If the NO never existed

[reggieM]

I can’t imagine people sitting in the pews going, “Wow, this Mass sucks, I have some ideas…”

Many, many did just that (with different words) including the brightest liturgical minds in the Church, all pre-Vatican II.

 

[reggieM]

While you are certainly correct in citing that certain reforms were needed and that Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with this, I think it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that the reforms suggested by the Archbishop (and many others) were ultimately the reforms that were enacted.

I didn’t say or intend to suggest that. The OP proposed “no Novus Ordo” with the unreformed Tridentine Rite was the only option.

It is my understanding (and that of many Catholics) that what was contained in these schemas were reforms completely compatible with the whole of Catholic tradition. What eventually filtered down from Vatican II bore little to no resemblance to these.

I think you just mentioned “a bit disingenuous to suggest” just above. Your statement here is confused.

You say that the 72 schemas were completely compatible with the whole of Catholic tradition (which kind of “tradition” are you referring to?). You then say that what eventually was accepted “bore little or no resemblance to these”.

Something can bear “little resemblance” to the original 72 because it is a different approach or even more valuable or appropriate. But in this case, you parallel “compatible with tradition” to “not compatible with tradition”?

Sacred **Tradition **is the Deposit of the Faith. Something not compatible with Sacred Tradition is heretical. You therefore have Abp. Lefevbre and all the Catholics bishops signing heretical documents (and thus lapsing into apostasy). Again, we were talking about “suggesting things”.

While I understand what you’re getting at, I would recommend more precision, more knowledge through study of the liturgy, and less willingness to reach rash conclusions. What we say with imprecision on this topic can cause a lot of damage to people.

The argumentation you use is taken directly from the standard sources of traditionalist polemics and it’s quite weak and lacking depth. You really should look at the original sources, what the Church has taught and done with the development of the liturgy – especially in the East. Vatican II proposed very modest changes, some which were more in conformity with older usage than was found in the Tridentine.

The interpretation of the VII documents leading to the Novus Ordo is an entirely different question.

 

[malphono]

Another interesting question that dovetails this is: Would there still have been rampant liturgical “innovation”/abuse anyway if there had never been a change in form? Did the novus Ordo “take the hit”, so to speak, and absorb all the liturgical abuse that would have otherwise plagued the TLM? Something to think about!

I recall the so-called “interim Missal” of 1965 which wasn’t too awful in and of itself: It was more or less the Missal of 1962 with a few rubrical changes, but it was the same “form” as you put it. It seems to have been used as written for about 15 minutes before the post-conciliar “spirit of Vatican II liturgical free for all” got started. Could that be an indication of what would have (and did, briefly) happen if the OF had never been promulgated?

 

[reggieM]

Keep in mind that the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bragan usages (as well as the Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, and Cistercian usages) were “grandfathered” in that they were specific usages and had been in constant use for more than 200 years before Trent.

In theory, true. In practice however, those rites were suppressed in many places and lost much of their influence and use in the Church. The Ambrosian was almost lost entirely after Trent.

Those usages that were suppressed were relatively new, local variants of others (which in most cases had already fallen into disuse on their own, so their suppression was technical in order that they not be revived).

Well, “relatively new” is a relative term for the people worshipping in those rites. They were old enough for several generations of worshippers to be accustomed to them (up to 2 centuries old).

Anyway, yes, I suppose there may have been some folks who were attached to those local variants and lamented their passing, but it’s interesting how little of any of them survives.

They don’t survive because they were bulldozed by the Tridentine Reform. Charlemagne did the same thing earlier, spreading the Roman Rite into areas where Medieval usages had been in use.

 

[reggieM]

Could that be an indication of what would have (and did, briefly) happen if the OF had never been promulgated?

I would think so myself. Some limited use of vernacular in the rite a wider selection of readings and some minor changes to the ordinary would have been the expected result.

But the move from Latin to vernacular itself was too profound a shock to permit a gradual and peaceful reform.

 

[malphono]

Keep in mind that the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bragan usages (as well as the Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, and Cistercian usages) were “grandfathered” in that they were specific usages and had been in constant use for more than 200 years before Trent.

Although I grant that the surviving territorial usages lost much of their ground after Trent, I still think it’s more “in fact” than “in theory.” That they all survive today (400+ years later) is, I think, testament to its being fact.

Those usages that were suppressed were relatively new, local variants of others (which in most cases had already fallen into disuse on their own, so their suppression was technical in order that they not be revived).

