Interview on TLM

[James224]

As a recent revert(2001) I would be absolutely lost in the Latin Rite. I have a very hard time finding the pages in the Hymnal when our church uses the Latin refrains- I know they’re around 307 or so but its a litle bit embarassing to me to fumble for the Hymnal in front of my wife and neighbors who think I am a “cradle” even as our Preist thought for the last five years that I was raised Catholic- Actually grew up Lutheran married a very devout Catholic- did research -read the early church Fathers- if you read them you can’t be anything but Catholic. Deacon that helped me into the Church had also been Lutheran- I was never told going thru all the education to be confirmed in the Lutheran Church that Martin Luther actually changed the Bible to agree with his idea of faith and works.It is indeed sad that his rebellion against the Church came to the schism that happened. Luther wanted to stay in the Catholic Church if it would change.

Welcome back! I have a friend who is in the Missouri Synod. I understand your lack of ability or enthusiasm for the Latin Mass, however, with some work and maybe help from others, you could acquire a taste for it. It’s so opposite from the modern mind. The modern mind wants sort of entertainment like singing, saying prayers aloud, etc. There’s nothing wrong with it but the Latin Mass is different. The Latin Mass has singing but it’s in the bacground so that it enhances the beauty but allows you to pray the prayers of the priest quietly while reading them from the Missal. You know what the priest is saying by what he is doing. It’s more reflective because it’s quiet - I’m referring to the Latin Low Mass.

edit: By the way, the Latin Mass is the Mass Luther said up to his break with Rome.

 

[James224]

There’s traditional, and then there’s traditional, though. I wonder how many people in, say, 1620, or 1920, would have said, “Well, maybe recent saints could possibly stand to be added to the Missal, but I don’t know. It’s a lot of tinkering; it seems dangerous and unnecessary.” I’m guessing nobody. People were excited about their saints. So the question is to what extent “traditional” means preserving unchanged the books that people used to use, and to what extent it means preserving the mindset, theology, and ecclesiology that they used to have, even when that meant that they expected and welcomed changes (and would never dream of criticizing the Holy Father for making those changes). There are quite a few folks out there – just take a gander at some of those comments to the Rorate piece! – who are evidently much more concerned with embalming their Mass to keep as a museum piece, which it never was, than with propagating it as a genuine rite of the Church, which is only actually traditional view of its nature.

Strange.

I’m not against changes but just not yet. The mindset of liturgists today seem to tend toward novelty and not a deep, deep appreciation for tradition. They are more practical and seek more brevity and, in the language, more uninspiring language rather than poetic and beautiful language. Even the modern Latin seems less inspiring.

 

[laszlo]

edit: By the way, the Latin Mass is the Mass Luther said up to his break with Rome.

I you mean it that the Mass was celebrated in Latin, that is true, but if you suggest that the Mass Luther said was the same as the one ordered over the Catholic word by the commission of St Pius V, than that is not true.

In Germany the Gallican rite, full with processes, interactions, even allowing Mystery plays as part of the Mass was the common. This was similar to the recent Novus Ordo, even with the attribute, that it was different from Church to Church, the week Apostolic See lost any control over it.

The problem with the recent Masses is not the changed form, but the lack of the centralized control. The vernacular, the expanded Scriptural readings, the simplified introductory and concluding rite; even the prayer of the faithful and the offertory process (all of this recommended by the XXI Ecumenical council) are positive useful changes.

What is wrong, it is the control degraded to the parish level, many times into the hand of the lay liturgical committees .

The TLM today is growing in importance, but still less that 2% of the total, and as the recent survey in England shows only 40% of the regular churchgoers would consider to attend TLM regularly. We can say safely that w/o the change in the Liturgy only 10% instead of the 25% of the Catholics would attend Masses weekly. As the development in the first half of 20th Century shows, people need the active participation, want to have actual part in the Liturgy instead of being only passive spectators or listeners.

The real advantage of the TLM is that it is faithful to the rubrics. But we shall see clearly, that this comes not form the magical power of the TLM, but from the fact that only and exrteme minority is gathered along the TLM. In the second half of sixties there was the same chaos around the TLM, than what is now around the new Mass.

