Popes JPII and Benedict XVI.

The musical treasure of the Church was actually rediscovered well before St. JPII, from the work of the monks of Solesmes in the late 19th Century which bore fruit when St. Pius X promulgated the Vatican Edition of the Graduale Romanum in 1908.

Before that era, chant was significantly denatured and had little to do with what we know as Gregorian chant today, which is a fairly modern interpretation of what we thought Gregorian chant sounded like based on the study of ancient neumed manuscripts.

 

[alphomega]

Slowly but surely, it’s coming back! Deo gratias!!!

Click here to find out if there is one near you!

 

[ProVobis]

The musical treasure of the Church was actually rediscovered well before St. JPII, from the work of the monks of Solesmes in the late 19th Century which bore fruit when St. Pius X promulgated the Vatican Edition of the Graduale Romanum in 1908.

Before that era, chant was significantly denatured and had little to do with what we know as Gregorian chant today, which is a fairly modern interpretation of what we thought Gregorian chant sounded like based on the study of ancient neumed manuscripts.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind hearing some of that antiquior chant you’ve described. But where would they fit that in?

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps it is blasphemous to say that the liturgy is well choreographed, because liturgy is not about show. However, it is so well done that it becomes an organically whole act that transcends our earthly existence.

But this argument sways more to the all-vocal “show” side. We know God isn’t hard of hearing, so maybe a better balance of vocals and choreography IS warranted. A 7-year old child may not understand what is spoken. Or an adult, for that matter. My old prayer book is full of illustrations, and what do they say what a picture is worth?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

They might of but I’ve forgotten, it was in 2009 during the World Oblate Congress. I also returned there at the 2013 Congress, and in November of both 2014 and 2015 stayed there a week each time, but didn’t broach the subject the latter times.

It was Blessed Ildefonso Cardinal Schuster. As you know, he had once been Abbot Nullius of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. He consecrated the altar at the end of his life; in his younger days, he had been a student at the Anselmianum.

It makes the altar all the more special.

 

[bobballen_18]

No, it’s not fine. The “rupture of continuity” has caused deep divisions that are slowly being realized.

The “treasures of the Church” which include art and music and sacredness have been rediscovered, thanks to Popes JPII and Benedict XVI.

I mean, I agree with you. I am just thinking that at least in theory, there was an underlying sense of obedience, on the part of most priests to their bishops, in dispensing with the Latin Mass in favor of the Novus Ordo when it came out, and that this obedience was/is a good thing. I’m sure that not a few priests did so without any intention of irreverence or rupture with the past.

 

[bobballen_18]

One of the things that struck me is the necessity for the liturgy to flow naturally from element to element. … A busy, overly detailed Powerpoint presentation can be misery to sit through, and a simple clean one that focuses on the essentials is the opposite.

I guess “traditionalists”/Latin Mass lovers have gotten more or less made fun of before for saying things like this, but it is absolutely true - why were priests not taught the meaning of each of the rubrics, including those which aren’t literally essential to the Liturgy, to the point where they would fight to guard them and pass on this love of them to the faithful? I totally reject the notion that the average person isn’t capable of understanding these “extra” and “busy” rubrics. Not that such is even essential for participation in the EF Liturgy anyway, but still. My point is, I’m simply amazed at going through my 1962 Missal with its comments on some of the prayers and rubrics and why they’re done - these sorts of things have meaning which I would argue without a doubt enhance the Liturgy, whether or not one comprehends every single one of them, at the exact time they’re done.

…One of the products of the post-Conciliar simplifications to the liturgy was enabling monastics to return to the original charisms of their founders that said that only the order of entry into the monastery establishes rank regardless of the priestly ministry -or not- of the individual. …

I’m not quite following you here. I’m discerning whether or not to start the process of entering a Benedictine monastery which celebrates the 1962 Missal exclusively and says of course the Benedictine/Monastic breviary - what would be different for them in terms of “rank” as compared to the monks at your monastery, with the “simplified” Liturgy? That is, what about the Old Liturgy establishes a different sense of “rank” than what St. Benedict outlines in his rule?

It’s not, to me then, just a matter of obedience. It is a notion that liturgy is much more than just obedience to rubrics, it is prayer, in fact in the case of liturgy, the public prayer of the Church, even when offered privately. Beauty and justness to the rubrics enhances prayer… up to a point. Beyond a certain point, it becomes a distraction (keeping in mind that the liturgy is not just prayer for the faithful, it is prayer for the celebrant(s) as well!). Rubrics for rubrics’ sake loses its meaning, IMHO. That seems to me to be what I am getting out of that old ceremonial. Rubrics that enhance the beauty of the liturgy are of course very welcome and necessary and the OF Missal has a just measure of them. Because they are not always fully observed is not the fault of the Mass itself!

See above when I talked about the “meaning” of the rubrics. I don’t love the EF complete with its strict rubrics just for the sake of the rubrics. It’s because I perceive that they’re there to give greater glory to God. The faithful and clergy alike should be taught that, no matter what the rubrics are and no matter whether they’re “extra” or “burdensome” or make the Liturgy “busy” - perhaps one should be taught better how to participate in such a “burdensome” task rather than just discarding it.

