Is it the Liturgy, or the people?

[PaulinVA]

The Tridentine Mass was codified at Trent (thus the name) in order to protect it from Protestant tampering. The Mass had evolved organically since the Last Supper. It’s strength lies in the absence of the word “or”, such as Eucharistic Prayer 8 or 9 or whatever you think best. It bears the four marks of the Church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic) thus can be presented the same way was St. Thomas Aquanus, Mother Theresa, and in the future. It is therefore a Mass of all ages, unlike the NO Mass.

I’m still trying to process the relationship between options in the NO Mass and the “decline” of the Church in the past 40 years.

You can’t look at the issue without also looking at what has happened in the world in the past 40 years. I think there’s more than one reason.

We are where we are, though, and I think the wholesale replacement of the NO with the Tridentine would not work. Well, it might, but the reasoning and explanation would have to be such that people like me would be willing to jump in with both feet, and take our parishes with us. I don’t see it quite there yet.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Tridentine Mass was codified at Trent (thus the name) in order to protect it from Protestant tampering.

No, it was codified to address “abuses” and diverse practices within the Church. Protestants couldn’t tamper with what they didn’t celebrate (i.e. if they were already broken away from the Catholic Church whatever they might have been doing would not have been tampering with what’s in the Catholic Church).

And while I guess we can understand any liturgy as being “for all the ages” in one way, in another way there’s never been one and only one way of celebrating Eucharist in the Church, there has always been a diversity of Rites (while still maintaining a unity of worship of course). So how organic the evolution was is a matter of opinion.

Cheers

 

[palmas85]

I’m still trying to process the relationship between options in the NO Mass and the “decline” of the Church in the past 40 years.

You can’t look at the issue without also looking at what has happened in the world in the past 40 years. I think there’s more than one reason.

We are where we are, though, and I think the wholesale replacement of the NO with the Tridentine would not work. Well, it might, but the reasoning and explanation would have to be such that people like me would be willing to jump in with both feet, and take our parishes with us. I don’t see it quite there yet.

Yes, I agree with you in a sense but that is exactly what happened in the transition from the Traditional Mass to the Pauline. You did not have a long gradual inculturation period… Basically one week it was the old way and the next week it was different. There was a sort of hybrid Mass that existed in some areas from 65-70. In fact more than a few people have offered the opinion that it would have been a better choice than was the Pauline for the new Mass.

Ithink if the Traditional Mass were to be introduced there would be an exodus, but I don’t think it would be extensive except among the more progresive members who see all change as good and all traditions as bad…

 

[malphono]

Yes, I agree with you in a sense but that is exactly what happened in the transition from the Traditional Mass to the Pauline. You did not have a long gradual inculturation period… Basically one week it was the old way and the next week it was different. There was a sort of hybrid Mass that existed in some areas from 65-70. In fact more than a few people have offered the opinion that it would have been a better choice than was the Pauline for the new Mass.

The “interim Missal” of 1965 was not bad in and of itself. Basically it was the Missal of 1962 with a few rubrical changes, and the option for the vernacular in certain parts. Trouble was it lasted about 15 minutes before it was blown on its side by the “spirit of Vatican II” (e.g. versus populum, all vernacular, guitars and more guitars, abandoning use of the Propers, episcopal conferences running wild with local practices, etc etc). All that and more were quite a reality before the OF ever came into being. (Some of us thought that the Missal of 1970 was going to restore some sanity … boy were we on the wrong track. Sanity my foot: things just kept getting worse and worse.) But as I said, in principle at least, that interim Missal was a sight better than what came after, and would have been ok, absent the (gale force) “winds of change” brought on by the gross (and willful) mis-interpretation of the Council by certain parties in Rome (and elsewhere). As it happened, though, the “interim Missal” was an experiment gone terribly wrong.

Ithink if the Traditional Mass were to be introduced there would be an exodus, but I don’t think it would be extensive except among the more progresive members who see all change as good and all traditions as bad…

Probably so. Just as there was resistance to the liturgical shenanigans that started with the “interim Missal of 1965” (which became a monster in the context of the Missal of 1970). The so-called “progressive” members would balk the loudest about eliminating (or even tempering) the OF since they live (as I [post=4667720]commented[/post] in another thread) in mortal fear of the EF.