 

[MarkThompson]

That is a rude statement. It’s silly and annoying to watch or read the words of anyone who claims to be a serious Catholic continually displaying such a delirious combination of arrogance and ignorance.

Don’t treat the Mass like it died in 1962 if you don’t want to be called out for it. No one ever treated it that way before, so it’s an entirely untraditional approach to liturgy and ecclesiology.

I have watched you for some time, make disparaging remarks about the Traditional Latin Mass (& those of us who love it) which evloved ORGANICALLY through the ages & would have continued to do so if not for the complete rupture of the 60’s. I was 28 yrs. old when the Traditional Latin Mass was thrown into the trash bin & I certainly HOPE that I learned from that experience, that I saw what can happen in the name of aggiornamento.

For quite a while, you kept these unkind remarks out of the traditional Catholic forum, but it looks like that respite is over.

Sounds like I really hit a nerve with you when I mentioned the anti-traditional attitude that doesn’t trust the Church and considers the Mass as an embalmed body that’s long done living and now just has to be preserved from decay. I think younger generations don’t have the same hangups and prejudices, and, like the Pope, would actually like to see the Mass as a fully breathing rite of the Church, not a museum piece that allows us to relive some preconciliar childhood.

It just makes some people so mad to have it pointed out that for many, many centuries, well past Trent, they did use cutting-edge music at Mass, add feasts and prayers and so on, and that “thee” and “thou” were the informal, intimate pronouns that you would use with friends and brothers and not special exalted addresses reserved for kings and God, and that Latin was a changing language used for all manner of mundane and utterly secular things that no one would ever dream of calling “dead” or asserting is special because it is reserved for sacred purposes. For some reason there’s the unintellectual view that can only respond to any of those facts by spluttering, “Clown Mass! ‘Pata-cake’! Guitars! Aaagh, you hate the Church!”

Not only is that uncharitable, it just makes the person saying it look like a reactionary with no appreciation for history, because you view history as something that once happened and existed to lead up to the present, rather than as a series of moments which were all the modern present in their proper time. So there is a certain breed of traditionalist that decries removing the Leonine prayers, or adding the feast of Divine Mercy, because those changes are “modern.” And what of adding the Leonine prayers, or inventing the feast of Christ the King? Oh, that’s fine, because those changes belong to “tradition.” A catch-22, you see: any change in the past is tradition because it is in the past, while any change in the present is against tradition because it is in the present. The result? Complete, glorious stasis! Just like they always had back in . . . well, . . . Aaaagh, you are so horrible and unkind! Stop dispelling my myths!

BTW. Are you one of those Novus Ordo Catholics who has a “position” in his/her parish…EXTRAordinary Eucharistic Minister/Liturgist/Lector
Catechist/DRE, etc., etc., ETC? I ask not out of unkindness, but because I truly want to know why ANYONE would call ANY Mass a “taxidermied specimen”.

No. I sing in the choir; we do mostly Gregorian chant and polyphony.

Regrettably, you could not possibly misinterpret my views more than by thinking that I am calling the Mass a taxidermied specimen. I am calling (people like) you out for insisting that it be treated like one. Thankfully, that generation is slipping away, and a new crowd is coming into town that is excited about tradition without all the reactionary attitudes that used to be concomitant with it. It’s going on all around you, haven’t you noticed it?

 

[At_Trent]

The problem I see in all this is that there will ( or seems) be those that don’t prefer/assist/or pray the EF involved in the “reform”.

As far as the prayer for the Jews, it’s just re-worded. It still says basically the same thing doesn’t it ?

 

[At_Trent]

Mark, those who were of age, and understood the Mass before the new Mass was introduced are, imo, to be counted among the treasures of the Church. No matter if they went along willingly, reluctantly, or sought out a traditional community and clergy. To have all you have known pulled away from you is something the majority of Catholics do not know of.

As far as the new generation of those who embrace the rich traditions of HMC, just because you don’t hear the roar from the young in the diocesan parish, doesn’t mean the numbers of those who have fought to make sure these traditions never be forgotten are dwindling. These more militant and vocal ones didn’t stop having large families. I’ve been to SSPX chapels and an independent chapel, and the average age isn’t 70 and older.

