Is Your Liturgy Like What Vatican II Intended?

[GangGreen]

Missa Cantata, or High Mass, which many here say was rarely done.

How about talking about the normal every Sunday Mass that people attended? The Low Mass. The one that got you out in 30 minutes?

And compare that to the normal every Sunday Mass that people attend now? The one with some music? As you say, this one takes 60 minutes, or an hour.

I just get a little tired of people comparing the worst possible OF to the best, most reverent EF. It is like people that compare homosexual couples adopting vs. a heterosexual, drug user, living on the street keeping a child.

Oh, and yes. Our local parish is what Vatican II intended.

No one denies that what is now the EF needed to be reformed back in those days. However, to compare a Low Mass to a OF Mass with music is just silly. The two are not comparable. OF Mass with music and EF Mass with music are comparable. OF Mass without music and EF Mass without music are comparable. It doesn’t matter what was the normal Mass done in 1950. Is the OF Mass with music not the “best” form of the OF Mass? Is there something “better” that I’m missing? So why are you comparing the “best” form of the OF Mass with the “worst” form of the EF Mass? It goes both ways.

There are plenty of parishes these days which do Sung Masses weekly. Others do them twice or so per month. However, they’re becoming more common at parishes that do the EF. Additionally, most times when I go to a Low Mass on Sunday, the Mass takes 40 to 50 minutes. That’s without music.

The fact is that irreverent priests will abuse the rubrics regardless of the form of Mass. The issue is that too many people seem to want to overlook those abuses in the OF while coming down hard upon them in the EF.

The purpose of my post wasn’t to say that the EF is superior because it’s longer, it was just stating the facts about the length of the comparable Masses. Take a priest who says the Mass reverently and the EF is a longer Mass. There are more prayers, so it makes logical sense. I’m not sure why people take that as an attack on the OF.

 

[maryjk]

No one denies that what is now the EF needed to be reformed back in those days. However, to compare a Low Mass to a OF Mass with music is just silly. The two are not comparable. OF Mass with music and EF Mass with music are comparable. OF Mass without music and EF Mass without music are comparable. It doesn’t matter what was the normal Mass done in 1950. Is the OF Mass with music not the “best” form of the OF Mass? Is there something “better” that I’m missing? So why are you comparing the “best” form of the OF Mass with the “worst” form of the EF Mass? It goes both ways.

I am comparing normal vs. normal.

What the average Catholic expect or expected when they walk/ed into Mass. No best vs worst. Just most common vs. most common.

 

[GangGreen]

I am comparing normal vs. normal.

What the average Catholic expect or expected when they walk/ed into Mass. No best vs worst. Just most common vs. most common.

OK, and I can still take a reverent priest and have him say the EF Mass WITHOUT music in 40 to 50 minutes. Whereas I can take a OF Mass with music and have it one in 50 to 60 minutes. Not sure what the argument is. Music is going to add to the amount of time of the Mass as are the amount of people at the Mass. A Mass with 400 people is going to take longer than one with 200 (Communion, collection, etc.). The Mass is going to be slowed down by the music no matter how much the rubrics are abused.

All things considered, you can have a reverently done OF Mass with music and EF Low Mass and if you have just a priest and servers, I don’t think the OF Mass is much longer than the EF. We also have a phenomenon today where EVERYBODY receives Communion whereas in the past that wasn’t common.

Either way, I don’t see the reason for bringing up the argument when we’re discussing how Vatican II imagined the Mass.

 

[OraLabora]

Mass length does depend on the music (and what music is used). The OF Mass I mentioned earlier is at a local Benedictine monastery. Every Mass is sung, even weekday Mass (but it is shortened in other ways: only two readings, no homily…).

Sunday Mass during most of the year is about an 1 h 10 min to 1 h 15 min. Some solemnities like Christmas, Pentecost, are well past 1:30. Advent, without the Gloria, is 1:05. First Sunday in Lent, with the long sequence from Ps. 90, which takes 14-15 minutes to chant entirely, can be 1:30. Other Sundays in Lent maybe about 1:10; the sequence often takes a little longer than the omitted Alleluia.

Then there’s the homily which can also be a factor.

For sung weekday Mass, on an ordinary feria or on a memorial (no Gloria or Credo, simple Kyrie settings like Kyrie XVI), and it’s usually about 50 min long.

Mass with music in the parish around here rarely exceeds 1h unless the homily is long-winded, and usually is about 50-55 min. Weekday Mass is typically 20-25 min.

