Latin Mass Appeal

[Ockham]

November 29, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Latin Mass Appeal
By KENNETH J. WOLFE
Washington

WALKING into church 40 years ago on this first Sunday of Advent, many Roman Catholics might have wondered where they were. The priest not only spoke English rather than Latin, but he faced the congregation instead of the tabernacle; laymen took on duties previously reserved for priests; folk music filled the air. The great changes of Vatican II had hit home.

All this was a radical break from the traditional Latin Mass, codified in the 16th century at the Council of Trent. For centuries, that Mass served as a structured sacrifice with directives, called “rubrics,” that were not optional. This is how it is done, said the book. As recently as 1947, Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical on liturgy that scoffed at modernization; he said that the idea of changes to the traditional Latin Mass “pained” him “grievously.”

Paradoxically, however, it was Pius himself who was largely responsible for the momentous changes of 1969. It was he who appointed the chief architect of the new Mass, Annibale Bugnini, to the Vatican’s liturgical commission in 1948.

nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29wolfe.html?pagewanted=print

 

[Timothysis]

Oh good, another “let’s bash the Pauline Missal” thread.

Really, Ockham, isn’t your disdain for the Pauline Missal enough that you don’t need to drag everyone into, yet another, us vs. them free-for-all?

 

[johns58w]

I myself was born in1964 and went to Mass in 1970 in Pennsylvania in my first year of Catholic school. I left the Church in 1982 and returned in 2001. I first noticed at return to the Mass in the state of Florida was no altar rails and Eucharistic Ministers? Some parishes took out the kneelers,no crucified Christ but risen Christ on the wall. Tabernacles hidden away, many liturgical abuses and girls as altar servers. I almost left the Catholic Church again for Southern Baptist in 2003 but remained in the Catholic church. I only knew Mass as Novus Ordo in the vernacular. I did attend a Tridentine Latin Mass at St. Martha Sarasota,FL in January this year and went on to study about what this Mass was about. A new parish called Christ the King in Sarasota,FL now does Tridendine Latin Mass originally done by St. Martha.(Priests under FSSP). I can say I can attend Novus Ordo or TLM with no problem. I would still need to understand and adjust to TLM but mostly I don’t see any problem doing this. I learned that this Mass and Latin language was never eliminated and the TLM Masses are approved by the Holy See when followed by directives of the proper missal. In the Diocese of Venice,FL there are some parishes that have TLM Masses. I am so Grateful for Pope Ben.XVII for the preservation of the Latin and the Masses involved. The big problem I see especially in my diocese is people say they don’t understand or accept TLM Masses. In many ways I can agree with them but at the same token disagree from them because so many treat their present Novus Ordo Masses like some sort of social joke being many are no properly disposed and receceiving Communion in mortal sin. If many of these people start examining their consciences and go to the sacrament of Reconciliation more often like once a month or two months,own and read a Catholic Bible,own and read Catechism of the Catholic Church, they would appreciate more on the Mass in general. I’m sorry I sound harsh on this but if we don’t take the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Sacrament of Holy Communion with full reverence and conviction then we really have grave problems about anything with our faith in general. I believe we may never see the Novus Ordo change again back to all Latin but will see more Masses in the diocese with Extraordinary Latin and Novus Ordo Latin. There are new religious and lay faithful from JPII and Ben.XVI coming out with reverence and zeal to bring more Latin back as well as cleaning house in diocese to get the Novus Ordo vernacular in the order toward the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council as well as The General instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM).

 

[ibkc]

Oh good, another “let’s bash the Pauline Missal” thread.

It’s a New York Times op-ed piece, not some squirrelly article from a sedevacantist site. It is well-researched and brings up many important points.

Really, Ockham, isn’t your disdain for the Pauline Missal enough that you don’t need to drag everyone into, yet another, us vs. them free-for-all?

He simply posted a link to a NYT piece which is relevant to the purpose of this forum. The conversation need not be an “us vs. them free-for-all” as long as people refrain from ad hominen attacks like the one quoted above.

