Church History: How did the Novus Ordo Mass develop under P. Paul VI?

[ProVobis]

Missionaries to far-away lands often work hard to make changes in their “European/American” lifestyle so that they will fit in better with prevailing culture, and this strategy is usually very effective in attracting the locals and gaining their trust.

Gregorian chant is utilized in Africa, for what it’s worth.

 

[OraLabora]

No, no a million times no. What we have, is the historical record. And some speculation. And it remains that, speculation for chit-chat over cocktails. Questioning every element in the liturgy is the devil’s game. We, at the CAF level are utterly powerless to change it outside of our own personal realm, such as in my case joining a schola and using Gregorian chant daily in the prayer of the Divine Office.

This speculation about possible agendas, or what “noble simplicity” means to you versus myself, foments division. And division is one disagreement away from protest. And before you know it the protest is formalized into an ideology and a schism is born.

I joined the Church, and specifically the Benedictines, to pursue my own inner conversion, and understanding of the Gospel message. Good liturgy certainly helps, but it is the means, not the end. Anything that nourishes division between us, you can be sure, is the devil’s doing, not Christ’s.

Roma locuta est, causa finita est. We can push these discussions all the way back to Trent, when I’m sure many were annoyed at the abolition of their familiar liturgies, or Pius X who irritated many, especially musicians, with his Divine Office reforms. It’s never, ever, going to be fully the way we want it.

The only thing these debates achieve is keeping CAF and various blogs going. To that extent I’m guilty as charged, but I feel it important to defend the Church. Part of my Benedictine charism of obedience I guess.

So with lemons, make lemonade. There are things one can do, like join music ministry, or a parish liturgical committee to be the voice of orthodoxy when some of their ideas run off the rails, and learn enough chant to use it in praying the Divine Office. Fortunately I have access to a beautiful OF liturgy, but for those who don’t, well the Liturgy of the Hours is liturgy, and set aside one of the hours per day to make it beautiful, in plainchant, prayed meditatively, etc. These are things within our control and which can give us deep satisfaction, certainly more satisfying than on-line liturgy-bashing discussions that can only lead to frustration.

Meanwhile pray for Catholics in Sri Lanka who have lost martyrs and now have had their public liturgies suspended because of it.

 

[Crusader13]

This speculation about possible agendas, or what “noble simplicity” means to you versus myself, foments division. And division is one disagreement away from protest . And before you know it the protest is formalized into an ideology and a schism is born.

The division was sown the moment the drafters of Sacrosanctum concilium put pen to paper. There is a lot of ambiguity scattered throughout this document which spearheaded the changes made to the liturgy.

1. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

Nowhere in the document does it explain what noble simplicity is. The Mass is to be short? How short are we talking about; an hour, two hours, 30 min? They should be within the people’s powers of comprehension? Explain how this works??? Should we not be educating those who “do not comprehend” the more formal prayers or practices as they pertain to the sacrificial aspect of the Mass. Or is it more beneficial to strip away and remove that which requires more effort to learn and understand, simply because there are those who claim they cannot comprehend??? Tell me when does repetition become useless??? Is it useless when we repeat dozens of Hail Marys when reciting the Rosary? Or is it useless when we are being directed to sing the same verse of a Psalm over and over as in the Novus Ordo?

Tell me who decided what these ambiguous articles mean and how they should be implemented into the new Mass? You would say, “the Church in her wisdom…” However, what about those voices of the clergy who strongly and with great concern objected to these changes? Are they too not part of the “wisdom of the Church”? Or are their voices rendered moot because their objections were viewed as disobedient?

A majority vote does not equate to wisdom… Validity of the changes to the Mass does not mean they are better!

 

[OraLabora]

The division was sown the moment the drafters of Sacrosanctum concilium put pen to paper. There is a lot of ambiguity scattered throughout this document which spearheaded the changes made to the liturgy.

A large majority of bishops voted for it. The opposition started when some decided to oppose what they had decided. Don’t try to pass the buck. The Benedictines of our abbeys and others chose the path of humble obedience. The choice to accept, obey or oppose is our own; the bishops acted within their rights as leaders of the Church. The debate was ended in our abbey 40 years ago. They accepted the new Missal, and then put all their effort into making its execution as beautiful, reverent and Catholic as possible.

Tell me who decided what these ambiguous articles mean and how they should be implemented into the new Mass?

Sacrosanctum Concilium laid out the broad guidelines, which is why it did not use more precision. How should they be implemented into the new Mass? I would say that the Church, in her wisdom, established a Concilium and the end product of that Concilium was the new Roman Missal, which establishes precisely how to implement it, which options are permissible to fit which circumstances, etc. None other than Benedict XVI, in a part of his Motu Proprio that seems to be forgotten by many, said that the new Mass remains the ordinary expression of the Roman liturgy (not ordinary in the sense of "plain’, but in the sense of “regular”). He reaffirmed the validity of the New Mass and its ordinary implementation in the wider Church.