…I suppose there may have been some folks who were attached to those local variants and lamented their passing, but it’s interesting how little of any of them survives.

They don’t survive because they were bulldozed by the Tridentine Reform. Charlemagne did the same thing earlier, spreading the Roman Rite into areas where Medieval usages had been in use.

I was referring to those variant usages that were less than 200 years old at the time, so they were certainly not “bulldozed” by anything. The Charlemagne issue is interesting, but has nothing to do with Trent. What it does do is help explain why the usages I referred to in the preceding item had fallen into disuse.

 

[reggieM]

Although I grant that the surviving territorial usages lost much of their ground after Trent, I still think it’s more “in fact” than “in theory.” That they all survive today (400+ years later) is, I think, testament to its being fact.

Sure, as long as we’re consistent with our views. If someone told me that the 1962 Missal would be permitted to “survive” the way the Mozarabic (limited to one diocese in the world) has been, I would question the use of the term “survive” with regards to a true liturgical culture in the Church.

I was referring to those variant usages that were less than 200 years old at the time, so they were certainly not “bulldozed” by anything.

A better word would be “abolished” by the Tridentine Reform. This only directly affected a few local usages but Sarum, York, Lyonese, Uppsala are a few that died off and I think all were over 200 years old. The Sarum had a significant liturgical culture behind it. Not all of the loss of the Medieval Rites can be blamed on implementation of the Tridentine reform (Protestantism eliminated Catholic Masses in many areas) but it was a factor.

 

[Navarre]

No sir, (I hope you are a sir so I don’t look stupid), I have seen people on the boards and I have heard people speak in real life. I am not an idiot. Some people hate the Traditional Mass. I never said anything about people who attend the New Mass or prefer it, but people who hate the Traditional Mass.

I have never and I mean never heard anyone attack the EF Mass. I hear people each week cut into the OF Mass. So while I’m sure there are EF detractors out there, they are not nearly as vocal as the OF detractors.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

I think if the novous ordo was not implemented in advent of 1969, we would still be using the infamous 1965 missal which was the tridentine mass with English. There still may have been some changes to the missal because of added saints and feast days, and possibly the ICEL translation that came about in the early 1970’s. Just my thought.

Many people talk about how they like the Novus Ordo better because of blah blah blah…
I’ve heard people talk about how they are glad that the liturgical reforms aka the destruction of the Roman liturgy (but they wouldn’t put it that way) happened, so I think, what would’ve happened if the New Mass wasn’t made, that all Roman Catholics had the Traditional Latin Mass, and the Mass wouldn’t even be called Traditional because it was the only mass we had.
Would those people hate the Traditional Mass then if it was the only Mass they had? I bet not. People who dislike the “Old Mass”, not that there are many but they do exist, may have thought differently if the New Mass never existed.
Opinions? Or should I just shut up because I am bitter over something I can’t change?

 

[malphono]

Sure, as long as we’re consistent with our views. If someone told me that the 1962 Missal would be permitted to “survive” the way the Mozarabic (limited to one diocese in the world) has been, I would question the use of the term “survive” with regards to a true liturgical culture in the Church.

Actually, I believe the Abbey of Santo Domingo de Silos was granted an indult to return to the Mozarabic usage. I don’t know if there other abbeys involved, but that means it does extend outside the Archdiocese of Toledo.

That aside, fortunately Summorum Pontificum was global (at least geographically) so that issue is moot.

A better word would be “abolished” by the Tridentine Reform. This only directly affected a few local usages but Sarum, York, Lyonese, Uppsala are a few that died off and I think all were over 200 years old. The Sarum had a significant liturgical culture behind it. Not all of the loss of the Medieval Rites can be blamed on implementation of the Tridentine reform (Protestantism eliminated Catholic Masses in many areas) but it was a factor.

Yes, Sarum, York, Lyons, etc were over 200 years old, but had faded into disuse (for whatever reason) before Trent. Ergo, they were not covered by the “grandfather” clause, and so were suppressed (technically, at least) in order that they not be revived. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying I agree with that having been done by Trent, but done it was.

 

[Extempore]

First, I apologize to everyone reading this thread. My subsequent posts were necessary to address everything within the word limit.

Extempore I probably worded myself badly. It’s a bit hard to describe in words. I wasn’t so much saying that the Truth changes, but rather it has different meanings in different places and at different times. To use an extremely simple example, a few hundred years ago it would have been considered shockingly immodest for a woman to wear trousers. All kinds of nasty things would be said about her. In today’s society people wouldn’t looks twice if a woman walked past in a nice tailored suit.

