Growth in celebration of the Extraordinary Form: Promises or Perils?

[otjm]

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the concept of the Sacrifice of the Mass didn’t come to play until the 6th century (sort of).

newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

But it seems just from reading the text of the Roman Canon, the sacrificial aspect had to come earlier than that. The meal aspect we know goes back to the Last Supper.

I’m thinking too we might find some clues in the Eastern Rites.

One does not have to go that far (Eastern Rites). The Apostles, and a significant number of early converts, were all Jews. What went on in daily Jewish life? Liturgical Sacrifice - daily - at the temple. Tamid - perpetual daily sacrifice - was offered twice a day in the temple. One lamb in the morning; a second lamb in the evening. With the first lamb, a tenth measure of fine flour mingled with a fourth of a hin of beaten oil, and fourth of a hin of wine for a libation (libation - a sacrificial pouring out of the wine on the altar of the temple). And the evening lamb was offered with a bread-offering and its libation (hint- the Eucharist, from the Last Supper, which was another Jewish liturgical feast). Minchah, sometimes translated as “cereal offering” is better a grain offering, usually consisting of unleavened cakes of bread that would be anointed with oil in the shape of a cross (ever see this on a Host?).

So we go from the unblemished lamb sacrificed in the temple to the Lamb of God. Hardly a 6th century wake up or invention. We ha;e the Jewish bread and wine offered daily; and we have the Last Supper/Passover Feast. All liturgical, all revolving around sacrifice.

By the time of Christ, the altar was 12 feet high and 20 feet in diameter. From the Mishna, one priest would have to carry a long wooden beam on his shoulders up the ramp to the top, for the fire on the altar of sacrifice. Seen that before? Try Isaac carrying his load of wood; and try Christ, carrying the cross to the sacrifice. The Apostles got it.

The people gathered at the temple for the sacrifice would pray the Shema, and then the 18 benedictions.

The first sacrifice was at the 3rd hour - 9 am, the time of crucifixion; the second was at the 9th hour - 3 pm, the time of death of Christ. Right out of Mark. Why the time specific? Because he got it - he was steeped in Jewish liturgy, and it was as palin as the hand in front of his face how Christ paralleled the Jewish liturgy, and brought it to perfection.

From the 18 benedictions:

1. Blessed are You, Lord our God and God of our fathers…who bestows abundant grace and creates all things an remembers the promise of grace to the fathers and brings a Redeemer to their children’s children for your Name’s sake out of love.
2. Heal us, O Lord, and we shall be healed; save us, and we shall be saved… Blessed are you Lord, who heals the sick of your people Israel.
3. Restore our judges as in former times and our counselors as in the beginning… and reign over us, you Lord alone, in grace and mercy, and justify us in judgment. (How many judges were there in Jewish hisotry? Hint - 12).

The whole series of petitions (benedictions) were being said as Christ was being crucified; and said agin as He died.

And you think the concept of sacrifice was lost on the apostles? Not.

The Passover was a special liturgical feast. Remember Christ said he would not drink again? This was the fourth cup, which He did not drink. When did he drink it? on the cross, when wine was offered to Him at the end before He died. You think they did not get that? You think they did not tie in the extension of the Passover final cup and His death, that they did not understand the sacrifice which the Eucharist was and is? They got it.

New Advent didn’t.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

The only risk will be the decline of lukewarmness in the Catholic world and the whole world at large. The EF is only dangerous to the enemies of Christ and his bride.

Remember, there are sinners everywhere. This has nothing to do with the Mass though, which is the most powerful prayer and means of grace that God gives to help sinners.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Exactly! It is a fallacy to blame the Mass for their behavior. Growth in the EF can be nothing but a good thing.

 

[ProVobis]

You think they did not get that? You think they did not tie in the extension of the Passover final cup and His death, that they did not understand the sacrifice which the Eucharist was and is? They got it.

Perhaps in time though. We seem to forget the Apostles abandoned Christ and fled. And probably would have forgotten everything had Christ not been resurrected. However, I would buy St. Paul’s better understanding of the sacrificial aspect, though in those days there was probably more focus on other things.

 

[Lormar]

I have had a number of long conversations with self-proclaimed “Trads” (traditionalist Catholics) in recent months. My engagement with the local Trad groups has become an endeavor to build bridges between Catholics like me, who honestly prefer the Ordinary Form, and those who gravitate to the Extraordinary Form. I think that relationships, not arguments, are more important in building the Church.