I have to ask you this, in all sincerity: is all this angst of yours against the Ordinary Form Mass helping your faith? I know when I enter into liturgical “debates” in my head such as whether the Monastic or Roman breviaries are better for busy secular oblates, it quickly becomes a distraction and very detrimental to mine.

We can certainly pick and choose what we prefer from licit options… such as my choice of worshipping in an abbey that applies the new Missal with conservative reverence, or someone else availing themselves of the ability to attend an EF Mass, or preferring parish X vs parish Y because of this, that or the other liturgical reason. But again, opposing one of those options, that was promulgated by a saint no less, and is the ordinary expression of the Church’s liturgy, is the devil’s game. It can only drive a deeper wedge between ourselves and the One we seek communion with.

I’ll end by saying that I am fully aware that the implementation of the OF Mass in may places has been much less than ideal.

But there were also less than ideal EF Masses before the council. Reverence is an attitude, not a liturgy.

 

[OraLabora]

The issue has not been the Mass. It has been the implementation. Just like in the pre-Conciliar days, the implementation of the old Mass left a lot to be desired at times. This, from my spiritual director, an 80 y.o. Benedictine monk who served in it when he was in seminary, and saw many poorly-executed EF Masses that were rattled off so fast, the priest was at the consecration before the server could finish chanting the Sanctus.

 

[OraLabora]

But if it is universal then I think you need to look to the source. The New Mass itself.

Here’s a clue. It is not universal.

And correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Glennon_P]

The Ordinary Form of the Mass was promulgated by Pope Saint Paul VI and was celebrated by Pope Saint John Paul II throughout his 26±year Pontificate.

With all due respect to Cardinal Ottaviani, I’ll follow the lead of two canonized saints.

 

[twf]

I’m sure it’s helped the growth of the Church in Africa and parts of Asia. More opportunities for inculturation.

 

[Peeps]

I can testify on behalf of me and my husband that the “New Mass” was a definite help in our conversion to the Catholic Church.

Earlier in this thread, I posted how our attendance to a Latin Mass served only to convince us that the Catholic Church was not Christian. But after a terrible split with our Protestant Church (there was abuse involved), we started attending the Catholic Church up the road from us, which offered the OF of the Mass. We were amazed and impressed, and we made an appointment to talk to one of the priests, asking him to please explain this confusing and mysterious “worship service” to us.

Yes, we found this “New Mass” very confusing and strange. It was definitely not “Protestant,” at least like the Evangelical Protestant worship services that had been part of our lives for 47 years.

But after Father explained it to us, we found it rich and restful, worshipful, peaceful, and exciting, all in less than a half hour (we were used to worship services that lasted at least 1.5 hours, with at least 45 minutes of that time devoted to the “sermon” or “message”, and another 20 minutes devoted to “Praise and Worship Time.”)

So–we’re only two people (actually, our older daughter ended up converting also 2 years later). But we’re important to God, too.

Would you throw us out of heaven because of a personal preference on your part for the Latin Mass?

Since we converted, we’ve met many other ex-Protestants who have converted. We can’t speak for them and say that the “New Mass” was a factor, but we can say with a fair amount of confidence that it was not a deterrent.

 

[Peeps]

So is local African music.

Good for the Africans for offering a diverse music menu in their Masses!

And do they use the OF or the EF of the Mass?

How does Cardinal Arinze, one of the most conservative clerics in the Church, and one of the most admired–there was talk that he might be a Pope–feel about the OF and EF of the Mass? Does he advocate returning to the Latin Mass in Africa?

Catholicism is thriving in Africa. Why? What brought Africa to a place where so many Africans have converted to Catholicism? Was it the Latin Mass and the other traditional Catholic practices?

 

[OraLabora]

What is not universal? - The bad consequences of the New Mass?

There are no “bad consequences” of the New Mass, and bad implementation of the New Mass is by no means universal. By far most of the Masses in my area are correctly executed (i.e. do the red, say the black), and some, such as at our abbey, are downright gorgeous. And last time I checked, the monks were entirely orthodox Catholics.

You claim that the new Mass had universally bad consequences. Here is a challenge: prove it.

Not by posting minority opinions about it in the hierarchy, but by hard facts.

 

[angel12]

You claim that the new Mass had universally bad consequences. Here is a challenge: prove it.

Not by posting minority opinions about it in the hierarchy, but by hard facts.

I’ll put on the coffee, Ora. We’ll be waiting a while.

 

[Dovekin]

Tell me who decided what these ambiguous articles mean and how they should be implemented into the new Mass?

