How to Fix the Liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jaybird said:
“You” or “they” cannot “fix” the liturgy. Lex orendi, lex credendi. To paraphrase the meaning, “the liturgy reflects what is believed.” The Eucharist is disrespected because a majority of Catholics believe it to be symbolic only. They show it in their dress at Mass; they show it by the chit-chat in the sanctuary, etc. The abuses began when the focus of the Mass was changed from the Divine victim (God-centered) to congregational or communal celebration (man-centered). This, of course, is the Novus Ordo. Take the time to examine the changes in the Canon of the Mass to make it “more protestant” and hence, less objectional to the Protestant observers who helped formulate the liturgy. To summarize, truth exists beyond one’s self. When collectively a liturgy celebrates ourselves there is really no worship only self-aggrandisement.
Click to expand...
 
Melman:
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.
Click to expand...
While I agree with you that the New Order of Mass does not, by its nature, provoke laziness, Could I ask the question that if people did not pay attention at the Trid Mass, is that “one of the problems with the Tridentine Mass” or is that a problem with the people?

I admit its been a while since I read Vatican II documents on reforming the liturgy, but I don’t recall anything in them where the Liturgy was reformed because “people didn’t pay attention”.
Greater participation was one of the intended fruits of the reform, but that does not equate to people not paying attention to begin with.

I have had the opportunity to attend an indult mass by the FSSP, and lack of attention certainly isn’t a problem. Neither are lack of confessions before each mass so that people approach their Eucharistic Lord properly disposed.
 
40.png
JCB:
The fact of the matter is that the NO mass does not promote reverence. A fundamental flaw with the NO. Instead the focal point tends to be on the congregation not the Eucharist (e.g. the sign of peace is the apparent climax of the mass )
.
Click to expand...
Is not kneeling during the consecration a part of the Novus Ordo? This is a promotion of reverence at this critical juncture of the Mass. I find that the Mass I attend is very reverent. No one mistakes the sign of peace for the climax of the Mass. I am very grateful to the Church for the Mass I attend.
 
Take the time to examine the changes in the Canon of the Mass to make it “more protestant” and hence, less objectional to the Protestant observers who helped formulate the liturgy
**
Name the Protestant Church that used the prayers they putatively helped formulate.
Max Thurian was an observer at Vatican 2 and he later converted to the true Faith. Why would he have had to have done so if the Canon had been protestantised?
While I prefer the Roman Canon - and hear it about as often as Ted Kennedy makes sense (i.e. never), - it simply isn’t true the Canon was protestantised.
BTW, Protestants were invited to not only observe Trent but invited to propose arguements and debate them during the on going sessions.
I’d take a lot of the soi disdant “traditionalists” with a ton of salt. They know far less about Ecclesiastical and Liturgical History then they imagine.
 
40.png
JCB:
The fact of the matter is that the NO mass does not promote reverence. A fundamental flaw with the NO. Instead the focal point tends to be on the congregation not the Eucharist (e.g. the sign of peace is the apparent climax of the mass )
This is not to say the NO is not valid, but rather that it is truly the body and blood of or lord, which by reason then demands a certain reverence and attention that is ignored for the most part during the NO.
Click to expand...
The issue is more due to rubrics than with the missal itself. Go to a parish that celebrates the NO with reverence such as Assumption Grotto in Detroit for example, that use the rail still, has no altar girls, no EMHCs and uses traditional hymns, then it is just as reverent as the TLM.
 
Melman:
Here’s what I don’t understand. JPII has been Pope since 1978. But yet it’s only in the last couple of years that reform of liturgical abuse has gotten a lot of attention. What was he doing in the first 20 years of his papacy?
Click to expand...
Let’s see–there was that little thing of being the catalyst for bringing down the Soviet Union and ending the enslavement of 100s of millions of East and Central Europeans–but other than that he was twiddling his thumbs
 
40.png
JCB:
The fact of the matter is that the NO mass does not promote reverence. A fundamental flaw with the NO. Instead the focal point tends to be on the congregation not the Eucharist (e.g. the sign of peace is the apparent climax of the mass )
This is not to say the NO is not valid, but rather that it is truly the body and blood of or lord, which by reason then demands a certain reverence and attention that is ignored for the most part during the NO.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. Maybe for you it does not promote reverence. Maybe you are doing the ignoring you speak of, but your statement is simply not true. I cannot even imagine how someone would claim that the Mass does not promote reverence, or that the Body and Blood of Our Lord is ignored.
Sure there are abuses but existence of abuses does not mean the liturgy is broken.
Are you saying that the Latin Mass liturgy cannot be abused?