 

[Timothysis]

It’s a New York Times op-ed piece, not some squirrelly article from a sedevacantist site. It is well-researched and brings up many important points.

He simply posted a link to a NYT piece which is relevant to the purpose of this forum. The conversation need not be an “us vs. them free-for-all” as long as people refrain from ad hominen attacks like the one quoted above.

You’ve obviously never read any of Ockham’s postings going on and on about how bad the “Novus Ordo Mass” is. The “well-researched” article you mention brings up the same “important points” that have been addressed ad infinitim here.

Look, if you like the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, fine; if you like the Ordinary Form, that’s fine, too. But is it really necessary or productive to constantly criticize the form of the Mass because it isn’t your particular preference? Everything isn’t a “*Traditionalists vs. Modernists” *situation.

 

[Dylpickleh8]

That’s interesting. I went to Tridentine Latin Mass today of all days.

 

[ProVobis]

Really, Ockham, isn’t your disdain for the Pauline Missal enough that you don’t need to drag everyone into, yet another, us vs. them free-for-all?

What’s wrong with bringing up the fact that the chief architect of the Pauline Mass had already worked himself into the old Latin Mass? Something I had forgotten but good to know, I think.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s interesting. I went to Tridentine Latin Mass today of all days.

It’s just not any day. It’s the start of a new liturgical year.

 

[Frosty]

It’s a New York Times op-ed piece, not some squirrelly article from a sedevacantist site.** It is well-researched **and brings up many important points.

.

Is the article really all that well researched? Yes, Pope Paul VI mandated that the new Mass begin on the first Sunday of Advent, 1969, but the fact is that very few countries apart from Italy actually began celebrating it on that date. Pope Paul VI allowed for the mandate to be extended until the first Sunday of Advent, Nov. 28, 1971, to give time to national episcopla conferences to consider the options and prepare a vernacular translation and in many countries the exact date of beginning the use of the new Mass started at various times during that time frame. In Great Britain, the start date was the first Sunday of Lent, 1970. In the United States, it was Palm Sunday, 1970. Not the first Sunday of Advent 1969.
Many of the changes had already been introduced into the Mass as the Vatican had allowed them since the end of Vatican II so for most Catholics the Mass of Paul VI wasn’t a huge surprise.

 

[Ockham]

Oh good, another “let’s bash the Pauline Missal” thread.

Really, Ockham, isn’t your disdain for the Pauline Missal enough that you don’t need to drag everyone into, yet another, us vs. them free-for-all?

Truth hurts? This is a significant year for the Novus Ordo (40).

 

[ProVobis]

Many of the changes had already been introduced into the Mass as the Vatican had allowed them since the end of Vatican II so for most Catholics the Mass of Paul VI wasn’t a huge surprise.

You’re right in this respect, that there were many versions of the Mass floating around (in France there were over 20 different EPs) and that the Pope cut a lot of them out and allowed but four of them. He “hoped and wished” that they be used going forward. The Novus Ordo was actually an attempt to calm the out-of-control liturgical climate brewing after Vatican II.

I do remember a whole host of new music being introduced, though. Also the handshake of peace was a little of a surprise to me. But then I hear this also had been introduced elsewhere and was not new in 1970.

 

[corsair]

Tim seems to be overly sensitive again today.

 

[sarahraegraham]

You’ve obviously never read any of Ockham’s postings going on and on about how bad the “Novus Ordo Mass” is. The “well-researched” article you mention brings up the same “important points” that have been addressed ad infinitim here.

Look, if you like the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, fine; if you like the Ordinary Form, that’s fine, too. But is it really necessary or productive to constantly criticize the form of the Mass because it isn’t your particular preference? Everything isn’t a “*Traditionalists vs. Modernists” *situation.

He has as much a right to post what he wants as you do.

Geez, here’s a novel thought: if you don’t like the conversation, stay out of the kitchen.