 

[Ockham]

Being a post-V2 Catholic I have to go by others’ accounts of reaction to the NO Mass. My dear mother said many people in our home parish stopped going to Mass when the NO became standard. I suppose the same would happen if the Tridentine was restored to Ordinary Form status as abruptly as the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ winds blew through in the seventies. It’s easier to dumb down than to smarten up so reintroducing the Tridentine Mass needs to be a slow educational process.

 

[DavidPalm]

Being a post-V2 Catholic I have to go by others’ accounts of reaction to the NO Mass. My dear mother said many people in our home parish stopped going to Mass when the NO became standard. I suppose the same would happen if the Tridentine was restored to Ordinary Form status as abruptly as the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ winds blew through in the seventies. It’s easier to dumb down than to smarten up so reintroducing the Tridentine Mass needs to be a slow educational process.

IMO, the suddenness of the liturgical changes in the 1960s was unjust and insensitive to the point of being downright cruel. As much as I remain critical of the deficiencies of the NO, I think it would be equally unjust and traumatic to the commonweal simply to suppress it and replace it with the TLM. Also, of course, there simply aren’t enough priests who are trained to say the TLM. And I can say from unfortunate personal experience that it is a real mistake to try and force a priest who does not want to say the TLM to say it anyway. So a slower rebuilding is indeed just the ticket.

Msgr. Klaus Gamber relates a fascinating incident in which the Russian Orthodox Church instituted a sort of Russian Novus Ordo during the Soviet regime. But eventually it spontaneously died out for lack of interest on the part of the people. One can only hope…

 

[Tigg]

I recently stumbled onto the Traditional Catholicism forum, and have read the threads with interest.

I have to admit that there is an appalling lack of reverence in my parish. Well, we don’t have a church, we have a “worship center,” and the Tabernacle is in a chapel in the back of the church. That has something to do with it.

So, my question is this - is the Novus Ordo necessarily less reverent than the Tridentine, or is it the people that go to each of these are more or less reverent?

Right now, the Tridentine mass is sort of a niche, you know? I won’t dispute the people to attend are more reverent, but they are a minority in the Church. The NO mass attendees don’t seem to be as reverent, but I’m not sure why.

If one were to replace the NO with the Tridentine, I’m not so sure you would see a huge rise in reverence, because it’s still the same people.

I don’t visit this forum much, either, but I need to remember it more often because I’m getting an education.

Although I consider myself a traditional Catholic, I have not attended a TLM for several years, simply because we do not have such a thing in this little town. I wish we did.

I believe the “externals” do truly effect the “internal” more than we realize. I have often agonized over the loss of the sense of the sacred. Prior to the NO, there was just something in Catholic churches that commanded a certain respect…the silence, the sense of mystery, the immediate attention one gave to the tabernacle…as a teenage convert, I always got the feeling in those days that I needed to fall on my knees whenever I entered a Catholic church.

I experience a deep sadness whenever I think of the contrasts of those days vs today. One thing that greatly effects my spirit is the music…don’t want to beat that dead horse again, but if I want to go to a jazz concert with loud music, I’ll buy a ticket. The other thing I notice that disturbs me is the constant activity of the laity before and after Mass. Aren’t we to prepare for the sacrifice we are about to participate in? Ever tried praying before Mass at my parish? It’s truly a lost cause for the noise level, the socialization and the constant parade of people up on the altar and down the aisles.

The lack of unity is another disturbance to me……to hold hands at the Our Father, or not…that is the question. The handshaking, the hugs, the kisses, the peace signs thrown across the pews – it’s all enough to break the very essence of that which we are supposed to be celebrating.

Whether they know or not, the effects are there. One Mass can vary wildly from another. The priest has few restrictions on his behavior, and the liturgy frequently degenerates into his “show”.

I certainly hope it would be perceived as disconnected from modern life! Modern life is rotten to the core.

The Church’s tradition is timeless and speaks to all the ages. When we go to Mass, we step out of time and into eternity. Christians aren’t meant to live for one particular age, but to receive and preserve the faith and practice of those who came before us.