Over that time, I have come to a conception that there are both wonderful opportunities and potentially frightening risks in the growing celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and other prayers that had been eclipsed after Vatican II.

On the upside, I think there are wonderful opportunities for the growing use of the Extraordinary Form to deepen and broaden everyone’s understanding of the liturgy. I am not a Latin speaker. I am only just beginning to explore the theological bases of the Tridentine Rite, and so far it’s been interesting and enlightening.

On the downside, it seems to me that among some Trads (a reasonably large proportion of a reasonably small but growing subgroup within the Church), there is a nascent or implicit rejection of Vatican II. Further, in a number of my conversations, I have detected a notable contempt for parishes that celebrate mass in the Ordinary Form, accompanied by a apologetical stance that draw heavily on pre-conciliar (and possibly counter-conciliar?) theological works. I’ve also heard criticism of the placement of the tabernacle, the use of guitar and piano in liturgical music, and modern vestments.

I can totally understand that preferences vary in liturgical style, but there seems to be much more than that at play – again in a large fraction of what is now a small group. Among this group, there seems to be an unmitigated assertion of the superiority of Tridentine rites and theology, and it is in this phenomena that I see risk for the future of the Church. Not only have I heard criticism of Vatican II, but overt sympathy for schismatic groups like the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) and a willingness to attend their liturgies. When I’ve brought up Sedevacantism (debating them was how I was introduced to Tridentine theology), it seem that the only problem it that many of the Trads I’ve met have is that it denies that there’s a pope… surely, there must also be something wrong with the Sedevacantist claim other than its rejection of the post-conciliar papacy!!!

Does anyone else see a risk here? While I think it is fruitful for every Latin Rite Catholic to experience the Tridentine mass and other services, I am concerned that the mere demographic growth in groups celebrating the Tridentine rite could create greater rifts between Catholics – which is the last thing we need right now. Is my approach of trying to build relationships with my local Trads a good approach? The way I see it, mutual understanding is best achieved when “the other” is seen as a friend and brother, and not a theological rival.

I think what you are doing is wonderful and you are to be commended for it. And I will also add: it is about time!

No. I don’t see a risk. Time will change all of that.

There’s a reason why they are the way they are, but that has nothing to do with the Mass itself. Try to understand them the same way you try to understand those who are not Catholic.

God will reward you for this charitable endeavor, and I wish more Catholics thought like you.

 

[Lormar]

---

I’d say – it represents – not a small “vocal minority” – but a growing movement within Traditionalism. A person who is interested in the EF without a derogatory view of the OF-- joins a “Trad” site – what do you think the person will be “fed”. There may be a few that escape – but there will be those that get “hooked”. We also need to keep in mind – the “influence” they can also have at the local level.

What I quoted in my first post in this thread – was the title to a thread in a Traditionalist site – and its objective is to how to turn people against the OF.

And they often do not have to work very hard to do that because if someone goes to one of those sites they are already disgusted. Not everyone is in a good diocese.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps in time though. We seem to forget the Apostles abandoned Christ and fled. And probably would have forgotten everything had Christ not been resurrected. However, I would buy St. Paul’s better understanding of the sacrificial aspect, though in those days there was probably more focus on other things.

Reading the Gospels and th Epistles, the clues are there; but if one does not know much, if anything, about Jewish liturgy, then one is not going to pick up on why certain issues were noted in the writings.

The more one learns of Jewish thought, liturgical ceremonies, speech patterns, and mores, the more clear it is.

 

[otjm]

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Exactly! It is a fallacy to blame the Mass for their behavior. Growth in the EF can be nothing but a good thing.

I don’t think anyone is blaming the EF for anything. The OP was speaking of those drawn to it. Slight difference.

 

[ProVobis]

Reading the Gospels and th Epistles, the clues are there; but if one does not know much, if anything, about Jewish liturgy, then one is not going to pick up on why certain issues were noted in the writings.

The more one learns of Jewish thought, liturgical ceremonies, speech patterns, and mores, the more clear it is.

No doubt but when one talks about going back to the practices and thinking of the early church, when exactly is that? 37AD? Or the catacombs? Or the second century after the gospels and epistles had been completed? Or the third century after Christianity had subsumed pretty much the entire Roman Empire?

 

[otjm]

No doubt but when one talks about going back to the practices and thinking of the early church, when exactly is that? 37AD? Or the catacombs? Or the second century after the gospels and epistles had been completed? Or the third century after Christianity had subsumed pretty much the entire Roman Empire?