I wonder if maybe your attitude at Mass may be the problem. What do you focus on during Mass? If you are looking for things you don’t like, maybe at Mass you should 1. pay attention to the actual text of the Mass and 2. worship and pray, instead of finding fault.

I choose to attend a Latin Mass regularly (one to five times a week) and also a regular Mass about as often. If I had not grown up with the Latin Mass, all I would see or hear 95% of the time there is the priest moving around, mumbling once in a while. Based on that, I don’t see how the English Mass, relative to the Latin Mass “does not promote reverence” or ignores the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Your statement simply is not true.
 
40.png
S_Corda:
This is nonsense. Maybe for you it does not promote reverence. Maybe you are doing the ignoring you speak of, but your statement is simply not true. I cannot even imagine how someone would claim that the Mass does not promote reverence, or that the Body and Blood of Our Lord is ignored.
Sure there are abuses but existence of abuses does not mean the liturgy is broken.
Are you saying that the Latin Mass liturgy cannot be abused?

I wonder if maybe your attitude at Mass may be the problem. What do you focus on during Mass? If you are looking for things you don’t like, maybe at Mass you should 1. pay attention to the actual text of the Mass and 2. worship and pray, instead of finding fault.

I choose to attend a Latin Mass regularly (one to five times a week) and also a regular Mass about as often. If I had not grown up with the Latin Mass, all I would see or hear 95% of the time there is the priest moving around, mumbling once in a while. Based on that, I don’t see how the English Mass, relative to the Latin Mass “does not promote reverence” or ignores the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Your statement simply is not true.
Click to expand...
In response to this post, one could recommend a number of works. For instance, the excellent essays by such people as Fr. Aidan Nichols and Fr. Brian Harrison in the book "Reform of the Reform? by Ignatius Press. Or, “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy” by Monsignor Klaus Gamber (including the preface by Cardinal Ratzinger). For something online, there is “The Case for the Latin Mass” by Dietrich von Hildebrand here:

http://www.latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

Dietrich von Hildebrand, was one of the world’s most eminent Christian philosophers. A professor at Fordham University, Pope Pius XII called him “the 20th Century Doctor of the Church.” He is the author of many books, including Transformation in Christ and Liturgy and Personality.

Here is the question Dietrich von Hildebrand deals with:

"I should like to put to those who are fostering this development several questions: Does the new mass, more than the old, bestir the human spirit – does it evoke a sense of eternity? Does it help raise our hearts from the concerns of everyday life – from the purely natural aspects of the world- to Christ? Does it increase reverence, an appreciation of the sacred?

Of course these questions are rhetorical, and self-answering. I raise them because I think that all thoughtful Christians will want to weigh their importance before coming to a conclusion about the merits of the new liturgy. What is the role of reverence in a truly Christian life, and above all in a truly Christian worship of God?"

The rest of the essay is quite good.

God bless.
 
Dolly,

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!

I am hurt by the comments you have made. But, I don’t take it personally because I am sure you did not mean it personally.

First before I explain where I think you and others are going wrong I must explain what I believe. I am first a Byzantine Catholic and I really don’t care what happens to the Latin rite other than I am a Catholic and want to see the faith grow. Secondly, I believe the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass when celebrated licitly. Do I like it? Nope!

However, I wonder if you understand the basics of the Catholic faith. We Catholics are NEVER obliged to believe that a given command, or given decision of anyone, including the pope, is necessarily that of the Holy Ghost. What some Catholics do is fall into a trap of *papalotry *for lack of a better word. As a Byzantine Catholic who is very close to our separate Orthodox brothers I think I (we) have a unique perspective of the relationship between the Holy Father and the Church. We see the Pope as the Orthodox see the Pope, the first among equals. We do except, because we are Catholic, Ex Cathedra but hold what I believe to be a more healthy view of the Papacy. We see (we are) independent Churches in UNION with the Holy Father.

To take this further and explain what I mean when I say “papalotry” I must first explain what the Pope is not. The Pope is NOT infallible on decisions and opinions. Neither is can we say the Holy Spirit guides the Pope in these affairs. For example, the Church has almost 3,000 Bishops. Did the Holy Spirit inspire the Pope to pick each one? I hope not! How would you explain Archbishop Weakland or Cardinal Law? Papal infallibility is a very narrow and limited power (if you want to call it that), which is almost NEVER used.