St Paul VI

At the time, the Church had a much stronger sense of the need to obey the Pope and his advisors. 40 years of insubordinarion has weakened that sense, even if the insubordination has had some good effects.

It seems that Cardinal Ottaviani was pointing at the source and not merely the bad implementation

The Ottaviani Intervention was not written by Ottaviani, and he may have repudiated it after hearing Paul VI address some of the issues. Even if he had written it, there are a lot of decisions in the 60s he disagreed with. I am not sure what he adds to the discussion, besides an example of faithful dissent.

 

[Crusader13]

Would you throw us out of heaven because of a personal preference on your part for the Latin Mass?

Is that truly what you believe myself and others are arguing for? I’m sure there are others who may have similar stories to your own and they point to the OF as a great positive in their lives. I don’t reject your view or your desire to remain in the OF. However, if you would argue that your personal experience is relevant to the discussion, then I would also suggest that my personal experiences and those of others are also relevant when we speak of our preference for the reverence of the EF over the Of.

You claim that the new Mass had universally bad consequences. Here is a challenge: prove it.

My desire to give a defense of the EF vs the OF, isn’t to berate those who attend the OF nor is it my wish to delegitimize the new Mass.

Like the OP originally posted. I too had questions regarding the changes made after VII and to what extent, if any, did these changes help. I argue that the changes made after VII, did not have a positive outcome for the Church as a whole. That is not to say that personal experiences, such as those described by Peeps, are to be dismissed.

However, there are scores of studies, polls, statistics that show a decline in Mass attendance, vocations, baptisms, catholic marriages, a belief in the real presence, a refusal to accept the teaching on birth control, and many more who simply no longer accept Catholic teachings or doctrines.

If I show a study that 77% of Catholics don’t believe that they need to attend Mass on Sunday anymore and yet still claim that they can be considered a good and faithful Catholic, your logic says that the other 23%, have remained faithful and obedient to the Church, so there is nothing wrong with either the Mass or the catechesis that lead to the other 77% falling away.

 

[OraLabora]

Correlation does not equal causation! Many factors besides the liturgy, in fact mostly besides the liturgy, are at play. Most mainline Protestant communities experienced the same declines in the same period.

 

[Elf01]

My desire to give a defense of the EF vs the OF, isn’t to berate those who attend the OF nor is it my wish to delegitimize the new Mass.

Which is exactly what you do in the next paragraph. You are entitled to prefer the EF, not deligitmize the OF.

 

[Crusader13]

Which is exactly what you do in the next paragraph. You are entitled to prefer the EF, not deligitmize the OF.

How did I berate anyone or claim the OF is invalid?

 

[Crusader13]

Correlation does not equal causation! Many factors besides the liturgy, in fact mostly besides the liturgy, are at play. Most mainline Protestant communities experienced the same declines in the same period.

Well according to those same studies and data, those numbers were on a rise prior to that time period. I can’t speak to how mainline Protestant churches experienced a similar decline in certain areas because I’ve never seen the numbers as they relate to what was experienced in the Catholic Church. As to the change in belief and teachings regarding Catholic doctrine and Tradition, it’s more difficult to find a relatedness in other Protestant churches, because Protestant never believed in Catholic Doctrine anyway.

 

[Elf01]

How did I berate anyone or claim the OF is invalid?

Like the OP originally posted. I too had questions regarding the changes made after VII and to what extent, if any, did these changes help. I argue that the changes made after VII, did not have a positive outcome for the Church as a whole .

Your bolded statement implies that the OF is inferior.

 

[Crusader13]

I was referring to the benefit of the changes to the Mass and their affect on the Church as a whole.

I do believe the EF to be better and I’m not a fan or a supporter of the changes made after VII. However, these are my own preferences and views.

I’m not saying the OF is invalid, I’m only stating that based upon my experiences and my understanding of what took place in the following years of VII, I don’t see an OVERALL positive outcome.

I’m upset that I see clown masses, and interpretive liturgical dances, 30+ lay Eucharistic ministers at a Sunday Mass, people not even giving a bow of the head when receiving communion, Tabernacles no longer placed front and center, Priests directing the congregation to hold hands during the Our Father and much more.

I deem these fruits to be part of the tree that lead to the changes in the new Mass. Some of these abuses were unheard of in the TLM prior to VII. Am I claiming that these abuses were envisioned by the reformers who made these changes, absolutely not. Are they condoned and accepted by the entire Church, no. But the ambiguity of certain documents and the personal views of certain clergy members have allowed these fruits to spring up.

Are there very reverent forms of the OF being celebrated, of course and fortunately I attend one. It’s a High Mass, with Gregorian Chant, Latin for all the prayers, kneelers for those who receive kneeling, ad orientem, and only 5 Eucharistic ministers being used. Even though I think it is celebrated beautifully, I’d still attend the TLM if given the choice.