Interview on TLM

[laszlo]

I’m having some trouble with this, Lazlo. I attended a dialogue Mass daily for about 3 years, while I was in high school.
The dialogue Mass was prayed in the chapel of our school, as my teachers were semi-cloistered nuns. All that was required is that the congregation pray the responses aloud.
When the priest said, “Dominus Vobiscum”, we answered “Et Cum Spiritu Tuo”, etc.
The priest announced one day, that we would be doing that until further notice. I cannot understand why ANYONE was needed to help with that.

 

[Alfonsus]

I get an impression that in a sense the Pauline Missal is the perfect scapegoat.

The abuse we inherited today, was work of the past, not necessarily originated by Vatican II, but already there before, during and after the Council.

From a positive perspective, the many options of Pauline Missal was meant to accommodate changes and put to end the many experimentations. Negatively, it was seen as a green light to push further experimentations.
There were imprudent decisions in the scope of material revisions and time allocated to introduce the new rite to the faithful. These contribute to the havoc. Add to the recipe the modern mentality of the day, hippies and yuppies.

But in a sense, the old liturgy today is celebrated with reverence thanks to abuses inflicting celebration of the Pauline Missal (forgetting the past that the same experimentation was inflicted to the older Missal).

Perhaps if we compare TLM celebration before Vatican II (say 1945-1960s) with current days TLM celebration, we would see striking gaps on how it is celebrated by the celebrant and followed by people in the pews.

Priests now learning the TLM with reverence. People goes to TLM with conscious mind to actively assisting mass. Back then priests and laity went to Mass for granted (for instance, 15 minutes bullet train speed low Mass and personal devotions during Mass).

Of course what I said is a grand generalization, but still, it is a common tendency that we appreciate things more when we lose it.

 

[laszlo]

The abuse we inherited today, was work of the past, not necessarily originated by Vatican II, but already there before, during and after the Council.

From a positive perspective, the many options of Pauline Missal was meant to accommodate changes and put to end the many experimentations. Negatively, it was seen as a green light to push further experimentations.
There were imprudent decisions in the scope of material revisions and time allocated to introduce the new rite to the faithful. These contribute to the havoc. Add to the recipe the modern mentality of the day, hippies and yuppies.

In my view it is a bit more complicated. From the beginning the Mass was the symbol of the unity of the faithful with Christ, who became one of us, offered himself entirely for us, He emptied himself, He died for us, and He feeds us with His body. .

This means that the Mass by its nature was the active participation of the community in the mystery. In the West pope Damasus (+ 384) immediately corrected the language to vernacular when the Greek became dead language.

This active participation diminished, when the Barbarians took over the control bringing their own culture and custom, but by the High Medieval Eves it became the rule again, with the populat hymns (sequences), processes etc

Th invention of the printing (15th Century) increased the possibility of changes, and brought in the same chaos in the Liturgy what is around us now. The changes were embraced by the reformation, so the Council of Trent and St Pius V as a reaction excluded the community from the Liturgy, and made it exclusively to the affair of the priest and the servers including the cantor.

It took over three hundred years to understand that this is wrong, and St Pius X started to emphasize the active participation as the true and eternal Mass. It was essentially new, and consequently unruly.

As I guess (I lived in Hungary in that time) in the US 1970 represented a drastic change, herding people to the communion, starting the uncontrolled vernacular hymns, changing the architectures of the Church. In contrast in Hungary 1970 meant some regulation, the church took seriously the new rules and followed it without any individual rites, until the metamorphosis of the communism in 1989.

Benedict XVI started to emphasize the necessity of the rules, and we can trust the Holy Spirit that the active participation as the sign our out unity with Christ, who is the center, will prevail.

I guess the Church architectures will be turned back, so again the tabernacle will be the Center, meaning that we gather in the Name of Jesus Christ, under His presence, the optional variation will be controlled and restricted for special occasions, the adlibiting will be seriously censured together with the usage of unapproved hymns; but otherwise the New rite following the rules will be the Ordinary Form

 

[ProVobis]

I guess the Church architectures will be turned back, so again the tabernacle will be the Center,

I have not heard this to be the case. My understanding is that the EF can and should be adapted to the current architecture as much as possible while preserving its integrity, of course.

 

[laszlo]

I have not heard this to be the case. My understanding is that the EF can and should be adapted to the current architecture as much as possible while preserving its integrity, of course.

