How to Fix the Liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Ham1:
So, let’s say that we did suddenly just revert to the old mass…

Would the pastor’s who abuse the NO just start saying the old mass perfectly without abuse? Would everyone in the parish get holier? Would they start dressing better and joining seminaries? Would they stop using contraception? Would everyone start going to confession? Would everyone start believing in the real presence?
40.png
Ham1:
I think this is somewhat simplistic. The world was a different place when the old mass was said. The old mass did not CAUSE the world to be a different (and probably better) place. Neither did the new mass cause society to become corrupted. Society became increasingly materialistic and atheistic throughout the latter half of the 20th century.

I would also say it absolutely WAS NOT the changes to the liturgy. It was abuse of those changes.
Ham1, how do you reach the conclusion that it was absolutely NOT the changes to the liturgy which have helped lead to the crisis we have in the Church today? I am speaking about the crisis in faith, particularly lack of belief in the Real Presence and Mass attendance.

I would say emphatically that it is really not the abuses of the New Mass which are a main cause of many problems (not among society, I am not talking about society in general, I am talking about the faith of Catholics and things like Mass attendance).

This is because the changes in the liturgy are far more dramatic than any abuses. Having the priest face the people, adding three new Eucharistic prayers, changing or eliminating over 80% of the prayers, the sign of peace, etc.,–none of these things are abuses. They were approved by the Vatican (along with standing for communion and receiving the Holy Eucharist in the hand). Yet these changes are far more consequential to Catholics than the fact that perhaps a priest comes down from the altar to shake someone’s hand or other abuses that most people are probably not even aware are abuses.

I do hope any and all abuses get stamped out of the Norvus Ordo, yet I just do not believe that merely getting rid of the abuses of the Novus Ordo is somehow going to rectify things (though it would help).

God bless.
 
Another problem is the opening the doors to the Modern world. Modernism crept in so bad, and little is being done to stop it infact some modernists get promotions or red hats. True, if we do not get rid of the modernists, we will still have problems even with the Old liturgy, heck they may even try to mulitate that liturgy too.
 
Oh, The indult Mass at my area, give out free mantillas and demand that people modestly dress. There is a big sign outside the entrance of the door demanding people dress modestly and nicely to church.
 
Brennan Doherty:
how do you reach the conclusion that it was absolutely NOT the changes to the liturgy which have helped lead to the crisis we have in the Church today? I am speaking about the crisis in faith, particularly lack of belief in the Real Presence and Mass attendance.
There seems to be a desire to “prove” that certain things were causes of this or that. These “proofs” or “disproofs” just can’t be made.

For what it’s worth, I disagree with the oft-made claims of “lack of belief in the Real Presence and Mass attendance”. In this area, parishes have added Sunday masses till they just can’t add any more. What few new churches are being built, are enormous mega-churches… it would be nice to have more numerous neighborhood parishes but the shortage of priests simply does not allow it.
This is because the changes in the liturgy are far more dramatic than any abuses. Having the priest face the people, adding three new Eucharistic prayers, changing or eliminating over 80% of the prayers, the sign of peace, etc.,–none of these things are abuses. They were approved by the Vatican (along with standing for communion and receiving the Holy Eucharist in the hand).
And I just don’t see how any of these things (in and of themselves) would cause a crisis of faith. Virtually no one under age 40 knows that these things were ever any different than they are now.
 
Brennan Doherty:
Ham1, how do you reach the conclusion that it was absolutely NOT the changes to the liturgy which have helped lead to the crisis we have in the Church today? I am speaking about the crisis in faith, particularly lack of belief in the Real Presence and Mass attendance.

I would say emphatically that it is really not the abuses of the New Mass which are a main cause of many problems (not among society, I am not talking about society in general, I am talking about the faith of Catholics and things like Mass attendance).

This is because the changes in the liturgy are far more dramatic than any abuses. Having the priest face the people, adding three new Eucharistic prayers, changing or eliminating over 80% of the prayers, the sign of peace, etc.,–none of these things are abuses. They were approved by the Vatican (along with standing for communion and receiving the Holy Eucharist in the hand). Yet these changes are far more consequential to Catholics than the fact that perhaps a priest comes down from the altar to shake someone’s hand or other abuses that most people are probably not even aware are abuses.