I used to attend 7 am weekday Mass at St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal, when I worked near there. Mass was predictably, 20-25 min. There was a short homily, and usually the only sung part was the Alleluia. The homily was usually no more than one or two incisive sentences that would stick with you all day. It was all done with simplicity and reverence. The people who showed up were the people who wanted to trek up Mt. Royal at 7 am on a cold winter morning. I loved that Mass, wish I could attend again. I would enter the crypt church around 6:30 am in the dark, pray the Office of Readings, and then emerge just as the sun was coming up over the city which seem to be at our feet. That plus the Eucharist made me feel great for the rest of the day.

There are times for a long sung Mass in Gregorian chant, and there’s a need for a short 7 am Mass before work during the week. Length I found, in either case, had little relevance on reverence. Both examples were perfectly reverent.

 

[Brendan_64]

In response to Brendan 64’s post above, as we’ve said many time over the years on CAF, many of the Catholic church buildings were not designed to have a physical location for conversation. other than the church basement, which is difficult for many elderly people to access. (I have a hard time with steps, and I’m only 56.).

It’s not the elderly who tend to be the problem. Can people really not wait until they get outside onto the church steps to chat? Do they have to chat loudly in the aisle and pews before and after Mass? If someone’s trying to have a quiet moment in prayer before or after Mass, is that not to be respected? You often can’t even say a prayer at a candle after Mass either, with people stood right in front of the votive candle stand talking about the weather, or discussing what they watched on TV last night.

Yes, churches were not designed to physical locations for conversation, because that is not their purpose. Churches are designed for prayer, which is their purpose, and not just during the Mass.

 

[OraLabora]

It’s not the elderly who tend to be the problem. Can people really not wait until they get outside onto the Church steps to chat?

Not when it’s 30 below

Do they have to chat loudly in the aisle and pews before and after Mass? If someone’s trying to have a quiet moment in prayer before or after Mass, is that not to be respected?

It’s odd, around here there are several parishes that are part of the same pastoral unit. In one parish, all is hush before and after Mass.

At another, just 15 km down the road, it’s the opposite. I’ve always wondered why. In the first case the Church is large, fairly modern (1953) and has a large vestibule separated by doors, in the latter, a very small older building, very small vestibule without doors. But I don’t think that’s it, in the larger church it’s generally just as quiet in the vestibule. Go figure Actually I think it’s because the latter is a very small Catholic community and everyone knows each other, the bigger church is in a bigger town and parishioners tend not to know each other as well.

People rarely hang out after Mass though. In general around here people zip as quickly as possible to their cars and are gone…

I know as a kid I was brought up that you didn’t speak at all in church, and when you arrived you were to get on your knees and pray before Mass started.

 

[RedCaves]

Cat, with all due respect, you are not completely correct.

I’m from the same place you are and for me to hear anyone say that the Novus Ordo is done correctly is only fooling themselves or has not even read all of the official documentation on how the liturgy should be done.

Want a few examples? Here goes:

1. VERSUS POPULUM. I have yet to find any official declaration from Rome which says that it may be permitted, despite the fact that for nearly all of the Church’s history, priests faced “towards God” since the Mass, by its very nature, is Theocentric.
2. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Despite their name, they are always used for Mass, both for Weekly and Daily Mass. In the past, the idea of a layman (and laywoman) manipulating the Consecrated Host would have been thought of as a sacrilege.

3)Lay lectors. I was told that it used to be either deacons or men from the Minor Orders who did this. Why has this role been given to the laity?

1. Altar rails. See #1. If there was no official documentation for this to happen, why were they allowed and why are churches built without regard to the rails?

To be honest, the only parish that I know of that has a “Liturgy like what Vatican II Intended” is St. John Cantius in Chicago.

cantius.org/

 

[Brendan_64]

I know as a kid I was brought up that you didn’t speak at all in church, and when you arrived you were to get on your knees and pray before Mass started.

Me too, and that was in the 1970’s, after Vatican II, not before. Why is it so difficult for so many people these days to respect a bit of silence? It’s no wonder kids are so noisy at Mass these days, if their parents are giving them the message that church is a place for socialising and chatting.

 

[OraLabora]

Want a few examples? Here goes:

1. VERSUS POPULUM. I have yet to find any official declaration from Rome which says that it may be permitted, despite the fact that for nearly all of the Church’s history, priests faced “towards God” since the Mass, by its very nature, is Theocentric.

