Discourse on the Roman Rite

[Pulvis]

Very interesting and thought provoking article on the Roman Rite.

firstthings.com/article/2017/04/return-to-form

“In a period such as the present, unable to respond to images and forms, incessantly misled by a noisy art market, all experimentation that tampers with the Roman Rite as it has developed through the centuries could only be perilous and potentially fatal. In any case, this tampering is unnecessary. For the rite that came from late antique Mediterranean Christianity was not “relevant” in the European Middle Ages, nor in the Baroque era, nor in missionary lands outside Europe. The South American Indians and West Africans must have found it even stranger, if possible, than any twentieth-century European who complained that it was “no longer relevant”—whereas it was precisely among those people that the Roman Rite enjoyed its greatest missionary successes. When the inhabitants of Gaul, England, and Germany became Catholic, they understood no Latin and were illiterate; the question of the correct understanding of the Mass was entirely independent of a capacity to follow its literal expression. The peasant woman who said the rosary during Mass, knowing that she was in the presence of Christ’s sacrifice, understood the rite better than our contemporaries who comprehend every word but fail to engage with such knowledge because the present form of the Mass, drastically altered, no longer allows for its full expression.”

Thoughts?

 

[rfournier103]

The Tridentine Mass does pretty well (where it is offered) near where I live. A very good priest/friend of mine is very encouraged by the increasing numbers he sees when he celebrates the Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form.

For people who prefer the Tridentine Mass, there is a little encouragement to be had. As Western Civilization and the world as a whole become more secular and liberal; more and more people are shunning Christianity and religion altogether to the point where the overwhelming majority of people who participate in religious services at all are ‘conservative’-types. Multiply that conservatism even more for young men who take Holy Orders. I am told by my friend that many of these young men are interested in the Tridentine Mass.

As the ‘Traditional-Conservative’ priests grow in number, and the priests who don’t care for (or flat-out oppose) the Tridentine Mass diminish, we will see an increase in the Extraordinary Form.

We’ll likely never see a 100% return to the Tridentine Mass, but many (including myself) believe that we will see its growth as the Church sadly shrinks.

 

[rfournier103]

I would like to throw in a semi-related thought regarding the Tridentine Mass…

Although I prefer the Tridentine Mass to the Novus Ordo; there were TWO changes made that I think would have been excellent modifications to the Tridentine Mass:

1. The reading of Sacred Scripture in the vernacular during Holy Mass was a VERY necessary modification. To make the Word understandable was long overdue in my opinion. Yes, one could follow along in his missal, but it’s not the same as hearing it preached, and not everyone may have access to a missal. Excellent innovation.
2. The readings cycles that were adopted for the Novus Ordo and the “updated” calendar were also good updates, I think. These updates could certainly have been incorporated into the structure of the Tridentine Mass. Of course, Mass structure could have been kept the same and prayer could have remained in Latin.

I’m sure I’m oversimplifying, but those are my opinions and thoughts.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Very interesting and thought provoking article on the Roman Rite.

firstthings.com/article/2017/04/return-to-form

“In a period such as the present, unable to respond to images and forms, incessantly misled by a noisy art market, all experimentation that tampers with the Roman Rite as it has developed through the centuries could only be perilous and potentially fatal. In any case, this tampering is unnecessary. For the rite that came from late antique Mediterranean Christianity was not “relevant” in the European Middle Ages, nor in the Baroque era, nor in missionary lands outside Europe. The South American Indians and West Africans must have found it even stranger, if possible, than any twentieth-century European who complained that it was “no longer relevant”—whereas it was precisely among those people that the Roman Rite enjoyed its greatest missionary successes. When the inhabitants of Gaul, England, and Germany became Catholic, they understood no Latin and were illiterate; the question of the correct understanding of the Mass was entirely independent of a capacity to follow its literal expression. The peasant woman who said the rosary during Mass, knowing that she was in the presence of Christ’s sacrifice, understood the rite better than our contemporaries who comprehend every word but fail to engage with such knowledge because the present form of the Mass, drastically altered, no longer allows for its full expression.”

Thoughts?

There’s a great book on the Liturgy by the same author (Martin Mosebach) called “The Heresy of Formlessness” which is also an excellent read.

 

[dshix]

1. The reading of Sacred Scripture in the vernacular during Holy Mass was a VERY necessary modification. To make the Word understandable was long overdue in my opinion. Yes, one could follow along in his missal, but it’s not the same as hearing it preached, and not everyone may have access to a missal. Excellent innovation.