If they see something being taken seriously, they’ll take it seriously themselves. Latin isn’t the only thing which creates mystery at the Mass. The content of the prayers, the hallowed and symbolic actions of the priest, the atmosphere of reverence and deliberation, and the key moments of silence all serve to facilitate an encounter with the mystery.

The Traditional Latin Mass is particularly effective at fostering active participation. Even if one is unfamiliar with the prayers or doesn’t have a missal at hand, simple prayer and union with the sacrifice being offered is an easy matter.

The above is a wonderful post and I agree.

 

[Marysann]

PaulinVA, if you are wondering if the NO can be said reverently there are many parishes in Northern Virginia that you could visit to check this out. Try St. Veronica’s, St. Catherine of Siena’s or St. John the Beloved’s English Masses. Visit Our Lady of Hope or St. Theresa’s or St. Lawrence. It is possible to have a reverent NO Mass. If a parish has gotten off of the track over the years, it may take a pastor a little while to get them back on, but it is not impossible. We have had two generations who were poorly instructed in the faith, but I believe that the people who go to Mass on Sundays love God and are not irreverent on purpose. A good pastor can bring them back.

 

[Filioque]

I recently stumbled onto the Traditional Catholicism forum, and have read the threads with interest.

I have to admit that there is an appalling lack of reverence in my parish. Well, we don’t have a church, we have a “worship center,” and the Tabernacle is in a chapel in the back of the church. That has something to do with it.

So, my question is this - is the Novus Ordo necessarily less reverent than the Tridentine, or is it the people that go to each of these are more or less reverent?

Right now, the Tridentine mass is sort of a niche, you know? I won’t dispute the people to attend are more reverent, but they are a minority in the Church. The NO mass attendees don’t seem to be as reverent, but I’m not sure why.

If one were to replace the NO with the Tridentine, I’m not so sure you would see a huge rise in reverence, because it’s still the same people.

I assist at the Extraordinary form of the Mass almost exclusively, sometimes at the Eastern Rites, and rarely at my local NO parish.

From my viewpoint. The Mass is the Mass, in whatever approved rite. Jesus is present on the altar, the same Jesus, and the same sacrifice is re-presented for me to stand at the foot of the cross in an unbloody manner. There are however a couple of observations I can make.

The ceremonies and ambiance in a church or chapel, in any approved rite of the Mass can very much be influenced by the manner in which the Mass is offered; I’ve seen priests who offer the Mass (Tridentine) in a shoddy manner, and allow for distracting commotions to occur in the pews. A great disconnect. Happily this is rare.

In NO parishes like my own, the priest, and “Liturgy Committee” in my opinion disregard the Liturgy and do not follow the rubrics. I’d be very happy to go there is I liked piano lounges, because the pianist/Cantor is really quite good and entertaining. The Lectures has the skills of a High School Sophomore Drama Student, and the new Pastor has boasted that the old fuddy duddies have been driven away, and now we can really make the liturgy our own. Before and after the Liturgy there is alot of loud chatting, and laughter, everyone having a good old time. Appropriate for the Church Hall, but I don’t find it good for setting a mood for Worship, Contrast this with the dignity of EWTN, and other places where the rubrics are followed, like another parish ten miles away where people enter the Church and make a silent preparation for Mass, yet actively participate in the Liturgy, including joining in singing the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Credo in Latin (the Church is NO, and has Masses in English, Spanish, Tagolog, but not in Latin, just the previously mentioned prayers when they are sung.)

The difference seems to be in part catechesis. Where people are taught the importance of and what the Mass really is, rather than wild theories that do not encompass the teachings of the Church, they tend to not focus on the Mass in a manner that we would traditionally regard as appropriate or dignified in a Catholic Church. The Mass is a prefigurement of the Banquet in Heaven, it is a Joyful experience, at the same time it is our participation in Calvary, (in an unbloody manner) It is a time to give praise and honor to God, and to petition to Him, to confess our faults and plea for forgiveness, it is a means of obtaining the graces we need to live a more decent and Christian life, The Mass is many things, and we sometimes ignore some of what the Mass is, and only focus on one aspect or the other. Doing this can distort our perceptions, and by doing so we can miss out on all the graces being offered to us. Well I could go on, but I won’t just now.