 

[Ockham]

In surveying the active threads in this forum you see a representation of disorder and confusion. People come on here to find out if something going on at their parish is proper or not. Examples: we don’t we kneel at consecration, why did we skip the creed today, our bishops has banned Holy Communion on the tongue, orans posture, etc. Under the guise of “spirit of Vatican II” some laity and clergy have treated the Novus Ordo as their personal toy to be experimented with thus creating confusion and eventual lapse. I don’t have a disdain for the Novus Ordo itself but with the attitude and practice of those holding ulterior motives towards the liturgy.

My confusion is why the Tridentine Mass was virtually eliminated from most parishes. Why were Communion rails and high altars removed from our churches? Why are new churches not built in the form of a cross but a clamshell and some without kneelers? Communion in hand while standing, liturgical dance, tabernacle-less sanctuaries and other innovations began as an idea first and became practice after. Who is making these decisions and what is their agenda?

The decline in catechesis went along with the new Mass during the chaotic post-council years. The numbers speak for themselves: our Church has been weakened. Attendance at Mass is down significantly as is belief and practices of Catholic doctrine. Liturgical liberals who waltz down the aisles oblivious to this reality are as culpable as those chipping away at the Church’s foundation.

 

[sarahraegraham]

In surveying the active threads in this forum you see a representation of disorder and confusion. People come on here to find out if something going on at their parish is proper or not. Examples: we don’t we kneel at consecration, why did we skip the creed today, our bishops has banned Holy Communion on the tongue, orans posture, etc. Under the guise of “spirit of Vatican II” some laity and clergy have treated the Novus Ordo as their personal toy to be experimented with thus creating confusion and eventual lapse. I don’t have a disdain for the Novus Ordo itself but with the attitude and practice of those holding ulterior motives towards the liturgy.

My confusion is why the Tridentine Mass was virtually eliminated from most parishes. Why were Communion rails and high altars removed from our churches? Why are new churches not built in the form of a cross but a clamshell and some without kneelers? Communion in hand while standing, liturgical dance, tabernacle-less sanctuaries and other innovations began as an idea first and became practice after. Who is making these decisions and what is their agenda?

The decline in catechesis went along with the new Mass during the chaotic post-council years. The numbers speak for themselves: our Church has been weakened. Attendance at Mass is down significantly as is belief and practices of Catholic doctrine. Liturgical liberals who waltz down the aisles oblivious to this reality are as culpable as those chipping away at the Church’s foundation.

I have to agree. It’s quite sad that the beautiful and meaningful traditions have been/are being lost, and so many argue that there’s nothing wrong with that. Yes, things will tend to change and evolve over time, but they are not meant to be artificially changes, but only organic. These are the only true “Spirit of Vatican II” changes that I believe are appropriate… I can’t name any at the moment that I believe fall into this category.

 

[Frosty]

My confusion is why the Tridentine Mass was virtually eliminated from most parishes. Why were Communion rails and high altars removed from our churches? Why are new churches not built in the form of a cross but a clamshell and some without kneelers? Communion in hand while standing, liturgical dance, tabernacle-less sanctuaries and other innovations began as an idea first and became practice after. Who is making these decisions and what is their agenda?

.