I do hope any and all abuses get stamped out of the Norvus Ordo, yet I just do not believe that merely getting rid of the abuses of the Novus Ordo is somehow going to rectify things (though it would help).

God bless.
So essentially you claim that it was the NO that CAUSED the problems we have in the Church and NOT the abuses of the liturgy by ill-formed priests.

It seems that in my (albeit very limited) experience parishs that say the NO in a very reverant fashion led by a very orthodox pastor have packed masses and perpetual adoration and a congregation that understands the real presence.

In my experience, parishs that have problems and have a congregation filled with dissenters are led by un-orthodox priests. Do not underestimate the power of a good pastor. As others have mentioned, most Catholics do not read encyclicals and boards like this one. Most Catholics receive the entirety of their catechesis from the liturgy and in particular from the homily.

As I have said, a cause and effect between the quality of priests and the orthodoxy of the faithful makes profound sense. Obviously, things were rotten in seminaries and academia well before Vatican II. My question is what happened?

I think that we can all agree that a well-said NO is quite reverant and beautiful and properly conveys a sense of the supernatural.
The problem with pinning all the problems on the NO is that the vast majority of priests who began saying the NO and introduced the irreverence and abuse would have been ordained and educated pre-Vatican II. Now, if we suppose that the NO was the problem, then we would have to assume that all those priests who were ordained before NO were devoid of the problems that came later with the NO. So, if these priests were properly formed, then why did they begin saying irreverant NO masses and abusing the liturgy? Unless you contend that the NO had some mysterious quality that caused good orthodox priests to become wacky.

There had to be bad formation going back decades. There were hundreds of young men ordained in the 50’s. That means in the 70’s when things started getting really out of hand, these priests were the pastors who made it happen. Then the question becomes who was teaching in the seminaries in the 50’s? Priests ordained in the 30’s? Just look at some of the most popular dissident theologians… Fr. Charles Curran was ordained in 1958. Fr. Richard McCormick was ordained in 1953.
 
40.png
Ham1:
Unless you contend that the NO had some mysterious quality that caused good orthodox priests to become wacky.
The suggestion that the NO has a quality that causes priest to get off track can have some validity. That is, the TLM demands a certain reverence form those who serve as well as those who attend, while the NO imparts a certain laziness / carelessness by the nature of the mass.
 
40.png
Dolly:
Good comments and question Ham1.

Also Pilgrim and Crusader, do you have any experience of Latin Catholics attending eastern Catholic parishes, not because they want to be an eastern Catholic, but primarily because they are disaffected Latin’s? That has been my, grantedly small, experience—if there were a good (as they see it) Novus Ordo mass or a Tridentine mass locally, they would probably bolt in a blink to that parish. Some have come trying to latinize, fortunately not successfully, but most don’t seem to be eastern in practice or knowledge nor desire to be. They are Latin in heart and this is a stop gap. They seem to consider the latin rite ‘Catholic’ and not the Byzantine (it’s not ‘catholic’ enough, meaning latin enough). Comment made to me once, “they are more byzantine than catholic” but not with anything to back it up except they didn’t seem to like eastern theology.

If, as Catholics, we really could learn to breathe with both lungs and see them both as fully catholic, and if those on the extreme traditional wing could also except both as fully catholic, we would then be able to live out our faith and allow others to see it and want to be a part of it.

BTW, St. Anne’s in San Luis Obispo is listed as having 36 families. All the western eparchy Ruthenian parishes are small only with 3 listed as over 100 families, none over 150 families.
Hi, Dolly!

You are so right! My experience has been that most Latins who take it upon themselves to visit a Byzantine Catholic Church may do so originally for the “smells and bells”… the rich ceremonial nature of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. They may come hoping to somehow duplicate ancient “feel” of the Tridentine Mass that may not be available to them in their area, but you typically won’t see those folks continue coming back. That’s because all those “smells and bells” have a meaning behind them, and unless one “buys into” the theological conceps associated with Eastern Catholicism, they soon become just as meaningless to them as the watered-down rites of Novus Ordo they may be attempting to flee.

The Eastern Catholic Liturgy “fits” with Eastern Catholic theology - attempts to force a fit between Western theological philosophies and Eastern ceremonials often times will leave the individual confused, lost and, ultimately, just as empty as what they’re leaving behind.

