Do you ever regret learning about the Mass?

[Vixit]

What are you looking for? “On April 18, 1951, at St. Ambrose Parish in Cheektowaga, New York, this happened…”?

I think it is legitimate for one to recall that not everything was peaches and cream before Vatican II without being able to offer a specific example.

I was not around back then, but I did attend the Tridentine liturgy with the Society of St. Pius X for a number of years. Although when I describe the magnificent ceremonies at the seminary and other SSPX venues to people who were actually around before Vatican II, the response is typical: “that’s nice, but Mass was nothing like that back then…it was usually whispered and over and done with in 15 or twenty minutes with an ancient organist warbling away in the choir loft as women clicked their beads.”

So, it seems to me that your typical parish mass was no less grand or magnificent then than it is now, in many cases.

I have an old friend who loves to tell stories about how much trouble he got into at school, from stealing the communion wine, to disrupting Mass, everything in between. Apparently kids were kids back then, and not perfect angels like everyone seems to ‘remember’, and people were people, and many of them could care less about being at Mass. Probably most people who pine for the old Mass never actually attended one, who knows? But I do prefer the Latin and certain other aspects of the EF, which is why I’d love to have it here.

 

[Pregustator]

So you believe Mass was over in twenty minutes pre-V2? I wonder why they scheduled them two hours apart then?

Well, the daily Low Mass at the SSPX seminary was only twenty minutes long, so I imagine that the same was true of parish Low Masses pre-Vatican II. It’s when I describe the more solemn liturgies, with deacons, subdeacons, assistant priests, Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony, and so forth, that people tend to become mystified. “We never had anything like that”.

 

[ProVobis]

I have an old friend who loves to tell stories about how much trouble he got into at school, from stealing the communion wine, to disrupting Mass, everything in between. Apparently kids were kids back then, and not perfect angels like everyone seems to ‘remember’, and people were people, and many of them could care less about being at Mass. Probably most people who pine for the old Mass never actually attended one, who knows? But I do prefer the Latin and certain other aspects of the EF, which is why I’d love to have it here.

I’ve heard stories about how the other servers smoked and drank wine in the sacristy myself. But most of us were trained to serve 25-minute Masses as the Masses were scheduled 30 minutes apart and many times said (by different priests) at the side altars simultaneously. I don’t see that as an abuse.

 

[Damase]

The Last Gospel is gone because, like many other elements of the Tridentine form, it was completely out of place. It was an add-on: an odd innovation; one of a number of innovations that spoiled the flow and purity of the Roman Rite. We come to the dismissal, then, instead of being actually permitted to leave, as the celebrant has instructed us to, we’re back to the Gospel, again. “Go. That is the Mass…well, except for this: one more Gospel…hold on…” It was nonsensical.

Options are not the issue and the rubrics of the ordinary Missal are not the issue: the modern priesthood is the issue. If a priest celebrates the “new” Mass according to its own rubrics, there is no problem. It’s when they ignore the rubrics that a problem arises. So many people want to view the Tridentine form vs. the Ordinary Form as a difference between “old” and “new” or “conservative” vs. “liberal” or “traditional” vs. “modern”. And that’s just not right.

If you ask me, the correct way to observe the two is not as “traditional” vs. “modern” but as “Gallican” vs. “Roman”. Today’s ordinary form of Mass–when presented properly–is purely Roman in structure, whereas the “old” Mass was heavily-burdened by awkward Gallican innovations, the awkwardly-situtated Last Gospel being but one of them.

Organic development is the only sort of legitimate development in liturgy.

You claim that the Last Gospel was “nonsensical” and extraneous. Then why was it added in the first place? The “Gallicanism” you accuse of spoiling the liturgy obviously didn’t see it this way. In any case, liturgy that is the result of a committee is a completely foreign to the very idea of liturgy, which is supposed to be an organic outgrowth of the *entirety *of the Church’s history and thus belonging to no particular time or place. The arrogance, to think that they, better than all the saintly priests and popes before them, who loved, respected, and praised the Tridentine Mass, could “improve” on the result of 2000 years of piety and lived tradition! Never before in history.

The Novus Ordo may be “purer” than the Vetus Ordo, and for the purpose of argument, let’s say that it is. Is that really the hallmark of a good and effective liturgy? Liturgy’s purpose is to lift up our hearts and minds to God, to encounter the transcendent; to render suitable praise to God. How is a “pure” and “sensible” liturgy any better equipped to do undertake this task?

The Last Gospel underscored the most important and pivotal doctrine of the Catholic Church: God became man and dwelt among us. The Catholic Church is the Church of the Incarnation. What better way could there have been to end the sacrifice of the Mass, wherein God becomes incarnate on the altar?

