N.C. John,
**We wrote, in part: ** * ** Jerry Parker ** Those who never have known the glories of the 1962 Missale Romanum are not in much of a position to pontificate on the superiority of the Novus Ordo. For those who did know the old liturgy at its fullest, the 40th anniversary of the N.O. is not an occasion for celebration, but for regret for so much that was precious that has been washed away, cast aside, wasted.
N.C. John: You take much upon yourself in thinking you can in any way speak for any significant segment of those of us who grew up pre-Vatican II. I daresay that that the overwhelming majority would fully and completely disagree with you on this. When our diocese offered availability of the TLM many years back it had a couple hundred people show up in the beginning, mostly younger people and NOT those who had grown up with it. Within 6 months it was down to a small handful attending at all and it died a quiet death until the Pope mandated the availability again.*
I did experience the 1962 and 1965 Masses at their best and at their most mediocre. I remember priests who dashed through the Mass as quickly as possible, saying it with an atrocious American accent that was utterly ugly in effect. However, one hears the
Novus Ordo (N.O.) said that way in the vernacular, with many terrible truncations that should not be permitted. (Nobody that I recall ever cut the text of the Latin Mass.) The N.O. is so short that to cut it really does awful damage, not to its validity, but to what liturgical integrity remains in the N.O. As for what the greater part of Catholics thought of the contrast between the 1962 and N.O. Masses, a lot just drifted away in disgust or indifference when the N.O. became madatory; I know that I was not the only one thus disturbed by the liturgical rot that set in after 1965 and then, much worse, after 1970. There are some good explanations regarding all of this to account for the steep drop in Mass attendance by Catholics after those years.
Alas, the implementation of congregational participation in the Latin Mass did not progress evenly in the U.S.; many parishes continued to have purely priest-acolyte dialogues of the liturgy rather than the priest-congregation (with acolyte) participation that was encouraged from the end of the 19th century onwards. I was lucky at St. Gregory’s Catholic Church in Long Beach to sing the Mass with full and vigourous involvement of priest (and others at the altar), congregation, and choir. The Latin Mass said thus, as Rome wished it to be, was incredibly beautiful and very uplifting. The N.O. offers nothing over the Latin Mass rightly celebrated for congregational participation and edification.
There is a limit to what can be done to make the N.O. respond to higher spiritual aspirations. The N.O. broke dreadfully with the very long and uninterrupted tradition of the Catholic Church’s worship. That alone is a worrisome thing; it is no wonder that so many priests, sensing this, butcher the N.O. without qualms. The tradition is in danger of being lost altogether if this keeps up. Fortunately, Benedict XVI is attempting to improve the vernacular N.O. and to restore the 1962
Missale Romanum to wider practice, both good things. Papal authority, after so many decades of attrition under Paul VI and John Paul II may vitiate the Papacy’s ability to get the American, Canadian, and other bishops to implement the improvements of the N.O. I hope that such is not the case!
Pax, Jerry Parker
, to those of us who dislike the Novus Ordo! Such an action would roll back ugly decades of liturgical decline that the N.O. has occasioned!