The traditional movement hasn’t run it’s race and fading. And some of the credit for the mainstream “new liturgical movement” is due to the diligence of the older traditionalists.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not against changes but just not yet. The mindset of liturgists today seem to tend toward novelty and not a deep, deep appreciation for tradition. They are more practical and seek more brevity and, in the language, more uninspiring language rather than poetic and beautiful language. Even the modern Latin seems less inspiring.

Changes are a given. True of any society. And some adapt more quickly to changes than others. If you change too quickly, there becomes a revolution forcing even further changes. If you try not to change, you can create boredom. There has to be some middle ground. People of course accept changes more easily if they benefit from them individually. It even creates job/vocation opportunities for many. And spiritual benefits for others.

Personally I could tolerate adding a few new saints or new prefaces to the EF. I don’t think it will force me to buy another handmissal and I don’t think it would destroy the integrity or universality of the EF, while at the same time, it could afford a somewhat fresher look at the world and of the Church, if only by the act itself. Pope John Paul II canonized many and I don’t see a problem “modernizing” the liturgical books of 1962 with addition of a few of these. Most wouldn’t even notice it but some would be thrilled.

 

[James224]

I you mean it that the Mass was celebrated in Latin, that is true, but if you suggest that the Mass Luther said was the same as the one ordered over the Catholic word by the commission of St Pius V, than that is not true.

In Germany the Gallican rite, full with processes, interactions, even allowing Mystery plays as part of the Mass was the common. This was similar to the recent Novus Ordo, even with the attribute, that it was different from Church to Church, the week Apostolic See lost any control over it.

The problem with the recent Masses is not the changed form, but the lack of the centralized control. The vernacular, the expanded Scriptural readings, the simplified introductory and concluding rite; even the prayer of the faithful and the offertory process (all of this recommended by the XXI Ecumenical council) are positive useful changes.

What is wrong, it is the control degraded to the parish level, many times into the hand of the lay liturgical committees .

The TLM today is growing in importance, but still less that 2% of the total, and as the recent survey in England shows only 40% of the regular churchgoers would consider to attend TLM regularly. We can say safely that w/o the change in the Liturgy only 10% instead of the 25% of the Catholics would attend Masses weekly. As the development in the first half of 20th Century shows, people need the active participation, want to have actual part in the Liturgy instead of being only passive spectators or listeners.

The real advantage of the TLM is that it is faithful to the rubrics. But we shall see clearly, that this comes not form the magical power of the TLM, but from the fact that only and exrteme minority is gathered along the TLM. In the second half of sixties there was the same chaos around the TLM, than what is now around the new Mass.

Hello Laslo,

I reread some of my opinions and don’t understand why the strong response? I wouldn’t disagree with your statistics. You talk about active participation and the problem back then was that the clergy couldn’t get the laity to buy missals and pray along. They said their rosaries during Mass, etc. The clergy was trying to get them away from that. If you really understand the Latin Mass Mindset, you know you are actively participating when you pray along with the priest from the Missal. I do it all the time.I agree that the abuses in the Novus Ordo came from the local parishes. I am aware of how the Ordinary Rite is suppose to be said - like they do on EWTN. Again, I also attend the Ordinary Rite often. All I was trying to say in my previous posts was how someone who attends the Latin Mass thinks about changes. I’m not opposed to changes but don’t think they would be done in such a way as to be undetectable. I wasn’t aware of how Luther said Mass as you said above. Thanks for the info. I was trying to be charitable to the person I was posting to because he was Lutheran.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

NOTE

Do not speak about each other.

Do not pit one form of the mass against the other form.

Do not criticize the clergy.

Do not use inflammatory terms.

 

[corsair]

Good comments At Trent. Since coming back to the EF, I am always amazed at the number of young families at both the FSSP and the SSPX.

Our FSSP parish has recently started a youth choir that is learning to assist the adult choir.

As far as adding new Saints to our calender; well they have been doing that for centuries. If you look at the old calender versus the new calender you’ll find many more "blank " dates than on the old calender.

 

[jonpd]

It seems to me that there should be a middle ground between preserving the Tridentine Mass in a glass case, and running amok with changes. Perhaps the problem is the way the original post V2 changes were implemented where those who lean toward the traditional Mass are understandably skeptical that changes would be made in a careful way and that this would not open the door to more radical changes that would destroy what we go to the TLM for. We have to pray that those making changes would treat the mass with respect.