Imho the problem is not whether the TLM can be celebrated on a freestanding altar or not. Thew freestanding altar was introduced in 1964 before the New rite was even invented.

The problem is that in many new churches the tabernacle, with the real presence of our Lord is set somewhere to the side or to the end of the church, as if the community wold be able to represent Him w/o the perfect insignia. ('In His Name, Matt 18:20; as Pilate made judgment in the name of the Ceasar under his insignia)

Our Pope as Cardinal and head of the Congregation of Faith wrote a beautiful book The Spirit of the Liturgy
amazon.com/Spirit-Liturgy-Joseph-Cardinal-Ratzinger/dp/0898707846
which discusses widely the importance of the architecture of the church building.

 

[malphono]

Imho the problem is not whether the TLM can be celebrated on a freestanding altar or not. Thew freestanding altar was introduced in 1964 before the New rite was even invented.

No. There’s a huge difference between a “freestanding altar” and a “table-altar.” Freestanding altars have been around from time immemorial and were, indeed, preferred, even for ad orientem celebration, and that even after fixed altars became more commonplace. There was never a problem using a freestanding altar for ad orientem celebration. (The diagram and rubrics for incensing same were restored in the 1962 Missal after a conspicuous absence of several centuries.) What was introduced in 1964, though, was a non-solid, non traditional, table-altar to be used exclusively versus populum.

The problem is that in many new churches the tabernacle, with the real presence of our Lord is set somewhere to the side or to the end of the church, as if the community wold be able to represent Him w/o the perfect insignia.

The position (or even presence) of the tabernacle has no bearing whosoever on Mass.

 

[CradleCath]

The Tabernacle was a BIG DEAL for Latin rite Catholics before Vatican II. It was the cabinet which sat at the centre of the high altar, . It reserved the Blessed Sacrament (& the sacred vessels that hold consecrated hosts), which we believe is the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

According to rules laid down by the pre-Vatican II Church, the tabernacle should not be see-through and should be made of a material that is unbreakable. We always knelt and prayed towards the tabernacle. We also genuflected towards the tabernacle as a sign of respect and adoration. The contents of the tabernacle may only be touched by a priest.

Now, I have no idea where it is in most Novus Ordo Churches.

 

[malphono]

The Tabernacle was a BIG DEAL for Latin rite Catholics before Vatican II. It was the cabinet which sat at the centre of the high altar, . It reserved the Blessed Sacrament (& the sacred vessels that hold consecrated hosts), which we believe is the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

According to rules laid down by the pre-Vatican II Church, the tabernacle should not be see-through and should be made of a material that is unbreakable. We always knelt and prayed towards the tabernacle. We also genuflected towards the tabernacle as a sign of respect and adoration. The contents of the tabernacle may only be touched by a priest.

Now, I have no idea where it is in most Novus Ordo Churches.

Yes, I’m very familiar with all of that (including the part about the new and wreckovated churches).

My point was very simply that the position (or lack) of a tabernacle has no bearing on the Mass itself. Take, for example, a cathedral which had a freestanding high altar (under a ciborium or baldachino). There was no tabernacle on that altar, (the Sacrament was traditionally reserved in a side chapel), but Mass was certainly offered on it. Also, Mass could always be offered in a chapel or oratory where the Sacrament was not reserved.

 

[CradleCath]

In theory the responsibility was given for the bishop, the priests only executed their directives. Theoretically this is the rule now too.

In the thirties the dialog Masses were allowed, but without any detailed instruction, how to do them. In the parish of my father by the initiative of the local pastor men had a meeting after a Mass and they talked over what is the best way to do that. The initiator was the pastor, the pastor made the decision, but the laymen were active advisers. This was the best way without centralized instructions, but this led to the diversity of the Mass from Church to Church

One more example: In 1958 I was in seminary. The prefect told me one Saturday late evening, that tomorrow I had to go to a chapel and be the lector/interpreter for the Masses. I told him, that I remember how my Father did that a dozen or more years ago, but need some instruction. He said, that there are no instruction, I had to do my best. I envied my father, that he had at least a meting behind him, wasn’t left entirely on his own. The priest who said the Masses never instructed me how to do things. He was responsible, and the Masses were celebrating the Sacrifice of our Lord, but without strict centralized regulation.