Now to touch on Vatican II I must point out in the beginning that there were some very positive things that came out of the council. For example, the eastern rite churches were told to return to there “roots.” In other words, get rid of the Latinzation that creep in over the years.

No for the rest of the story. I really so NO fruits for the Latin Church as a result of Vatican II. In my humble opinion I see Vatican II has nothing short than a disaster for the Latin Rite. It can even be compared to the Iconoclast of the East. It may well take many years for the Church to reform like She did during the Iconoclast.

I am not being mean spirited but I do have facts to back me up:

Active Priests:
1965 - 58,000
2002 - 45,000

Ordinations:
1965 - 1,575
2002 - 450

Sisters:
1965 - 180,000
2002 - 75,000

Regular Mass Attendance - Fordham University study:
1965 - 65% of Catholics
2000 - 25%

I believe these statistics to be correct. If I am mistaken then please correct me.

In this discussion lets not forget that Pope John XXIII called Vatican II a “pastoral” rather than dogmatic council!

Again, I am not expert! From what I gather, the documents of the Second Vatican Council need to recognized for what they are: official, pastoral Church teachings that did not define any new or significantly alter any existing doctrine. As such, they cannot be used to contradict or render meaningless that which came before, nor can they be used as cudgels to intimidate Catholics into abandoning past teachings for novel interpretations.

Regardless, we as Catholics should remain LOYAL to hierarchy, but that in no way implies we have to agree with all of their decisions.

Your friend in Christ!
 
40.png
aByzantineCatho:
Active Priests:
1965 - 58,000
2002 - 45,000

Ordinations:
1965 - 1,575
2002 - 450

Sisters:
1965 - 180,000
2002 - 75,000

Regular Mass Attendance - Fordham University study:
1965 - 65% of Catholics
2000 - 25%
Click to expand...
Televised football was introduced during the 1960’s. Therefore it is clear that football is the root cause of all this. (Makes as much sense as any other argument.)
 
Melman,

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quaks like a duck then it must be a duck.

God Bless!
 
Melman:
Here’s what I don’t understand. JPII has been Pope since 1978. But yet it’s only in the last couple of years that reform of liturgical abuse has gotten a lot of attention. What was he doing in the first 20 years of his papacy?
Click to expand...
I believe that the Pope has been praying for and visiting the 94% of the Catholic Church that is not in the USA.

He thought we could take care of ourselves, what with all our wealth and education.

Well, we certainly showed him, and ourselves.
 
Ray Marshall:
I believe that the Pope has been praying for and visiting the 94% of the Catholic Church that is not in the USA.

He thought we could take care of ourselves, what with all our wealth and education.

Well, we certainly showed him, and ourselves.
Click to expand...
Wealth and education are often the problem. People become attached to things of this world and let go of God, and they use their minds to try to disprove God’s existence after studying at our wacko left wing (for the most part) universities. Couple that with parents shirking their responsibility to educate their children in the Faith and the Church itself teaching some bizarre things, and their you have it. We have reaped what we have sown.
 
40.png
aByzantineCatho:
Melman,

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quaks like a duck then it must be a duck.

God Bless!
Click to expand...
So, based on your statistics, we can deduce that the majority of pastors in 1980 were ordained well before the novus ordo was instituted. So, these priests were faithful and orthodox (because, of course, they were trained in the old Mass) until suddenly the new Mass came out and magically turned them into wishy washy priests who abused the liturgy.

So, either:

A. The Novus Ordo can magically corrupt orthodox, devout faithful priests.

OR

B. There were many ill-formed and improperly trained priests who were ordained before the Novus Ordo.

Hmmmm…I would pick B.
 
40.png
Ham1:
So, based on your statistics, we can deduce that the majority of pastors in 1980 were ordained well before the novus ordo was instituted. So, these priests were faithful and orthodox (because, of course, they were trained in the old Mass) until suddenly the new Mass came out and magically turned them into wishy washy priests who abused the liturgy.