There are many Latins who visit Byzantine Catholic internet forums similar to this one. Almost without exception, those who seem to be finding a true fit with the Eastern Catholic Church speak of being “drawn” to it - as if “Something” 😉 is actually pulling them Eastward. Of course, we realize that this is exactly what’s happening - certainly this is the work of the Holy Spirit! These folks are the ones who are not just attracted by the Eastern ceremonials, but are also attracted by the subtle (and, in some cases, not-so-subtle!) differences between Western and Eastern theology!

It’s a package deal, and unless an individual finds fulfillment in both the Eastern Catholic ceremonials and the theological beliefs behind those ceremonials, the Eastern Catholic Church will most likely remain, for that individual, something of a seemingly “less-than-Catholic” novelty.

Crusader speaks of Latins who attend a Byzantine Church in his area. He says, “It’s considered a haven of sorts for those who can no longer tolerate liturgical abuses.” I have no doubt that he is correct in his assessment, but I find it sad that folks even have to seek out havens from intolerable Church-related situations. In my mind, these poor folks are sadly missing the boat if they believe that the mere presence of ancient ceremonials - which the Byzantine Catholic Church is indeed rich with - is going to be enough to reaffirm their faith, and I pray for them.

All that being said, I would, again, invite all Latins to at least experience worship in the Eastern Catholic Tradition. If the Holy Spirit believes that there’s a fit in your life, believe me, He’ll let you know!

a pilgrim
 
40.png
JCB:
The suggestion that the NO has a quality that causes priest to get off track can have some validity. That is, the TLM demands a certain reverence form those who serve as well as those who attend, while the NO imparts a certain laziness / carelessness by the nature of the mass.
What about the problems that had to take root in the seminaries? It still seems that the problem is priests who were not properly formed.

Or, do you think that if you took one of your devout traditionalist priests and made him start saying the NO that he would become lax and abuse the liturgy and fall away from key Church teaching? That doesn’t say much about the priest? I contend he would stay devout and orthodox which would mean the real problem is the priests and not the NO.
 
40.png
JCB:
The suggestion that the NO has a quality that causes priest to get off track can have some validity. That is, the TLM demands a certain reverence form those who serve as well as those who attend, while the NO imparts a certain laziness / carelessness by the nature of the mass.
Why do these threads keep re-hashing the same tired points? It has been established that one of the problems with the Tridentine Mass was that people DIDN’T pay attention and the priests raced/mumbled through it. Thus Vatican II encouraged reforms.

And I think “NO imparts a certain laziness / carelessness by the nature of the mass” was written to provoke/continue the argument. I don’t think you really believe that.
 
Why did they not just stick with the 1965 Missal? Seriously, I think the best thing is to ditch the Novus Ordo Missae and return to the 1965 Missal and lift all restrictions on the 1962 Missal.

Here is the official Vernacular version of the 1965 Missale Romanum:

coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/
 
Here is how they can fix the liturgy:
  1. Ad orietem position -priest faces east
  2. Latin mandated for at least the parts of the mass that don’t change: sanctus, gloria, confetitor, angus dei, responses,… etc.
  3. The encouragement of altar rails and a near abolishment of EMHC
  4. Gregorian chant to be the norm
  5. No protestant hymns
  6. Incense and traditional church architecture
  7. traditional vestments- they were much better
  8. No more effeminate priests or femi-nazi nuns (off the subject)
 
Dutch, as usual I ask: WHY will any of these things “fix” anything? I am more than willing to listen to a logical argument, but “things were better when we did all these things” is not one of them. Seems to me that the microwave oven probably became popular in the early 1970’s so you might as well say “things were better before everyone had a microwave oven”. It would make as much sense.
 
Melman:
There seems to be a desire to “prove” that certain things were causes of this or that. These “proofs” or “disproofs” just can’t be made.