To which parts of the “readings” do you refer?

At most FSSP parishes these days, the Epistle and Gospel are, in fact, read in the vernacular before the sermon.

Are there other propers you would want read in the vernacular as well? There is also a concern in regard to the length of mass to keep in mind.

 

[Chatter163]

1. The readings cycles that were adopted for the Novus Ordo and the “updated” calendar were also good updates, I think. These updates could certainly have been incorporated into the structure of the Tridentine Mass. Of course, Mass structure could have been kept the same and prayer could have remained in Latin.

I’m sure I’m oversimplifying, but those are my opinions and thoughts.

When I was younger I used to think that the three-year Sunday lectionary was a great idea–after all, who could object to more scripture being heard at Mass? Well, it seems to me and many other critics that this was a classic case of an idea that sounded good in theory, but was not in practice. I find that Mass-goers do not hear passages frequently enough to internalize them; thus, the net result is that people actually seem to know less, rather than more scripture. Regular daily Mass attendees tend to be much more devout followers of scripture, but it’s the Sunday-only crowd about which I speak. Combined with the gutting of the scriptural antiphons (introit, gradual, offertory and communion), even a person with a missal seems exposed to less scripture. Plus, since most weekday Masses use the daily readings, rather than the proper of the saints, again, there is less of a chance to internalize the familiar readings for a pontiff, martyr, doctor, virgin, etc. Most of the scripture that I know well I know because I heard or read it frequently at daily Mass. And I won’t even go into the fact that the lectionary was produced by a committee, throwing out readings that had been used for many, many centuries, because it believed that something inorganic and imposed from the top was better than the accumulated wisdom of centuries.

I would also say that the current general Roman calendar, while it has a few good points, cannot hold a candle to the pre-1970 calendar, which was all about tradition and continuity. So many ancient days and seasons were completely and abruptly scrapped, such as Septuagesima, ember days, rogation days. Feasts that had centuries of tradition were deemed “redundant” and discarded like last night’s leftovers. Like the subdiaconate, observances from the earliest centuries were cast out; and a ridiculous numbering system of green Sundays “tempus per annum” is made even more absurd with its inaccurate translation of “ordinary time,” which has a completely different connotation.

 

[dshix]

When I was younger I used to think that the three-year Sunday lectionary was a great idea–after all, who could object to more scripture being heard at Mass? Well, it seems to me and many other critics that this was a classic case of an idea that sounded good in theory, but was not in practice. I find that Mass-goers do not hear passages frequently enough to internalize them; thus, the net result is that people actually seem to know less, rather than more scripture. Regular daily Mass attendees tend to be much more devout followers of scripture, but it’s the Sunday-only crowd about which I speak. Combined with the gutting of the scriptural antiphons (introit, gradual, offertory and communion), even a person with a missal seems exposed to less scripture. Plus, since most weekday Masses use the daily readings, rather than the proper of the saints, again, there is less of a chance to internalize the familiar readings for a pontiff, martyr, doctor, virgin, etc. Most of the scripture that I know well I know because I heard or read it frequently at daily Mass. And I won’t even go into the fact that the lectionary was produced by a committee, throwing out readings that had been used for many, many centuries, because it believed that something inorganic and imposed from the top was better than the accumulated wisdom of centuries.

I would also say that the current general Roman calendar, while it has a few good points, cannot hold a candle to the pre-1970 calendar, which was all about tradition and continuity. So many ancient days and seasons were completely and abruptly scrapped, such as Septuagesima, ember days, rogation days. Feasts that had centuries of tradition were deemed “redundant” and discarded like last night’s leftovers. Like the subdiaconate, observances from the earliest centuries were cast out; and a ridiculous numbering system of green Sundays “tempus per annum” is made even more absurd with its inaccurate translation of “ordinary time,” which has a completely different connotation.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

The idea that the TLM Mass is becoming more popular is, I am afraid, just wishful thinking. Even in areas where the TLM is offered, in my observation, it generally draws a number less than one percent of the Mass goers who attend the Ordinary Form Mass. Of course, there are claims of quality vs. quantity, that the TLM devotees are more devoted Catholics, have more children, etc…

 

[dshix]

The idea that the TLM Mass is becoming more popular is, I am afraid, just wishful thinking. Even in areas where the TLM is offered, in my observation, it generally draws a number less than one percent of the Mass goers who attend the Ordinary Form Mass. Of course, there are claims of quality vs. quantity, that the TLM devotees are more devoted Catholics, have more children, etc…

Well, since “more popular” is a comparative term, I would say that the Extraordinary form is, in fact, becoming more popular, because every year it has pretty surprising growth. Its growth is certainly faster than the Ordinary form, and at my own parish, I consistently see new people who used to go to the Ordinary form and have switched.