So, either:

A. The Novus Ordo can magically corrupt orthodox, devout faithful priests.

OR

B. There were many ill-formed and improperly trained priests who were ordained before the Novus Ordo.

Hmmmm…I would pick B.
Click to expand...
If the majority of priests were ill-formed and improperly trained we should have started seeing a more large scale abuse of the Tridentine. That we started seeing large scale abuses *after *the introduction of the Norvus Ordo points to the fact that the Novus Ordo offers more opportunity for greater abuse. I am not even saying that priests before the Council were ill or even wonderfully formed, but rather that the more rigid rubics of the Tridentine liturgy does not allow as much opportunity for abuse as the Novus Ordo does.

Here is an interesting quote from an interview of Alice von Hildebrand (wife of Dietrich von Hildebrand):

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SU_Hildebran.html

**TLM: I cannot end the interview without asking your reaction to a well-worn canard. There are those critics of the ancient Latin Mass who point out that the crisis in the Church developed at a time when the Mass was offered throughout the world. Why should we then think its revival is intrinsic to the solution?

AVH: The devil hates the ancient Mass. He hates it because it is the most perfect reformulation of all the teachings of the Church. It was my husband who gave me this insight about the Mass. The problem that ushered in the present crisis was not the traditional Mass. The problem was that priests who offered it had already lost the sense of the supernatural and the transcendent. They rushed through the prayers, they mumbled and didn’t enunciate them. That is a sign that they had brought to the Mass their growing secularism. The ancient Mass does not abide irreverence, and that was why so many priests were just as happy to see it go.

**
 
Okay, perhaps because the new Mass admits for choices and variations in the Liturgy it is easier to abuse…BUT that in no way lessens my point that priests are primarily to blame.

Take all the most faithful priests who say the old Mass and have them say the new Mass. Would they abuse it? No! Why? Because they are well-formed faithful priests who have no desire to violate the liturgy of the Church. For your position to hold, you would have to admit that the good and faithful priests in my example would begin to abuse the liturgy. Do you really want to stake that claim?

BUT, what kind of priest would abuse the Mass???

An improperly formed priest. The Mass whether old or new cannot “abuse” itself. It must be abused by a priest. It is the same argument that poses the question: Do guns kill people, or do people kill people?

You are blaming the guns.

I am blaming the people.
 
40.png
Ham1:
Okay, perhaps because the new Mass admits for choices and variations in the Liturgy it is easier to abuse…BUT that in no way lessens my point that priests are primarily to blame.

Take all the most faithful priests who say the old Mass and have them say the new Mass. Would they abuse it? No! Why? Because they are well-formed faithful priests who have no desire to violate the liturgy of the Church. For your position to hold, you would have to admit that the good and faithful priests in my example would begin to abuse the liturgy. Do you really want to stake that claim?

BUT, what kind of priest would abuse the Mass???

An improperly formed priest. The Mass whether old or new cannot “abuse” itself. It must be abused by a priest. It is the same argument that poses the question: Do guns kill people, or do people kill people?

You are blaming the guns.

I am blaming the people.
Click to expand...
Ham1, point well taken. I agree with you. Any liturgy gets abused because a priest chooses to abuse it. A good (or well-formed) priest will not abuse the liturgy whether new or old.

My issue with the new liturgy has not been so much with the abuses (which I hope are stamped out) but with the changes to the liturgy itself (though of course I think it is valid).
 
Brennan Doherty:
Ham1, point well taken. I agree with you. Any liturgy gets abused because a priest chooses to abuse it. A good (or well-formed) priest will not abuse the liturgy whether new or old.

My issue with the new liturgy has not been so much with the abuses (which I hope are stamped out) but with the changes to the liturgy itself (though of course I think it is valid).
Click to expand...
Thanks!

This is why I think that a reversion to the old Mass would simply be a bandaid on the real problem. Sure, it would be tougher for the ill-formed priests to abuse the liturgy, but they would still be ill-formed priests prone to ambiguous (or worse) homilies.

It seems to me that the root cause of all the trouble with the Church in this country goes back to the formation of our priests. Since, seminaries are the primary source of formation, this would be where the problems started.

I think this is also supported by the statistics on sexual abuse by priests. If you look at the reports on the bishops website, there was a huge increase in the number of incidents of abuse around 1960 and then a huge decrease starting around 1985. Now, I don’t have proof but I would assume that most of the active priests from 1960 to 1985 attended the seminary in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. To me, that means that something was very wrong in the seminaries well before the new Mass. I wish that we would all spend more time exploring that issue rather than blaming the all the problems in the Church on the current Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top