From the General Instructions of the Roman Missal:

1. The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.[116] The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.

1. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Despite their name, they are always used for Mass, both for Weekly and Daily Mass. In the past, the idea of a layman (and laywoman) manipulating the Consecrated Host would have been thought of as a sacrilege.

Again from the General Instructions:

1. In the absence of an instituted acolyte, lay ministers may be deputed to serve at the altar and assist the priest and the deacon; they may carry the cross, the candles, the thurible, the bread, the wine, and the water, and they may also be deputed to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers.

3)Lay lectors. I was told that it used to be either deacons or men from the Minor Orders who did this. Why has this role been given to the laity?

The Minor Orders have been abolished. The proper role of the deacon has always been proclamation of the Gospel. The priest can fill that role when no deacon is present because the priestly ordination doesn’t “cancel” his ordination to the diaconate.

Again, from the General Instructions:

1. In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture. They should be truly suited to perform this function and should receive careful preparation, so that the faithful by listening to the readings from the sacred texts may develop in their hearts a warm and living love for Sacred Scripture.

I assume that since this was taken from the Vatican website, the Vatican allows the things that you lament. These are licit options that the Church allows for valid reasons. We may argue about what constitutes a valid reason for EMHC; whether large numbers of people, or a single regular minister (priest) who is elderly. The General Instructions don’t provide much help there so one assumes it’s up to the bishop.

Since these issues are allowed by Church law, it seems to me to be “case closed” unless the Holy Father changes things.

1. Altar rails. See #1. If there was no official documentation for this to happen, why were they allowed and why are churches built without regard to the rails?

There is certainly a traditional monastic precedent. There’s no mention in the General Instructions.

 

[CutlerB]

I’ll respond for my parish, and for what I feel the situation is like in my country, though that will only be my personal experience.

Parish

1. That is not really apparent in my parish. Not clearly, for sure.
2. As it’s related to 1, I would have to say “No”.
3. Ha. You’d be surprised! VERY far from what it used to be.
4. Couldn’t answer.
5. We still have the “pro multis” as “for all”.
6. Not a single word of Latin has ever met my ear at my parish.
7. We have a choir, but I wouldn’t call it “solemn”. They don’t sing parts like the Kyrie, Agnus Dei, etc. The people do, however, sing the Sanctus (in varying versions of German language)
8. No Gregorian Chant. Not one bit. The Pipe Organ is the main instrument, but we have had guitars…
9. Both kinds every time.
10. I’m not sure.
11. Partly, but I haven’t been at the parish long enough to judge on an entire year.
12. Indeed, we have a wonderful church. It’s neo-Romanesque from the late 19th century, with lovely statues and artwork. There are whitewashed walls in the sanctuary though, and the Tabernacle is not quite what you’re used to, plus it’s stuck in the side aisle.

Germany

1. Certainly not. People seem to think it’s all about community and singing and happy-clappy.
2. No. Far from it. That’s shown by the recent Freiburg approach to the divorced and remarried, and talk about women’s ordination.
3. I couldn’t say precisely, but lots of what I see is very deficient. Altars smashed and turned around, horrible vestments, no communion rails, EMHCs all over the place…
4. Again, I couldn’t say.
5. Too general to say, other than that the Mass still says “for all” against Pope Benedict’s instruction.
6. I don’t think Latin is much used. I can’t remember a Bishop saying anything in Latin either.
7. I believe there is a difference between pontifical liturgies (that is, Bishops) and parish liturgies. The latter will, in my experience, tend to be happy-clappy and more likely to use guitars, while the Bishops will have a proper choir and music.
8. Still no chant though, except for rare cases in pontifical liturgies, like an anthem or a chant during Communion.
9. Couldn’t say, though I expect it to be no different from my place. The Bishops, I believe, would have it under one kind.
10. It’s certainly not a well-known thing here.
11. That would really depend on the region of Germany. Bavaria would have a lot of this.
12. There is lots of beauty, but also lots of ugliness. We have wonderful old churches and cathedrals, but also many horrible modern ones. I haven’t seen High Altars in use in any cathedral. All have a new versus populum one. My Archdiocese’s cathedral doesn’t even have a High Altar in the apse any more.

 

[ProVobis]

Again from the General Instructions:

1. The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.[116] The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.

