Help me work through this: Since the TLM is now back, why bother with the Novus Ordo in Latin? [Fr. Z]

[Brennan_Doherty]

Yep, there was quite a drop in conversion in the 1960’s. But, I don’t think that can be laid at the feet of the NO mass.

… Yep, a lot of the guitar music, and dancing, and such that came along with the NO was icky. It was neither good liturgy nor good art or music.

But you know what? It could have been expected. The NO was such a freeing experience for a lot of people who felt, many for the first time in their lives, that they were participants in the liturgy rather than just an audience. They went a little nuts. That’s common to people who experience life-changing events. So, no big deal. Things calmed down. So-so music was replaced with better music, then good music. (As an aside, don’t forget that Silent Night originally was a guitar hymn.)

… “Fr. George Rutler has stated, the liturgy is the primary means of evangelism.” The NO did that. For a lot of people. I am one of them. I saw the change in our parish. It was wonderful. We had the “hippie mass” with guitars - three of them - and eventually added to that music the piano, trombone, flute, cello, violin, and a 6-foot string base called Goliath. But we also had a mass with organ music. And one with singing without accompaniment. Something for everybody.

You can see why I have trouble with this whole discussion. I saw whole communities formed directly as a result of the NO. I saw not only individuals but whole families who became involved in their parish and wanted to do more for God because the mass was suddently “relevant.” I know that is a cliche now, but that’s because the word was appropriate.

Also, I really don’t understand the use of the word “reverent.” Solemnity and reverence don’t have just one form. I am tickled to death that I can now receive communion in my hands. I just hated receiving on the tongue.

… I find as much reverence in the NO as in the TLM. Reverence, to me, is a state of the heart, and not all forms are reverent to all people.

People differ. God likes them that way. That’s why He creates individuals. Methods of reaching them are different. …Sometimes I think we forget that God knows all of this. You think that he wouldn’t be fully aware of this response to change by His people?

… That’s why I just don’t see much point in this whole discussion of which liturgy is “better” or “true” or “more reverent” or whatever.

They are going to put on my tombstone “She didn’t get it.”

Hi GaiaOne,

I am not talking about internal reverence. Rather I am speaking about the effect of the liturgy on the soul. Hence I am talking, as much as possible, about something objective.

I will give the exact quote from Fr. Rutler from his book “A Crisis of Saints” (Ignatius Press). He is a Priest who is old enough to have experienced the liturgy both before and after the changes. The emphases in bold are mine:

**A Liturgical Parable

The Hard Truth
**
…We seem to slip out of that golden sense of ultimate truth in two ways. The first is by losing any real awareness of the holy. The second is by denying that it has been lost. Without lapsing into cricitism that would be out of place, suffice it to say that the worship of holiness is weak in our culture, and the beauty of holiness has been smudged in transmission through the revised liturgy. For without impugning its objective authenticity in any degree, its bouleversement [Complete overthrow; a reversal; a turning upside down] of the traditional Roman rite marks the first time in history that the Church has been an agent, however unintentionally, in the deprivation of culture, from the uprooting of classical language and sensibility to wanton deprreciation of the arts.

…It is immensely saddening to see so many elements of the Church, in her capacity as Mother of Western Culture, compliant in the promotion of ugliness. There may be no deterrent more formidable to countless potential converts than the low estate of the Church’s liturgical life, for the liturgy is the Church’s prime means of evangelism. Gone as into a primeval mist are the days not long ago when apologists regularly had to warn against being distracted by, or superficially attracted to, the beauty of the Church’s rites. And the plodding and static nature of the revised rites could not have been more ill-timed for a media culture so attuned to color and form and action.

(Pp. 107-108)

Further, to essentially say “Different strokes for different folks” in regards to the liturgy is to open up the liturgy to almost any type of music or dance. Hey, you think rock music leads you into a reverent experience? Then let’s have a Mass with a band and some electric guitars!

 

[GaiaOne]

…Gone as into a primeval mist are the days not long ago when apologists regularly had to warn against being distracted by, or superficially attracted to, the beauty of the Church’s rites. And the plodding and static nature of the revised rites could not have been more ill-timed for a media culture so attuned to color and form and action.

(Pp. 107-108)

Further, to essentially say “Different strokes for different folks” in regards to the liturgy is to open up the liturgy to almost any type of music or dance. Hey, you think rock music leads you into a reverent experience? Then let’s have a Mass with a band and some electric guitars!

Well, a couple of points.

If the beauty of the liturgy was such that it was a danger to souls, resulting in superficial attraction, maybe it was time to back off.

Second, if the generation was so media attuned to color, form, and action, then the introduction of the NO was counter to the culture of the time in that way. God keeps setting his people apart. Maybe this was part of it.

Like I said, I have no idea why God allowed such timing or forms. But, I think that trying to declare one form alone as “best” or “true” is kind of a waste of time here.

As far as “different strokes for different folks,” why is that a bad thing? We are not talking about anything goes. We are talking about two liturgies. Granted, one is more flexible than the other, but there still are rubrics out there, and as long as the celebration is within the rubics, what’s the problem?

A rock mass? Sure. Why not. Generally, dancing at mass doesn’t work, and unless I missed it I don’t see it in the rubrics, but there is nothing wrong with an electric guitar. It isn’t a question of holiness, but of taste. Bethoven wasn’t too popular when he was the new kid out there, and opera was considered downright sinful-- but we call them classics today.