 

[PaulinVA]

PaulinVA, if you are wondering if the NO can be said reverently there are many parishes in Northern Virginia that you could visit to check this out. Try St. Veronica’s, St. Catherine of Siena’s or St. John the Beloved’s English Masses. Visit Our Lady of Hope or St. Theresa’s or St. Lawrence. It is possible to have a reverent NO Mass. If a parish has gotten off of the track over the years, it may take a pastor a little while to get them back on, but it is not impossible. We have had two generations who were poorly instructed in the faith, but I believe that the people who go to Mass on Sundays love God and are not irreverent on purpose. A good pastor can bring them back.

Marysann, thanks. Yes, I’ve been to well-celebrated NO in Nova. But, I believe in going to the neighborhood parish. Sometimes it’s painful, but I believe in staying.

We saw Christopher West at St Veronica’s a year ago. Very nice.

 

[elts1956]

I don’t visit this forum much, either, but I need to remember it more often because I’m getting an education.

Although I consider myself a traditional Catholic, I have not attended a TLM for several years, simply because we do not have such a thing in this little town. I wish we did.

I believe the “externals” do truly effect the “internal” more than we realize. I have often agonized over the loss of the sense of the sacred. Prior to the NO, there was just something in Catholic churches that commanded a certain respect…the silence, the sense of mystery, the immediate attention one gave to the tabernacle…as a teenage convert, I always got the feeling in those days that I needed to fall on my knees whenever I entered a Catholic church.

I experience a deep sadness whenever I think of the contrasts of those days vs today. One thing that greatly effects my spirit is the music…don’t want to beat that dead horse again, but if I want to go to a jazz concert with loud music, I’ll buy a ticket. The other thing I notice that disturbs me is the constant activity of the laity before and after Mass. Aren’t we to prepare for the sacrifice we are about to participate in? Ever tried praying before Mass at my parish? It’s truly a lost cause for the noise level, the socialization and the constant parade of people up on the altar and down the aisles.

The lack of unity is another disturbance to me……to hold hands at the Our Father, or not…that is the question. The handshaking, the hugs, the kisses, the peace signs thrown across the pews – it’s all enough to break the very essence of that which we are supposed to be celebrating.

The above is a wonderful post and I agree.

I agree with both you and Dauphin on lack of reverence during the NO Mass. I have been blessed to belong to a Parish whose members, for the most part do show reverence at Mass. Our Parish Priest shows the reverence due to the Sacrifice of the Mass and I think this leads those attending Mass to be so also. It is an NO Mass. For the most part though there is the usual yaking by some, a very few, before Mass and then the floodgates open after Mass. This disturbs me greatly. I have noticed that if I stay afterward to say the rosary, or say it before Mass, the talking mutes a bit. Some people actually will see me kneeling there and they will stop talking, not all, but some. :newidea:

I was raised at a time when there was only the TLM Mass. The reverence experienced in the Catholic Churches when I was a youngster does not come close to being duplicated today. We were aware of WHO was in that tabernacle even if there was no Mass being said. Not so in these days.

My thoughts are, the lack of reverence, awareness for our Lord is due to weak catechesis, which we have had for the most part for the past 45 years. If Catholic children were taught today about their faith the way I and my school mates were taught, there would be no worry about a lack of really knowing why one goes to church.

 

[I_Believe]

I recently stumbled onto the Traditional Catholicism forum, and have read the threads with interest.

I have to admit that there is an appalling lack of reverence in my parish. Well, we don’t have a church, we have a “worship center,” and the Tabernacle is in a chapel in the back of the church. That has something to do with it.

So, my question is this - is the Novus Ordo necessarily less reverent than the Tridentine, or is it the people that go to each of these are more or less reverent?

Right now, the Tridentine mass is sort of a niche, you know? I won’t dispute the people to attend are more reverent, but they are a minority in the Church. The NO mass attendees don’t seem to be as reverent, but I’m not sure why.

If one were to replace the NO with the Tridentine, I’m not so sure you would see a huge rise in reverence, because it’s still the same people.