For what it’s worth, I disagree with the oft-made claims of “lack of belief in the Real Presence and Mass attendance”. In this area, parishes have added Sunday masses till they just can’t add any more. What few new churches are being built, are enormous mega-churches… it would be nice to have more numerous neighborhood parishes but the shortage of priests simply does not allow it.
It is not a matter of “proof.” Proof is for the scientific arena, this is about using reason and common sense. One can make reasonable assertions backed by evidence. When I talk about lack of belief in the Real Presence I am talking about more than one poll taken of Catholics on the subject and data on Mass attendance given by books such as the **Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II **by Kenneth C. Jones.
Melman:
And I just don’t see how any of these things (in and of themselves) would cause a crisis of faith. Virtually no one under age 40 knows that these things were ever any different than they are now.
To me, it is not really a matter of whether or not people know things were different. It is much more a matter of what type of fruit the new liturgy is bearing regarding the faith of Mass-going Catholics whether people realize there were changes or not. I gave some statistics in another post which showed that the younger the age group, the less belief they had in the Real Presence. In other words, the people that grew up with the New Mass their entire lives were less likely to believe in the Real Presence than those older in age.

And again, I do not wish to blame the new liturgy for anything and everything. I realize catechesis is quite important and certainly the sexual revolution and the overthrow of authority in the 60’s did not help either. I think a number of these factors go hand in hand.

God bless.
 
Melman, all of these things would increase reverence for the Eucharist, and the externals will drive home to even parishons that do not know their faith that well what the Eucharist is.

If people want Vernacular, fine, but translate it properly like the churches of the East have done.
 
40.png
Ham1:
So essentially you claim that it was the NO that CAUSED the problems we have in the Church and NOT the abuses of the liturgy by ill-formed priests.
I personally think it is both/and, not either/or. I would like to see no abuses in the Novus Ordo. Yet I reitirate that the most monumental changes came with the introduction of the new liturgy and not the abuses.
40.png
Ham1:
It seems that in my (albeit very limited) experience parishs that say the NO in a very reverant fashion led by a very orthodox pastor have packed masses and perpetual adoration and a congregation that understands the real presence.

In my experience, parishs that have problems and have a congregation filled with dissenters are led by un-orthodox priests. Do not underestimate the power of a good pastor. As others have mentioned, most Catholics do not read encyclicals and boards like this one. Most Catholics receive the entirety of their catechesis from the liturgy and in particular from the homily.

As I have said, a cause and effect between the quality of priests and the orthodoxy of the faithful makes profound sense. Obviously, things were rotten in seminaries and academia well before Vatican II. My question is what happened?

The problem with pinning all the problems on the NO is that the vast majority of priests who began saying the NO and introduced the irreverence and abuse would have been ordained and educated pre-Vatican II. Now, if we suppose that the NO was the problem, then we would have to assume that all those priests who were ordained before NO were devoid of the problems that came later with the NO. So, if these priests were properly formed, then why did they begin saying irreverant NO masses and abusing the liturgy? Unless you contend that the NO had some mysterious quality that caused good orthodox priests to become wacky.

There had to be bad formation going back decades. There were hundreds of young men ordained in the 50’s. That means in the 70’s when things started getting really out of hand, these priests were the pastors who made it happen. Then the question becomes who was teaching in the seminaries in the 50’s? Priests ordained in the 30’s? Just look at some of the most popular dissident theologians… Fr. Charles Curran was ordained in 1958. Fr. Richard McCormick was ordained in 1953.
I think this is an interesting question. My first reaction to ask, is if the seminary system in the 50’s and around that time was so bad (and I don’t know of really any evidence which points in that direction, though no seminary is going to be perfect) then why did so many notable abuses start occurring after the introduction of the Norvus Ordo? Why didn’t they all just start occurring with the Tridentine? I realize of course there were abuses with the Tridentine as well, but not nearly on as large a scale. And the types of abuses are of a different type. If a priest mumbles a Tridentine Mass that is not good, but it is not really going to drastically affect my own worship as in the Tridentine the focus is not really on the priest himself.

And again, my conviction is that with the Novus Ordo it is not really the abuses, it is the wholesale change of the liturgy which helped desacralize it.
 
40.png
Ham1:
I think that we can all agree that a well-said NO is quite reverant and beautiful and properly conveys a sense of the supernatural.
I put this quote in its own post because I think this quote gets to the very heart of the issue. This is exactly where my disagreement is the most profound. Yes, some Novus Ordo’s are celebrated better than others. But I attend a church where the Novus Ordo is celebrated as well as it probably is anywhere else in the country.