If you attend the OF Mass at our abbey, you’d be impressed about how well it all flows together. How the Latin chant complements the vernacular parts, and how the vernacular parts involve the faithful. … However, it is so well done that it becomes an organically whole act that transcends our earthly existence.

I’m sure I probably would be impressed. Lol, on this site I have seen your descriptions of Mass at your abbey plenty of times. No matter how impressed I would be though, it is undeniably a different experience than the EF, and I also leave each EF Mass I attend “impressed” with how well it “flows together.” I would argue that the EF does just the same thing as you have described above.

It is perhaps too much to expect that every Mass is like this; I’m sure in the pre-Conciliar days there were sloppily-done Masses; we’ve all heard of a Mass sped through in 20 minutes. Humans were still human prior to Vatican II. However I’ve also been to some very reverent entirely spoken OF Masses, at the other end of the spectrum, and that kind of simplicity is often very welcome in itself (as it was in the EF Low Mass).

I disagree - I mean obviously you’re correct that “humans are humans” and so things aren’t going to be perfect, but I see absolutely no problem with “expecting” that “every Mass is like this” - and every priest ought to be taught to celebrate Mass like that, according to the circumstances in which he is put.

I may be out to lunch since I never attended a current EF Mass nor do I have much memory of the pre-conciliar Mass (I was 4 years old at the start of the Council). But I can say this with some assurance: there is absolutely nothing, and I really mean nothing, inherently wrong with the Ordinary Form Liturgy.

OK well certainly I can’t say anything specific publicly on this on this forum, but to those people (I include myself in this group) who grew up with the OF Liturgy and then have for some reason or another experienced the EF Liturgy and found themselves attracted to it, it is nearly inevitable to become familiar with the differences between the Liturgies. And for many such people there is a desire to know a) the meaning of these things which are specific to each Liturgy, and b) the reasons behind why these things were added or taken out of each one. And the answers to these questions, depending on one’s source, can cause various responses on the part of the people who learn them. I should probably just leave it at that.

 

[OraLabora]

I totally reject the notion that the average person isn’t capable of understanding these “extra” and “busy” rubrics.

My concern is that they become a distraction from the primary focus, not that one cannot understand why they are there. As someone attracted to monastic spirituality as you appear to be I also like simplicity; but that is a personal aesthetic.

I’m not quite following you here. I’m discerning whether or not to start the process of entering a Benedictine monastery which celebrates the 1962 Missal exclusively and says of course the Benedictine/Monastic breviary - what would be different for them in terms of “rank” as compared to the monks at your monastery, with the “simplified” Liturgy? That is, what about the Old Liturgy establishes a different sense of “rank” than what St. Benedict outlines in his rule?

Are you discerning at Clear Creek or Norcia (or Barroux or Fontgombault in France)? At the time of St. Benedict, the calendar was far simpler with far fewer saints; the chant was far simpler; remember Gregorian chant hadn’t even been invented yet. Monasteries did not have very many visitors from the outside world given travel methods and relative isolation. Mass was not celebrated every day. Observing the Benedictine Office was therefore much easier. By the time of Cluny, the liturgy and its accompanying chant had become so complex that monks were divided into choir monks and lay brothers. The latter were often illiterate, and had their own much simpler liturgy. They were not full members of the monastery, as they only did a simple profession rather than a solemn one. They had no vote or voice in Chapter. If you look at the 1934 Monastic Antiphonary, you’ll find that very much more time than today was spent in the festival psalter with proper antiphons that were quite complex. The liturgy was nearly a full-time job.

Post-Vatican II, many abbeys continued the Benedictine psalter with modifications: Prime was abolished, and in many cases Vigils was spread over 2 weeks instead of 1. Solesmes and St-Wandrille in France use the original Benedictine cursus, in Latin, but in post-Vatican II version without Prime, recto-tono for Vigils and the simpler post-Conciliar liturgical year and calendar of saints. There are three other post-VII published monastic schemas. Schema B, which our abbey uses (with Lauds and Vespers in Latin Gregorian chant) is much different, but sticks to the Rule by reciting all 150 psalms in a week, as opposed to the 250 or so in the Benedictine cursus. With the simplification of the liturgy the abbey chose to abolish the distinction between choir monks and lay brothers; all of the latter became solemnly professed monks of equal rank to the choir monks (who were all priests or on their way to becoming so). With the post-Vatican II Office, there was more time for lectio divina, and manual work.

As you probably know Benedictine houses can regulate their own affairs, and which liturgy to use will take into account the number of monks, their average age, the type of work the abbey survives on, etc. I am not sure if the the monks of Clear Creek have the distinction but their website talks about entering their “choir noviciate” so they quite possibly do. It is their affair.

But it was the intention of Vatican II that monastic orders return to their founders’ Rule particularly with regards to ranking of monks.

 

[OraLabora]

It was Blessed Ildefonso Cardinal Schuster. As you know, he had once been Abbot Nullius of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. He consecrated the altar at the end of his life; in his younger days, he had been a student at the Anselmianum.

It makes the altar all the more special.

Thank you Father, I was not aware of this!

Speaking of St. Paul Outside the Walls, one of our monks has been there since November, and is due back any day. He was sent to hear confessions for the Year of Mercy. He is also my own confessor (my previous confessor, and the abbey’s previous confessor to the laity, has been filling in while he is away).