 

[ProVobis]

The Last Gospel underscored the most important and pivotal doctrine of the Catholic Church: God became man and dwelt among us. The Catholic Church is the Church of the Incarnation. What better way could there have been to end the sacrifice of the Mass, wherein God becomes incarnate on the altar?

Precisely. And we even genuflect to acknowledge this point.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

A preference for one form of the mass is acceptable. We’re human beings. A judgment of any forms is unacceptable. Some posts are very close to that edge that is prohibited. Do not make statements that suggest that one form is superior to the other. My suggestion is that you share your preferences, rather than evaluate any form of the mass.

My job is to keep the conversation flowing. If we fall into pitting one form against the other, then I’m going to have to ask everyone to avoid discussing the OF and EF for a while, until tempers calm down. I really do not like doing that. There is a lot to be learned from each other.

Thank you for your cooperation and thank you to those posters who have been courteous enough to ask me if something can or should be said. I applaud your conscientiousness.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[Phemie]

So you believe Mass was over in twenty minutes pre-V2? I wonder why they scheduled them two hours apart then?

Did you ever attend a low Mass in a parish where there was no dialog Mass? I did. 20 minutes, in and out.

 

[Phemie]

I took a course called “Evaluating Liturgy”. Big mistake. How do you ever ignore all the bad stuff after you’ve done a course like that?

This weekend I attended Mass at the Basilica. Why, when I only attend there once in a blue moon, do I have to always fall on a children’s Mass? At the main Sunday Mass when 80% of the congregation is adult and ~50 % is over 50? And half the kids are over the age of 7.

Two readings only, from the Children’s Lectionary and the first reader wasn’t proficient.

The children were all called to sit on the sanctuary steps for the readings and the homily then were called around the altar for the Eucharistic Prayer. Hand holding all around up there for the “Lord’s Prayer”.

EMHCs and all ministers given the Hosts before the priest took Communion and they all received at the same time; he didn’t complete the fraction rite beyond breaking the concelebration Host in half until they’d all received, then he finished breaking it for distribution.

The Psalm wasn’t one and was sung to the tune of the Alphabet Song – you know, “Now I know my ABCs…”

The Gospel Acclamation was to the tune of “Row, row, row your boat…” “Praise praise praise the Lord, Blessed is His Name
Joyfully, joyfully, joyfully, praise His Holy Name” or something to that effect.

Now this children’s choir pulled off “Immaculate Mary” without a hitch even with solos, so a true Alleluia and Psalm would have been possible.

Every single part of the Mass was explained. I’d expect that at a school Mass, but the only Mass on Sunday morning??

The homily was complete with jack-o-lantern. The last time I’d been there it had involved Kermit the Frog. To be fair, the pastor did a decent job of using the pumpkin to explain the effects of Baptism on the soul, as strange as it may seem.

Really, I’m not difficult and I don’t need the EF to make me happy. I just need a reverently celebrated Ordinary Form Mass. One that follows the rubrics. Is that too much to ask??

 

[Pregustator]

Organic development is the only sort of legitimate development in liturgy.

You claim that the Last Gospel was “nonsensical” and extraneous. Then why was it added in the first place? The “Gallicanism” you accuse of spoiling the liturgy obviously didn’t see it this way. In any case, liturgy that is the result of a committee is a completely foreign to the very idea of liturgy, which is supposed to be an organic outgrowth of the *entirety *of the Church’s history and thus belonging to no particular time or place. The arrogance, to think that they, better than all the saintly priests and popes before them, who loved, respected, and praised the Tridentine Mass, could “improve” on the result of 2000 years of piety and lived tradition! Never before in history.

The Novus Ordo may be “purer” than the Vetus Ordo, and for the purpose of argument, let’s say that it is. Is that really the hallmark of a good and effective liturgy? Liturgy’s purpose is to lift up our hearts and minds to God, to encounter the transcendent; to render suitable praise to God. How is a “pure” and “sensible” liturgy any better equipped to do undertake this task?

The Last Gospel underscored the most important and pivotal doctrine of the Catholic Church: God became man and dwelt among us. The Catholic Church is the Church of the Incarnation. What better way could there have been to end the sacrifice of the Mass, wherein God becomes incarnate on the altar?

I will limit myself to your final point:

What better way could there have been to end the sacrifice of the Mass, wherein God becomes incarnate on the altar?

The best way to end anything…is with an ending. Not with a rewind back to the middle of the event.

It makes no sense, does it, for the celebrant to command, “Go. The Mass is ended,” (“Ite. Missa est.”) only to then continue with a Mass that is not, in fact, finished? It isn’t quite over, in fact, despite what the celebrant has just said. There’s more left to be said and, as it happens, you cannot go yet, despite having been commanded to.