 

[m134e5]

All I’d want to see changed about the traditional Latin Mass is the calendar of saints (this was the changed quite a bit over the years between Trent and Vatican II, so it would make no sense to freeze the process in 1962- especially since many saints have been canonized since then). Other than that, I hope they leave the traditional Latin Mass alone.

 

[OraLabora]

And which missal was tinkered with to arrive at the 1962 missal?

Editio Typica of the Roman Missal:

1604 — Pope Clement VIII
1634 — Pope Urban VIII
1884 — Pope Leo XIII
1920 — Pope Benedict XV
1962 — Pope John XXIII

Many of the changes in the 1962 Missal were actually promulgated by Pius XII and even required changes to canon law, in the mid-50s. Some of these changes more or less anticipated more thorough changes post-Vatican II; after all it was Pius XII who launched liturgical reform under Annibale Bugnini.

So even the Tridentine Mass grew organically. New feasts are added continually for new saints, for example. There is no way the EF form of the liturgy can be frozen in stone without becoming, eventually, irrelevant as other than a museum piece.

 

[laszlo]

Hello Laslo,

I reread some of my opinions and don’t understand why the strong response? I wouldn’t disagree with your statistics. You talk about active participation and the problem back then was that the clergy couldn’t get the laity to buy missals and pray along. They said their rosaries during Mass, etc. The clergy was trying to get them away from that. If you really understand the Latin Mass Mindset, you know you are actively participating when you pray along with the priest from the Missal. I do it all the time.I agree that the abuses in the Novus Ordo came from the local parishes. I am aware of how the Ordinary Rite is suppose to be said - like they do on EWTN. Again, I also attend the Ordinary Rite often. All I was trying to say in my previous posts was how someone who attends the Latin Mass thinks about changes. I’m not opposed to changes but don’t think they would be done in such a way as to be undetectable. I wasn’t aware of how Luther said Mass as you said above. Thanks for the info. I was trying to be charitable to the person I was posting to because he was Lutheran.

I lived on that time, and my father as layman had active role in the liturgical movement.

The traditionalist on that time opposed any active role in of the laity in the liturgy, that was considered the affair between the clergy and God. They rejected the ones like my father, who pushed for the responsorial masses, the lay lectors, and any active participation of the laity. Let the sit or kneel, and be silent. Traditionalist belived that that any change will result in chaos, and they had some truth: the masses started to be different from parish to parish where the priest was pushing for the active participation of the laity.

In other hand the people of the change wanted significantly more, basically the changes what were approved officially between 1962 and 1970, the active participation of the laity in the mass, the vernacular, the removal of the unnecessary repetitions in the Mass and so on. They did not wanted God’s house to be converted to clubhouse, and did not wanted the sacrifice of Christ to be converted to the the worship of human success, both is abuse, but both could happen even if the rite would not be changed at all.

The Liturgical Movement after St Pius X was frozen in 1939 when the War started, and this freeze started to melt only with the XXI Ecumenical council. The traditionalist somehow deceive themselves and want to believe that this frozen status was the eternal Mass. The Mass (not eternal but long lasting Mass) between St Pius V and St Pius X was the entirely passive laity, a spectator or listener, participating even in the Holy Communion only once a year.

As for the undetectable change, the thirties and later the sixties was full of well visible changes, that is the life.

Once again: the tragedy is not the change, but the lost control by the authority, and the tragedy is that both the liberals and the traditionalist work against this authority.

 

[CradleCath]

I lived on that time, and my father as layman had active role in the liturgical movement.

I was an adult at the time of Vatican II, 28 yrs. old with 3 small children. I had been through 12 yrs. of Catholic school. Because of 28 yrs. of living the faith & attending parochial schools most of my friends were Catholic, as was my Father’s family.
I can honestly say that I never heard ONE member of the Catholic Church, except for our Altar boys, who wanted to be part of the Mass.

The priests of that time, had their role. It was their responsibility to bring the bread & wine to life as the Body & Blood that was spilled for our salvation. It was the priest’s responsibility to keep the **true faith **in front of us with their sermons, to make the various Sacraments available to the people of the parish. Though it wasn’t exactly their responsibility to be with us in times of heartache & illness & death…they were usually with us during those times.