But what you say is true. The scale we are talking is still too small to have a mass effect. Hopefully, the rate of growth will not stay static, but increase, over time bringing about a snowball effect.

We’ll see.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The idea that the TLM Mass is becoming more popular is, I am afraid, just wishful thinking. Even in areas where the TLM is offered, in my observation, it generally draws a number less than one percent of the Mass goers who attend the Ordinary Form Mass. Of course, there are claims of quality vs. quantity, that the TLM devotees are more devoted Catholics, have more children, etc…

The total number of priests in the SSPX in the entire world in 2012 was 569. That was in 2012 because it is the last year for which I have any data for them.

At the same time, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had 566 diocesan priests. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is one of 197 Catholic jurisdictions [archdiocese, diocese, etc.] just in the United States alone.

Conversely, the same year for which there are statistics for the SSPX, we were 414,313 priests, globally.

This collective of the SSPX, which first turned their back on Rome and a now beatified Pope more than forty years ago, would be much closer to being one-tenth of one percent, in terms of where their numbers are relative to us.

 

[dshix]

The total number of priests in the SSPX in the entire world in 2012 was 569. That was in 2012 because it is the last year for which I have any data for them.

At the same time, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had 566 diocesan priests. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is one of 197 Catholic jurisdictions [archdiocese, diocese, etc.] just in the United States alone.

Conversely, the same year for which there are statistics for the SSPX, we were 414,313 priests, globally.

This collective of the SSPX, which first turned their back on Rome and a now beatified Pope more than forty years ago, would be much closer to being one-tenth of one percent, in terms of where their numbers are relative to us.

I have to ask: why do you only mention the SSPX here? Do you have any numbers for the non-schismatic groups that use the Extraordinary Form?

 

[IOGD]

Our young priests are very, very traditional. So as time goes on, we will see a shift towards tradition as they cathecize and minister to their communities.

 

[rfournier103]

To which parts of the “readings” do you refer?

The Epistles and the Gospels. Old Testament, New Testament, Psalms…

At most FSSP parishes these days, the Epistle and Gospel are, in fact, read in the vernacular before the sermon.

I have never been to an FSSP Mass before. Several Tridentine Masses that I* have* been to did NOT read the Epistle or the Gospel in English.

Are there other propers you would want read in the vernacular as well? There is also a concern in regard to the length of mass to keep in mind.

No. Just Scripture. Adding a third reading and reading all three in the local tongue would have minimal impact on the length of the Mass, wouldn’t it?

 

[rfournier103]

When I was younger I used to think that the three-year Sunday lectionary was a great idea–after all, who could object to more scripture being heard at Mass? Well, it seems to me and many other critics that this was a classic case of an idea that sounded good in theory, but was not in practice. I find that Mass-goers do not hear passages frequently enough to internalize them; thus, the net result is that people actually seem to know less, rather than more scripture. Regular daily Mass attendees tend to be much more devout followers of scripture, but it’s the Sunday-only crowd about which I speak. Combined with the gutting of the scriptural antiphons (introit, gradual, offertory and communion), even a person with a missal seems exposed to less scripture. Plus, since most weekday Masses use the daily readings, rather than the proper of the saints, again, there is less of a chance to internalize the familiar readings for a pontiff, martyr, doctor, virgin, etc. Most of the scripture that I know well I know because I heard or read it frequently at daily Mass. And I won’t even go into the fact that the lectionary was produced by a committee, throwing out readings that had been used for many, many centuries, because it believed that something inorganic and imposed from the top was better than the accumulated wisdom of centuries.

I would also say that the current general Roman calendar, while it has a few good points, cannot hold a candle to the pre-1970 calendar, which was all about tradition and continuity. So many ancient days and seasons were completely and abruptly scrapped, such as Septuagesima, ember days, rogation days. Feasts that had centuries of tradition were deemed “redundant” and discarded like last night’s leftovers. Like the subdiaconate, observances from the earliest centuries were cast out; and a ridiculous numbering system of green Sundays “tempus per annum” is made even more absurd with its inaccurate translation of “ordinary time,” which has a completely different connotation.