Yet the overall impression of the Novus Ordo to me (and I am not the only one, I’m pretty sure,) is that of a rather stunning mediocrity. The issue with the Novus Ordo is precisely that even when celebrated without abuses the focus is more on the community and the priest rather than oriented toward God. The language (particularly of the ICEL translations) is pedestrian and simply does not lift one’s heart and mind to God. The constant talking throughout the Novus Ordo does not lend the space of silence necessary for prayer.

Even Cardinal Ratzinger, in his written preface to “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy” by Monsignor Klaus Gamber called the new liturgy a “banal, on-the-spot product.” This is one reason why I refer people to articles by people like Dietrich von Hildebrand on “The Case for the Latin Mass” or to books such as “Reform of the Reform?” from Ignatius Press. The desacralization and outward mediocrity of the new liturgy is not something which can be easily overcome (if at all, really) by even the most reverent priest (but thank God for them, regardless).

God bless.
 
Melman:
Dutch, as usual I ask: WHY will any of these things “fix” anything? I am more than willing to listen to a logical argument, but “things were better when we did all these things” is not one of them. Seems to me that the microwave oven probably became popular in the early 1970’s so you might as well say “things were better before everyone had a microwave oven”. It would make as much sense.
Melman, it honestly seems to me as if you are the one not making any sense here. Are the changes in the liturgy starting in the 60’s really irrelevant to the faith of Catholics? Does the drop in belief in the Real Presence and drastically lower Mass attendance really have nothing to do with what has been the single greatest alteration to the liturgy in the history of the Church? It just does not seem reasonable in the least to suppose such a thing and it seems dramatically opposed to common sense. Even Cardinal Ratzinger has basically said that the crisis we are in now has quite a lot to do with what has happened with the liturgy (and he was not singling out the abuses).

God bless!
 
Brennan Doherty:
Melman, it honestly seems to me as if you are the one not making any sense here. Are the changes in the liturgy starting in the 60’s really irrelevant to the faith of Catholics? Does the drop in belief in the Real Presence and drastically lower Mass attendance really have nothing to do with what has been the single greatest alteration to the liturgy in the history of the Church?
I said it less than 12 hours ago in this very thread, I guess I will say it again:
  • I am not convinced there is a “drop in belief in the Real Presence”.
  • I am not convinced of “drastically lower Mass attendance”.
  • Changes in the liturgy starting in the 1960’s are irrelevant to anyone younger than about 45 years old. We never saw the change.
I think what is generally acknowledged is that religious education really took a turn for the worse starting in the 1960’s. (Prior to the liturgical changes, and having no connection to the liturgical changes.) If there has been any change in core belief since then, surely it must be more attributable to that, then to liturgical changes that my generation never saw.
 
Melman:
I said it less than 12 hours ago in this very thread, I guess I will say it again:
  • I am not convinced there is a “drop in belief in the Real Presence”.
  • I am not convinced of “drastically lower Mass attendance”.
  • Changes in the liturgy starting in the 1960’s are irrelevant to anyone younger than about 45 years old. We never saw the change.
I think what is generally acknowledged is that religious education really took a turn for the worse starting in the 1960’s. (Prior to the liturgical changes, and having no connection to the liturgical changes.) If there has been any change in core belief since then, surely it must be more attributable to that, then to liturgical changes that my generation never saw.
Melman, the drop in Mass attendance is backed up by statistical data such as the book by Kenneth C. Jones I refer to above (in post #54) and other articles from reliable Catholic journals. Thus I will continue to refer to it. The drop in the belief in the Real Presence is confirmed by more than one statistical poll taken of Catholics.

The liturgy is an education in and of itself. Usually good liturgy and good catechesis go hand in hand. I do agree that religious education took a turn for the worse in the 60’s. I agree that poor religious education is definitely a factor in the drop in core beliefs of Catholics. I consider the liturgy and catechesis to probably be the two main factors, although there are others, of course.

I am younger than 45 and the changes are quite relevant to me even though I never saw them. I mean, if the changes are irrelevant to anyone under 45 because they never saw them, then logically the liturgy could consist of the priest doing somersaults around the altar for forty minutes with a quick consecration and this would not affect anyone under 45 as long as they did not see the change. I know I am greatly exaggerating, but I am doing it to make a point.

God bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top