In retrospect these dialog Mass were a side show imitating the active participation. This and the lack of centralized rules was the main reason why people, lower clergy and laity alike felt the need for the new. On that time no one see, that the regulation will be abandoned instead of strengthened.

I owe you an apology, Lazlo. Like many Americans, I have a
tendency to think that the U.S. IS the world. I’ll try to explain to you what it was like here during the same time period you mentioned.

First, we…in the U.S, were an infant Church compared to your Church. The missionaries came about 1818 to minister to the Indians. The first parish in my diocese was opened about 1830. Then things began to happen more quickly. The Benedictine nuns & those of the RSCJ (Madames of the Sacred Heart) opened schools here in the mid 19th
century, as the numbers of our parishes grew quickly.

In other words, the faith here, in the Midwestern U.S. was blossoming at the beginning of the 20th century. My Father, born in 1914, was the first person in his family to attend 12 yrs. of Catholic school. He knew his faith better than my children today, who also went to Catholic schools. His parents were so proud that they could send him & he would have never considered sending his own children anywhere but to his beloved Benedictines. I started in the Catholic school system during the mid forties.

By that time, the war was over, our rectories were overflowing, & our convents gave us wonderful teachers. They were determined to “raise” Catholic leaders.
They taught us the faith. We spent the first two years in Catholic schools, learning the Mass & the Sacraments. We were taught to pray the MASS. Private devotions were not allowed, nor were the saints to be used as “good luck talismans”. We were taught the old-fashioned virtues…self-discipline, respect for authority…but we were never forbidden to question. Most of all, we were taught that…as children of God…we were to love both Him & ourselves. Scholastically, we were far ahead of the public schools. I found that out when I entered a secular University.

Our music was changing slowly, organically. By the time I entered high school we were singing vernacular hymns at the beginning & end of the Mass. My favorite was “Holy God, we praise Thy Name”.
Again, gradually, the dialogue Mass became popular here, etc., etc.

Then 10 years later, everything changed. After the council, the Latin we’d learned was no longer “relevant”, the Churches we’d built were pretty much demolished. Within 5 yrs., the nuns were gone. They’d taught school in all 8 of our parishes, there were approximately 75 nuns in our city in the 50’s & early 60’s, by 1973 not a one was left. Soon, we had one priest trying to serve a parish that had been established with 3 priests in mind. The Mass was a circus……with Liturgical dancers in the Sanctuary, 6-8 EEMS to serve 200 people & our “sacred music“, was a “group” with guitars & tambourines singing Bob Dylan’s “Blowing in the Wind”.

Of course, Mass was said in the vernacular. That didn’t bother me nearly as much as the loss of the penitential atmosphere, the emphasis on the Last Supper instead of the Crucifixion.

BTW., We weren’t discouraged from receiving the Eucharist. You said something about receiving once a year. That was unheard of here.

 

[laszlo]

Interesting, and thanks for it.

What I do not understand, how is it possible that the regular reconciliation disappeared in the US so fast. When I came here in 1982 there was reconciliation only on Saturday in most Churches, and everyone went to communion in every Mass.

In Hungary, when I left the sacrilege, (receiving the Eucharist without reconciliation) was still number 1 topic in the sermons, and there was opportunity for reconciliation before every Mass in almost every churches, and regularly less than half of the people received communion.

I believe in the fifties and earlier the rule was the same in the US.

I owe you an apology, Lazlo. Like many Americans, I have a
tendency to think that the U.S. IS the world. I’ll try to explain to you what it was like here during the same time period you mentioned.

First, we…in the U.S, were an infant Church compared to your Church. The missionaries came about 1818 to minister to the Indians. The first parish in my diocese was opened about 1830. Then things began to happen more quickly. The Benedictine nuns & those of the RSCJ (Madames of the Sacred Heart) opened schools here in the mid 19th
century, as the numbers of our parishes grew quickly.

In other words, the faith here, in the Midwestern U.S. was blossoming at the beginning of the 20th century. My Father, born in 1914, was the first person in his family to attend 12 yrs. of Catholic school. He knew his faith better than my children today, who also went to Catholic schools. His parents were so proud that they could send him & he would have never considered sending his own children anywhere but to his beloved Benedictines. I started in the Catholic school system during the mid forties.