Again, I think this falls more into the category of “explanation or clarification” of elements of the Truth. Again, if we trace back the immodesty issue to the Ten Commandments, for example, then yes, cultural elements will necessarily influence what is modest as there are clothings and fashions that were not in existence during the time of Moses. And this is expected - that the Church would clarify the Truth so that we might apply it in our modern context. Your computer/internet example later on is a good illustration of this. Obviously, the early Church Fathers would never have contemplated the relevance of technology like that during their time and so it must be later clarified.

I wasn’t talking about Protestantism in itself, but rather I was saying “just because a protestant does it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong.” I mean, let’s say a Protestant Theologian writes a book. Let’s say that this hypothetical book has some good ideas in it, and some bad ideas in it. The good ideas are good, regardless of the fact that it was a Protestant who came up with them, the bad ideas are bad ideas because they are not good ideas - not because a Protestant wrote them down.

I agree completely. We shouldn’t be quick to outright condemn things written by Protestants themselves, or books or music or other things unless they contain untruths or errors. If, for example, a Protestant author writes a cookbook or a treatise on theology that coincides with Catholic understanding on the subject, great! What we should be condemning is the ideology of Protestantism that hated the Mass, the Pope and the Church. These are the things that we cannot reconcile.

(As a brief disclaimer, I do know a number of traditionalists who would vehemently disagree with me on this issue, citing caution as a compelling reason to avoid these things. I don’t wish to criticize this view, but at the same time I don’t wish to give the impression that ALL traditionalists think as I do. That would be silly).

In the same way, a Protestant may (possibly) come up with an excellent way to worship, or may write an excellent song for use in liturgy and we as Catholics can be humble enough to say “Wow, you know that is actually a good idea/song/etc.” Just because it was made by a Protestant doesn’t mean that it is inherently bad.

And I don’t think it would be a stretch to say that this is exactly what the Church, post-Vatican II did. I believe that most Catholic Hymnals probably contain Protestant Hymns. The “Our Father” prayer was adapted to include the “For thine is the kingdom…” phrase, a Protestant addition.

The problem, of course, is going to arise when these prayers, hymns and devotions begin to conflict with what the Church has taught in the past.

For instance, take the popular hymn “Amazing Grace” writeen by John Newton and which can probably be found at just about any Catholic Church today. The beginning of the hymn reads:

“Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me…
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.”

Yet, what is this? A theology of justification incompatible with that of the Church? Church norms would require a hymn to be doctrinally correct, and yet “Amazing Grace” is not. A confusion has occurred because we tried to blend the error of the Protestant theology of justification by faith alone with Catholic teaching. And confusion has occurred as a result.

(I heard a rumor that later versions of “Amazing Grace” that appeared in the Catholic hymnal “Gather” were amended in some way, but I haven’t seen this personally. I’d be interested to know if they really were).

This isn’t, of course, to say that all protestant ideas are good, or even that the majority of them are. However, to dismiss something simply because it’s a Protestant concept is foolish.

Agreed - which is why we must make that ever important distinction between the error in Protestantism and benign ideas presented by Protestants. I would argue that an inability to do this has lead to a great amount of confusion in the Church in recent years.

 

[Extempore]

Second half of response to Lex’s comments:

Except that it isn’t really the “Mass of all time,” as our celebrations of the Eucharist have changed a great deal over the two millennia of the Church’s existence. I’m sure if we were to show the N.O., or even the TLM to a Catholic from the first or second century they’d probably go “Okay, but what is it?”

Sure, which is why the Council of Trent solved a lot of those questions by introducing norms for the sake of universal consistency. Yet, what we have with the N.O. now is more of a “Mass of “Our” Time” rather than the “Mass of All Time” as various elements of it clearly point to a preference for the modern.

Just to clarify, I mean this with no harshness, it is only an observation.

For reference, I used the therm “Eucharistic Celebration” because I was discussing activities of the early Church (within the first hundred or so years of Jesus’ death and resurrection) and I wasn’t sure if the term “Mass” would have been appropriate for that point in history. It’s also not technically wrong - a Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist, hence a “Eucharistic Celebration.”

Understood. I merely used the term as one illustration of the popular changes in terminology that many have considered to constitute a “nod” to Protestantism (eg. the de-emphasis of the sacrifice).

Thank you for your comments, by the way, they were very respectful and I appreciate them.