Because of the Latin modifier, It has been suggested this is a better translation:

1. The altar should be built apart from the wall, which is desirable wherever possible, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.[116] The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.

wdtprs.com/blog/2006/04/girm-299-has-been-mistranslated/

 

[Sirach2]

I am having nightmares believing folks are still at this late date arguing about the direction of the priest at liturgical celebrations. Kindly note this specific direction:

adoremus.org/12-0101cdw-adorient.html

**NOTE: **Council Document Sacram Liturgiam, Ch. 5, Art. 91 states:

It is proper that the main altar be constructed separately from the wall, so that one may go around it with ease and so that celebration may take place facing the people; it shall occupy a place in the sacred building which is truly central, so that the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful is spontaneously turned to it.

[Thus the GIRM advocates who strive to apply a different meaning to #299 for the latin word “quod” are mistaken as to clarity, since it is spelled out in this document.]

 

[felsguy]

One of the biggest problems I have with the OF is that too many priests rush through the Eucharistic prayers. It makes me wonder whether they truly believe in the Real Presence. If they do, they surely don’t make it seem like it.

The problem is not necessarily the priests saying the EP overly quickly or omitting parts. Although it is normal to see it where they’re going a bit fast and not really taking their time with it. One of the bigger problems is just body language. Priests not bowing when saying the words of consecration. Priests holding the bread/wine up to their face when saying the words of consecration. Priests hardly elevating the Eucharist. Sometimes you’re lucky if they even hold it up head high, forget over their heads. Facial expressions that seem almost indifferent. Extremely short pauses after the consecration before moving on. Show and tell during consecration where the Priest is moving the bread and wine in a semi circle like it’s 1st grade and the teacher is showing us the pictures in the book. When you see a priest doing it reverently, there’s a different feeling about it regardless of OF or EF.

How can you possibly make these sweeping generalizations? Actually, I guess you can just sit done and type them. Let me rephrase the question. How can you possibly support these sweeping generalizations? How big a sample of priests celebrating the OF can you possibly have observed personally?

One of the biggest problems I have with the OF…

I can’t help but wonder if herein lies at least part of the answer.

.

 

[GangGreen]

How can you possibly make these sweeping generalizations? Actually, I guess you can just sit done and type them. Let me rephrase the question. How can you possibly support these sweeping generalizations? How big a sample of priests celebrating the OF can you possibly have observed personally?

I can’t help but wonder if herein lies at least part of the answer.

.

I would say at least a 15 or 20 different priests, possibly more. I’m sorry I haven’t visited every parish in the country/world… and I’d say that probably half of them do/did it in a manner as I stated. Again, as I said, it has less to do with the Mass and more to do with the people doing it. If the EF was the only Mass you’d have the same abuses. That’s the very nature of it. The EF being an extraordinary form has only priests who seek it out doing it and as such it has a much lower level of abuses. If it was the main Mass and the current OF was the EF, you’d have less instances of less abuse in what’s currently the OF.

I’ve gone to many more OF Masses than EF Masses. I still go to the OF somewhat regularly, but if you want to paint me as an OF hater, go ahead. I find it funny that people who hate the EF continuously attack those who prefer the EF over the OF even those people they say that they like both forms.

 

[ProVobis]

I would say at least a 15 or 20 different priests, possibly more. I’m sorry I haven’t visited every parish in the country/world… and I’d say that probably half of them do/did it in a manner as I stated. Again, as I said, it has less to do with the Mass and more to do with the people doing it. If the EF was the only Mass you’d have the same abuses. That’s the very nature of it. The EF being an extraordinary form has only priests who seek it out doing it and as such it has a much lower level of abuses. If it was the main Mass and the current OF was the EF, you’d have less instances of less abuse in what’s currently the OF.

I’ve gone to many more OF Masses than EF Masses. I still go to the OF somewhat regularly, but if you want to paint me as an OF hater, go ahead. I find it funny that people who hate the EF continuously attack those who prefer the EF over the OF even those people they say that they like both forms.

You probably know this already, but it shouldn’t be presumed that Mass goers are necessarily fond of the form or church they attend. After all there is the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday. In most cases it seems they go where it’s most convenient for them. Can’t fault them for that.

 

[felsguy]

I would say at least a 15 or 20 different priests, possibly more. I’m sorry I haven’t visited every parish in the country/world… and I’d say that probably half of them do/did it in a manner as I stated. Again, as I said, it has less to do with the Mass and more to do with the people doing it. If the EF was the only Mass you’d have the same abuses. That’s the very nature of it. The EF being an extraordinary form has only priests who seek it out doing it and as such it has a much lower level of abuses. If it was the main Mass and the current OF was the EF, you’d have less instances of less abuse in what’s currently the OF.