It’s not the fault of the laity. They only know what they are taught from the pulpit.

The blame lies on lukewarm, liberal clergy, who have taken the liberty to form their own brand of Catholicism.

You are right. A lukewarm priest who is forced to pray the Gregorian Rite will not magically begin building Faith from the pulpit.

But make no mistake, the clergy who have rejected the errors of the “Spirit of VII” and have chosen to pray the TLM despite the stigma, will continue to build Faith and reverence. And the priests who are now embracing the Summorum Pontificum of H.H. BXI are doing it because they themselves do have strong Faith and they will build Faith from the pulpit and will save souls.

In the mean time, we must do as our Holy Father asked. Pray for him.

 

[PaulinVA]

It’s not the fault of the laity. They only know what they are taught from the pulpit.

The blame lies on lukewarm, liberal clergy, who have taken the liberty to form their own brand of Catholicism.

You are right. A lukewarm priest who is forced to pray the Gregorian Rite will not magically begin building Faith from the pulpit.

But make no mistake, the clergy who have rejected the errors of the “Spirit of VII” and have chosen to pray the TLM despite the stigma, will continue to build Faith and reverence. And the priests who are now embracing the Summorum Pontificum of H.H. BXI are doing it because they themselves do have strong Faith and they will build Faith from the pulpit and will save souls.

In the mean time, we must do as our Holy Father asked. Pray for him.

Well, that was polarizing.

Your post makes no mention of well intentioned moderate and conservative clergy who have no desire to pray the TLM.

It’s more complicated than just “We traditionalists are all good and everyone else is bad”. I think that Catholic Identity is a very important thing that is missing.

 

[I_Believe]

Well, that was polarizing.

Your post makes no mention of well intentioned moderate and conservative clergy who have no desire to pray the TLM.

It’s more complicated than just “We traditionalists are all good and everyone else is bad”. I think that Catholic Identity is a very important thing that is missing.

Where in your OP I quoted did you indicate you were looking to discuss “well intentioned moderate and conservative clergy who have no desire to pray the TLM.”

And where in my reply did I indicate everyone but trads were bad ? Did you even read my reply ? You conceed those who assist the TLM are more reverent as a rule, describe the irreverence at your own parish, and ask if it’s the NO or the laity at fault.

I answered it’s not the fault of the laity, which pretty much removes them from the “We traditionalists are all good and everyone else is bad” attitude you are trying to say I was promoting, even though I did nothing of the sort.

Though you obviously didn’t read my post, you are right about one thing. There is Catholic identity missing alright. It’s missing in many NO parishes, and the root of the problem can be traced back to around 1963.

Read post 19 here…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4992101#post4992101

… and then try and peg your “We traditionalists are all good and everyone else is bad” on me.

 

[PaulinVA]

I answered it’s not the fault of the laity, which pretty much removes them from the “We traditionalists are all good and everyone else is bad” attitude you are trying to say I was promoting, even though I did nothing of the sort.

Though you obviously didn’t read my post, you are right about one thing. There is Catholic identity missing alright. It’s missing in many NO parishes, and the root of the problem can be traced back to around 1963.

Read post 19 here…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4992101#post4992101

… and then try and peg your “We traditionalists are all good and everyone else is bad” on me.

I’m sorry, the post you reference was just more of the same.

Unfortunately, we seem to be talking past each other. I posted directly on topic in reply to your post. You blamed liberal clergy for the ills of the Church, and put forward the traditionalist clergy as the ones to save the Church. I responded that there are many conservative and moderate clergy who are not interested in the TLM but are, nonetheless, interested in an increase in reverence and piety.

By pitting the liberal clergy on one side, and the traditionalist clergy on the other, your post was a standard “We are good, they are bad” post.

Somehow you were not able to understand what I said. I am sorry.

 

[I_Believe]

I’m sorry, the post you reference was just more of the same.

Unfortunately, we seem to be talking past each other. I posted directly on topic in reply to your post. You blamed liberal clergy for the ills of the Church, and put forward the traditionalist clergy as the ones to save the Church. I responded that there are many conservative and moderate clergy who are not interested in the TLM but are, nonetheless, interested in an increase in reverence and piety.