I wasn’t speaking about the early Church; my comments were about the Jewish liturgical practices at the time of Christ. Given that the Temple was destroyed subsequently, their practices changed because there was nowhere to offer temple sacrifices.

Christ said He did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. My comments have to do with how thoroughly He fulfilled it. If you want to know more, look to Dr. Brant Pitre. - Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. The issue of when the Church focused on the issue of sacrifice is not later, but right out of the gate. It is all over the Gospels and Epistles, if one understands Jewish liturgy at the time.

 

[Eduard_Khil]

I don’t think anyone is blaming the EF for anything. The OP was speaking of those drawn to it. Slight difference.

In that case this conversation can be pretty simple. There’s nothing wrong with the old Mass or those drawn to it. The op references “a large majority of the small minority” which are trads, but I have reservations about whether he actually knows any irl. The trads I know are not the way they are characterized in the op. The trads I know aren’t a reaction to the OF, but to the EF. It’s not that they’re abandoning something they don’t like, it’s that they are suddenly coming alive to something they do like. A preference for older reading materials versus new is a matter of prudence judged by each individual. I’m not sure what is so threatening about Augustine, Aquinas, Theresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, and Little Therese to people who prefer the OF. Instead of blaming others for being intimidating, perhaps it would be more fruitful to ask “why do I feel intimidated” or whatever feelings a person might be experiencing.

Or perhaps it would be relevant for me to post about the “vast majority of the Catholic majority”, and then proceed to characterize them based on the Mass they choose and the percentages of those that are actually objectively this or that…

It’s just silly.

 

[otjm]

In that case this conversation can be pretty simple. There’s nothing wrong with the old Mass or those drawn to it. The op references “a large majority of the small minority” which are trads, but I have reservations about whether he actually knows any irl. The trads I know are not the way they are characterized in the op. The trads I know aren’t a reaction to the OF, but to the EF. It’s not that they’re abandoning something they don’t like, it’s that they are suddenly coming alive to something they do like. A preference for older reading materials versus new is a matter of prudence judged by each individual. I’m not sure what is so threatening about Augustine, Aquinas, Theresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, and Little Therese to people who prefer the OF. Instead of blaming others for being intimidating, perhaps it would be more fruitful to ask “why do I feel intimidated” or whatever feelings a person might be experiencing.

Or perhaps it would be relevant for me to post about the “vast majority of the Catholic majority”, and then proceed to characterize them based on the Mass they choose and the percentages of those that are actually objectively this or that…

It’s just silly.

One has to go no farther than older threads in this forum to find people who are attracted to the EF who are so lacking in charity concerning the OF that they get themselves banned. On occasion, it is not necessarily that old a thread. This is not the behavior of all who prefer the EF, but to pretend that it is only a rare occasion to find such a person is either because one has had minimal exposure to commentary, or because one chooses to ignore, forget about, or otherwise not acknowledge those who are significantly negative. And there are ample other forums which also attract comments that go far beyond the categorization of “snide” or “snippy”.

The OP indicates that there are a significant number of people attending or seeking to attend the EF, who certainly appear to be of a different mindset than, say, Pope Benedict as to the validity, the holiness, and the efficacy of the OF. Short of polling people actually attending the EF, it is a matter of opinion. Some people’s opinions are based on extremely limited data; some on no data whatsoever, and others on wider data which may be inaccurately forecast (for example, the number of people expressing negative comments about the OF herein the general forum as a percentage).

Having watched the SSPX and having met members who attend Mass at SSPX chapels, it would appear that a significant majority have problems not only with the OF, but also the Magisterium. That is just my opinion, but it certainly is not contradicted by any facts I have heard over the last 15 or so years.

As to the legitimately offered EF, I would presume that there is everything there from people who go once out of curiosity to those who are sympathetic strongly to the SSPX and have similar attitudes towards the OF and theMagisterium. To presume that all or almost all (with a rare exception) are simply interested in the EF doesn’t seem to comport with evidence which is easily available. I do not agree with the OP that “a large majority of a small minority” is factual (and the OP seems to state it as factual). Neither do I think that it is a rare individual who is straying close to problems with the Church in general - the Magisterium, if you will.

Bell curves may not lay out perfectly balanced, but they rarely are not reflective of reality, and the far ends of the curves include the ultra liberals and the ultra conservatives, as well as shades of liberals and conservatives.