By that time, the war was over, our rectories were overflowing, & our convents gave us wonderful teachers. They were determined to “raise” Catholic leaders.
They taught us the faith. We spent the first two years in Catholic schools, learning the Mass & the Sacraments. We were taught to pray the MASS. Private devotions were not allowed, nor were the saints to be used as “good luck talismans”. We were taught the old-fashioned virtues…self-discipline, respect for authority…but we were never forbidden to question. Most of all, we were taught that…as children of God…we were to love both Him & ourselves. Scholastically, we were far ahead of the public schools. I found that out when I entered a secular University.

Our music was changing slowly, organically. By the time I entered high school we were singing vernacular hymns at the beginning & end of the Mass. My favorite was “Holy God, we praise Thy Name”.
Again, gradually, the dialogue Mass became popular here, etc., etc.

Then 10 years later, everything changed. After the council, the Latin we’d learned was no longer “relevant”, the Churches we’d built were pretty much demolished. Within 5 yrs., the nuns were gone. They’d taught school in all 8 of our parishes, there were approximately 75 nuns in our city in the 50’s & early 60’s, by 1973 not a one was left. Soon, we had one priest trying to serve a parish that had been established with 3 priests in mind. The Mass was a circus……with Liturgical dancers in the Sanctuary, 6-8 EEMS to serve 200 people & our “sacred music“, was a “group” with guitars & tambourines singing Bob Dylan’s “Blowing in the Wind”.

Of course, Mass was said in the vernacular. That didn’t bother me nearly as much as the loss of the penitential atmosphere, the emphasis on the Last Supper instead of the Crucifixion.

BTW., We weren’t discouraged from receiving the Eucharist. You said something about receiving once a year. That was unheard of here.

 

[laszlo]

Now, I have no idea where it is in most Novus Ordo Churches.

In my neighborhood (North suburbs of Chicago) in the new (and liberal Churches) it is in a side chapel usually invisible for the people (in my territorial parish at the back of the Church);

in the older and more traditional Churches behind the free standing altar, slightly apart (either to the left or to the right);

in the Church where I attend Masses there is no free standing altar only the traditional one either for the New rite of for the TLM. (there is a table for the Saturday 6 o’clock) Masses.

It is interesting, how the visibility of the tabernacle determines the behavior of the people in the room.

 

[ProVobis]

What I do not understand, how is it possible that the regular reconciliation disappeared in the US so fast. When I came here in 1982 there was reconciliation only on Saturday in most Churches, and everyone went to communion in every Mass.

In Hungary, when I left the sacrilege, (receiving the Eucharist without reconciliation) was still number 1 topic in the sermons, and there was opportunity for reconciliation before every Mass in almost every churches, and regularly less than half of the people received communion.

I believe in the fifties and earlier the rule was the same in the US.

I think it’s a cultural thing. Among the Poles and probably Hungarians too, they really never had a decline in the reconciliation belief. In those communities, you will probably see very long confession lines and maybe 50% receiving communion on Sundays. Whether you’re divorced or cohabitating you still go to Church there. In Poland 90% are Catholic and around 75% go to Church every Sunday.

 

[journierman]

In the second half of sixties there was the same chaos around the TLM, than what is now around the new Mass.

Oh now that is just a huge exaggeration. There were abuses of the TLM but there is just no way that there was “the same chaos” around it as now.

I am with those who say yes some of these changes are okay but now is not a good time because as Cardinal Ratzinger has said the changes have been so great in the last decades that it has given people the idea that the liturgy is theirs to do with whatever they want. I think that we need to get back to the time when changes were so gradual that they seemed almost invisible.

 

[laszlo]

Oh now that is just a huge exaggeration. There were abuses of the TLM but there is just no way that there was “the same chaos” around it as now.

If you go away from the suburbs, either to most inner cities or to the villages the masses are reverent and uniform today too. Only the rich churches are taken by abusers, here and now.

I am ready to accept that the US was mostly conservative in the sixties, but in Hungary there was a great conglomeration of unregulated innovations. Everybody was sighted in 1970, expecting order, and surprisingly in most places the order was observed until the metamorphosis of the communism (1989), the western style broke in only after that.

 

[laszlo]

I think it’s a cultural thing. Among the Poles and probably Hungarians too, they really never had a decline in the reconciliation belief. .

I know little about the Poles. In Hungary now the picture is exactly the same like in the US: everybody goes to communion and confession times ‘by appointment only’ or once a week, usually Saturday. Interestingly the change started in the nineties only, together with rapid decline of the regular churchgoers (less than 15%, as it is opposed to the previous 40+%)