Now, did this represent a disastrous liturgical abuse that anyone ought to lose sleep over? No, of course not. It does interrupt the proper flow of the event, but no more so, I suppose, than an encore at the conclusion of a concert. And the Last Gospel is beautiful and majestic; regarding it’s own merit there can be no question.

But liturgy and entertainments are two different things, of course. And the orderly perfection that we do not demand of concerts, we ought to demand of the Holy Mass. Penitential rites should not litter the celebration everywhere, they should be in their proper place. A host, before its consecration, shouldn’t be declared “pure and immaculate” as if the transubstantiation had already occurred. And once the faithful have been given a final blessing and dismissed, there shouldn’t be more to come.

Eternal Rome, in her wisdom and at a moment of liturgical clarity, resolved those problems that plagued the Roman Rite, cleaning her up, reordering her according to purer and more ancient lines. She re-Romanized the Mass as only Rome could do.

At exactly the wrong age in history. Alas.

Yet it would seem that the “reform of the reform” is upon us and one hopes that the future presentation of the Roman Mass will be worthy of the beauty of her text and structure.

 

[Julian0404]

Excellent advice, I missed it the first time, you beat me to the first pew option That works well.

Another point of order for the above is that the “bells” rung by the Altar Servers do not serve a sacramental purpose. Their sole purpose is to “awake” the congregation - who may be distracted - to what is sacramentaly occurring on the altar.

 

[Ockham]

The Last Gospel is still a part of the TLM. You know, that liturgy that evolved organically from the Last Supper? If it is wrong to have it there why does the Church include it? Why was the TLM our only rite until the 1960s winds of change? If the Last Gospel is nonsensical as you claim does that mean the Church was nonsensical until the Novus Ordo came along?

 

[Ockham]

Did you ever attend a low Mass in a parish where there was no dialog Mass? I did. 20 minutes, in and out.

No, but I have attended a 30 minute Novus Ordo.

This point came up as a couple people made vague references to the liturgical abuses of the TLM pre-V2. I like knowing what those are specifically and all I ever get is express Masses and the ol’ “Father was drunk” by altar boys at the time.

 

[Pregustator]

The Last Gospel is still a part of the TLM. You know, that liturgy that evolved organically from the Last Supper? If it is wrong to have it there why does the Church include it?

The Church doesn’t include it as part of the normative Roman rite of Mass. It’s gone. When Mass is celebrated according to the 1962 Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII, only then is the Last Gospel included. But only in that special circumstance.

Why was the TLM our only rite until the 1960s winds of change? If the Last Gospel is nonsensical as you claim does that mean the Church was nonsensical until the Novus Ordo came along?

By the “TLM” I will assume you mean “Traditional Latin Mass” and by that I will assume that you mean Mass according to the Missal of Pius V, which was not the only Missal until the 1960s. The first revision in the 1960s came from Pope John XXIII, and that is the form of the pre-Vatican II rite that some priests celebrate today. Nothing earlier than that is permitted. So the Mass as it was known before 1962 is never celebrated at all, anywhere within the Church. But in additon to the 1962 ordinary form, there were other forms: the Ambrosian liturgy–the Milanese Rite–for one, the Franciscans had their own Missal, I think the Dominicans may have, as well. The Sarum Rite is another.

I do not claim that the Last Gospel–the Gospel of John–was nonsensical, only that it’s situation at the end of Mass, after the dismissal, is nonsensical. I do not believe that thinking people would spin my words to suggest that the Gospel, itself, was nonsensical, or that the Church is, so I will not go any further in response to those two points of yours.

 

[Ockham]

The Church doesn’t include it as part of the normative Roman rite of Mass. It’s gone. When Mass is celebrated according to the 1962 Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII, only then is the Last Gospel included. But only in that special circumstance.

It is included in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

By the “TLM” I will assume you mean “Traditional Latin Mass” and by that I will assume that you mean Mass according to the Missal of Pius V, which was not the only Missal until the 1960s. The first revision in the 1960s came from Pope John XXIII, and that is the form of the pre-Vatican II rite that some priests celebrate today. Nothing earlier than that is permitted. So the Mass as it was known before 1962 is never celebrated at all, anywhere within the Church. But in additon to the 1962 ordinary form, there were other forms: the Ambrosian liturgy–the Milanese Rite–for one, the Franciscans had their own Missal, I think the Dominicans may have, as well. The Sarum Rite is another.

I am referring to the standard liturgy of the Church for over 1,500 years.

I do not claim that the Last Gospel–the Gospel of John–was nonsensical, only that it’s situation at the end of Mass, after the dismissal, is nonsensical. I do not believe that thinking people would spin my words to suggest that the Gospel, itself, was nonsensical, or that the Church is, so I will not go any further in response to those two points of yours.