 

[Rich_C]

One has to go no farther than older threads in this forum to find people who are attracted to the EF who are so lacking in charity concerning the OF that they get themselves banned. On occasion, it is not necessarily that old a thread. This is not the behavior of all who prefer the EF, but to pretend that it is only a rare occasion to find such a person is either because one has had minimal exposure to commentary, or because one chooses to ignore, forget about, or otherwise not acknowledge those who are significantly negative. And there are ample other forums which also attract comments that go far beyond the categorization of “snide” or “snippy”.

The OP indicates that there are a significant number of people attending or seeking to attend the EF, who certainly appear to be of a different mindset than, say, Pope Benedict as to the validity, the holiness, and the efficacy of the OF. Short of polling people actually attending the EF, it is a matter of opinion. Some people’s opinions are based on extremely limited data; some on no data whatsoever, and others on wider data which may be inaccurately forecast (for example, the number of people expressing negative comments about the OF herein the general forum as a percentage).

Having watched the SSPX and having met members who attend Mass at SSPX chapels, it would appear that a significant majority have problems not only with the OF, but also the Magisterium. That is just my opinion, but it certainly is not contradicted by any facts I have heard over the last 15 or so years.

As to the legitimately offered EF, I would presume that there is everything there from people who go once out of curiosity to those who are sympathetic strongly to the SSPX and have similar attitudes towards the OF and theMagisterium. To presume that all or almost all (with a rare exception) are simply interested in the EF doesn’t seem to comport with evidence which is easily available. I do not agree with the OP that “a large majority of a small minority” is factual (and the OP seems to state it as factual). Neither do I think that it is a rare individual who is straying close to problems with the Church in general - the Magisterium, if you will.

Bell curves may not lay out perfectly balanced, but they rarely are not reflective of reality, and the far ends of the curves include the ultra liberals and the ultra conservatives, as well as shades of liberals and conservatives.

As you say, we can’t judge anything about traditional Catholics at large from interactions here on CAF. I mean, if you add up all the unpleasant traddy posters you can think of, it’s what, less than 100 people? Out of millions? And these people aren’t a randomly selected sample but a self-selected group.

Like if you put a poll on the Internet: do you hate ice cream?

I’d bet that fewer than 5% of all people would say they “hate” ice cream, but in such a poll, I’ll bet 80% of respondents would say “yes.” It’s human nature. People who don’t hate ice cream won’t care enough to be bothered to say they don’t. People who do hate ice cream, and are tired of living amongst ice cream lovers everywhere they go, will relish the opportunity to speak their mind.

I look around at the wonderful Catholics in the Latin Mass communities I know, and I think they are the silent majority that just don’t get online to talk about their Faith. Too bad they don’t.

 

[fnr]

In that case this conversation can be pretty simple. There’s nothing wrong with the old Mass or those drawn to it. The op references “a large majority of the small minority” which are trads, but I have reservations about whether he actually knows any irl. The trads I know are not the way they are characterized in the op.

As the OP, here’s what I actually said:
“…it seems to me that among some Trads (a reasonably large proportion of a reasonably small but growing subgroup within the Church), there is a nascent or implicit rejection of Vatican II.”
I am only speaking from personal experience.

The trads I know aren’t a reaction to the OF, but to the EF. It’s not that they’re abandoning something they don’t like, it’s that they are suddenly coming alive to something they do like. A preference for older reading materials versus new is a matter of prudence judged by each individual.

Again, going on personal experience, I’ve been in a group conversation where one self-professed “trad” referred to the decades after the 1950s as “the dark times.” I’ve been told by others in my local “trad” community that my parish’s OF liturgy is totally inexcusable (despite our bishop not seeming to have a problem when he visits). I’ve been told that Sacrosanctum Concilium and Paul IV’s Missale Romanum were mistakes. I’ve been told that abandoning the Tridentine form is a large cause of the decline in church attendance among young Catholics. So I’ll respectfully assert, on my local anecdotal experience alone, that there are a reasonably large fraction of trads who are critical of the OF at the same time they embrace the EF. That’s where I see danger.

I’m not sure what is so threatening about Augustine, Aquinas, Theresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, and Little Therese to people who prefer the OF. Instead of blaming others for being intimidating, perhaps it would be more fruitful to ask “why do I feel intimidated” or whatever feelings a person might be experiencing.

I really don’t understand where this is coming from. The saints you mention are not at all reserved to those who attend EF masses. I’ve read Augustine, and am referencing Aquinas’ Summa fairly regularly. I’m not intimidated by anyone who approaches conversation with charity.