By pitting the liberal clergy on one side, and the traditionalist clergy on the other, your post was a standard “We are good, they are bad” post.

Somehow you were not able to understand what I said. I am sorry.

So if not liberal clergy, who is to blame in your opinion ?

 

[PaulinVA]

So if not liberal clergy, who is to blame in your opinion ?

Quite frankly, I think think there is enough blame to go around.

The liberal clergy are, indeed, at the front of the line leading to a lack of reverence, disbelief in the actual presence, etc.

Moderate clergy are just trying to keep everything together without offending everyone, and, in doing so, offend or displease just about everyone.

Conservative clergy are doing their best, but are operating within a framework that causes some of the irreverence, such as communion in the hand, etc. They tend to turn some people off who just want to be “ethnic” Catholics

The traditionalist clergy have a very devoted following, but seem largely unable to relate to the people that are not traditionalists.

Just my opinion. Your mileage may differ.

 

[jeanannemarie]

Alas, that is exactly what happened. The Holy Father is slowly trying to restore Catholicism, but he’s facing resistence from the modernist faction. They will cry bloody murder, make threats, appeal to the media and in the end if some leave - good riddance. They weren’t Catholics anyway.

Personally, I’d like to see the NO offered at the Saturday evening Mass only with a low and then high Mass on Sunday, but we’re not there yet. The NO and ‘spirit of Vatican II’ is basically dumbed down Catholicism so now we have a generation that doesn’t know any better with the one that prefers it that way. Intermingled are those who thirst for a greater liturgical and catechismal substance.

We have also devolved into a society of instant gratification, mega-choice, sound bites, fast pace and low attention span. These are not qualities naturally condusive to the Tridentine Mass. Faith has to compete against the sports & entertainment industry, video games, internet, busy dual income family life. secularism, materialism, and the false promises of non-Catholic denominations. Bringing the Tridentine Mass back in its existing form won’t be an easy task.

This economic crisis isn’t a blip on the screen soon to be corrected. It is the inevitable consequence of the choices we’ve been making and the remedy isn’t a little pill. The “Me” generation(s) is being held accountable for their shortsightedness and falling to modern temptations. Hopefully, as a group we are coming to realize that age old wisdom does indeed hold truth and stands the test of time. This will make the church Christ founded relevant again to the masses.

The NO was a Mass for the time, but the Tridentine is the Mass for all ages. The parallel between the NO and our modern Western society is remarkable (by their fruits you shall know them). With the age of aquarius fading to dusk a reform of the reform is needed. As Father Z points out, “Save the liturgy. Save the world”.

I think you did a marvelous job of saying what you said. Thank you.

 

[tcraig]

If one were to replace the NO with the Tridentine, I’m not so sure you would see a huge rise in reverence, because it’s still the same people.

I don’t know about this. Fr. Z allowed some priests to write in and share on his blog (maybe last year?) about their experience celebrating the TLM. All of them said that celebrating the TLM profoundly affected their attitude towards the NO, and they brought a newfound sense of reverence and attention to detail to celebrating it that they never had before the TLM.

Same priests celebrating two different masses, yet they all stated that they were changed by the TLM. It’s hard to believe that the people in the pews wouldn’t be affected, too.

 

[I_Believe]

Quite frankly, I think think there is enough blame to go around.

The liberal clergy are, indeed, at the front of the line leading to a lack of reverence, disbelief in the actual presence, etc.

Moderate clergy are just trying to keep everything together without offending everyone, and, in doing so, offend or displease just about everyone.

Conservative clergy are doing their best, but are operating within a framework that causes some of the irreverence, such as communion in the hand, etc. They tend to turn some people off who just want to be “ethnic” Catholics

The traditionalist clergy have a very devoted following, but seem largely unable to relate to the people that are not traditionalists.

Just my opinion. Your mileage may differ.

I’d say that’s a fair look at it. What we have to understand though, is the traditionalist is the only one of the lot who will not compromise on matters of Faith, Morals, or Doctrine.

It’s true that the trads are the minority today, but that is changing slowly. Take note of the appointments H.H. BXVI is making to key positions. It’s very encouraging.