 

[Extempore]

And finally, to respond to reggieM’s comments to me earlier:

I think you just mentioned “a bit disingenuous to suggest” just above. Your statement here is confused.

Alas, I am afraid it is merely my grammar which is confused.

You say that the 72 schemas were completely compatible with the whole of Catholic tradition (which kind of “tradition” are you referring to?).

The body of accepted Catholic teaching that existed prior to the Council?

Something can bear “little resemblance” to the original 72 because it is a different approach or even more valuable or appropriate. But in this case, you parallel “compatible with tradition” to “not compatible with tradition”?

Yes, I would argue that the eventual schemas that were adopted (read: not the ones originally proposed) were incompatible with many aspects of Catholic doctrine that existed prior to the Council.

Sacred **Tradition **is the Deposit of the Faith. Something not compatible with Sacred Tradition is heretical.

I agree completely.

You therefore have Abp. Lefevbre and all the Catholics bishops signing heretical documents (and thus lapsing into apostasy). Again, we were talking about “suggesting things”.

Technically, I believe he signed fourteen of the sixteen documents and refused to sign Gaudiem et spes and Dignitatis Humanae. However, seeing as you appear to be knowledgeable on this subject, I will refrain from boring you by discussing why signing a document does not constitute agreeing with the same.

While I understand what you’re getting at, I would recommend more precision, more knowledge through study of the liturgy, and less willingness to reach rash conclusions. What we say with imprecision on this topic can cause a lot of damage to people.

I assure you that for years, I did my best to ignore these conclusions and to continue on my merry way blithely. Everything I have said on this forum has been given previous consideration and is based on readings I have done on the subject (though, I prefer to avoid litanies of books read, as reading a thing does not necessarily equate with understanding it) and I stand by all of it. You have my assurance that anything I have said here was not said in the spirit of anger or rashness or ignorance.

The argumentation you use is taken directly from the standard sources of traditionalist polemics and it’s quite weak and lacking depth.

Is it? I’m not sure I’m acquainted with enough traditionalists personally to know if I am following the standard polemics.

You really should look at the original sources, what the Church has taught and done with the development of the liturgy - especially in the East.

If I could assure you any more animatedly that I took several Canon law courses from only the most strict adherents to the Vatican II reforms, I would! Alas, my opinions are not the result of my education but are probably in spite of it.

Vatican II proposed very modest changes, some which were more in conformity with older usage than was found in the Tridentine. The interpretation of the VII documents leading to the Novus Ordo is an entirely different question.

I think we can agree that this is an age old argument - whether to blame the Council or the “fruits” of the Council. I blame neither. Personally, I identify the progression of modern thought leading up to, finding root in, and developing after the council as the culprit.

Traditional polemics this may be, but so be it if it must be said. Thanks for your comments.

 

[reggieM]

Alas, I am afraid it is merely my grammar which is confused.

I didn’t realize that you were already well-versed in these issues so it was more my rash conclusion here.

Yes, I would argue that the eventual schemas that were adopted (read: not the ones originally proposed) were incompatible with many aspects of Catholic doctrine that existed prior to the Council.

On the questions of whether that means that the Council taught positive heresy or if the heirarchy has lapsed in the Faith – I will trust that you have some answers. For myself, I can’t accept that the Catholic Church could formally teach heresy or authorize a liturgical right that conflicted with the Deposit of Faith … but those kinds of discussions go around and around.

I don’t usually read the Traditional Catholic Forum here on CAF so I don’t know the discussions or the participants.

I stand by all of it. You have my assurance that anything I have said here was not said in the spirit of anger or rashness or ignorance.

I appreciate that.

I think we can agree that this is an age old argument - whether to blame the Council or the “fruits” of the Council. I blame neither. Personally, I identify the progression of modern thought leading up to, finding root in, and developing after the council as the culprit.

Here’s where I can fully agree with you in many ways.
But I also find it very difficult to trace the progression of modern thought back to a point where it was “right” without unravelling the entire tapestry of Faith.

What do you see as the origin of “modern thought”? I’ve seen criticism go back to St. Thomas and 12th century philosophical schools. I guess I would trace the crisis back to the Eastern Schism, but then the roots of that go back to the 6th century and before that was the Constantinian liturgical reform.

Traditional polemics this may be, but so be it if it must be said.

My concern is with over-simplifying the true complexity of the issue and sometimes polemics require simplification in order to argue for a certain “side”.