Good Lord, we are talking about the most wonderful event that ever happened-- all of history points to it and all of history looks back to it-- Jesus’ sacrifice. He saved us. Have we forgotten how big a deal that is? So, if you want to plug in that amp and celebrate it, fine by me. I will bring my earplugs. And personally, especially at a feast like Easter or Christmas, I would love to see some feet moving in the pews. Some of our celebrations sure don’t seem like it.

Solemnity is great. What God has done for us is overwhelming, and sometimes the enormity stuns us into silence. But He also made us for joy, and we celebrate with music and dance. We’re His kids, and kids sometimes just like to dance, and not everybody is good at it.

Personally, I think the Lord can take it.

But, it just seems a waste of time to be debating about the NO mass, in whatever language, and the TML. Just pick one and go. Maybe the TLM is where you should be. But if it leads your brother or sister astray, or doesn’t meet his or her spiritual needs, then the NO is the better one for him. Didn’t Paul address this in one of his letters?

In some things I think there are absolutes. But in the liturgy, I don’t think it is so clear. If one liturgy is going to be singled out as the best, how come there is no discussion here of the Orthodox liturgy? or the liturgy of the Byzantine or Ruthenian rites? Other Catholic rites? Not everybody is Roman Catholic.

Has it occurred to anybody here that maybe the “true” or “best” rite is neither the NO nor the TLM? What if we are all wrong and the “true” liturgy hasn’t come about yet? The liturgy developed over time, and it still is developing. So maybe we haven’t gotten there yet.

I just don’t know, Brennan. My mother keeps telling me I am the odd one of the family. I sometimes wonder if I was born on the wrong planet. God has me here for His own purposes, and he seldom lets me in on the joke. Maybe I am just here to pose questions and never get answers. Maybe my unique purpose in His plan is to be the one that never gets it.

Can I throw in an aside? Has nothing to do with this liturgical discussion. Where I used to work we sold rosaries. When Madonna first hit it big, the kids who found our place bought them to wear. One clerk was really upset about it. I could kind of see her point, but a few hung around checked out a couple of books, and generally were exposed to things that they might never had access to. Me, I just figured that they had a rosary, even if for the wrong reason, and if a time came when they needed it, it would be there. So, I just prayed for them and explained the rosary to them when they came in for one. Even if it only got through to one, one is one.

That’s kind of the planet I am on.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Well, a couple of points.

If the beauty of the liturgy was such that it was a danger to souls, resulting in superficial attraction, maybe it was time to back off.

Second, if the generation was so media attuned to color, form, and action, then the introduction of the NO was counter to the culture of the time in that way. God keeps setting his people apart. Maybe this was part of it.

…As far as “different strokes for different folks,” why is that a bad thing? We are not talking about anything goes. We are talking about two liturgies. Granted, one is more flexible than the other, but there still are rubrics out there, and as long as the celebration is within the rubics, what’s the problem?

A rock mass? Sure. Why not.

…Good Lord, we are talking about the most wonderful event that ever happened-- all of history points to it and all of history looks back to it-- Jesus’ sacrifice. He saved us. Have we forgotten how big a deal that is?

…In some things I think there are absolutes. But in the liturgy, I don’t think it is so clear. If one liturgy is going to be singled out as the best, how come there is no discussion here of the Orthodox liturgy? or the liturgy of the Byzantine or Ruthenian rites? Other Catholic rites? Not everybody is Roman Catholic.

…Has it occurred to anybody here that maybe the “true” or “best” rite is neither the NO nor the TLM? What if we are all wrong and the “true” liturgy hasn’t come about yet? The liturgy developed over time, and it still is developing. So maybe we haven’t gotten there yet.

Hi GaiaOne,

Fr. Rutler wasn’t positing that the TLM itself was a “danger to souls.” Far from it. I would liken it to how a man who is looking to get married is attracted to the beauty of a woman. That first attraction is essential, and yet that attraction must also lead to getting to know the woman personally to see if it is a “match.” So also the attraction of the liturgy (and art and architecture) is also essential. Without it, too often there is no initial attraction which may lead to conversion.

I personally think the TLM is the liturgy which is countercultural, particularly to our own time which is very utilitarian and frenetic. The problem with the way the Mass is today is that too often it just blends in with our culture and is unremarkable.

And since the TLM is the embodiment of the Catholic faith it is not going to lead anyone astray. And if people can’t get their spiritual needs met (which I highly doubt) by praying prayers which have organically developed over the centuries or by being exposed to the glorious Gregorian chant then I don’t know how they can get their spiritual needs met.

It was a good point that you brought up Eastern liturgies. The reason people who advocate the TLM don’t bring them up (and in fact admire them) are the same reasons they admire the TLM. They convey a sense of the supernatural and the sacred and their roots go back just as far as the TLM. And they have organically developed over the centuries—in other words, they weren’t concocted by a committee.

So, yes, the Mass is the greatest event on the face of the earth; which is precisely why any liturgy should objectively convey the magnitude of the event as much as possible. I liken it to having a beautiful diamond. If you take a beautiful diamond and put it on a rusty copper band people will just be bewildered and even wonder if the diamond is fake. Which is why a beautiful diamond should have a beautiful setting.