However, I do take umbrage when a “trad” hauls out an encyclical from a 19th century pope totally out of context, like Mirari Vos or Libertas Humana, in a “gotcha” moment of proof that the Church has always taught against the type of “modernism” that the “Novus Ordo” types represent. I’m not afraid of Tradition in the least, but don’t appreciate it when someone who calls themselves a traditionalist takes it upon themselves to define what Tradition actually means for the whole Church.

I have no problem whatsoever with someone who loves Jesus choosing to deepen their spirituality by attending mass in Latin. I do have a problem when someone who loves Latin mass tells me that the spirituality of me and everyone else who doesn’t favor the EF is diminished.

 

[fnr]

I do not agree with the OP that “a large majority of a small minority” is factual (and the OP seems to state it as factual).

Again, here is what I actually said:
"it seems to me that among some Trads (a reasonably large proportion of a reasonably small but growing subgroup within the Church), there is a nascent or implicit rejection of Vatican II. "
I have tried to couch my statements as being based only on personal observation (e.g., “it seems to me”), without assigning numerical estimates (i.e., “a reasonably large proportion”). I don’t have statistical surveys, I have my own personal experience. I posted this thread because I understand that my experience is limited, and that I am not qualified to make judgments of fact about the personal beliefs of other Catholics. The whole purpose of this thread was to engender charitable dialogue.

 

[Eduard_Khil]

Again, here is what I actually said:
"it seems to me that among some Trads (a reasonably large proportion of a reasonably small but growing subgroup within the Church), there is a nascent or implicit rejection of Vatican II. "
I have tried to couch my statements as being based only on personal observation (e.g., “it seems to me”), without assigning numerical estimates (i.e., “a reasonably large proportion”). I don’t have statistical surveys, I have my own personal experience. I posted this thread because I understand that my experience is limited, and that I am not qualified to make judgments of fact about the personal beliefs of other Catholics. The whole purpose of this thread was to engender charitable dialogue.

I personally don’t see anything uncharitable about what otjm said. I think you’re wrong, too, but I don’t mean to be a jerk. I just disagree. I have belonged to 5 trad parishes and while there is a tiny minority of people who are more than a little critical of the church leadership and the OF, my experience is of people desiring the old practices it off love and reference, not as a reaction to the Church and the OF etc.

 

[ProVobis]

However, I do take umbrage when a “trad” hauls out an encyclical from a 19th century pope totally out of context, like Mirari Vos or Libertas Humana, in a “gotcha” moment of proof that the Church has always taught against the type of “modernism” that the “Novus Ordo” types represent. I’m not afraid of Tradition in the least, but don’t appreciate it when someone who calls themselves a traditionalist takes it upon themselves to define what Tradition actually means for the whole Church.

I have no problem whatsoever with someone who loves Jesus choosing to deepen their spirituality by attending mass in Latin. I do have a problem when someone who loves Latin mass tells me that the spirituality of me and everyone else who doesn’t favor the EF is diminished.

At the same time one needs to be honest with himself. Is it the EF that’s the problem or the fact that people will travel great distances away from their own local OF to get to one? If the EF were available in every parish and people were not so focused on only having the Mass in their own language, a lot of the problems wouldn’t exist. Unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world where everyone is happy with the status quo. IOW, it’s a complicated world, no less complicated than it was 2000 years ago.

 

[Rich_C]

Again, here is what I actually said:
"it seems to me that among some Trads (a reasonably large proportion of a reasonably small but growing subgroup within the Church), there is a nascent or implicit rejection of Vatican II. "
I have tried to couch my statements as being based only on personal observation (e.g., “it seems to me”), without assigning numerical estimates (i.e., “a reasonably large proportion”). I don’t have statistical surveys, I have my own personal experience. I posted this thread because I understand that my experience is limited, and that I am not qualified to make judgments of fact about the personal beliefs of other Catholics. The whole purpose of this thread was to engender charitable dialogue.

So if we go ahead and accept your premise (that something is problematic with a large portion of trads–which I don’t agree with but I’ll leave that aside for now), where does that leave the discussion?

Do you want to talk about how to build greater unity?

I’d like to get back to that instead of continuing with the “let’s find problems with trads” thing, because in my experience, you’ll find far more problems in the Church outside of the traditional orbit than within it.

 

[Eduard_Khil]

If the last sentence of my post didn’t make sense it’s because it should have said “out of love and reverence”

Smart phone makin’ me look dumb…!