I never said you claimed the Gospel of St. John was nonsensical - you said the Last Gospel is though. Can you prove otherwise?

 

[Damase]

Yet it would seem that the “reform of the reform” is upon us and one hopes that the future presentation of the Roman Mass will be worthy of the beauty of her text and structure.

Well, we can certainly agree on this point.

 

[Pregustator]

It is included in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

The “extraordinary form” of the Roman rite is the way some people refer to Mass celebrated according to the Missal of 1962. I did say that the Last Gospel was included when Mass is celebrated according to this Missal.

I am referring to the standard liturgy of the Church for over 1,500 years.

You’re quite mistaken if you are under the impression that there was no liturgical development during the span of 1500 years. The Mass, as celebrated 1500 years ago, would have borne little resemblance to the Mass as celebrated in 1962.

I never said you claimed the Gospel of St. John was nonsensical - you said the Last Gospel is though. Can you prove otherwise?

You never said I said that but prove otherwise?

???

 

[Pregustator]

A preference for one form of the mass is acceptable. We’re human beings. A judgment of any forms is unacceptable. Some posts are very close to that edge that is prohibited. Do not make statements that suggest that one form is superior to the other. My suggestion is that you share your preferences, rather than evaluate any form of the mass.

My job is to keep the conversation flowing. If we fall into pitting one form against the other, then I’m going to have to ask everyone to avoid discussing the OF and EF for a while, until tempers calm down. I really do not like doing that. There is a lot to be learned from each other.

Thank you for your cooperation and thank you to those posters who have been courteous enough to ask me if something can or should be said. I applaud your conscientiousness.

Thomas Casey

Moderator

Let me just state, in case anything I have posited might have walked the cusp of what is expected by the moderation team, that I, by my positions, do not mean to pit one “form” against another.

In fact, I’m not really sure I actually see one form vs. another. To me, today’s Mass is the Church’s “old” Mass, reformed. I mean, isn’t that the case, really, after all? I don’t think the Church Fathers at Vatican II said, “let’s get rid of the Roman Mass and make a new thing to replace it.” No. They reformed the Mass that was there.

I hope that to recognize that the Church reformed her own Mass isn’t to be regarded as tabu. The “this Mass” vs. “that Mass” paradigm isn’t my own. I see one Mass, an older model vs. the current model of the same thing. Kind of like an automobile, if you want: a 1962 Mustang vs. a 2010 Mustang. Same label, different eras.

 

[Ockham]

You’re quite mistaken if you are under the impression that there was no liturgical development during the span of 1500 years. The Mass, as celebrated 1500 years ago, would have borne little resemblance to the Mass as celebrated in 1962.

I never said it was. The TLM evolved organically throughout the history of the Church. The Novus Ordo was written by Anibale Bugnini in the sixties.

This article may be helpful to you: latin-mass-society.org/2004/fabrication.htm

You never said I said that but prove otherwise?

???

I’m not sure if you are playing coy or sincerely confused so I’ll take some time to explain this to you. You accused me of accusing you of stating the Gospel of St. John is nonsensical. I did no such thing. However, you did say the Last Gospel is nonsensical though. Clear?

 

[Layman]

I think our current problems stem from a failure of imagination, in the absence of genuine psychic ability.

If most of us could see Jesus and the Heavenly Host present in the sanctuary during the Mass we would hesitate before changing a word of the rite. We would not be trying to ‘reach the people’ with all these additions, novelties and deletions. We would not be trying to jazz-up the Mass. 4 grand for a set of vestments? No problem!

Personally, I’m praying that the 1924 missal be liberated. I understand that’s the last one before the editing of the Roman Rite became subtractive.

 

[Pregustator]

I never said it was. The TLM evolved organically throughout the history of the Church. The Novus Ordo was written by Anibale Bugnini in the sixties.

Sigh It’s that sort of disinformation that is responsible for the existence of an entire partisan faction within the Church. And if that sort of disinformation were only replaced by the truth, I believe that faction, once properly educated, would disintegrate.

Can you tell me, of the four major Eucharistic Prayers, which one did Annibale Bugnini write? Or did he write all four…or what?

I’m not sure if you are playing coy or sincerely confused so I’ll take some time to explain this to you. You accused me of accusing you of stating the Gospel of St. John is nonsensical. I did no such thing. However, you did say the Last Gospel is nonsensical though. Clear?

Um…

If the Last Gospel is nonsensical as you claim does that mean the Church was nonsensical until the Novus Ordo came along?

And no, I never said that the Last Gospel is nonsensical; in fact I’ve made the opposite clear several times now. Basta.