I’ve gone to many more OF Masses than EF Masses. I still go to the OF somewhat regularly, but if you want to paint me as an OF hater, go ahead. I find it funny that people who hate the EF continuously attack those who prefer the EF over the OF even those people they say that they like both forms.

I do PREFER the OF Mass. I do not HATE the EF Mass nor have I ever denigrated it. I do however occasionally challenge posts which insinuate that there are common, perhaps even inherent, deficiencies in the OF particularly with what I consider specious reasoning. Your generalizations about priests who celebrate the OF did and still do strike me as just that. I do this, not with much hope or any intention of ever influencing a poster’s thinking, but for the benefit of the many others readers of these threads (over nearly 1200 in this instance), many of whom are recent converts, still in RCIA, or inquiring non-Catholics.

**One of the biggest problems I have with the OF **is that too many priests rush through the Eucharistic prayers. It makes me wonder whether they truly believe in the Real Presence. If they do, they surely don’t make it seem like it.

I don’t believe I have painted you as anything. I’m simply responding, accurately or inaccurately, to a painter’s self-portrait.

 

[Cat]

From the General Instructions of the Roman Missal:

Again from the General Instructions:

The Minor Orders have been abolished. The proper role of the deacon has always been proclamation of the Gospel. The priest can fill that role when no deacon is present because the priestly ordination doesn’t “cancel” his ordination to the diaconate.

Again, from the General Instructions:

I assume that since this was taken from the Vatican website, the Vatican allows the things that you lament. These are licit options that the Church allows for valid reasons. We may argue about what constitutes a valid reason for EMHC; whether large numbers of people, or a single regular minister (priest) who is elderly. The General Instructions don’t provide much help there so one assumes it’s up to the bishop.

Since these issues are allowed by Church law, it seems to me to be “case closed” unless the Holy Father changes things.

There is certainly a traditional monastic precedent. There’s no mention in the General Instructions.

Thank you for providing the documentation.

RedCaves, we are greatly blessed to have now and in the past bishops who are orthodox and conservative, and who are diligent to make sure that all of the parishes in the diocese have OF Masses that are liturgically-correct and abuse-free.

I have been to Masses out of state–only a few–that have abuses (e…g, liturgical dancers, a priest drinking a cup of coffee at the altar (not the pulpit, the ALTAR!).

I’ve talked to many Catholics who have graduated from Ministry Formation here in our diocese, and who know much more than I do. They say that our Masses are like a breath of fresh air compared to some of the abusive Masses in other dioceses.

Be careful about what websites you visit, and what group of Catholics you listen to. You are being deceived.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve talked to many Catholics who have graduated from Ministry Formation here in our diocese, and who know much more than I do. They say that our Masses are like a breath of fresh air compared to some of the abusive Masses in other dioceses.

Depends on what you mean by abusive. Have you attended any Spanish Masses in Rockford or other dioceses? Would you call all the hand-clapping to the music, even with the encouragement of the priest after the consecration, abusive? I just call it a cultural preference.

 

[Cat]

Depends on what you mean by abusive. Have you attended any Spanish Masses in Rockford or other dioceses? Would you call all the hand-clapping to the music, even with the encouragement of the priest after the consecration, abusive? I just call it a cultural preference.

I haven’t attended any Spanish Masses (remember, I’m the one that has no interest in foreign languages). If there is clapping and guitar music at a Hispanic parish, I agree with you–it’s a cultural norm and it in no way indicates a lack of reverence–quite the opposite.

 

[RedCaves]

I haven’t attended any Spanish Masses (remember, I’m the one that has no interest in foreign languages). If there is clapping and guitar music at a Hispanic parish, I agree with you–it’s a cultural norm and it in no way indicates a lack of reverence–quite the opposite.

Fr. Cekada would disagree with you big time

I have a Hispanic friend who lives in your diocese and he tells me that he feels ashamed and embarrassed about the guitar music and the possible “cultural expressions” that occur during the Spanish Masses.

I’ve been to them and the last time I went to one where I currently live, I couldn’t tell if it was a party or Mass.

I got to give the Rockford Diocese credit, though. It is pretty decent.

Unlike the Archdiocese where I went to college in Iowa, there is no “Stand up and greet your neighbor” and no clapping after Mass. You could imagine the horror on my face when I saw that for the first time.

Could be worse. At least, to my knowledge, the diocese of Rockford doesn’t use glass chalices.