 

[OraLabora]

To be clear: I don’t oppose Latin, Gregorian chant, etc. I have very little prior exposure to the EF, so I’m trying to just understand it.

On the specific issues I’ve heard mentioned:

• The Eucharistic prayer of the OF is deficient.
• For the priest to pray toward the people in the OF is to erase the distinction between priest and laity, who should be marked as offering distinctly separate sacrifices.
• Removing the tabernacle from the central Altar diminishes the centrality of the Eucharist in the OF.
• It is less worthwhile for laity to simply follow along with the priest’s prayer, as in the vernacular OF; it is more spiritually efficacious to offer a separate Eucharistic prayer specifically intended for Mass.
• Piano and guitar are insufficiently reverential instruments for liturgical music.
• The melodies and musical arrangements of traditional Tridentine music are an essential part of proper worship.
• The loss of reverential, traditional liturgy is a large contributor to people leaving the Church.
• The replacement of sermons with homilies has eroded the moral sense of the laity.

While I understand the thrust of many of these arguments, it is hard for me to see many of them as going much beyond aesthetics. Or to put it in another way, one that’s not so reductionist, one might choose to spend one’s time performing a devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, but that doesn’t mean that there’s anything deficient in spending time consecrating one’s heart to the Immaculate Heat of Mary. Both point to God.

As I mentioned in the first post, the reason I see potential difficulties in the future is that I’ve heard people say that they’d attend an SSPX parish if there was one nearby. I’ve heard the someone say that “defeating modernism is our primary goal.” And, to be clear that there are issues that go both ways, I have no doubt that there are a number of unfair anti-EF assumptions and biases that people who prefer the OF hold. For example, I’ve used the term “smells and bells” to joke around with the Trads, and some laughed and others seemed offended.

To me, to celebrate both EF and OF is a good thing. But to segregate ourselves into Trad and “Vanilla” Catholics seems fraught with perils. We all need to be humble in acknowledging that none of us has a monopoly on faith. 1 Corinthians 12 is pretty clear that there are many parts but one body, and I think liturgy can be an example.

I would say from your list that the people who mention those items aren’t themselves very familiar with tradition in the Church; in fact they seem more intent on capturing a snapshot of what the Church was at a specific point in time:

The Eucharistic prayer of the OF is deficient. The traditional Roman Canon is still valid for use in the OF

For the priest to pray toward the people in the OF is to erase the distinction between priest and laity, who should be marked as offering distinctly separate sacrifices. It was done facing the brothers and laity in monasteries for centuries; in many places the monastery was the only place Catholics could attend Mass well before Trent

Removing the tabernacle from the central Altar diminishes the centrality of the Eucharist in the OF. The tabernacle has been in side chapels of monasteries for hundreds of years

It is less worthwhile for laity to simply follow along with the priest’s prayer, as in the vernacular OF; it is more spiritually efficacious to offer a separate Eucharistic prayer specifically intended for Mass. I’m not sure what this means

Piano and guitar are insufficiently reverential instruments for liturgical music. The hymn Silent Night was written for guitar in 1818, nobody can argue it isn’t beautiful or reverential

The melodies and musical arrangements of traditional Tridentine music are an essential part of proper worship. The same melodies and musical arrangements are used for the OF when celebrated in Gregorian chant, which is still licit, valid and done in many places, and (at least in French) many of the melodies have been adapted to the vernacular, such as the EP in French

The loss of reverential, traditional liturgy is a large contributor to people leaving the Church. This wouldn’t explain why many mainstream Protestant churches have also lost parishioners in the same era; it has more to do with social conditions than the liturgy

The replacement of sermons with homilies has eroded the moral sense of the laity. There has never been, to my knowledge, any such distinction, there are many ancient “homilies” describe as such in the patristic lectionary for the Office of Readings; the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article about homilies is dated 1910.

 

[otjm]

At the same time one needs to be honest with himself. Is it the EF that’s the problem or the fact that people will travel great distances away from their own local OF to get to one? If the EF were available in every parish and people were not so focused on only having the Mass in their own language, a lot of the problems wouldn’t exist. Unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world where everyone is happy with the status quo. IOW, it’s a complicated world, no less complicated than it was 2000 years ago.

The problem which "FNR speaks is neither the EF, not the long distances people have to travel. It is certain members of those who prefer the EF, who are utterly dismissive of the OF, and the vast majority of those Catholics who attend it. The poison from those who reject Vatican 2 and the legitimacy and efficacy of the OF has spread well beyond certain “chapels”.