The repsonsibility of the laity was to take the faith to their children, to find a way to send them to Catholic schools. The laity, both by example & word, were to take their faith to their workplace. It was the laity who did the fundraising, particularly the Holy Name Society in my parish. I imagine there were priest “wannabes” during that time too, but I never knew one. Most were too busy raising large families & doing their work & using their little bit of off-time to spend with their wives & children.

The traditionalist on that time opposed any active role in of the laity in the liturgy, that was considered the affair between the clergy and God. They rejected the ones like my father, who pushed for the responsorial masses, the lay lectors, and any active participation of the laity.

Actually, I don’t think that the laity at that time, even THOUGHT about getting involved in the Holy Mass. As I said before, they had busy lives & heavy loads to carry. I think back & picture a priest asking my Father to help with the Mass. Dad would have said, “Father, I spent 3 yrs. of my life, fighting my way through the Argonne Forest, I am home now & trying to make up for those lost years with my family, trying to earn enough money to raise & educate 5 children, I’m a member of the Holy Name Society & the Knight’s of Columbus…now you want me to help you with the Mass?”

Let them sit or kneel, and be silent.

Whoops, you forgot something. Let them sit or kneel & keep the Sacred Silence & FOLLOW EVERY WORD THE PRIEST SAYS. We had our missals, Latin/English presented to each child at their First Communion by the Holy Name Society. By the time most of us were in the 6-8 grade, we knew enough Latin to follow without our Missals. The two years of Latin I took in high school was just icing on the cake.

QUOTE]Traditionalist belived that that any change will result in chaos, and they had some truth

I disagree. ALL of us were Traditionalists at that time. The only Mass we’d ever attended was the Tradtional Latin Mass. We were taught by the nuns & really weren’t concerned about the “New Mass”. After all, we’d always had a beautiful Liturgy that made it seem like we were present at Calvary when Christ gave His life for us. We had NO reason to doubt that we’d have more of the same. It took most of us 5 years of attending this banal, ordinary, “communal meal”, Novus Ordo Mass, to realize…it wasn’t going to get better, it was…in fact…getting worse.

The Liturgical Movement after St Pius X was frozen in 1939 when the War started, and this freeze started to melt only with the XXI Ecumenical council.

During the 15 years between the end of WWII & the beginning of the Council, our parishes had began to limit the choir & do all in their power to urge the congregation to sing along with the Gregorian Chant pieces that were part of the Mass. We were doing great. The Dialogue Mass was introduced & was a great hit here. That’s something that I’d like to see return in time. The Mass has NEVER been “frozen in time”, but never, before Annibale Bugnini got possession of it, was it actually REWRITTEN!

started to The traditionalist somehow deceive themselves and want to believe that this frozen status was the eternal Mass. The Mass (not eternal but long lasting Mass) between St Pius V and St Pius X was the entirely passive laity, a spectator or listener, participating even in the Holy Communion only once a year.

NO ONE has a right to tell Catholics of the first half of the 20th century, that we were not participating. We PRAYED the Mass right along with the priest. We adored the Eucharist, we meditated & in the silence of the Holy House of God, I could often imagine Christ’s face on the host as it was raised at the Consecration.

I hope the moderators will put a stop to this description of those of us who were Catholic before the Council as “inattentive, non-participating spectators. It just isn’t true”.

People who were adults during Vatican II (there aren’t too many of us who chose to STAY & PRAY…a lot just finally gave up & left the Church when the period of clown masses & liturgical dancers came along) are welcome to say, "I’m sorry, but I don’t care for your Traditional Mass, or I’m sorry, but I want to be a Liturgist/Lector/EEM & you didn’t have them during the pre-Vatican II era/etc., etc. ETC.
but, I think it’s wrong for you to try to say what kind of Catholic we were & your contention that we only received the Eucharist ONCE A YEAR is preposterous.

 

[James224]

I lived on that time, and my father as layman had active role in the liturgical movement.

The traditionalist on that time opposed any active role in of the laity in the liturgy, that was considered the affair between the clergy and God. They rejected the ones like my father, who pushed for the responsorial masses, the lay lectors, and any active participation of the laity. Let the sit or kneel, and be silent. Traditionalist belived that that any change will result in chaos, and they had some truth: the masses started to be different from parish to parish where the priest was pushing for the active participation of the laity.