You have been on this forum long enough to know perfectly well why the Mass according to the 1962 Missal was “eliminated” from most parishes. The answer has been given often enough.
The high altars have never been removed from the churches because of the simple fact that the “high altar” is so called because it is the chief or main altar on which the Sacrifice is offered in a church and is raised on an elevated plane in the sanctuary where it can be seen simultaneously by all the faithful in the body of the church. I presume that you are referring to the huge altars with all their adornments and extraneous additions that were anchored against the back wall of the aspe. Granted, many of them were and are very beautiful. Yes, in some churches they were removed but many were not touched whatsoever. Having the high altar fixed against the wall was itself an innovation during the late Middle Ages. In some churches, doing so meant that the altar of Sacrifice was even further removed from the faithful. Vatican II called for the high altars to be brought closer to the faithful and to stand clear of the back wall so that the whole of it could be incensed. So, in fact, high altars were not removed from the churches at all! As for Communion rails, most of the great cathedrals in Europe never had them to start with and again in North America they are still in place in many churches.
As far as church architecture is concerned, you seem to have an obsession with the idea of what you call “clamshell” churches. I’m not quite sure what that means but if you are referring to chuches built in the shape of an octagon or round if you prefer] that is definitely not a new innovation. Some of the earliest churches were built in that shape. The Hagia Sophia is the most beautiful example along with Charlemange’s Palantine Chapel in Aachen, Germany. The shape and style of church buildings has never been a single uniform cross style and in fact not many have been built in the shape of a true cross. There are many newer churches built in a modified octagonal shape with projecting sides just as there are even more built in the traditional basilica or rectangular ] shape. Personally, I have not been in a newer church that does not have kneelers but again kneelers are not called for by church law and are, along with pews, a relatively recent addition in the long history of the Church.
The Tabernacle never was mandated to be part of the high altar although it did become common in many churches to place it there. Having it placed on a side altar in the sanctuary is not a new idea.
I have attended Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI in hundreds of churches in dozens of countries since 1970 and not once have I seen liturgical dancing. I had never even heard of it until I started reading these forums on the Internet but it certainly is not as widespread or as customary as some would like us to believe it is. Nor are all the so-called abuses that certain people constanly harp upon ad nauseum. You have every right to prefer to attend the EF of the Mass, however, I submit that you are doing yourself and the Catholic Church a diservice by constantly making sweeping statements based on urban myths and your personal opinions and projecting them as truth.

 

[Ockham]

No, I have not seen the reasons the Mass was changed in 1969. Please enlighten me.

As for your other points, the word “relativism” comes to mind.

 

[Ockham]

"Those involved with Catholic liturgy focus heavily on what the people in the pews want, how they are responding to the music and homily, how they regard the various ceremonies, and whether and to what extent are they involved. The mantra at nearly every conference and teaching session on liturgy is that we must maintain a single minded focus on encouraging “full, active, conscious participation” – of the people who happen to be there at the time.

The focus is disproportionate to the extent that it draws attention away from the whole purpose of liturgy—to glorify God and celebrate sacred mysteries—and toward the well-being of the community, and, further, it invites a kind of hubris that we are manufacturing liturgy rather than receiving it as a gift that we have the responsibility to treasure and hand on to the next generation.

…]

But it strikes me as painfully disingenuous to discount the negative effects of a revolution in ritual. If you change the ritual, even in ways that people think they might like, it still has the effect of breaking the spell and severing psychological and sociological attachments. If a ritual can be so easily changed by a committee or two and the stroke of a pen, the message it conveys is that the ritual really isn’t as important as it was made out to be.

The persistence of ritual through the ages is crucial important in every culture but even more so in older cultures such as Spain and Italy where Mass attendance is much lower than it is in the United States. The changes that followed the Council here had the effect of discrediting the liturgical experience itself. People still keep the rituals in their homes and in their private lives but what takes place at Sunday Mass is disconnected in important ways from what many generations had known. The other cultural factors that people cite as causative forces are mere precipitating events: once the ritual was changed, people more easily gave into the secular cultural trends."

Jeffrey Tucker

newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/11/people-not-in-pews.html

 

[fish90]

Here’s some new PC that I just learned. The term Novus Ordo ticks off many Catholics today, so Ordinary Form or Pauline Mass is more appropriate:thumbsup:.

Just to help you guys not listen to “Why use the term Novus Ordo? It is over forty years old!”

 

[ibkc]

Here’s some new PC that I just learned. The term Novus Ordo ticks off many Catholics today, so Ordinary Form or Pauline Mass is more appropriate:thumbsup:.

Just to help you guys not listen to “Why use the term Novus Ordo? It is over forty years old!”

I dunno, the only place I’ve seen that the term ‘Novus Ordo’ ticks off people is here on CAF, and it’s only a few. There is actually a parish here in town which offers a Latin Ordinary Form mass each week, and they advertise it in the archdiocese newspaper as a “Latin Novus Ordo Mass”. I don’t think they’d do that, or that the archdiocese would allow the wording, if there was something inherently offensive about the term.