 

[Rabbititus]

If no reform of the mass had been called for at all, then I doubt anyone would “miss” the OF (as someone said earlier, you can’t miss what you never knew), but the mass probably would have been reformed bit by bit over the next 40 years. The decades preceding Vatican II saw more vernacular allowed in the Mass and sacraments. I recall reading that an indult to have the scripture readings only in the vernacular was granted in the 50’s, even though it wasn’t widely used here in the US, and baptism with lots of vernacular was allowed by then also. Also, the dialogue mass might have spread more and become the default eventually.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened had the reform occurred a decade or more prior to the 60’s. I imagine it would have been way milder.

 

[Trilor]

If there had been no OF, I suspect there would still be lots of TLM masses that priests rattle off in 20 mins. That is one thing that my older (70+ year old) priest friends said happened a lot.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

I like the Traditional Mass, but it shouldn’t be celebrated like that. I still think a poorly-done TLM would do it for me than a poorly-done NO, which I see too much of today.

 

[malphono]

If there had been no OF, I suspect there would still be lots of TLM masses that priests rattle off in 20 mins. That is one thing that my older (70+ year old) priest friends said happened a lot.

I happen to prefer to the EF, but when it’s poorly done, it’s a very sad thing. I’ve never seen the elusive “reform of the reform” (in Latin, ad orientem, etc) in the OF, but from what I have seen of the OF it is no more appealing than a poorly done EF, and actually much less appealing than a properly-done EF.

Not that I voluntarily attend it, but I have to say that I’ve seen the OF on weekdays done in 15 minutes or less, including an unnecessary homily. I’ve even seen funerals done in 40 minutes, start to finish, with homily/eulogy and communion.

The only 20-minute EFs I remember were on weekdays, but I do recall the Sunday “30-minute specials” (well, they went on longer than that but only because of communion). The latter was actually one of the reasons that I was never a fan of Low Mass. On the other hand, very recently I attended Low Mass for the first time in some 50 years. It was done correctly and was actually quite nice.

The chances of the EF being done poorly at High Mass (whether missa cantata or missa solemnis) are, however, very much diminished. To tell the truth, I can’t say that I have ever experienced one that was poorly done, whether in the “old days” or since Summorum Pontificum.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

I don’t remember the Latin Mass so I can’t really make a comparison with the NO Mass. Growing up, the NO is all we had. Now I prefer the Latin Mass (although it is 45 minutes from my house and not available every Sunday) because I can appreciate the beauty of it as well as the orthodoxy of it.

One point I would like to make to those who see no advantage to the NO is this: It can draw into the faith those Catholics who go to Mass only occasionally or Protestants who may attend out of curiosity. God can use any part of the Mass (Gospel, Homily, Consecration) as a moment of conversion when the power of the sacrifice and the majesty of God’s love finally become “real” to the casual believer. I was a lukewarm Catholic once, and it was an unplanned visit to a Catholic Church (my car broke down in front of the church) that awakened my faith. Imagine my surprise when the Readings and the Gospel spoke directly to my heart and the sermon was all about me! I don’t think this would have happen if the Mass was in Latin. Since that time, I have learned Latin on my own so I can appreciate the Mass, but my initial love for the Mass came when the Lord called me to His table in English. He was gracious enough to meet me where I was when He brought me home and not demand that I learn a foreign language first.

So, all you Latin Mass lovers (and I am one), please be kind to all those who are not as spiritually advanced as you are. Give them a chance. Once they see the beauty of the NO Mass, they may be ready for you to introduce them to the Latin Mass.

 

[Lujack]

Yet, what is this? A theology of justification incompatible with that of the Church? Church norms would require a hymn to be doctrinally correct, and yet “Amazing Grace” is not. A confusion has occurred because we tried to blend the error of the Protestant theology of justification by faith alone with Catholic teaching. And confusion has occurred as a result.

(I heard a rumor that later versions of “Amazing Grace” that appeared in the Catholic hymnal “Gather” were amended in some way, but I haven’t seen this personally. I’d be interested to know if they really were).

See, I don’t quite see Amazing Grace as doctrinally incorrect, as much as it is incomplete. That’s okay, though, because not every hymn or prayer covers every aspect of Catholic teaching.

If I tell you the New York Giants wear blue, I’m not wrong, even though I didn’t mention the red. Singing Amazing Grace at every Mass would be wrong, but its all right to focus on that one aspect of salvation in isolation every now and then. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have a homily, we’d just have the Catechism read to us in its entirety at church on Sundays.