I agree with much of what you say. I was born a few years after all of this happened, so I have no recall of how that all went down other than what I have read. Amazing that after all these years it is still such a hot-button issue.

The Novus Ordo has its staunch defenders among the clergy, but there are also many among the clergy (some I know personally) who do not prefer it for many of the reasons you stated above.

To your point about the laity failing to internalize the readings due to a three year cycle, I can only say this… At some point the laity are responsible for their OWN spiritual well being. I happen to be part of the “Sunday-Only Crowd” you speak of and I have taken it upon myself to read more on my own and actually pay attention at Mass. The Church can make it only so easy for the laity before we have to pick up the ball and run with it ourselves.

Yes, in some parts of the world literacy is an issue and access to printed missals and Bibles is also limited. However, I do happen to like the cycles as they are now and I’d like to think that with the collective brain-power amassed at the Vatican, the new cycles could have been integrated into the old Mass if they had a mind to do so.

 

[exnihilo]

The one thing I don’t get in my typical Mass experience is a sense that the Catholic Faith is an ancient faith. For me if there was just the occasional use of incense or the Roman Canon that would probably be enough to express that. This is of course my subjective experience but I doubt I’m alone. So then it would seem a worthy question whether there is any value in conveying the idea that this is an ancient faith. I think there is.

When I was younger I used to think that the three-year Sunday lectionary was a great idea–after all, who could object to more scripture being heard at Mass? Well, it seems to me and many other critics that this was a classic case of an idea that sounded good in theory, but was not in practice. I find that Mass-goers do not hear passages frequently enough to internalize them; thus, the net result is that people actually seem to know less, rather than more scripture. Regular daily Mass attendees tend to be much more devout followers of scripture, but it’s the Sunday-only crowd about which I speak. Combined with the gutting of the scriptural antiphons (introit, gradual, offertory and communion), even a person with a missal seems exposed to less scripture. Plus, since most weekday Masses use the daily readings, rather than the proper of the saints, again, there is less of a chance to internalize the familiar readings for a pontiff, martyr, doctor, virgin, etc. Most of the scripture that I know well I know because I heard or read it frequently at daily Mass. And I won’t even go into the fact that the lectionary was produced by a committee, throwing out readings that had been used for many, many centuries, because it believed that something inorganic and imposed from the top was better than the accumulated wisdom of centuries.

I have tended to think that the three year cycle was a good thing for the same reasons you mention. But I have come to see some merit in the counter arguments you make. In theory the three year cycle has the benefit of showing you how the different Gospels relate the same things from a different perspective. But if you don’t have some instruction teaching you this it will be missed. And one thing we definitely know is church goers today don’t, on average, have much instruction. In other words the change would have made sense if the average Catholic was more devout than in the past. But this isn’t the case at least in Europe and the Americas.

 

[dshix]

The Epistles and the Gospels. Old Testament, New Testament, Psalms…

I have never been to an FSSP Mass before. Several Tridentine Masses that I* have* been to did NOT read the Epistle or the Gospel in English.

Ah, interesting. Who celebrates the Extraordinary Form near you?

No. Just Scripture. Adding a third reading and reading all three in the local tongue would have minimal impact on the length of the Mass, wouldn’t it?

Certainly. What third reading do you refer to, though?

 

[rfournier103]

Ah, interesting. Who celebrates the Extraordinary Form near you?

There is sometimes an E.F. Mass at Corpus Christi/Holy Rosary Parish in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Just a few towns over from me. There will be one this Sunday at 6:30pm. I don’t personally know the priest who will be offering the Mass.

Certainly. What third reading do you refer to, though?

In the Ordinary Form, we have a reading from the Old Testament, the Book of Psalms, the New Testament, AND the Gospel at every Sunday Mass. I think that could somehow have been worked into the a modification of the already existing Mass. Does that make sense?

 

[dshix]

In the Ordinary Form, we have a reading from the Old Testament, the Book of Psalms, the New Testament, AND the Gospel at every Sunday Mass. I think that could somehow have been worked into the a modification of the already existing Mass. Does that make sense?

Right. I’m not sure how that could happen, though, because those who offer the Extraordinary Form are in a sense “stuck” in the past since there are no modern versions of it.

Lots of changes would happen before a change like that one, I imagine.