In other hand the people of the change wanted significantly more, basically the changes what were approved officially between 1962 and 1970, the active participation of the laity in the mass, the vernacular, the removal of the unnecessary repetitions in the Mass and so on. They did not wanted God’s house to be converted to clubhouse, and did not wanted the sacrifice of Christ to be converted to the the worship of human success, both is abuse, but both could happen even if the rite would not be changed at all.

The Liturgical Movement after St Pius X was frozen in 1939 when the War started, and this freeze started to melt only with the XXI Ecumenical council. The traditionalist somehow deceive themselves and want to believe that this frozen status was the eternal Mass. The Mass (not eternal but long lasting Mass) between St Pius V and St Pius X was the entirely passive laity, a spectator or listener, participating even in the Holy Communion only once a year.

As for the undetectable change, the thirties and later the sixties was full of well visible changes, that is the life.

Once again: the tragedy is not the change, but the lost control by the authority, and the tragedy is that both the liberals and the traditionalist work against this authority.

Hi laszlo,

Thanks for sharing this! I understand and agree with much of what you are saying but, since we have both Rites now, let the Latin Mass have slow change with the Authorities being extremely sensitive to it. After all, now you have the Ordinary Rite so, if you don’t like the Latin Mass, go to the Ordinary Rite. I do understand that if the Liturgical Movement had not brought about the Ordinary Rite that we would have problems with changes that would come from time to time in the Latin Mass. Matter of fact, many Latin Masses aren’t done very well now. It depends on who’s saying Mass. I’m not a “Traditionalist” in the strict sense of the term because I accept and attend the Ordinary Rite just as much as I attend the Latin Mass. It’s just that I really appreciate the Latin Mass with the quiet and, as you say, the non-participation. I don’t look at it, though, as non-participation but I understand what you’re saying. I think what would be a perfect Latin Mass with changes would be for it to be exactly as it is now with the addition of the new saints and the 3-year cycle of readings. Again, I would want the new saints and new readings to be perfectly in the style of the Clementine Latin Vulgate with the Douay-Rheims English Translation. This would make the changes undetectable and as if nothing changed. This was how things were done in the past. Have you ever read Fr Adrian Fortesque’s Book entitled, “A Study of the Roman Liturgy”?

Thanks for your kind response!

 

[laszlo]

The priests of that time, had their role. It was their responsibility to bring the bread & wine to life as the Body & Blood that was spilled for our salvation. It was the priest’s responsibility to keep the true faith in front of us with their sermons, to make the various Sacraments available to the people of the parish. Though it wasn’t exactly their responsibility to be with us in times of heartache & illness & death…they were usually with us during those times.

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.

 

[CradleCath]

Hi laszlo,

Thanks for sharing this! I understand and agree with much of what you are saying but, since we have both Rites now, let the Latin Mass have slow change with the Authorities being extremely sensitive to it. After all, now you have the Ordinary Rite so, if you don’t like the Latin Mass, go to the Ordinary Rite. I do understand that if the Liturgical Movement had not brought about the Ordinary Rite that we would have problems with changes that would come from time to time in the Latin Mass.

 

[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

 

[James224]

You may be right, but Imo. as long as the changes were organic, I don’t think we’d have a problem. The Mass has always reminded me, (I’m a gardener) of a tree. Sometimes through the ages it has had to be pruned & will again, another limb might have to be tied up to encourage better growth, the tender blossoms in the spring need to be watched carefully, & new shoots encouraged etc., etc.
However, You don’t just cut a mature oak tree down & plant a new one. Think of what our world would look like.

Agreed & a favorite of mine is Bishop Fulton Sheen’s Calvary & the Mass. An excerpt from the preface:

“Picture then the High Priest Christ leaving the sacristy of heaven for the altar of Calvary. He has already put on the vestment of our human nature, the maniple of our suffering, the stole of priesthood, the chasuble of the Cross. Calvary is his cathedral; the rock of Calvary is the altar stone; the sun turning to red is the sanctuary lamp; Mary and John are the living side altars; the Host is His Body; the wine is His Blood. He is upright as Priest, yet He is prostrate as Victim. His Mass is about to begin.”